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**********@gmail.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**********@gmail.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**********@gmail.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**********@gmail.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 ?

[Stewart Gordon]

di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:
<snip>

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 ?

Tell your boss to get a clue and stop insisting on the non-existent.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[dingbat]

Stewart Gordon wrote:

Tell your boss to get a clue and stop insisting on the non-existent.

So what do you for a job? Are you a professional web bod (i.e. do you
make your income from it?) I am, to be specific I'm a contractor.
Typically I work a month or two building something, from someone else's
Photoslop printout. Yes, this sucks.

I'm not a "jobbing web shop" where Bob of Bob's House Of Widgets knocks
on the door and asks for "a site". Nor am I working for one boss long
enough to really have much chance of educating them. Sometimes by the
_end_ of the contract I'm credible enough to make them listen, but
rarely at the start when it could really help.

[David Ross]

di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:

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 ?

Until I retired, I was a software professional -- 7 years as a
programmer and 34 years as a tester. Most of my test experience
was with an outside contractor that tested software developed by
other contractors for the U.S. Airforce. The work also included
system engineering, user support, and auditing lower-level tests
done by the developer contractors.

The systems engineering included reviewing proposed changes in
existing capabilities for feasibility and cost. Because I
considered myself a professional, I would tell the customer when
their request would not be feasible or might be feasible if they
accepted breakage in other capabilities. Sometimes I would
convince the customer to reject the proposed change, sometimes
not.

The key was that I gave a professional evaluation of what was
proposed. When I considered the proposal to be unsatisfactory, I
warned the customer that ignoring my advice might have adverse
results on fulfilling the customer's mission. I did this all in
writing so that, when the shit hit the fan, I had a record of the
customer ignoring my advice. I did this for 24 years.

Be a professional. Advise your customer -- in writing -- of the
consequences of his demands. If the demands don't change, comply.
But save a record of your advice. It might prove useful when the
customer sues you for giving him what he demanded.

--

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/>.

[Stewart Gordon]

di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:

Tell your boss to get a clue and stop insisting on the non-existent.
So what do you for a job? Are you a professional web bod (i.e. do you
make your income from it?)

No. I'm a PhD maths student at the moment (but probably won't be for
much longer).
I am, to be specific I'm a contractor.
Typically I work a month or two building something, from someone else's
Photoslop printout. Yes, this sucks.
Do clients' specs tend to be anything more than a Photoslop printout? I
feel sorry for you and your current client who has added insistence on a
fixed-width design to the spec. And did you mention fixed font sizes as
well?
I'm not a "jobbing web shop" where Bob of Bob's House Of Widgets knocks
on the door and asks for "a site". Nor am I working for one boss long
enough to really have much chance of educating them. Sometimes by the
_end_ of the contract I'm credible enough to make them listen, but
rarely at the start when it could really help.

I see. Hopefully one of these days you'll be found by a boss who wants
designs that scale properly and have good accessibility. Good luck.

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:

Tell your boss to get a clue and stop insisting on the non-existent.

So what do you for a job? Are you a professional web bod (i.e. do you
make your income from it?) I am, to be specific I'm a contractor.
Typically I work a month or two building something, from someone else's
Photoslop printout. Yes, this sucks.

As I understand it, film makers (of a certain kind) make films based
on samples which are presented as story boards.

*BUT* the films don't look exactly like the story boards, indeed they
would be rather disappointing if they did. The sponsors rely on the
film makers to translate the story boards into something which makes
sense *in the film medium*. Why would your sponsors not rely on you
to translate their printouts into something which makes sense in the
web medium? Seems to me that a key to the dilemma may lie in the
answer to that question.

Do the folks who contract you *really* expect the web sites to look
*exactly* like their printout, in all of the display situations that
those folks are capable of conceiving of? - (even making allowance for
the fact that they're as yet incapable of conceiving of many of the
display situations which exist on the real WWW, and probably ready
to discount any of them which might be brought to their attention).

I'm keenly aware that from my position as a system admin in a research
situation, with only a long-standing hobby interest in the WWW, I'm in
no position to educate you in how to deal with those who sponsor you
to make their web sites. But surely they aren't totally impermeable
to the reality of the WWW? Nobody is suggesting that the pages should
not look, within reason, the way that they want them, in the narrow
range of situations they have in mind - it's about their flexibility
in response to other presentation needs and situations, surely?

Universities, too, have officially-produced web pages. I've noticed
that, after a disappointing start to WAI where the Powers That Be
seemed to be concentrating exclusively on the objective tests of
accessibility, without showing sympathy for underlying principles -
and, as a result, producing web pages that were IMHO even *less*
accessible than they had been before[1] - I'm perceiving an increasing
sympathy for the flexible realities of the WWW, with reason to hope
for a positive outcome.

[1] try pointing Lynx at this URL from 2002 to get an idea:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/www/accessibility/index.html

[Andreas Prilop]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

[1] try pointing Lynx at this URL from 2002 to get an idea:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/www/accessibility/index.html

Of course, I try the "Text Only" link on top of the page.
However, I receive:

| Your Web client does not have permission to access this page.

[Andreas Prilop]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Tim wrote:

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.

Maybe this nonsense
http://www.sitepoint.com/print/stand...ompliant-world
written by Kevin Junk.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

[1] try pointing Lynx at this URL from 2002 to get an idea:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/www/accessibility/index.html

Of course, I try the "Text Only" link on top of the page.
However, I receive:

| Your Web client does not have permission to access this page.

Interesting/amusing: that might have been intended to prevent
off-campus access to the Betsie facilities; but I get the same result
when trying to access it from on-campus too. So much for
accessibility...

But, as I argued at the time: a properly designed web page can work
just fine on a text-only browser[1], it does not need any special
text-only engine at the server side. And what I was really calling
attention to is, access with a text-only browser to the cited page,
rather than to anything that might be linked from it (including the
Betsie engine).

Incidentally, the originally cited page turns into a terrible mess if
viewed on the "Elinks" text-mode browser, which dutifully tries to
apply the table layout. But, those who choose a text-mode browser for
accessibility reasons[2] would, I suppose, surely choose Lynx in
preference to Elinks.

regards

[1] I'd concede that a text-only version might, just *might*, be of
some use when a certain kind of user is browsing with a graphical
browser. But I'm sure there are better, and client-side, resolutions
to that kind of requirement.

[2] Just to recognise that there are plenty who say there is no need
to choose a text-mode browser for accessibility reasons, and indeed
say that it's an inferior choice for many WAI situations. But I'm
talking about those who do so, or whose choice (speaking browser,
brailler, whatever) is functionally equivalent.

[Andreas Prilop]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

So much for accessibility...

http://google.com/search?q=Leider.un...plett&filter=0

:-(

[kchayka]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Do the folks who contract you *really* expect the web sites to look
*exactly* like their printout, in all of the display situations that
those folks are capable of conceiving of? - (even making allowance for
the fact that they're as yet incapable of conceiving of many

In many cases, it simply doesn't occur to them that different display
situations even exist. If you bring it to their attention, without
making them feel under attack or stupid, they just might listen.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.