screen resolution solutions

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.

==========Static 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.......

salmobytes wrote:

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.

==========Static 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 */

I thought you said you try to do all CSS with percents and ems.

font-size: 80%; /* I'm not sure what this does.....% is
percent of what?

80% of the font size established for the containing element.

Regardless the answer, this seems
to produce
badly pixelated fonts in some
browsers */

You're missing the point.

body { font-size: 100%; }

states affirmatively that the text should appear in the font that the
user has by default set his browser to use as the default body text font
size. If you want footnotes or sidebars to have slightly smaller text,

.footnote { font-size: 90%; }

And so forth. If the user wants a different font size, then instead of
first having to notice and then having to use whatever mechanism you
might offer that only has an effect on your site, the user can use the
same mechanism built into his browser that he uses wherever he goes on
the Web.

Scripsit 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.

You're kidding, right?

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?

Does "salmo" in your nickname refer to /Salmo salaris/, a noble fish for
trolling?

A 700 pixel wide image that looks great at
high resolution bombs the layout at 768 pixels wide.

Did you ever consider starting to read an introduction to the first
principles of the basics of web authoring?

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

Sorry, now you're just boring. There's no fun in just repeating old very
stupid ideas without inventing any new foolishness.

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

On 2008-01-17, salmobytes <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

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.

It depends on the design. Something that works at all viewport and font
sizes within reason is ideal, but I realize that may not always be
possible.

[...]

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?

http://www.yahoo.co.uk is one. Go to "Page Options" over on the right.
You can choose "narrow" or "wide" layout (as well as your choice of
pastel colour scheme).

It switches in and out different stylesheets and may do other things
besides.

I think it also tries to detect your viewport size when you first visit
the page to decide whether to give you wide or narrow to start off with.

On Jan 17, 12:09 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

Read and heed:http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Good page(s), thank you. Yes, avoiding Verdana and using font-size as
a percent seems to come closest to ideal. font-size: 85% for
footnotes
and auxilliary links, etc. seems to look OK in Firefox and IE, but
often pixelated
in Safari. Thanks to who ever it was for the yahoo, custom css
links. I think I'll start to work towards pages that work that way.
Almost everything I write is generated from code anyway, so adding
user customization menus (chooseable css) is practical in that
context.

RE> hand held devices. Yes, the web will always
involve compromise. I'm *trying to learn* how to minimize the
compromises.
I get a lot of good info here, along with the chaffe.

And yes, salmo does refer to that noble salmo family:
salmo trutta
salmo salar, etc.
I'd post a link to my (home-rolled, fishing related) website.
But I'm too tired to deal with the inevitable snipers right now.

What you see on 800 pixel-wide screens is so vastly different
than at 1024 I think you have to do offer some display choices.
Somehow, someway. Hey ney oh wey.

salmobytes wrote:

What you see on 800 pixel-wide screens is so vastly different
than at 1024 I think you have to do offer some display choices.
Somehow, someway. Hey ney oh wey.

You have to? Even though almost no website does, and yet the world keeps
spinning?

Scripsit Harlan Messinger:

salmobytes wrote:
What you see on 800 pixel-wide screens is so vastly different
than at 1024 I think you have to do offer some display choices.
Somehow, someway. Hey ney oh wey.

You have to? Even though almost no website does, and yet the world
keeps spinning?

Well, "salmobytes" already showed that he or she has little clue of what
web authoring is. He or she would probably get mad if he or she realized
that there are are other resolutions, too, far smaller and far larger
than the "both resolutions" he or she is designing for, especially when
we consider the resolution of the window (or canvas) - which matters -
and not the screen.

But "salmobytes" was probably just trolling.

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

On Jan 18, 2:59 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

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."

Not all layouts are so tricky.
And no, I wasn't trolling.
I bit your little insult lure.
So perhaps you were.

The world is hopeless. Too many jerks worldwide.

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).

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

On 2008-01-18, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

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.