By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,851 Members | 1,109 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,851 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

different pages for different screen resolutions

P: n/a
Hello all:

To deal with the problem of differing user screen resolutions, I've
explored: 1) making the pages in PHP, 2) having different pages on the
same page and selecting the proper one via JavaScript, and 3) using
fancy redirects and forced "back skip" redirects with cookies. Every
approach has some fatal flaw as far as I have been able to persue it.
My most recent idea is to make multiple style sheets (selectable via
javascript -- and assuming 800x600 for those with JS turned off) and
let these format the page's content depending on the resolution. But
before I jump into this latest approach, if anyone could throw some
light on this, I'd be very grateful. I do know the main tricks for
making a page grow and shrink in a visually pleasing way, but for this
project, I really have to design to a particular resolution.

Thanks,
Dufe
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
Dufe wrote:

To deal with the problem of differing user screen resolutions,


http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:41:01 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
Hello all:

To deal with the problem of differing user screen resolutions, I've
explored: 1) making the pages in PHP, 2) having different pages on the
same page and selecting the proper one via JavaScript, and 3) using
fancy redirects and forced "back skip" redirects with cookies. Every
approach has some fatal flaw as far as I have been able to persue it.
My most recent idea is to make multiple style sheets (selectable via
javascript -- and assuming 800x600 for those with JS turned off) and
let these format the page's content depending on the resolution. But
before I jump into this latest approach, if anyone could throw some
light on this, I'd be very grateful. I do know the main tricks for
making a page grow and shrink in a visually pleasing way, but for this
project, I really have to design to a particular resolution.

Thanks,
Dufe

Jeez, and all this time I've just been using percentages for widths and
all that. Boy am I behind the times...

A little bio here. By profession, I'm a musician. Classical conductor,
rocker, jazz player, all of it. And I'm a half-decent cartoonist to boot.
Yay me. Anyway...

I've found that even if you have the skills, you cannot make a big band
sound like a rock band, and you cannot make a jazz combo sound like a
symphony orchestra. And I cannot draw a lifelike portrait you'd want over
the average couch or fireplace using the normal palette of cartooning
techniques. Each medium has its limits.

However, web designers seem to have this idea that any design should be
possible...

Part of artistry - of which web design should be considered a part - is
that there are inherent limits placed on your creation. Unfettered
creation never works in the real world. If a jazz improvisationalist plays
anything that pps in her mind with no regard to the limits of the harmonic
situation, she gets dissonance beyond the human ear's capacity to parse.
If an artist attempts to use colors in any way that suits him, he gets a
mud of paint on the canvas which pleases no one.

Especially since commerce drives the art of web design far more than it
drives the arts of painting and jazz, it's of paramount importance to the
web author to work well within the bounds of his medium. While a jazz
player would soon be out of work if he intentionally laid on the B natural
on a C7 chord every single time, somehow web designers are getting away
with using frames as layout and insisting that, although every possible
screen dimension is possible at every single moment, they have to design
to a particular screen width.

What do you plan to do when I come upon your site with my browser at 500px
wide? 640? 800? 1024?

Can you POSSIBLY account for every pixel in between, where I might have my
browser sized? Regardless of my resolution? Maybe I'm running 1024 wide,
but maybe I need to keep my messaging program open, so I'm actually at 900
px? Will you account for that in your already-too-complex page design?

I suggest - work within the boundaries of web design. Don't pretend you
have any more control over the parameters of user needs, anymore than
artists believe they can put paint an inch in front of or behind the
canvas, or than musicians assume there are any more or less than 12
semitones in an octave.

End rant.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:41:01 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
To deal with the problem of differing user screen resolutions, I've
explored: 1) making the pages in PHP, 2) having different pages on the
same page and selecting the proper one via JavaScript, and 3) using
fancy redirects and forced "back skip" redirects with cookies. Every
approach has some fatal flaw as far as I have been able to persue it.
My most recent idea is to make multiple style sheets (selectable via
javascript -- and assuming 800x600 for those with JS turned off) and
let these format the page's content depending on the resolution. But
before I jump into this latest approach, if anyone could throw some
light on this, I'd be very grateful. I do know the main tricks for
making a page grow and shrink in a visually pleasing way, but for this
project, I really have to design to a particular resolution.


See if these help:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmat...lexdesign.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:43:24 -0500, Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
Jeez, and all this time I've just been using percentages for widths and
all that. Boy am I behind the times...

A little bio here. By profession, I'm a musician. Classical conductor,
rocker, jazz player, all of it. And I'm a half-decent cartoonist to boot.
Yay me. Anyway...

I've found that even if you have the skills, you cannot make a big band
sound like a rock band, and you cannot make a jazz combo sound like a
symphony orchestra. And I cannot draw a lifelike portrait you'd want over
the average couch or fireplace using the normal palette of cartooning
techniques. Each medium has its limits.

However, web designers seem to have this idea that any design should be
possible...

Part of artistry - of which web design should be considered a part - is
that there are inherent limits placed on your creation. Unfettered
creation never works in the real world. If a jazz improvisationalist plays
anything that pps in her mind with no regard to the limits of the harmonic
situation, she gets dissonance beyond the human ear's capacity to parse.
If an artist attempts to use colors in any way that suits him, he gets a
mud of paint on the canvas which pleases no one.

Especially since commerce drives the art of web design far more than it
drives the arts of painting and jazz, it's of paramount importance to the
web author to work well within the bounds of his medium. While a jazz
player would soon be out of work if he intentionally laid on the B natural
on a C7 chord every single time, somehow web designers are getting away
with using frames as layout and insisting that, although every possible
screen dimension is possible at every single moment, they have to design
to a particular screen width.

What do you plan to do when I come upon your site with my browser at 500px
wide? 640? 800? 1024?

Can you POSSIBLY account for every pixel in between, where I might have my
browser sized? Regardless of my resolution? Maybe I'm running 1024 wide,
but maybe I need to keep my messaging program open, so I'm actually at 900
px? Will you account for that in your already-too-complex page design?

I suggest - work within the boundaries of web design. Don't pretend you
have any more control over the parameters of user needs, anymore than
artists believe they can put paint an inch in front of or behind the
canvas, or than musicians assume there are any more or less than 12
semitones in an octave.

End rant.
Hey Neal,

I'm trying to find some way to incorporate my newfound interest in
drum playing in my reply, but nothing's coming to me so I'll just plod
ahead.

I appreaciate your rant and the links the others gave me. Alas, none
of them were what I was after (as I expected) so at least now I have a
little more assurance that I'm not overlooking something everybody
else knows. You said:
What do you plan to do when I come upon your site with my browser at 500px
wide? 640? 800? 1024?


If you had anything under a 1024 or less wide res, I'd give you my
"800 page". If you had 1024 or more, I'd give you my "1024 page".
The "1024" page would be centered in larger res screens. There's not
enough people using screens larger than 1024 at this time to warrant
the extra trouble of making a, say, "1280 page."

You could say I'm being too rigid in this approach and that I should
take advantage of the tools that are available for letting the content
adapt itself to the user's resolution, but my reply is that I just
want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024) and then
letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest (non-mazximized
screens, off standard resolutions, etc).

But all this aside, IF someone (like me) is willing to go to the
trouble of making more than one page to more accurately target the
user's resolution, you would think there would be a straight forward
mechanism for dishing the right one up to the user, wouldn't you? I
have yet to find it.

Rene
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Dufe wrote:

I just want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024)
and then letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest
(non-mazximized screens, off standard resolutions, etc).
Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control.
But all this aside, IF someone (like me) is willing to go to the
trouble of making more than one page to more accurately target the
user's resolution,
Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned.
you would think there would be a straight forward mechanism for
dishing the right one up to the user, wouldn't you?


No, I would not, since there is no straightforward way to determine
the user's resolution in the first place. And that's a good thing. I
don't want web sites to know anything about me. I prefer to remain
anonymous when I'm browsing, thank you. Just provide the content with
useful presentation suggestions; I'll handle the rest.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
I appreaciate your rant and the links the others gave me.
Here's another one:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/des...ml#screen-size
You could say I'm being too rigid in this approach and that I should
take advantage of the tools that are available for letting the content
adapt itself to the user's resolution, but my reply is that I just
want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024) and then
letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest (non-mazximized
screens, off standard resolutions, etc).
Do you realize that by default, all major browsers open non-maximized
windows?

And FWIW, on the system I'm using right now, my screen resolution is higher
than 1024px wide, but my default browser windows are narrower than 800px.

Why not just let "the flexibility of html" deal with the relatively minor
difference between 800px and 1024px?
But all this aside, IF someone (like me) is willing to go to the
trouble of making more than one page to more accurately target the
user's resolution, you would think there would be a straight forward
mechanism for dishing the right one up to the user, wouldn't you?


No, I wouldn't. There are browsing situations where the concept of
"resolution" is meaningless. Even when it is meaningful, it is usually
irrelevant because the resolution doesn't match the size of the available
display area (in addition to non-maximized windows, consider hotlists,
explorer bars, scrollbars, window chrome, etc.).
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Return of Rallye to Middle Earth (Saturday, Feb. 7)
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote in
news:6h********************************@4ax.com:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:43:24 -0500, Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
Can you POSSIBLY account for every pixel in between, where I might
have my browser sized? Regardless of my resolution? Maybe I'm running
1024 wide, but maybe I need to keep my messaging program open, so I'm
actually at 900 px? Will you account for that in your
already-too-complex page design?
If you had anything under a 1024 or less wide res, I'd give you my
"800 page". If you had 1024 or more, I'd give you my "1024 page".
The "1024" page would be centered in larger res screens. There's not
enough people using screens larger than 1024 at this time to warrant
the extra trouble of making a, say, "1280 page."


I think you're missing one of Neal's most important points. He just
described a situation where he was running his browser at a width
substantially less than that of his screen for the rather simple reason
that he had some other, rather important to him, stuff up on his screen
and wanted to be able to see it *in addition to* what was in his browser.
If you give him a Web page that's designed to a fixed width and center it
on his screen, it will cover up the rest of the stuff he wanted and he'll
have to move it, rescale it, or both (or hit his back button and go
somewhere else). You're making the presumption, possibly without really
realizing it, that anybody looking at your page isn't doing anything else.

You're making the common mistake of assuming that, as a Web designer, your
"territory" is the user's entire desktop, rather than the portion of the
desktop that the user, for whatever reasons, has set aside for Web
browsing. The popular argument that users don't know how to allocate their
desktop space and that they really want to give you the ability to play
with their entire desktop simply doesn't cut it: it's just a combination of
arrogance and wishful thinking. One of those inherent artistic limitations
that Neal was talking about is that on the Web your viewer, rather than
you, gets to choose the size of the canvas you get to work on. It's a
whole lot different from the limitations you have to work with in print
design, that's for sure. But a true artist comes up with new techniques
that respect, rather than rebel against, the limitations of the medium.
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:25:09 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Dufe wrote:

I just want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024)
and then letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest
(non-mazximized screens, off standard resolutions, etc).
Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control.
But all this aside, IF someone (like me) is willing to go to the
trouble of making more than one page to more accurately target the
user's resolution,


Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned.
you would think there would be a straight forward mechanism for
dishing the right one up to the user, wouldn't you?


No, I would not, since there is no straightforward way to determine
the user's resolution in the first place. And that's a good thing. I
don't want web sites to know anything about me. I prefer to remain
anonymous when I'm browsing, thank you. Just provide the content with
useful presentation suggestions; I'll handle the rest.


I've sure stepped into a hornet's nest here. As maybe you can tell,
I'm not an insider, but a technical person with some artistic
background who is getting into it. My initial aim here was just to
see if something that (to me) seemed reasonable was technically
possible, but I seemed to have crossed over into some major
philosophical underpinnings of web design.

You say:Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control. That's the point of my question --ie, how can I get that control?
About not being able to know the presentation details, that's false.
Javascript will tell you the user's resolution. I realize 12 or so %
of users have JS turned off, so for them I'll assume a safe baseline
of say, 800 wide resolution. If they have a larger resolution and
would turn on JS, then they could enjoy a presentation more suited to
their screen. It's their loss.

You say:Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned. That's what I'm trying to do. It's a question of means not ends. You
seem to be saying that I should make ONE PAGE that everybody can watch
whereas I'm saying I want to make multiple pages to accomplish the
same end. It's like you're saying I should make one size t-shirt out
of spandex that'll fit everybody whereas I'm saying I'd like to make
S, M, and L t-shirts out of cotton (or slightly stretchable
cotton/polyester). Why would someone insist on multiple pages when
one will do (rhetorical question)? The truth is, one will not do if
your aim is to maximize the available screen real estate. On the wide
displays, you're going to have lots of wasted space.

You say: I prefer to remain
anonymous when I'm browsing, thank you. Just provide the content with
useful presentation suggestions; I'll handle the rest.

That's kind of paranoid, dude. You don't want anyone to know your
screen resolution? It's not exactly your social security number.

But, in the end (I won't say "at the end of the day" as that phrase is
too worn out these days), even if you think my approach of making
multiple resolution versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you
think it's appropriate to at least have that technical capability for
the 1 on 1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.

Rene
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
In article <cf********************************@4ax.com>,
Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control.
That's the point of my question --ie, how can I get that control?
Cannot.
About not being able to know the presentation details, that's false.
Javascript will tell you the user's resolution.
Not related to a browser's window size.
I realize 12 or so %
of users have JS turned off, so for them I'll assume a safe baseline
of say, 800 wide resolution.
There is 'ass' in assumption.
If they have a larger resolution and
would turn on JS, then they could enjoy a presentation more suited to
their screen. It's their loss.
No, it's yours. You could have done better, but refused.
You say:
Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned.
That's what I'm trying to do. It's a question of means not ends. You
seem to be saying that I should make ONE PAGE that everybody can watch
whereas I'm saying I want to make multiple pages to accomplish the
same end.
You cannot. That would mean an endless amount of pages for every browser
window size imaginable. Deciding you only need X, means less than X+Y,
an number that only the first method can guarantee.
It's like you're saying I should make one size t-shirt out
of spandex that'll fit everybody whereas I'm saying I'd like to make
S, M, and L t-shirts out of cotton (or slightly stretchable
cotton/polyester).
No. This is the web.
Why would someone insist on multiple pages when
one will do (rhetorical question)? The truth is, one will not do if
your aim is to maximize the available screen real estate.
A flexible, liquid design _will_ maximize to available window real
estate.
On the wide
displays, you're going to have lots of wasted space.
No. The design is liquid.

You say:
I prefer to remain
anonymous when I'm browsing, thank you. Just provide the content with
useful presentation suggestions; I'll handle the rest.
That's kind of paranoid, dude. You don't want anyone to know your
screen resolution? It's not exactly your social security number.
But, in the end (I won't say "at the end of the day" as that phrase is
too worn out these days), even if you think my approach of making
multiple resolution versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you
think it's appropriate to at least have that technical capability for
the 1 on 1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.


Want freedom? Choose a profession in which you don't have to answer to
anyone.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:36:21 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
It's like you're saying I should make one size t-shirt out
of spandex that'll fit everybody whereas I'm saying I'd like to make
S, M, and L t-shirts out of cotton (or slightly stretchable
cotton/polyester).
But what you're failing to recognize here is that the Web is not a t-shirt.

If you really want to have separate sizes, why not automatically load the
800px page, and offer the option to switch to the 1024px version? You're
getting all that Javascript crap out of the way entirely, and focusing on
the user's preference.
But, in the end (I won't say "at the end of the day" as that phrase is
too worn out these days), even if you think my approach of making
multiple resolution versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you
think it's appropriate to at least have that technical capability for
the 1 on 1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.


Freedom is about being able to vote, to not have the cops arrest you when
you've done nothing wrong, and to be at least reasonably sure your kids
won't get shot in the street, not about being able to foist some silly
webpage at a viewer in a format they might or might not want. That's not
freedom, that's arrogance.
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote in news:op**************@news.rcn.com:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:36:21 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
But, in the end (I won't say "at the end of the day" as that phrase
is too worn out these days), even if you think my approach of making
multiple resolution versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you
think it's appropriate to at least have that technical capability for
the 1 on 1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.


Freedom is about being able to vote, to not have the cops arrest you
when you've done nothing wrong, and to be at least reasonably sure
your kids won't get shot in the street, not about being able to foist
some silly webpage at a viewer in a format they might or might not
want. That's not freedom, that's arrogance.


Dufe seems to be confusing "freedom" with "control." The problem that he's
running into is that other people (the people, presumably, he's writing his
pages for) are exercising *their* freedom to allocate space on their
displays the ways that suit him best, and that deprives him of control.
Freedom means not being subject to undue control by third parties, *not*
being able to exercise undue control over third parties.

The simple fact is that nothing on the Web gives an author the power to
rearrange a user's desktop, and that's the way it *should* be. A painter
doesn't have the power to change the decor in the room where his painting
is hung. A musician doesn't have the power to move the speakers in the
room where people are listening to his performance, even if moving the
speakers would result in objectively better sound. An author doesn't have
the power to brighten or dim the light that someone is reading her book by;
J.K. Rowling's characters might be able to do that (I could *definitely*
see Gilderoy Lockhart trying to, though I suspect his attempts would be
about as successful as those of clueless Web designers but with more harm
done), but she can't. Yet somehow all these artists manage to be
successful despite lacking that level of control. In fact, any real artist
would regard someone who *wanted* that level of control as a wannabe.

I think what's going on here is that somehow people expect computers to
give them far more control than other technologies can. And in a pure
standalone personal computer scenario, they can. But once you start
talking about networking different people's computers together, many things
that might be good in the standalone scenario quite suddenly become very
bad. There's actually a Real World analogy; there are things that you can
do in your home that you can't do in your neighborhood, and I'm not just
talking about "thingy"; one of those things is making rules for others.
You can make just about any rule you want to for your family or your
houseguests, but you can't do the same thing for your neighbors.

In fact, I think there's a fundamental difference in mental model between
the "standards" crowd and the "dee-zyner" crowd: the former think that when
the viewer browses their work, they, the authors, are guests in the
viewer's space; the latter think that the viewer is a guest in the author's
space.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:06:05 -0500, Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:36:21 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
It's like you're saying I should make one size t-shirt out
of spandex that'll fit everybody whereas I'm saying I'd like to make
S, M, and L t-shirts out of cotton (or slightly stretchable
cotton/polyester).


But what you're failing to recognize here is that the Web is not a t-shirt.

If you really want to have separate sizes, why not automatically load the
800px page, and offer the option to switch to the 1024px version? You're
getting all that Javascript crap out of the way entirely, and focusing on
the user's preference.
But, in the end (I won't say "at the end of the day" as that phrase is
too worn out these days), even if you think my approach of making
multiple resolution versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you
think it's appropriate to at least have that technical capability for
the 1 on 1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.


Freedom is about being able to vote, to not have the cops arrest you when
you've done nothing wrong, and to be at least reasonably sure your kids
won't get shot in the street, not about being able to foist some silly
webpage at a viewer in a format they might or might not want. That's not
freedom, that's arrogance.


Alright guys, I'm outta here. You're one closed minded smug bunch,
that's for sure. You feed back and forth off each other so much youi
don't have any perspective. It's scary. The really sad thing is
you're probably young. I'll let you kids go back to playing.

Dufe
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:49:49 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
Alright guys, I'm outta here. You're one closed minded smug bunch,
that's for sure. You feed back and forth off each other so much youi
don't have any perspective. It's scary. The really sad thing is
you're probably young. I'll let you kids go back to playing.

Dufe

It just amuses me. I've been called smug, but my worst enemies would laugh
at you calling me close-minded.

Oh, and we're probably young too. Oh I wish...
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Dufe wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:25:09 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
there is no straightforward way to
determine the user's resolution in the first place. And that's a
good thing.
I've sure stepped into a hornet's nest here.


No. You've brought up a topic that's been discussed scores of times in
ciwa*. If my answer was curt, it's because I didn't think I should
have to explain it without you first reading what's already on the record.
Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know,
and over which you have no control.


That's the point of my question --ie, how can I get that control?


You already asked that. I already answered: you cannot. So stop
fretting over it, because fretting will get you no closer to that
control you want.
Javascript will tell you the user's resolution.
You think this will solve your control issues. It will not. Will js
tell you how large their browser window is?
I realize 12 or so % of users have JS turned off,
And how do you know it's 12%? (Before answering, read other threads
about js, hit counting, proxy cacheing, etc.)
so for them I'll assume a safe baseline of say, 800 wide
resolution.
And what makes you think that's a "safe baseline?"
If they have a larger resolution and would turn on JS,
Which is not always an available, and when it is, not always the smart
choice.
then they could enjoy a presentation more suited to their screen.
It's their loss.
Let's assume that your figure is right. 12%, you said. Would you do
the same in a brick and mortar store? Provide good service to 88% of
your customers, and stick it to the rest?

BTW, what if their resolution is *smaller* than your "baseline." Do
your users browse full screen?

There are far too many unanswered -- and unanswerable -- questions in
the context of the www. The only way to successfully cater to all
resolutions is to cater to none, if you'll pardon the zen-like phrase.
Don't pick one resolution (or 2, or 3). Design without fixing your
presentation. Then it will work in all of them. You know, folks here
have been doing that for some time. We've tried it. It works. You
might just take the advice and try it yourself. Or not. Your choice.
You seem to be saying that I should make ONE PAGE that everybody
can watch whereas I'm saying I want to make multiple pages to
accomplish the same end.
If you want to go through extra work and produce a less
usable/visually appealing page, noone is stopping you. But I
respectfully suggest that you misunderstand the www. Your job as a web
author is to provide content. You can also make presentation
suggestions, preferably via css since that is the most flexible way.
The final presentation, though, is not in your hands; it is up the
users and their browsers.
I prefer to remain anonymous when I'm browsing, thank you. Just
provide the content with useful presentation suggestions; I'll
handle the rest.


That's kind of paranoid, dude. You don't want anyone to know your
screen resolution?


My computer resolution is not your business. Neither is my os. Nor
which browser I use.
even if you think my approach of making multiple resolution
versions is completely wrongheaded, don't you think it's
appropriate to at least have that technical capability for the 1 on
1,000 case in which it might have some possible utility?
No, it is not appropriate. And what is the 1 in 1,000 case where you
(think you) need it?
Call ME paranoid, but that smacks of taking away of freedom.


Your rights to know the screen resolution apply to your computer, not
mine. I don't think you have any more right to know my computer
resolution than you should know what softare I run. Or what kind of
gasoline (petrol for you right-ponders) I put in my car. Etc.

--
Best,
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Eric Bohlman wrote:

I think there's a fundamental difference in mental model between
the "standards" crowd and the "dee-zyner" crowd: the former think
that when the viewer browses their work, they, the authors, are
guests in the viewer's space; the latter think that the viewer is a
guest in the author's space.


That's very well said. It deserves to be a faq or otherwise available
to newcomers.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Dufe wrote:

Alright guys, I'm outta here.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
You're one closed minded smug bunch, that's for sure. You feed back
and forth off each other so much youi don't have any perspective.
It's scary. The really sad thing is you're probably young.


I was going to trim this down, but I decided I'd leave the textbook ad
hominem attack in its entirety.

If you have some evidence to show that we're wrong, than do say so.
But repeating that you really want to control the presentation is not
evidence that such control is possible.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
In article <8k********************************@4ax.com>,
Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
Alright guys, I'm outta here.


Bye, have fun.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:36:21 -0800, Dufe <El****@sbcgolbal.net> wrote:
That's the point of my question --ie, how can I get that control?
About not being able to know the presentation details, that's false.
Javascript will tell you the user's resolution. I realize 12 or so %
of users have JS turned off, so for them I'll assume a safe baseline
of say, 800 wide resolution. If they have a larger resolution and
would turn on JS, then they could enjoy a presentation more suited to
their screen. It's their loss.


Well, if you are going to do this, please at least use the correct
dimension: i.e. the user's window size, not their screen size.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:25:09 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
I just want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024)
and then letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest
(non-mazximized screens, off standard resolutions, etc).


Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control.


Well, you can actually know that in the majority of cases, and you don't
need to control it - just adapt to it.

But all this aside, IF someone (like me) is willing to go to the
trouble of making more than one page to more accurately target the
user's resolution,


Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned.


That's quite a bit oversimplified. What size do you propose to make your
images, so that they will display well on both a web-enabled telephone
and a 2000-pixel-width technical workstation?

It's fair enough to suggest that with flexible design one can cope with
a fair bit of variation in window sizes. But if you really want to cope
with "everyone's resolution" then you need to do more, unless you're
going to stick to text-only sites. That was the reason for the
experimenting I did in the page I previously mentioned
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html) which isn't
exactly a finished product, but could be the basis for something useful.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Stephen Poley wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Brian wrote:
I just want the option of making 2 "ballpark pages" (800 and 1024)
and then letting the flexibility of html fill in the rest
Stop worrying over presentation details which you cannot know, and
over which you have no control.


Well, you can actually know that in the majority of cases


Perhaps I was being too curt (see below). Still, if you cannot know in
a significant minority of cases, then your design cannot be based on
knowing it.
and you don't need to control it - just adapt to it.
It seems to me that if you don't need to control it, then you don't
need to know it.
Design flexibly, and you can target everyone's resolution, including
the two you mentioned.


That's quite a bit oversimplified.


It may be that, in answering the same questions over and over again, I
have taken to abbreviating my comments more than I should. I concede
your point, especially as it pertains to images and other fixed media.
What size do you propose to make your
images, so that they will display well on both a web-enabled telephone
and a 2000-pixel-width technical workstation?
Images present such a dilemma. To some degree, that is inherent in the
content.

However, the op appears to have had other concerns. He wanted to be
able to distinguish between 800 and 1024, and letting "html fill in
the rest." Perhaps I read too much into that, but it looked like he
was talking about text marked up in html and a fairly small screen
size difference.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html)


Interesting idea. It was suprisingly fast to change image size. Using
Mozilla 1.3/Win2k. I do have a lot of memory, but then so does
everyone these days. Or so it seems.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Seen on the web:
This page best viewed by coming over to my office and looking at it on
my monitor.

Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
CJM

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:QFZQb.149310$xy6.723863@attbi_s02...
What size do you propose to make your
images, so that they will display well on both a web-enabled telephone
and a 2000-pixel-width technical workstation?


Images present such a dilemma. To some degree, that is inherent in the
content.

However, the op appears to have had other concerns. He wanted to be
able to distinguish between 800 and 1024, and letting "html fill in
the rest." Perhaps I read too much into that, but it looked like he
was talking about text marked up in html and a fairly small screen
size difference.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/resize.html)


I think you were right in your interpretation of the OPs intentions, and as
such your response (curt or otherwise) was in the right general direction.

Stephen made a good point however. But not having much explicit experience
in other web-enable devices, I tend to go for the one size fits all
approach. Make sure it *works* for all window sizes, and *if* you can, also
make it look good.

CJM
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:33:10 -0000, CJM <cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Stephen made a good point however. But not having much explicit
experience
in other web-enable devices, I tend to go for the one size fits all
approach. Make sure it *works* for all window sizes, and *if* you can,
also
make it look good.


As working with PDA's is new for all of us (or most of us) I don't know of
many strategies that work for sizing things better for PDA's. Perhaps
future CSS can allow us to specify alternate images in handheld and screen
stylesheets.

However, didn't we recently discuss how various PDA browsers were not
observing the proper DTD and/or style sheet? This is a bit foggy in my
memory. The way that PDA's read the data, as I understand, needs to be
more predictable and uniform first, before authors can really put serious
effort into making their images optimized for that display.

I've put this badly, but I think you know what I mean.
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
news:wCQQb.143716$I06.1388665@attbi_s01:
Eric Bohlman wrote:

I think there's a fundamental difference in mental model between
the "standards" crowd and the "dee-zyner" crowd: the former think
that when the viewer browses their work, they, the authors, are
guests in the viewer's space; the latter think that the viewer is a
guest in the author's space.


That's very well said. It deserves to be a faq or otherwise available
to newcomers.


Anyone who wants to may use the quote as long as they attribute it
properly.
Jul 20 '05 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.