Re: [OT]Addendum to "Notes from a European Traveller"

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:33:24 -0700, "Reinhold [Rey] Aman"
<aman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jitze wrote:

http://www.pajarowatershed.com/Revisited/
Netherlands Re-Visited

Hi, Jitze,

Why did you set the table width of your pages at *1000* pixels?

<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="1000">

With my smaller screen and 800 x 600 resolution, your pages therefore
don't fit and I have to scroll back and forth horizontally or set the
resolution to 1024 x 768 to be able to read them w/o scrolling. This
pisses me off whenever someone (usually business or newspaper pages done
on monster monitors and high resolutions) does that.

Why don't people set their table width at "100%" or "Auto" or, say, 750
pixels to display their pages on *all* types of monitors?


Weledele Heer Aman

Uw relaas heeft mij diep ontroerd...

Well, what can I say? You're probably right except I get equaly pissed
off when people put interesting photographs on the web but then make
them too small to be appreciated. So I wanted the pictures to be at
least 600 pixels wide, and then some room for text alongside. So I
chose to go with 1000 this time. Going with 100% instead of a pixel
count screws up badly in some browsers as lines of text don't
get folded and result in a super-wide page where you *really*
have to scroll sideways big-time. Most browsers are now fixed to
do this right, but there are still some people out there running
ante-diluvian shit because they happen to like steam computing.
Hell, I have a relative who can't wean himself from a 1200 baud
modem, and he complains if there are any pictures at all.

In the past sometimes I have put the text underneath the pictures
(not alongside) and could thus still crearte a decent page with
adequately-sized pictures and still fit on an 800 wide monitor.


I know it's *your* site and you can do whatever you want to, including
using 3 MB photos (where 60 K is enough), but if your stuff weren't as
interesting as it is, I'd just click off and mumble "fuck this shit,"
which is my standard reaction to webpage designers who think everyone
has huge monitors set at insanely high resolutions.

I do have another large-screen monitor set at 1024 x 768, Wi-Fi, and
using Firefox 3 (the latest version), which displays your pages just
fine, but this older Mac is my favorite computer and monitor, and I hate
having to switch on my new Mac (OS X v.10.4) for %$#@! PayPal & Co.


I know the feeling. I have some comfortable old slippers, and
some well-meaning member of my family with a short memory goes
and gets me a new pair for Christmas or Birthday or Father's day
and I put them in the closet, because they just don't feel quite
right. Bring 'em out only on special occasions - like when I had to
go into hospital last time.

Tot ziens en veel liefs,


Vertrouwende U hiermede van dienst te zijn geweest, verblijf
ik in hoogachting

Jitze

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HD Freeview expensive at Richer Sounds.
    ... We thought it was amazing when we managed to display a ... As far as real work went, the pixels were used for multiple windows, ... get colour monitors and 8-bit graphics cards with the same resolution, ... I believe the black-and-white monitors cost of the order of 5,000 ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Electronics Design on Humongous Monitors
    ... When I had a dual CRT setup it was great.. ... I tried two CRT monitors for a while. ... but I think the 1200 pixels I have ... is about the minimum native resolution to deal nicely with PDFs. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Sigma SD9...your thoughts?
    ... > SD10 produce pictures that are 3.42MP in size, ... "Resolution of enlarged images virtually indistinguishable from six ... 3.4-million Foveon pixels equal, we ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Photo resolution
    ... You don't really want to worry about resolution. ... You want to think of the maximum size (in pixels) of any ... then you will get no benefit from having the pictures larger than ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.powerpoint)
  • Re: Where is digital camera resolution going?
    ... Monitors need even less resolution. ... My monitor currently runs at 1600x1200 pixels, which is higher than most, so it gets no benefit of images larger than 2Mp. ... The pixel count war will only stop when pixels get so small by fitting an increased number into the same economic area of chip space that the unwashed masses actually notice the performance degradation. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)