Re: 800x600

:::Jerry:::: wrote in message
434d8b39$0$2411$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "Martin Underwood" <a@b> wrote in message
> news:434d7d4a$0$49770$ed2e19e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Jerry:::: wrote in message
>> 434c1121$0$2422$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> If you are not authoring a totally flexible screen layout it's far
>>> better to opt for a 800x600 res' than one that is higher and
>>> introduce side scrolling.
>>
>> But it's very wasteful of space if many of your readers will use a
>> larger browser window and a lot of the space is then blank.
>
> 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?

>> 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.


>> If you design for the lowest common denonimator then you are denying
>> yourself a lot of additional capabilities such as sidebars for
>> navigation (either as a separate frame or as a table within the main
>> page) because this occupies useful space that could be used for the
>> body of the page if you are displaying the page on a crippled (*)
>> browser.
>
> I'm not at all convinced by that argument, surely you should be
> authoring so that everyone gets a readable / useable page, you can
> then use CSS, JavaScript and anything else that might be available to
> the client (such as Flash) to improve the 'users enjoyment' - this is
> were layout and formatting using CSS is so effective and what the OP
> always fails to grasp IMO (yes I know he is just an ignorant little
> kid trying to troll...).
>
>>
>>
>> (*) 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.

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.

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.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 800x600
    ... >>> browser window shrinks you end up with a photo with one word per ... So if you want to display images at a size ...
    (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)