screen resolution solutions

salmobytes wrote:

On Jan 21, 2:49 am, Andy Dingley <ding... (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:
Hans Weilenmann has a nice site where he displays the best
sharp-focus, high-detail close-up photos (of trout flies)
URL? It's not obviously Googleable (HW is evidently well known for
his work, but less so for his own site)
http://www.danica.com/flytier/

Hans' "large" images are only 600 pixels wide--he's trying to
accomodate everybody.
Closeup images of flies look a heck of a lot better at 700 pixels
wide.
On high resolution monitors with high-speed connections, 800 pixels
is spectacular, by comparison. Trying to serve everybody all at once
with 600 pixels wide is an annoying compromise.

But because 60% of all users view from 17"
monitors at 768 pixels wide,

768 has never been a screen width in pixels. It's a height in some
resolutions.

It's several years since that has been even approximately true.

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

W3Schools is not the W3C, the information shown is a year out of date,
and who knows how they're compiling it?

In article <62c00a7c-2bc9-4c9e-9623-44a2f661c343 (AT) i12g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com>, salmobytes writes:

On Jan 21, 2:49 am, Andy Dingley <ding... (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

But because 60% of all users view from 17"
monitors at 768 pixels wide,

It's several years since that has been even approximately true.

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Point one: "w3schools" is not in any way affiliated with the w3c.
Point two: Even their page shows 54% for 1024x768, which is 1024
pixels wide, as well as 26% for higher. That means at least 80%
of everybody has a monitor that shows at least 1024 pixels wide.
This ignores the 6% listed as "Unknown".

My first PC, purchased in 1992, had a 1024x1280 monitor, and I'm
far from being a "power user", so it's not suprising that, over
fifteen years later, most people are running with equipment at
least as good as what I had then.

On the other hand, this is monitor width. Don't get tricked into
thinking that this equates to canvas width. Between not running
browsers maximized, browser chrome, various sidebars, there's no
way of knowing how many pixels you have available.

That's a ghastly page. It's particularly bad on a FF window under
890px wide.

I had that site looking OK at high resolution, but it was (as you
said) ghastly at low resolution.

Nothing was said about "resolution". The reference was to the width
of the FF window.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.

In article <200801221836.m0MIaBre175560 (AT) walkabout (DOT) empros.com>, Michael Stemper writes:

<brain fart>

My first PC, purchased in 1992, had a 1024x1280 monitor,

That should have said "1280x1024".

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.

On Jan 22, 11:13 am, Jeff <jeff (AT) spam_me_not (DOT) com> wrote:

thanks, that *was* helpful.

I have a pretty thick skin, most of the time.
I know If I ask a question on usenet a stream of poison will
inevitably result,
punctuated by occasional civility.

Oddly, or perhaps interestingly, I often see the same sort of poison
attached to the
same well-known names on multiple groups. Some people just can't get
enough.
For most of this threads responders (not you) here's a link that might
help:
http://www.excaliburcutlery.com/rubi...FQNCgwodmis9GQ

It'll be a while before I return.

Scripsit salmobytes:

On Jan 19, 1:53 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

And you expect to do this in CSS? Consider reading an introductory
tutorial on the elements of basics of getting started with WWW
authoring.

No, you can't swap images with css.

What makes you think you cannot? Perhaps the fact that you didn't take
my advice that you quoted above.

_You_ were babbling about "mode-toggle switch" in a group devoted to the
use of CSS in WWW authoring. That's something you cannot do in CSS, as
you would surely know if you read an introductory tutorial on the
elements of basics of getting started with WWW authoring.

(There are several ways to "swap images with css" in some sense, e.g.
positioning two images in the same position and using z-index and
:hover.)

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

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:12:00 -0800 (PST), salmobytes
<Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

They have nothing to do with the W3C

Or reality.

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:12:00 -0800 (PST), salmobytes
Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Not according to w3c They currently show 54%
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

They have nothing to do with the W3C

Or reality.

There was a time when people said the same thing about the W3C.

Jeff

On 23 Jan, 01:20, Jeff <jeff (AT) spam_me_not (DOT) com> wrote:

They have nothing to do with the W3C

Or reality.

There was a time when people said the same thing about the W3C.

We've told you before about reading that HTML 5 draft! 8-)