simple web auth. question
sant...@gis.net
or 800x600 or other? Which setting should I make the page look best at?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Johnnie ego
look fine and function at the lower and higher resolutions with relative
tables.
John
John Lyons
egovision design
--------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
http://www.egovision.co.uk
--------------------------
sant...@gis.net wrote in message <7dljrq$6fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Jim Hollomon
>Should I assume the majority of people have there screen settings at 640x480
>or 800x600 or other? Which setting should I make the page look best at?
>
On this one, I've got to vote with the purists. You shouldn't assume a
screen resolution. It is a constantly shifting target, and there is no
one portion of demography large enough to reject all the rest in favor
of. At best, you might be pleasing 20 to 30% of the available audience
while offending all the rest. Why would you want to do that.
With the growing popularity of WebTV, which I believe uses a display
width of 544 pixels and compresses anything larger to fit (no
horizontal scroll bar) Sites that will appeal to a large percentage of
the viewers must either scale to fit any screen or be narrow enough to
work in the vast majority of screens.
Jim Hollomon
ET! Productions
We Build Web Sites for Your Net Profits
http://www.etproductions.com
Jukka Korpela
in message <7dljrq$6fk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>Should I assume the majority of people have there screen settings at 640x480
>or 800x600 or other?
No. See http://www.htmlhelp.org/faq/wdgfaq.htm#20
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
INQUIzitor
says...
> sant...@gis.net wrote:
>
> >Should I assume the majority of people have there screen settings at 640x480
> >
> On this one, I've got to vote with the purists. You shouldn't assume a
> screen resolution. It is a constantly shifting target, and there is no
> one portion of demography large enough to reject all the rest in favor
> of. At best, you might be pleasing 20 to 30% of the available audience
> while offending all the rest. Why would you want to do that.
>
> With the growing popularity of WebTV, which I believe uses a display
> width of 544 pixels and compresses anything larger to fit (no
> horizontal scroll bar) Sites that will appeal to a large percentage of
> the viewers must either scale to fit any screen or be narrow enough to
> work in the vast majority of screens.
Go to my site http://members.xoom.com and try to visit it again with
altered resolution ...you bet you ll get the diferent results couse my
site is just full of tables and tags that are sensitive for this
matter...
Frankly i optimized my site for 1204 x 786 couse thats is teh best
enviroment to work in and i m to lazy to switch bewteen "best" 800x600
according to polls and best 1204 x 786 according to me..
Cheerz
Darin McGrew
> Frankly i optimized my site for 1204 x 786 couse thats is teh best
> enviroment to work in and i m to lazy to switch bewteen "best" 800x600
> according to polls and best 1204 x 786 according to me..
Do you really use full-screen browser windows at 1024x786 resolution? I
find them annoying even at 640x480.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@alumni.stanford.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
"Jesus Christ is risen!" "He is risen indeed!"
William G. Schlake
wrote:
>INQUIzitor <blood...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Frankly i optimized my site for 1204 x 786 couse thats is teh best
>> enviroment to work in and i m to lazy to switch bewteen "best" 800x600
>> according to polls and best 1204 x 786 according to me..
>
>Do you really use full-screen browser windows at 1024x786 resolution? I
>find them annoying even at 640x480.
Tell us something that doesn't annoy a purist.
Miguel Cruz
>> Do you really use full-screen browser windows at 1024x786 resolution? I
>> find them annoying even at 640x480.
>
> Tell us something that doesn't annoy a purist.
Sunshine and flowers.
miguel
William G. Schlake
wrote:
Kind of a short list don't you think?
LOL!
Paul Clark
> >> Tell us something that doesn't annoy a purist.
> >
> >Sunshine and flowers.
>
> Kind of a short list don't you think?
You said 'something', not 'everything'.
Mahler 9. Australian Shiraz. Westerly Force 3-4.
P.
--
Paul Clark mailto:p...@sysmag.com $ whois pc52
Systems Magic Ltd. http://www.sysmag.com
Miguel Cruz
>>> Tell us something that doesn't annoy a purist.
>>
>> Sunshine and flowers.
>
> Kind of a short list don't you think?
Okay, I'll add one more: The past three days (until yesterday) where this
newsgroup was actually full of substantive, on-topic discussion. I can't
figure out what was different exactly, but something... hmmm.
miguel
William G. Schlake
Substantive, on-topic "discussion" in CIWAH?
Oh... I forgot it's April Fool's day.
Miguel Cruz
>> Okay, I'll add one more: The past three days (until yesterday) where this
>> newsgroup was actually full of substantive, on-topic discussion. I can't
>> figure out what was different exactly, but something... hmmm.
>
> Oh... I forgot it's April Fool's day.
Through some bizarre coincidence, you missed it! Freaky! In your case, I
think it may be similar to trying to verify whether the light really goes
off when you close the refrigerator door.
miguel
Mike A. Caucutt
macromedia.dreamweaver
seems to have the same problem
mike
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> William G. Schlake <comm...@hobsonsquare.com> wrote:
> >>> Tell us something that doesn't annoy a purist.
> >>
> >> Sunshine and flowers.
> >
> > Kind of a short list don't you think?
>
> Okay, I'll add one more: The past three days (until yesterday) where this
> newsgroup was actually full of substantive, on-topic discussion. I can't
> figure out what was different exactly, but something... hmmm.
>
> miguel