Defining the resolution of a site

[mehdi.louizi]

Hello, I'm beginning to create a web site but I'm facing a big problem
for which I didn't find any solution!! I'm using the 1024*768 screen
resolution, and when I change it to 800*600 the page is visible but
with the scroll bars. So the design is no longer the same..
Same thing if I work on a 800*600 resolution, the page is too ugly to
bee seen..
I don't want to work with frames. Concerning the creation of tables
with fixed width (100 %), it doesn't work when I changed the
resolution. And the problem is that I couldn't put pictures on the
screen extremities(so I used frames (In Dreamweaver MX...))
Thanks for helping...

[Tim]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:34:04 -0700, mehdi.louizi sent:

Hello, I'm beginning to create a web site but I'm facing a big problem for
which I didn't find any solution!! I'm using the 1024*768 screen
resolution, and when I change it to 800*600 the page is visible but with
the scroll bars. So the design is no longer the same.. Same thing if I
work on a 800*600 resolution, the page is too ugly to bee seen..

Congratulations ! You've realised that your website looks different in
different web browsers, and always will. This isn't paper, and the
display medium will be different for many people (different screens,
browser windows at different sizes, etc.). This is something that you
have to work with.

Playing with frames, tables, and images, trying to *set* a site to be a
certain dimension just isn't going to work. You need to find a way that
your site neatly fits into browsers of all shapes and sizes. You've
offered no-one here a URI or good description of what you're doing, so
you're not going to get specific advice, from anyone, about how to
approach this, at this time. But, basically, you've got three simple
things that you can rely on when placing images on the page, you can put
them on the left, middle, or right, anything else is less predictable, or
achievable. And you're in for a hell of a time trying to insist that some
image be a certain size for all browsers (e.g. a banner graphic filling
90% across the page for everyone).

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself.

[dingbat]

Tim wrote:

Playing with frames, tables, and images, trying to *set* a site to be a
certain dimension just isn't going to work.

Please engrave this on my tombstone, after my manager kills me. It'll
happen in about an hour, after we've launched a site with exactly these
issues 8-)

[Jim Moe]

me**********@gm ail.com wrote:

I don't want to work with frames. Concerning the creation of tables
with fixed width (100 %), it doesn't work when I changed the
resolution. And the problem is that I couldn't put pictures on the
screen extremities(so I used frames (In Dreamweaver MX...))

Don't use tables for layout.
Don't use a fixed width design.
Somewhere on the macromedia site are articles that discuss dreamweaver
design techniques that produce both tableless and fluid pages.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Gérard Talbot]

Jim Moe a écrit :

me**********@gm ail.com wrote:

I don't want to work with frames. Concerning the creation of tables
with fixed width (100 %), it doesn't work when I changed the
resolution. And the problem is that I couldn't put pictures on the
screen extremities(so I used frames (In Dreamweaver MX...))

Don't use tables for layout.
Don't use a fixed width design.
Somewhere on the macromedia site are articles that discuss dreamweaver
design techniques that produce both tableless and fluid pages.

Tableless layout with Dreamweaver. DreamWeaver has a 6 parts tutorial on
how to use CSS template instead of table design:
"tables do a pretty lousy job of page construction. Among their
shortcomings is the implied bias of the code towards presentation rather
than structure, the necessity to nest tables in order to achieve the
most basic of layouts, and enough redundant bandwidth-hogging tags to
feed a large family of tag eating monsters for literally a month."
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/...ss_layout.html

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

me**********@gm ail.com a écrit :

Hello, I'm beginning to create a web site but I'm facing a big problem
for which I didn't find any solution!! I'm using the 1024*768 screen
resolution, and when I change it to 800*600 the page is visible but
with the scroll bars.
So? What's so awful about that? A vertical scrollbar is normal,
absolutely acceptable.

So the design is no longer the same.. Same thing if I work on a 800*600 resolution, the page is too ugly to
bee seen..
The nr 1 problem with most sites on the web is their fascination and
relentlessness for pixel-accurate design. Such choice of design is
pratically impossible to achieve for several browsers, is extremely
difficult to achieve, requires constant tuning up and is very often not
scalable, not accessible. Best choice design is scalable CSS design,
fluid design.
I don't want to work with frames. Concerning the creation of tables
with fixed width (100 %),
I do not recommend table design.

it doesn't work when I changed the resolution. And the problem is that I couldn't put pictures on the
screen extremities(so I used frames (In Dreamweaver MX...))
Thanks for helping...

Any size design:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Tableless layout:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

It's difficult to suggest more since your post did not provide any url.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[James Pickering]

Another table-free design reference:
http://www.workingwith.me.uk/tablefree/

--
James Pickering
http://jp29.org/
Table-free layout

[David Ross]

me**********@gm ail.com wrote:

Hello, I'm beginning to create a web site but I'm facing a big problem
for which I didn't find any solution!! I'm using the 1024*768 screen
resolution, and when I change it to 800*600 the page is visible but
with the scroll bars. So the design is no longer the same..
Same thing if I work on a 800*600 resolution, the page is too ugly to
bee seen..
I don't want to work with frames. Concerning the creation of tables
with fixed width (100 %), it doesn't work when I changed the
resolution. And the problem is that I couldn't put pictures on the
screen extremities(so I used frames (In Dreamweaver MX...))
Thanks for helping...

First of all, tables should be used only for tablular or columnar
presentation of data. Don't use them to create margins or other
such layout situations.

More important, don't design with any assumptions about the user's
hardware or software. Remember, some of us can use 1280x1024
display resolution but still prefer 800x600. Some might want to
view your Web page from a Web-capable cell phone, via Web-TV, or
with an audio browser.

See the "Viewable With Any Browser Campaign" at
<URL:http://www.anybrowser. org/campaign/index.html>. In your
particular situation, navigate to "Design Guide > Design Elements >
Screen Size". But read the rest of "Design Guide", too.

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.

[Tim]

Tim wrote:

Playing with frames, tables, and images, trying to *set* a site to be a
certain dimension just isn't going to work.

dingbat sent:
Please engrave this on my tombstone, after my manager kills me. It'll
happen in about an hour, after we've launched a site with exactly these
issues 8-)

I'm reminded of a recent e-mail I received, where someone proclaimed,
"I've used JavaScript linking to avoid HTML validation errors". I don't
know why they believed that. To top it off, their JavaScript navigation
linking was a misused form element! :-\

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself.

[dingbat]

Jim Moe wrote:

Don't use a fixed width design.
There's one very good reason for a fixed width design (why I do it
anyway).

I get _paid_ to do fixed-width designs. I don't get paid to do fluid
designs.

In my caped and masked nightime alter ego (there are pictures on
flickr) I write proper semantically kosher table-free sites with nice
fluid designs. I also eat quiche and code Pascal. They don't work
desperately well on IE, but then I just don't care -- these users need
to learn anyway.

Then I run out of money, so I go and get a day job. Here I build site
back-ends to implement some Mac-wielding barrista's paper-based
static-pixie dezyn. Everything is fixed width (and ideally fixed
height) because that's not just what the want, it's what they _demand_.
Then they sprinkle it with ads until it's unreadable, then turn the
hard-coded text size down until no-one bothers reading the site any
more.
Don't use tables for layout.

What do you do when your boss insists on pixel perfect rendering on
Mac/IE and the aforementioned barrista then insists on switching to
tables ?