Re: 800x600


"Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote in message
news:434e6fe8$0$73626$ed2619ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> :::Jerry:::: wrote in message
> 434d8b39$0$2411$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
<snip>
> >
> > It might well be, but how would you like a newspaper that printed
> > it's main content across both the front and rear pages, meaning
that
> > halfway across each and every text line you have to flip the
paper
> > over?! Far better to leave some white space surely, were (extra /
non
> > vital) content can still be displayed if the window size was
sniffed
> > with JavaScript IYSWIM ?
>
> In the last couple of lines, are you saying that there *is* a way
of a web
> page determining the width of the browser window in which it's
displayed, by
> means of (for example) JavaScript?

Are you suggesting that it's not possible !? Granted it's not fail
safe and thus only non vital content should be displayed in such a
way.

>
> >> On a site that includes photos, these are non-scalable so if the
> >> browser window shrinks you end up with a photo with one word per
> >> line (or even in the worst case, one *character* per line!)
> >> alongside it. I've often thought that it would be most useful if
all
> >> browsers had a way of querying the browser window width and
height,
> >> so you could reduce the size of pictures using JavaScript if the
> >> size drops below some threshold level preventing you ending up
with
> >> absurdly short lines of text.
> >
> > What you are describing is not a problem with the browser window
size
> > but one of sloppy authoring, I suspect! It really shouldn't
matter if
> > I'm using a 240x* PDA device or a 3 meter wide projector screen
to
> > display your page. :~)
>
> Whereas text can wrap to fit the available space, and can even be
resized by
> the user if his browser has a font scaling factor (eg IE's View |
Text
> Size), images cannot. So if you want to display images at a size
that
> displays them well (if the images are a fundamental part of the
site as
> opposed to "furniture"), you force text to wrap badly - or else you
force
> the author only to put images between paragraphs rather than
embedded within
> them. If images could be resized like text, then at least you could
display
> them smaller on "toy" browsers, such that the authors intended page
layout
> is not damaged to much.

But I was under the, obvious, miss understanding that it was possible
to display an image with consideration to the screen size or it's
container...

<snip>
> >>
> >> (*) Which I arbitrarily define as less that 800x600 ;-)
> >>
> >
> > So by that reckoning a PDA or mobile phone device is a 'crippled
> > browser' then?...
>
> Most emphatically YES!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't contemplate even
attempting to
> browse or to read my email on a computer that had a display of less
than
> 800x600 these days. If you are viewing a page that consists of
anything more
> elaborate than simple paragraphs or text (ie no frames, tables,
images),
> then the result will be a mess if the browser width is reduced too
far.

No it won't be, as you would author for that screen size,
media='handheld', granted that not everything will be suitable for
displaying on a small screen but images can be made available foe
download (and then printing, for example) - anyway, who are you to
say how someone will want to access your content, isn't it up to them
to make that choice, your 'job' is to make your content accessible...

>
> If you deny web authors the ablility to use these constructions
because they
> don't work on small browser windows, then you are denying them
access to the
> majority of HTML's capabilities.

No it's not, all you should be doing is *suggesting* how your content
should be displayed, you should not and can not tell me how to view
your content - if I want to view content with the image display
turned off in MY browser then there is nothing what so ever an author
can do about it IYSWIM.

>
> By all means design a modified version of the site which removes
the problem
> areas so it will display OK on the PDA or mobile phone, but make
sure the
> full site is available for people who use real browsers with at
least
> 800x600 windows.
>

I think that is what is been said! :~)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 800x600
    ... >> larger browser window and a lot of the space is then blank. ... > display your page. ... Size), images cannot. ...
    (uk.net.web.authoring)
  • Re: Intense CPU strain....suggestions
    ... cbmeeks wrote: ... That way it can keep processing the images. ... You'll still run into a problem that the resizing might not occur as fast as the user wants to display it; you'll have to be able to handle this in your display routines. ... The flushworks with most browsers if you keep the html simple - it forces the output to the browser and the browser displays it. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: 800x600
    ... > resized by the user if his browser has a font scaling factor (eg IE's ... text - this scales all images and fixed-size elements accordingly. ... > So if you want to display images at a size that displays them well (if ... So someone with a standard GUI browser on a ...
    (uk.net.web.authoring)
  • Re: URL displayed at bottom of browser
    ... >>> browser ... >>> | large images and thumbnail images that are displayed on my main web ... >>> | the location of the larger image is displayed on the bottom of the ... >>> | at the bottom of the browser window to something of my own choosing? ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: Data download from PHP/MSSQL to Excel
    ... This is browser dependant and not PHP ... > current display. ... > If the user clicks the link it then opens a browser window and prompts ...
    (comp.lang.php)