SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 172
  1. #101
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm just glad that the heat in this thread is off me for a change.
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  2. #102
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I've removed all the attacks in this thread. Turn, please consider your words and actions before you post if you wish to continue posting on the SitePoint forums. Everyone else, if someone's trolling please ignore them and make my job a little easier .

  3. #103
    Love *********'s Forum ep2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi there,

    Do you have a script like that?

    Thanks


    Michelle

    Quote Originally Posted by cianuro
    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.

  4. #104
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd like to know that as well. Because if I use my own site as an example (sig below), the home page has been redone with CSS using two fixed columns (left and right) and a variable center.

    The graphic that's up now looks great at 800x600, acceptable at 1024x768, but starts to look silly with anything higher than that - and I'm completely in the dark about how to combat it.

    Regards,
    Neil
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  5. #105
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,275
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    the best guy for this sort of stuff is ppk and sure enough, he has an article covering what you need:

    Viewport properties

    scroll down to the bottom, and observe your own viewport properties

    resize the browser window, hit refresh, and see which ones change
    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  6. #106
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seldovia Alaska
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like my eMac set to 1280x960, I'm seeing some photo pages bigger than this. I don't make pages this big yet, mostly 800x600, some 1024x768. These are the limits imposed on my old Windows 95 and 98 machines if I want more than 256 colours.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Zealot plan9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why don't you use a javascript function that redirects your visitor to what ever resolution they have.

    To do this you need to duplicate the css and the layouts, and voilá you make every one happy

    thats a solution you know satisfy almost a 95% of all users, your problem is solved with a little extra work.

  8. #108
    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 plan9
    why don't you use a javascript function that redirects your visitor to what ever resolution they have.

    To do this you need to duplicate the css and the layouts, and voilá you make every one happy

    thats a solution you know satisfy almost a 95% of all users, your problem is solved with a little extra work.
    you shouldn't rely on client-side technology (javascript), and the "little extra work" can soon grow into an unmanageable task if you have a large site. a far better solution would be alternative stylesheets or a flexible CMS that lets the user choose between separate layouts, but still populates pages from the same content source (fair enough, the last one may be a tad over the top on small sites)
    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

  9. #109
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    redux;

    Thanks for understanding my dilemma. The solution I keep hearing to get around my resolution issue with the graphics has been to use Javascript; but I knew that JS wouldn't work on every browser.

    Can you point me to a tutorial that would walk me through how to do what you're suggesting with alternative stylesheets? It sounds like that may be the only even semi-efficient way to solve my problem.
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  10. #110
    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)
    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

  11. #111
    SitePoint Zealot plan9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by redux
    you shouldn't rely on client-side technology (javascript), and the "little extra work" can soon grow into an unmanageable task if you have a large site. a far better solution would be alternative stylesheets or a flexible CMS that lets the user choose between separate layouts, but still populates pages from the same content source (fair enough, the last one may be a tad over the top on small sites)

    Allways separate the content from the design this should be the first rule of webdesign. but there are times that it's impossible task (there aren't perfect solutions)

    Like redux said try to use in your design CSS and dynamic table length, that way when the browser area becames bigger your design grows in consenence with the size of the available browser area.

    But if you have a dynamic(with server side or a DB) or even a CMS, if you separate the content from the design, you have only small amount of work.


    Content - You can use the same content but because pages are generated dynamically and your content is in a Database, if you use diferent CSS for each browser and each resolution, that solves your problem.

    Layout - because your pages are dynamically generated, even in a very big site, you only have a few pages, that works a little, like templates, then the changes that you need to do and the number of pages you need to produce are very small and reduced.

  12. #112
    SitePoint Zealot plan9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I forgot a thing that redux said, about javascript, 90% of all browsers use javascript


    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

  13. #113
    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)
    stats are irrelevant unless they directly relate to *your* particular site.

    The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures
    which already makes them initially skewed towards web developers.
    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

  14. #114
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    East Hartford, CT
    Posts
    97
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    redux;

    Thanks for the links. I checked out both articles, and please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult here. I would just like to get layout issues finished once and for all, so I can focus on content.

    Both articles call for javascript, and if I'm not mistaken, both also use cookies. (And yes, I noticed that the second script offered a PHP workaround, but still..)

    If I'm going to truly aim for a site that works in *most* resolutions and in every browser, then from what I'm understanding, neither method is the "magic bullet", because as has been discussed before, not every browser uses javascript, and tons of people are using cookie blockers.

    Is there a magic bullet?
    imusicians.com
    The new website for musicians.
    More features. Less money. And a lot less bull.

  15. #115
    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 imusicians
    Is there a magic bullet?
    no, but the safest way of doing it: make any elastic, fluid layout the default, and offer fixed width (or overly large, not suitable for small screen size) layouts as alternative stylesheets that can be enabled either via javascript, php switcher or the browser's built in style switcher (e.g. in Firefox).
    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

  16. #116
    SitePoint Enthusiast mikejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Jersey, USA
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: 600 x 800

    Quote Originally Posted by fatnewt
    I know people using 19-inch monitors and 640x480. My mother uses 800x600 on her 17-inch, and gets very upset if my brother changes it. My aunt gets headaches trying to read most Web pages -- so she uses 800x600 and enlarges the text.

    Perhaps the overall average may change, but it's not the same thing as increasing processor speeds or new software. It's a preference for how you want things displayed to you -- not a performance issue.
    Hear, hear! One of my pet peeves is when Webmasters already assume that everyone is using a larger resolution. Don't make me scroll horizontally, or -- worse yet -- use miniscule text that I can't resize.

    Anyway, I use 800 x 600, primarliy because extended browsing on a larger res gives me eyestrain (and I'm a lifelong eyeglasses wearer). I personally won't go to 1,024 x 768 until I get a 20+ inch flat panel. And I don't know how people with tiny laptop screens (like my girlfriend) use the larger resolution -- but I'm sure as heck not going to ruin MY eyes.

    Just my two cents.

    -- Mike

  17. #117
    Object Not Found junjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    northern MI
    Posts
    1,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by imusicians
    I'm considering a "threshold" at which point I would re-do the layout of the pages to be "best viewed" at 1024x768; however, I have no "gut" feeling on where that cut-off point should be. For example - when the 800x600 people make up less than 10% of my user base, there is absolutely no point in keeping the layout optimized for that low of a resolution. But should the cutoff be higher than 10%?
    Hmm what about another scenario?
    A website owner comes to me for some consultation on his e-commerce website. I look at his website which is almost unusable in 800*600. I also look at his server stats that show about 10% of the visitors have 800*600 resolution (would be a bit higher if they dared coming back).
    I then tell him I can increase his website revenue by about 11%, simply adjusting the website to make it more accessible...

  18. #118
    Phil fillup07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think there's a 2 part great answer to this question that is relatively simple...

    Fluid designs - fit without horizontal scrolling at 800x600 while stretching content sections (and even side bars) to fit larger resolutions.
    CSS style sheets - this fits in when it comes to designing for mobile phones, small screens, etc. If your page is XHTML with semantic markup, a phone doesn't have to read all the CSS for a full monitor size layout... it can just see basic stuff.

  19. #119
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vinyl-junkie
    Number one, I still have an 800 x 600 resolution browser, and it doesn't look like you're making good use of the real estate you have for that resolution, let alone anything larger than that. There is around a third of the right-hand side of my screen that has the black background only.

    Number two, specify width in percentages rather than pixels in your tables, and your problem is solved, regardless of a visitor's browser resolution.

    Hope this helps.
    Center your main table... That way, you have a balance of space on both sides and not just the right... Man, that is a pet peeve of mine... I hate when people left justify their sites and leave all that open space on the right... YECH!!!!

    In regard to the 800x600, best not to alienate anyone. Ok, you have a small percentage of people still at 800x600, but that is still a large enough percentage of potential sales that may be lost due to improper site layout... some people (me included) will not scroll left to right.

    Personally, IMO, your web site is a reflection of your business... if you do not take the time and care and put the effort forward to have a good professional site, then you must not have the same care for your customers or product so why would I want to do business with you.... Make sense?

    Just my opinions...
    NBDesign
    Web Site Development and Programming
    http://www.nbdesign.com

    ICQ: 220063236

  20. #120
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NBDesign
    Ok, you have a small percentage of people still at 800x600, but that is still a large enough percentage of potential sales that may be lost due to improper site layout...
    ...
    your web site is a reflection of your business.
    My thoughts exactly.

    Throw some numbers out there: Let's say a measley 5% of your traffic uses 800x600... well, maybe that seems small... but if you're really interested in the well-being of your site, you're trying to get lots of traffic. If your site gets 1000 visitors a day, then you're getting about 50 daily visitors using 800x600. After a month, that's 1500 people. And if your site gets 10000 hits daily, we're talking 500/day, 15000/month. Even if only 10% (and that's grossly underestimated) of those people get frustrated enough to leave, that's a lot of missed opportunities.

    And I totally agree, your site is a reflection of your business. If you're running eCommerce, people will get frustrated and go find someone else. If you're providing a service, especially in a B2B market, you're showing sloppiness... not a selling feature.

    And if you're selling Web design/development services, like many people on these forums, having an unusable site is brodcasting your Web design incompetence to the world.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  21. #121
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fatnewt
    And if you're selling Web design/development services, like many people on these forums, having an unusable site is brodcasting your Web design incompetence to the world.
    Man, you got that right... I was using some DHTML menus on NBDesign for a while... they worked great on the PC, but when I had the chance to see my site on a Mac... they were no where to be found.... That was BAD and cost me a LOT of business.

    I can check cross browser without any problems... but since I no longer have a Mac, that makes life a little more difficult.
    NBDesign
    Web Site Development and Programming
    http://www.nbdesign.com

    ICQ: 220063236

  22. #122
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NBDesign
    I can check cross browser without any problems... but since I no longer have a Mac, that makes life a little more difficult.
    Follow Web design standards. If your site's working okay on IE, Firefox and Opera, chances are that IE/Mac and Safari can view it decently.

    Don't rely on JavaScript effects for navigation and usability as a rule.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  23. #123
    SitePoint Wizard mcsolas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hermosa Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,707
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I dont aim for any 1 size. Everything is best if you can get the %'s to line up whether the window takes up half the screen or all on a good monitor.

    You can drop the 800x600 rez if you have a specific target market for that site ( ex: gamerz sites at 1024 is a given ) but health care site .. imagine all those poor old workers in offices with old equipment trying to bang on your 1024 site with a 15" monitor.

    I do have one trick that I like. Keep the content in the 800 wide area and then give yourself the gutter of 225 pixels outside of that to add only OPTIONAL viewing material: random pictures, a nice colorful page tile or all your ads. Just dont count on a user seeing the extras ( and definitely ) dont count on a user scrolling sideways to nav your site. Why would you when the "go away" buttons are so much easier to hit at that point.

  24. #124
    Love *********'s Forum ep2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If memory serves me, there is a site where you can check what the site will look like on a Mac.

    Don't quote me though. It's something a previous programer used. I thought.

    Later


    Michelle

    Quote Originally Posted by NBDesign
    Man, you got that right... I was using some DHTML menus on NBDesign for a while... they worked great on the PC, but when I had the chance to see my site on a Mac... they were no where to be found.... That was BAD and cost me a LOT of business.

    I can check cross browser without any problems... but since I no longer have a Mac, that makes life a little more difficult.

  25. #125
    Love *********'s Forum ep2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    848
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeh & you know what all the WDs say to me???

    We are too busy dealing with customers, sorry. It's like the contractor that has broken things all over his house.

    I complain about this ALL the time & they don't seem to care.

    Doesn't anyone learn these things in WD school LOL

    It's basic business 101

    Cya


    Michelle


    Quote Originally Posted by NBDesign
    Personally, IMO, your web site is a reflection of your business... if you do not take the time and care and put the effort forward to have a good professional site, then you must not have the same care for your customers or product so why would I want to do business with you.... Make sense?

    Just my opinions...


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
  •