468,766 Members | 1,292 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,766 developers. It's quick & easy.

Retrieve text size???

Hi,
This is in connection to the tread: Re: changing browser text settings??

I am wondering if there is a way to retrieve the browsers text size (not
change! ;-) ) so that I can dynamically resize the size and position of the
layers to accomodate larger than normal text-size settings. I really hope
there is because it would mean not re-writing the whole page (which I'm not
sure how to go about).

the page is here:
http://www.skiwest.com/dev/welcome.htm
the lower left frame is the one i'm concerned about.

I know frames are probably a bad idea, but I think I will keep using them.
This allows people to move through the menu w/out clicking through pages
which takes time (especially if you are on dial-up). It is meant to quicken
the navigation of the site.

Thanks,
Billy
Jul 20 '05 #1
2 1205

"Billy" <bi***@jimtown.org> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
Hi,
This is in connection to the tread: Re: changing browser text settings??

I am wondering if there is a way to retrieve the browsers text size (not
change! ;-) )
AFAIK no, there is not.
so that I can dynamically resize the size and position of the
layers to accomodate larger than normal text-size settings. I really hope
there is because it would mean not re-writing the whole page (which I'm not sure how to go about).
You should let the browser resize the size and position of things. That is
what they are good at.
the page is here:
http://www.skiwest.com/dev/welcome.htm
the lower left frame is the one i'm concerned about.
Yep. I looked at this last time and thought is was a bit complicated. On
closer inspection it is *way* too complicated. You are trying so hard to
exactly position and size everything that you have painted yourself into a
corner :-)

Take a rather simpler approach. Making things invisible is not a good way to
remove them from the canvas. They still take up the space they were
allocated. This was your first wrong move and I suspect the rest of the
positioning stuff was to get around this :-)

A far better way to remove something from the canvas is to move it right off
the canvas, with position: absolute; top: -1000px; Then it is right out of
the way. In addition, since it is now out of the normal flow, everything
else around it will be reflowed by the browser. This is exaxtly what your
positioning stuff is attempting to do, however the browser does a much
better job.

You can also then forget about all of the heights and other things you are
doing with the various div's.

Have a look at this:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/snow/

It is your original page with the above different emphasis. Everything
(well, the important bits) has top: -1000px, which will be ignored unless
position is absolute. Everything we *want* on the canvas has no position, so
is in the normal layout flow. Everything we do *not* want on the canvas has
position: absolute and is taken out of the flow and removed from the canvas.

Also notice all if the normally hidden stuff is now visible by default and
is made hidden in an onLoad handler. That way the page works even if
javascript is not available. You will get a long page of links but at least
they will be there and available.
I know frames are probably a bad idea,
Yep. Very bad idea.
but I think I will keep using them.
This allows people to move through the menu w/out clicking through pages
Your menu system does not require this. There are no new pages loaded when a
branch of the tree is expanded.
which takes time (especially if you are on dial-up). It is meant to quicken the navigation of the site.


I would think not. If something needs to be loaded it doesn't matter if it
is in a frame or not.

Cheers
Richard.

Jul 20 '05 #2
Richard Formby wrote:
"Billy" <bi***@jimtown.org> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
which takes time (especially if you are on dial-up). It is meant to
quicken the navigation of the site.

I would think not. If something needs to be loaded it doesn't matter if it
is in a frame or not.


In the realm of the entire site, it will indded speed up navigation
since the navigation items need not be reloaded everytime the page
changes, which will impact loading time, which in turn impacts the
navigation time.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by J_axx | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by forums_mp | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by Marin | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.