SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 172
  1. #76
    Web Design Ireland cianuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin Ireland
    Posts
    914
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vinyl-junkie
    specify width in percentages rather than pixels in your tables, and your problem is solved, regardless of a visitor's browser resolution.
    I totally agree.
    I still do not know the "true" benefit to using pixels. Creating a site that will auto size to the users resolution I feel is a VERY important factor to consider when creating the site in the first place. It would be maybe a small bit more effort, but why on earth would you alienate potential customers for the sake of a few hours extra work?

  2. #77
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's not as easy as saying "just stick with percentages" though. another important factor is line length. scalability and maintaining a comfortable line length are obviously at odds with each other...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  3. #78
    Web Design Ireland cianuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin Ireland
    Posts
    914
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, I feel that no matter what you do, your never going to be able to cater for EVERYONE. Its just a matter of "not" catering for the smallest group. I think you need to analyze your stats to fins out who that is.

    PS: Redux, I'm a big fan.

  4. #79
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cianuro
    I totally agree.
    I still do not know the "true" benefit to using pixels. Creating a site that will auto size to the users resolution I feel is a VERY important factor to consider when creating the site in the first place. It would be maybe a small bit more effort, but why on earth would you alienate potential customers for the sake of a few hours extra work?
    And I would love to be able to do just that. However, graphics are a rather significant part of my site's layout. And maybe I shouldn't say "graphics" so much as "photography". And the reason this whole thread started was because of my frustration in finding a way to make images work at any size without having their quality degrade at higher resolutions.

    Didn't realize I'd be starting such a firestorm of controversy. Geez - you'd think I was telling people I served on John Kerry's boat.
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  5. #80
    Web Design Ireland cianuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin Ireland
    Posts
    914
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL

    Well, with images its difficult. Thats what css is for! I think you have to find the fine line between images and css/whatever to find the balance.

    Whatever you do, its the nature of the web. Someone, AND YOU are going to loose out a small bit.

    An alternative would be to use a script that would detect user resolution and redirect to a section of the site that supports that. its a lot of work, but it IS an alternative.

  6. #81
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cianuro
    An alternative would be to use a script that would detect user resolution and redirect to a section of the site that supports that. its a lot of work, but it IS an alternative.
    I like this idea, although two things about it concern me:

    1) It would be difficult to anticipate every resolution; and
    2) If I'm truly going for "device independence", can I risk assuming that everyone will be able to run such a script?
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  7. #82
    Web Design Ireland cianuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin Ireland
    Posts
    914
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by imusicians
    1) It would be difficult to anticipate every resolution;
    2) If I'm truly going for "device independence", can I risk assuming that everyone will be able to run such a script?

    1) True, but If you are going to cater for EVERYONE, you are going to have to put in a lot of work and research

    2) Again, more work will be needed to test out your visitors browser/method of accessing your content.

    I dont think I have ever come across a site, including the heavy hitting commercial giants that cater for 100% of web users. I think its impossible.

  8. #83
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cianuro
    I dont think I have ever come across a site, including the heavy hitting commercial giants that cater for 100% of web users. I think its impossible.
    Well, I hope you're ready for the flames that come your way after saying something like that.

    One of the most basic approaches to a new business is "study the leaders and copy them". So when I built my new site, I looked at what the biggest websites in the world were doing, and went with that.

    And frankly, the only one of the "commercial giants" I've seen that doesn't have an 8x6 layout is Amazon.com - and that's hardly a content-rich multimedia site. It's mostly a text site, with the occasional picture of a book or album cover.

    Sure there are others that AREN'T at 8x6, but take a look around...among the big players, 8x6 is so much more prevalent than "device independence" it's almost laughable.

    Does the fact that the big players do it that way mean that it's right? Of course not. But it DOES tend to fly in the face of the assertion that 8x6 layouts will inevitably result in a mass exodus of users.
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  9. #84
    Web Design Ireland cianuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin Ireland
    Posts
    914
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, I should have clarified more on that. I meant that 100% of internet users (Which I assumed you did too mentioning devices) included WAP browsers, avantgo users, series 60 users, lynx users etc.

    I definitely agree that the "Big guys" will at least have a site compatible with a lot of resolutions, but I personally have yet to come across a site that has solutions for EVERY browser in existence. And lets face it, there are always people using these, just look at your stats.

  10. #85
    SitePoint Member Siddhartha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i think well designed site wont be afraid of the user's resolution.
    using css allows web designers make page's layout take all of the available space and dynamically position site's blocks.

    If you dont have enough practice just follow the 3x3 cells layout with the middle block(column) freely floating(expandable).
    CSS

  11. #86
    Google Engineer polvero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Mountain View
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When do we bail on 800x600?
    we don't.
    we do this for the same reason we design for mozilla, opera, and safari...which just happens to be lesser than 23% (but getting higher)

  12. #87
    SitePoint Wizard Anat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    1,281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cianuro
    Well, I feel that no matter what you do, your never going to be able to cater for EVERYONE. Its just a matter of "not" catering for the smallest group. I think you need to analyze your stats to fins out who that is.
    I totally agree. I think it depends on your target audience and you do have to do that little bit of "research". I have different layouts for different websites. On the website that targets webmasters I use a percentage based layout, that can be good for all sorts of resolutions. I do set up the left and right column in fixed pixels - as I know the size of the components that go in there (like google ads) and I don't want to have empty space there. The central column I set to take up the rest of the available width. Still, people with very high resolutions will get a shorter middle column, and those with resoutions lower than 600 by 800 will get a very long middle column. But most of my users use 1024 or slightly more, so I think it's a good compromise.

    On the websites intended for cat lovers, I know that most of my audience are on 1024 and a large percetange is still on 800 by 600. So my design is optimized for these two displays, using a fixed layout.
    My Web Publishing Blog: B6S.net - I dofollow but don't spam!
    Follow me on Twitter
    My favorite content writer:
    Steve Snedeker

  13. #88
    SitePoint Guru DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that only leaves me about 375px in a 762px table.
    When you take in consideration that body text should not be over 450 px wide for easy readability anyway, 375px is actually a pretty decent size

  14. #89
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see how web standards come into play as far as allowing your content to be seen by any device. That makes perfect sense and is a compelling argument for using proper XHTML markup. This is a good foundation to fall back upon when all else fails, design-wise.

    To improve the appearance of a generic XHTML layout, we can use CSS. This also makes sense to me.

    Here's where I might be confused. Is anyone is saying that browser-widow size is no consideration at all when it comes to design?
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  15. #90
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    Here's where I might be confused. Is anyone is saying that browser-widow size is no consideration at all when it comes to design?
    I don't think anybody's saying that. Even with a flexible layout, I still test at various window sizes to make sure nothing's too screwy (which can happen at times with layouts that rely on absolute positioning or floating elements).

  16. #91
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS
    When you take in consideration that body text should not be over 450 px wide for easy readability anyway, 375px is actually a pretty decent size
    saying how wide the text should be for easy readability is irrelevant if you don't specify which text size you're referring this to, and what screen resolution. 450px at 0.8em on a 1280x1024 display is obviously a lot different than 450px at 5em on an 800x600 screen...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  17. #92
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    I don't think anybody's saying that. Even with a flexible layout, I still test at various window sizes to make sure nothing's too screwy (which can happen at times with layouts that rely on absolute positioning or floating elements).
    Good, then that makes sense to me too!

    It also seems to me that a certain layout might be effective at a good range of window sizes (say 6x4 through 12x7), but might not render the same way below or above. It doesn't mean that a design is no good, it just means that a different design or default rendering might need to be used for those extreme sizes. Is that fair?

    If that is reasonable, I could totally see someone going with 1024x768+ as their default design environment and feeling fine about it from an accessibility standpoint. Their CSS design creates a page that is optimally viewed at ~1024, but just like a cell phone browser might have to ignore that style sheet (or get a compromised rendering), so will 8x6 users in this case. And of course there's no law preventing multiple designs with browser-window-size-detecting lead-in pages.

    The biggest problem I see with going primarily with ~1024x768 is that most people don't use the space very well, so why bother? Seriously, most ~1024 width pages I see have a ton of things crammed in and are a confusing, ugly mess.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  18. #93
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    It also seems to me that a certain layout might be effective at a good range of window sizes (say 6x4 through 12x7), but might not render the same way below or above. It doesn't mean that a design is no good, it just means that a different design or default rendering might need to be used for those extreme sizes. Is that fair?
    Yep, totally. The W3C is also on your side, with the CSS properties min-width and max-width available to control the size of flexing elements. Take this example:
    Code:
    #header {
      width: 50%;
      min-width: 200px;
      max-width: 600px;
    }
    With that code, your header element will always be 50% wide, unless 50% happens to be below 200 pixels or above 900 pixels. Once IE/Windows starts supporting those properties, I think you'll see much nicer flexible layouts than what's currently mainstream.
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    If that is reasonable, I could totally see someone going with 1024x768+ as their default design environment and feeling fine about it from an accessibility standpoint. Their CSS design creates a page that is optimally viewed at ~1024, but just like a cell phone browser might have to ignore that style sheet (or get a compromised rendering), so will 8x6 users in this case. And of course there's no law preventing multiple designs with browser-window-size-detecting lead-in pages.
    True, and there are also CSS-only solutions to that, for example using media queries and conditions. Example:
    Code:
    @media screen and (min-width: 400px)
    {
    /*use medium-sized background image if
    window is 400-799px wide*/
      body {
        background: url(medium-background.jpg);
      }
    }
    @media screen and (min-width: 800px)
    {
    /*
    use large background image if
    window is 800px or more wide
    */
      body {
        background: url(large-background.jpg);
      }
    }
    Again, in the future this will make flexible layouts very adaptable. Unfortunately, the JS solution is probably the browser-friendliest way to implement this functionality currently.
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    The biggest problem I see with going primarily with ~1024x768 is that most people don't use the space very well, so why bother? Seriously, most ~1024 width pages I see have a ton of things crammed in and are a confusing, ugly mess.
    I can agree there. Usually when somebody wants a wider layout, it's because of "more information". However, I typically find that "more information" means "all sorts of information in my face". You can usually get rid of the need for a wider layout by using better information architecture and better categorizing your site's content.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    The W3C is also on your side, with the CSS properties min-width and max-width available to control the size of flexing elements
    ...
    True, and there are also CSS-only solutions to that, for example using media queries and conditions.
    Good features!

    I really like the media-queries and conditions. Sounds like it could make a style-sheet a bit complicated, but I'm sure editing applications will rise to the challenge if that's what people are using.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  20. #95
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I plan on making use of min-width and max-width in my new design. I want the page to be 96% of the width but not less than 770px and not more than 1000px. Mainly because I want some white space and I don't want my text width too width to make it difficult to read.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  21. #96
    SitePoint Guru menuserve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    903
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why not design your site for both... when someone comes to your site they should select their resolution and see it accordingly

  22. #97
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Luke
    I plan on making use of min-width and max-width in my new design. I want the page to be 96% of the width but not less than 770px and not more than 1000px. Mainly because I want some white space and I don't want my text width too width to make it difficult to read.
    How are you going to get it working in IE/Win if I may ask? IE7, or some other javascript solution?
    Quote Originally Posted by menuserve
    why not design your site for both... when someone comes to your site they should select their resolution and see it accordingly
    Ask your mom if she knows what her monitor's resolution is. Or if your mom is a techie herself, ask my mom what her monitor's resolution is. You'd throw way too many people off if you're catering to a less-than-geeky audience .
    Quote Originally Posted by samsm
    I really like the media-queries and conditions. Sounds like it could make a style-sheet a bit complicated, but I'm sure editing applications will rise to the challenge if that's what people are using.
    Dreamweaver can already do CSS2 reasonably well (media queries and conditions are a CSS3 thing). Since Opera is the only browser to currently support media queries like that, and CSS3 isn't a finished draft, I'm sure the editing tools have plenty of time to catch up.

  23. #98
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    How are you going to get it working in IE/Win if I may ask? IE7, or some other javascript solution?
    Nothing so complicated at this time.

    http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193768
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  24. #99
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Cool, I forgot about CSS expressions for a minute there

  25. #100
    Love *********'s Forum ep2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey LOL,

    It took me a while to switch, but I finally did & it was even 2 wks. b4 IE was blasted in the Media for being a screwed up browser which is it is LOL I know of quite a few people that also switched at that time.

    How many times spyware attacked it & I couldn't get rid of it. No more on FF.
    I'm still using OE though.

    I didn't look at your site, so I can't see what he's talking about.

    Most web sites look fine on FF, but just today I came across a SEO web site that looked terrible & they should know better IMO.

    You are worrying about screen resolution (I just switched to 1024 about 4 months ago & I was worried I'd get headaches too with the small size) & you should also be worrying about browsers too IMO. I wouldn't try for all the browsers as that is impossible, but at least IE, Netscape, FF & maybe Opera.

    And yes, I believe the user has the right to use whatever they want & no offense to you, but I can't stand WDs that think they are god & used to tell me I'm behind the times (when I was on 800) & they will design the site in 1024 b/c they are right & everyone else is wrong. Their poor clients suffer & the WD thinks he knows everything.

    The only time I tell users to go screw themselves is when they are using a version that is soooo archaic, that WDs can't even design properly using up-to-date CSS etc.

    Take care


    Michelle

    Quote Originally Posted by imusicians
    Looks weird in Firefox?

    I'm not in a panic over that one, as Firefox browsers make up less than 0.1% of my site logs. But I'm curious what you mean - any chance you could email me a screen shot?

    Webmaster at the URL below.

    I'd be much obliged. Thanks.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •