screen resolution solutions

[salmobytes]

I try to do all css with percents and ems (elastic/liquid)
so my displays look as much the same as possible,
regardless the user's screen resolution. But I (still)
never seem to get what I want. Compromises seem
to lurk at every moment.

==========Stati c html
for instance:
font-size: 10px; /* looks drastically different at 768 wide
compared to 1024 */
font-size: x-small; /* better than above, but seldom what I want */
font-size: 80%; /* I'm not sure what this does.....% is
percent of what?
Regardless the answer, this seems
to produce
badly pixelated fonts in some
browsers */

images are really trouble. A 700 pixel wide image that looks great
at
high resolution bombs the layout at 768 pixels wide.
With hand-typed html there is no happy solution. You have to make
lowest common denominator compromises, whether you like it or not.
========= Dynamic Html
However, If your html is generated dynamically, maybe the right thing
to do
is to make a "resolution selection menu" somewhere on each page--and
then
to keep track of state with sessions or cookies or both. Then you
could write
custom css for the 2-3 most common screen sizes.....and choose image
paths
from 2-3 differently sized image bins. Then you could make screens
that look
good all the way up from 800x600 up (800 wide still has 15% market
share).

This seems like such an obvious idea I'm surprised I don't ever see
it.
Does anybody know of any major or well-done sites that do this?
Or CMS systems that offer that feature?

......I may have to try adding this to my own little microCMS
I must be missing something obvious.......

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-18, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit salmobytes:

>>But "salmobytes " was probably just trolling.

Perhaps I should have said:
"I was having trouble with a complex, multi-panel site
...that I was able to get looking just fine at high res,
but not at low res."

Perhaps you should stop inventing new ideas for trolling. Everyone and
his brother can see that you are just making things up as you go.
This is evident from your URL (that is, lack of it).

Why was a URL necessary? Salmobytes was asking if anyone knew of any
major or well-done sites that switch between alternative fixed-width
layouts. I don't see how that question would be better illustrated with
the help of a URL.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

Why was a URL necessary? Salmobytes was asking if anyone knew of any
major or well-done sites that switch between alternative fixed-width
layouts. I don't see how that question would be better illustrated
with the help of a URL.

If it had been a serious question, surely he or she would have told the
reasons and illustrated it with the URL of his or her current design,
demonstrating how it fails to work at different resolutions.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-18, Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit Ben C:

>Why was a URL necessary? Salmobytes was asking if anyone knew of any
major or well-done sites that switch between alternative fixed-width
layouts. I don't see how that question would be better illustrated
with the help of a URL.

If it had been a serious question, surely he or she would have told the
reasons and illustrated it with the URL of his or her current design,
demonstrating how it fails to work at different resolutions.

Rubbish. He or she might not even have a current design. It's still a
perfectly reasonable question without a URL.

[dorayme]

In article
<0f************ *************** *******@s8g2000 prg.googlegroup s.com

>,

salmobytes <Sa************ ***@gmail.comwr ote:

That's one reason why I started
thinking about dynamic css.
http://wage.cns.montana.edu

This breaks horribly. I think you should not think any more for a
while about anything dynamic. Calm right down and be happier with
less. Your users will thank you.

--
dorayme

[Andy Dingley]

On 18 Jan, 22:12, salmobytes <Sandy.Pittendr [e-mail] ote:

Hans Weilenmann has a nice site where he displays the best
sharp-focus, high-detail close-up photos (of trout flies)

URL? It's not obviously Googleable (HW is evidently well known for
his work, but less so for his own site)

But because 60% of all users view from 17"
monitors at 768 pixels wide,

It's several years since that has been even approximately true.

power users who have 1024 pixels wide or better.

These days it's hard to find a non-power user who doesn't have at
least that resolution even vertically.

A better (more intelligent) web-solution would provide some kind
of a mode-toggle switch on each page,

No, this is terrible. Long experience of it for years now has taught
us this.

That's one reason why I started
thinking about dynamic css.
http://wage.cns.montana.edu

That's a ghastly page. It's particularly bad on a FF window under
890px wide.

[salmobytes]

On Jan 19, 1:53 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <[e-mail] t.fiwrote:

And you expect to do this in CSS? Consider reading an introductory
tutorial on the elements of basics of getting started with WWW
authoring.

No, you can't swap images with css.
But if you were swapping image sizes, based on a mode switch,
you would also have an opportunity to change the css too,
so it was custom tailored for low resolution or high resolution.

Yahoo (as someone else pointed out) does this. I will give it a try.
You seem to be a pigeon-hole thinker. Cs attracts lots of those,
for some reason. Even in Finland, apparently.

[Harlan Messinger]

salmobytes wrote:

On Jan 21, 2:49 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

Hans Weilenmann has a nice site where he displays the best
sharp-focus, high-detail close-up photos (of trout flies)

URL? It's not obviously Googleable (HW is evidently well known for
his work, but less so for his own site)

http://www.danica.com/flytier/

Hans' "large" images are only 600 pixels wide--he's trying to
accomodate everybody.
Closeup images of flies look a heck of a lot better at 700 pixels
wide.
On high resolution monitors with high-speed connections, 800 pixels
is spectacular, by comparison. Trying to serve everybody all at once
with 600 pixels wide is an annoying compromise.

>>But because 60% of all users view from 17"
monitors at 768 pixels wide,

768 has never been a screen width in pixels. It's a height in some
resolutions.

>It's several years since that has been even approximately true.

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

W3Schools is not the W3C, the information shown is a year out of date,
and who knows how they're compiling it?

[Michael Stemper]

In article <62************ *************** *******@i12g200 0prf.googlegrou ps.com>, salmobytes writes:

>On Jan 21, 2:49 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesm iths.comwrote:

But because 60% of all users view from 17"
monitors at 768 pixels wide,

It's several years since that has been even approximately true.

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Point one: "w3schools" is not in any way affiliated with the w3c.
Point two: Even their page shows 54% for 1024x768, which is 1024
pixels wide, as well as 26% for higher. That means at least 80%
of everybody has a monitor that shows at least 1024 pixels wide.
This ignores the 6% listed as "Unknown".

My first PC, purchased in 1992, had a 1024x1280 monitor, and I'm
far from being a "power user", so it's not suprising that, over
fifteen years later, most people are running with equipment at
least as good as what I had then.

On the other hand, this is monitor width. Don't get tricked into
thinking that this equates to canvas width. Between not running
browsers maximized, browser chrome, various sidebars, there's no
way of knowing how many pixels you have available.

>That's a ghastly page. It's particularly bad on a FF window under
890px wide.

>I had that site looking OK at high resolution, but it was (as you
said) ghastly at low resolution.

Nothing was said about "resolution ". The reference was to the width
of the FF window.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Discl aimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <20************ *************@w alkabout.empros .com>, Michael Stemper writes:

<brain fart>

>My first PC, purchased in 1992, had a 1024x1280 monitor,

That should have said "1280x1024" .

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Discl aimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.

[salmobytes]

On Jan 22, 11:13 am, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_n ot.comwrote:

thanks, that *was* helpful.

I have a pretty thick skin, most of the time.
I know If I ask a question on usenet a stream of poison will
inevitably result,
punctuated by occasional civility.

Oddly, or perhaps interestingly, I often see the same sort of poison
attached to the
same well-known names on multiple groups. Some people just can't get
enough.
For most of this threads responders (not you) here's a link that might
help:
http://www.excaliburcutlery.com/rubi...FQNCgwodmis9GQ

It'll be a while before I return.