Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <ctUcb.120$ly4.96 (AT) newsfep1-gui (DOT) server.ntli.net>,
"Barry Pearson" <news (AT) childsupportanalysis (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

This spec actually says to implement things in a reasonable way. A
conventional Mac screen has a standard resolution of 72 dpi, a Windows
screen one of 96 dpi. And it would not be reasonable to enlarge
images on Mac screens by 96/72. They both show a CSS value of 1px as
1 screen dot, but the display of point defined sizes differs (as 1
point is 1/72 of an inch, and an inch has not the same amount of dots
on each side).

72 is a blast from the past. Only a small proportion have that resolution
nowadays. 96 may be closer to the Windows average, but as I type this it is
appearing on a 117 ppi screen and a 90 ppi screen at the same time.

Not exactly a blast from the past. The Mac OS (including OS X) is STILL
hard-wired to 72 -- it does not "know" how a video display is configured
(and even if it did, it wouldn't scale anything to match).

My PowerBook *screen* is 91ppi (1152x768), but to the OS it is 72.

And back to the subject line, my browser window is 512px wide on the
outside, as I prefer an imaging width of 480px (80 columns of Monaco 9).
If a page don't fit, it ain't worth readin'. Period.

As for thumbnails, I just stack 'em vertically:
http://www.natural-innovations.com/ds/dsf2002/


-boo
who stopped resizing his browser windows ten years ago

Walter Ian Kaye wrote:

In article <ctUcb.120$ly4.96 (AT) newsfep1-gui (DOT) server.ntli.net>,
"Barry Pearson" <news (AT) childsupportanalysis (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

This spec actually says to implement things in a reasonable way. A
conventional Mac screen has a standard resolution of 72 dpi, a
Windows screen one of 96 dpi. And it would not be reasonable to
enlarge images on Mac screens by 96/72. They both show a CSS value
of 1px as 1 screen dot, but the display of point defined sizes
differs (as 1 point is 1/72 of an inch, and an inch has not the
same amount of dots on each side).

72 is a blast from the past. Only a small proportion have that
resolution nowadays. 96 may be closer to the Windows average, but as
I type this it is appearing on a 117 ppi screen and a 90 ppi screen
at the same time.

Not exactly a blast from the past. The Mac OS (including OS X) is
STILL hard-wired to 72 -- it does not "know" how a video display is
configured (and even if it did, it wouldn't scale anything to match).

This discussion is really about the physical screen, not what the OS says.
(Although it is hard to see how the W3C recommendations can be followed if the
OS lies).

It is worth having a look at the W3C recommendation to clarify this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units

It talks about viewing distances, angles seen by the eye, etc.

My PowerBook *screen* is 91ppi (1152x768), but to the OS it is 72.

And back to the subject line, my browser window is 512px wide on the
outside, as I prefer an imaging width of 480px (80 columns of Monaco
9). If a page don't fit, it ain't worth readin'. Period.

Then you are perhaps not part of my target audience. My photographs can be up
to 700 pixels wide. (You probably don't like horizontal scrolling - who does?)

As for thumbnails, I just stack 'em vertically:
http://www.natural-innovations.com/ds/dsf2002/

-boo
who stopped resizing his browser windows ten years ago

An interesting approach.

Fascinating to see 800 x 600 pixel photographs coming from someone with an
imaging width of 480 pixels. Do you use browser resizing, or horizontal
scrolling, or live with the fact that you can't view your own pictures on the
web?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

In article <Xnydb.115$ft3.119207 (AT) newsfep1-win (DOT) server.ntli.net>,
"Barry Pearson" <news (AT) childsupportanalysis (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
In article <ctUcb.120$ly4.96 (AT) newsfep1-gui (DOT) server.ntli.net>,
"Barry Pearson" <news (AT) childsupportanalysis (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

This spec actually says to implement things in a reasonable way. A
conventional Mac screen has a standard resolution of 72 dpi, a
Windows screen one of 96 dpi. And it would not be reasonable to
enlarge images on Mac screens by 96/72. They both show a CSS value
of 1px as 1 screen dot, but the display of point defined sizes
differs (as 1 point is 1/72 of an inch, and an inch has not the
same amount of dots on each side).

72 is a blast from the past. Only a small proportion have that
resolution nowadays. 96 may be closer to the Windows average, but as
I type this it is appearing on a 117 ppi screen and a 90 ppi screen
at the same time.

Not exactly a blast from the past. The Mac OS (including OS X) is
STILL hard-wired to 72 -- it does not "know" how a video display is
configured (and even if it did, it wouldn't scale anything to match).

This discussion is really about the physical screen, not what the OS says.
(Although it is hard to see how the W3C recommendations can be followed if the
OS lies).

It is worth having a look at the W3C recommendation to clarify this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units

It talks about viewing distances, angles seen by the eye, etc.

If I could change the ppi of my LCD screen from 91 to 72, I would.
That's why I prefer CRT screens -- so that the physical and electronic
will match. I actually like the black border on my CRT screen after I
adjust the geometry to 72. On my PowerBook, I have to "pretend" that the
screen is farther away to account for the smaller size on the LCD.

My PowerBook *screen* is 91ppi (1152x768), but to the OS it is 72.

And back to the subject line, my browser window is 512px wide on the
outside, as I prefer an imaging width of 480px (80 columns of Monaco
9). If a page don't fit, it ain't worth readin'. Period.

Then you are perhaps not part of my target audience. My photographs can be up
to 700 pixels wide. (You probably don't like horizontal scrolling - who does?)

Well I don't like it on *text*. You don't "read" a photograph (unless
it's a photo of a document). There is no need to match up a point on the
right edge to a point on the left edge as there is with a run of text,
so there's no cognitive impairment or predetermined flow. An image
doesn't wrap, because that's not applicable.

As for thumbnails, I just stack 'em vertically:
http://www.natural-innovations.com/ds/dsf2002/

-boo
who stopped resizing his browser windows ten years ago

An interesting approach.

Fascinating to see 800 x 600 pixel photographs coming from someone with an
imaging width of 480 pixels. Do you use browser resizing, or horizontal
scrolling, or live with the fact that you can't view your own pictures on the
web?

I live with the fact that the user's viewing app and its own
functionalities and preferences determine the presentation of the image,
rather than some arbitrary decision of mine how to present it. The link
from the thumbnail is not to a Web page, but to the image itself.

I only wish Safari had the zoom features that MacIE ha(s|d). Point is, I
as Web author am not dictating the presentation.

As for me personally, since I no longer use IE, I just scroll.

Hmm... I wonder if it would be worth it to give the user some size
options with the View Image button. It's certainly doable...


-Walter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Ian Kaye" <boo (AT) natural-innovations (DOT) spam-deflector.com>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Hmm... I wonder if it would be worth it to give the user some size
options with the View Image button. It's certainly doable...

That would be a nice thing. Anyway it would imply a server-side image
scaling. This is actually doable, but scaling an image is always an
interpretation of the image, as pixel values are changed. If you edit your
pictures with Photoshop you know that different subjects need different
amounts of unsharp masking after scaling, or that graphical elements like
lines should not be blurred and so on.

So this server-side scaling would need more than just scaling. Maybe Adobe
or whoever will deliver an engine for this in the future...

(This would also give the above discussion of page zoom a new dimension: Let
the UA calculate the page zoom value and demand the appropriate picture size
from the server...)

--
Markus

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:41:46 +0100, in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Barry Pearson wrote:

Salagir wrote:
There is one thing that could have helped us much, I've wanted it from
the day I made my 1st website (so about 1997) and I still want it and
it still doesn't exist: a standart image vectorial format.

An image, like jpeg or gif: with no size, only a ratio, and with
polygons and lines in it. And that would be opened by any browser.
It's very, very easy, and lots of logos and web images could be as
good in vectorial format.
How come no one thought about that????
Chuckle! Now think how big such an image file would have to be! Surely it
would be mind-blowingly, awesomely, galactically, enormous? At least for a
photograph, which is what I am talking about.

Sorry I missed the beginning of the thread
Of course, photos are the type of image that must stay in jpeg.

But almost all gifs and png would come out well as vectors.

It is worth keeping an eye on JPEG2000, because a JP2 file, I understand, can
have a lower resolution image extracted from it without reprocessing the whole
lot. But what I don't know is whether these have to be prepacked within it.
(Eg. you put a photograph and its thumbnail into the file, then you can get
just the thumbnail out). I suspect that it would be hard to extract any
abitrary resolution from it.

I don't really know either. Maybe you can extract resolutions that are
two -or a multiple of two- time less -or/and more- than the initial
resolution.

Shouldn't these kind of image take years to encode and seconds to decode?

I think the answer for non-photos is SVG, and eventually all browsers will
support it. Needing plugins is a transitional stage.

When will this transitionnal stage end ? I mean, even 32-bits pngs
aren't supported by the most used (and most stu***) browser in the
world.

-_-

--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++
Moi tous les matins je casse le vent, ca me purifie c'est important !

Salagir wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:41:46 +0100, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Barry Pearson wrote:
Salagir wrote:
[snip]
An image, like jpeg or gif: with no size, only a ratio, and with
polygons and lines in it. And that would be opened by any browser.
It's very, very easy, and lots of logos and web images could be as
good in vectorial format.
How come no one thought about that????
Chuckle! Now think how big such an image file would have to be!
Surely it would be mind-blowingly, awesomely, galactically,
enormous? At least for a photograph, which is what I am talking
about.

Sorry I missed the beginning of the thread
Of course, photos are the type of image that must stay in jpeg.

But almost all gifs and png would come out well as vectors.

Yes, I think we agree. In fact, you have triggered a possible (longer term)
solution to something where I don't know what the "proper" answer is:

Sometimes, I want to put into text an in-line "readable logo". For example,
the UK's Child Support Agency has a GIF logo with their name in a particular
font, colour, etc. So I wanted to be able to use the logo in a sentence
instead of just plain words. (With "alt" text, of course). But the logo isn't
scalable in the way the text is. What I have actually done is used a CSS to
embellish the text with an approximation of the true logo. An example can be
seen near the top of:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/

Perhaps we could have in-line scalable logos. (Or perhaps it could be argued
that I shouldn't be trying to do what I am doing! That is a question of
design, rather than proper mark-up).

[snip]

I don't really know either. Maybe you can extract resolutions that are
two -or a multiple of two- time less -or/and more- than the initial
resolution.

Shouldn't these kind of image take years to encode and seconds to
decode?
[snip]

I think there is an aspect of that in JPEG2000. (But not "years", please! And
less than "seconds" too. Life's too short).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/