![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
| |||
| |||
|
|
dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: In article <1j3gpoo.1n8envioqcmewN%j1 (AT) macunlimited (DOT) net>, j1 (AT) macunlimited (DOT) net (j) wrote: .... Continuing my experiments, I've removed the dimensions from the img tag and specified the width of the img to be 98% of the container div in the stylesheet. No height is specified. Image degradation aside, is this a better way to do it? http://tinyurl.com/nzvr2k Well, you did mention the drawback yourself. I would not be happy on a page of thumbnails to put image degradation aside. Except some browsers such as Firefox give you no choice and will enlarge both image and text. My question was more about the reliability of the code. |
#32
| |||
| |||
|
|
You might consider removing elinmits on the number that are allowed horizontally. There is no need, btw, to class so many DIVs as "landscape". You can do it in one hit in the CSS: |
#33
| |||
| |||
|
|
I have read the subsequent posts following this, so won't comment about zooming... About reliability. Depends on what is meant. It seems a shame to me that in this URL you allow the boxes to wrap but fail to take advantage of the inherent capability of this sort of design to break away from what a table can do for users who are happy to have wide browsers. You might consider removing elinmits on the number that are allowed horizontally. There is no need, btw, to class so many DIVs as "landscape". You can do it in one hit in the CSS: #thumbnav div {... here put in all the rules for .landscape ...} and get rid of the class="landscape" from all the DIVs so marked. http://tinyurl.com/2jcs5r> shows this method. |
#34
| |||
| |||
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |