Should sites be built to 800x600 pixels or use percentages to get the site to fit the width and height of the browser?

"mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx (AT) xmbstevensx (DOT) com> wrote

Paul Watt wrote:

There are occasions when a fixed size is neccessary, not ideal I'll grant
you but sometimes you've no choice. see my latest project as a example
http://www.simongogerly.com

I do not follow your intent. Is the constraint that the content must be
somehow contained within the bounds of the background image?

The client wanted the photos to be used as the page background, no
flexibilty there, so I *had* to make a fixed width page.


--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

"nagasaki mike" <n (AT) gasaki (DOT) com> wrote

"Paul Watt" <paulio (AT) wattio (DOT) NOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4osmu5Fg8m29U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net...
"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:10009$45291302$cf700565$12191 (AT) PRIMUS (DOT) CA...

Jim wrote:

Should sites be built to 800x600 pixels or use percentages to get the
site
to fit the width and height of the browser?

If you build it to 800 pixels wide, what am I to do with the other 480
pixels in my viewport? (I am not including scroll bars and other
window
effects.)

Other than the obvious reason of 'to read the rest of the page', why
should
I scroll down when I have so much unused display area?

Carolyn

There are occasions when a fixed size is neccessary, not ideal I'll grant
you but sometimes you've no choice. see my latest project as a example
http://www.simongogerly.com

Error Line 21 column 228: end tag for element "P" which is not open.
Error Line 23 column 70: end tag for element "P" which is not open.

Two errors that in no way effect the way the page looks (and are now sorted
anyway as the projects finished). Thank you very,very much for pointing them
out.
</end sarcasam>

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote

Paul Watt wrote:

"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:10009$45291302$cf700565$12191 (AT) PRIMUS (DOT) CA...

Jim wrote:

Should sites be built to 800x600 pixels or use percentages to get the
site
to fit the width and height of the browser?

If you build it to 800 pixels wide, what am I to do with the other 480
pixels in my viewport? (I am not including scroll bars and other window
effects.)

Other than the obvious reason of 'to read the rest of the page', why
should
I scroll down when I have so much unused display area?

Carolyn

There are occasions when a fixed size is neccessary, not ideal I'll grant
you but sometimes you've no choice. see my latest project as a example
http://www.simongogerly.com


I just checked out the site. I don't think it is an example of why you
have
to use any set size. In fact, unless I use your font size settings, it
looks like crap. Border lines cutting through the text, pictures dropping
out of their 'frame'. Menu text on top of content text.

Check out the page within firefox and change the font size ctrl-'+' or
ctrl-'-' and you will see what I mean.

Next up is the ability to hear the site. For those of us who are visually
challenged and rely on web readers rather than browsers, there is not a
lot
of information available. It does not appear to be very accessible.

Yep, I know what you mean about the larger text sizes. I dont want to resort
to fixed font sizes. Do you have any ideas how to overcome this problem?

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

Paul Watt wrote:

"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:6424b$452a1d5c$cf700565$27906 (AT) PRIMUS (DOT) CA...
Paul Watt wrote:

"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:10009$45291302$cf700565$12191 (AT) PRIMUS (DOT) CA...

Jim wrote:

Should sites be built to 800x600 pixels or use percentages to get the
site
to fit the width and height of the browser?

If you build it to 800 pixels wide, what am I to do with the other 480
pixels in my viewport? (I am not including scroll bars and other
window effects.)

Other than the obvious reason of 'to read the rest of the page', why
should
I scroll down when I have so much unused display area?

Carolyn

There are occasions when a fixed size is neccessary, not ideal I'll
grant you but sometimes you've no choice. see my latest project as a
example http://www.simongogerly.com


I just checked out the site. I don't think it is an example of why you
have
to use any set size. In fact, unless I use your font size settings, it
looks like crap. Border lines cutting through the text, pictures
dropping
out of their 'frame'. Menu text on top of content text.

Check out the page within firefox and change the font size ctrl-'+' or
ctrl-'-' and you will see what I mean.

Next up is the ability to hear the site. For those of us who are
visually challenged and rely on web readers rather than browsers, there
is not a lot
of information available. It does not appear to be very accessible.


Yep, I know what you mean about the larger text sizes. I dont want to
resort to fixed font sizes. Do you have any ideas how to overcome this
problem?

My preference is to set a font size to 1em, and then when necessary drop
down no more than to 0.9em and increase to larger sizes for headings. I
set column widths to ?ems based on what I expect to fill the column with.
It would not necessarily work with your graphic containing all the content,
but if you chose a matching background colour, you could have the
background colour as the background, and a background image centred on the
viewport. Not quite the same effect, but possibly a compromise.

Carolyn


--
Carolyn Marenger

On 2006-10-10, Paul Watt wrote:

....
Yep, I know what you mean about the larger text sizes. I dont want to resort
to fixed font sizes. Do you have any ideas how to overcome this problem?

If you are confined to a fixed size, then fixed font sizes are the
only thing that will work. The problems are inherent to the use of a
fixed size in the first place.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Paul Watt" <paulio (AT) wattio (DOT) NOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote

"nagasaki mike" <n (AT) gasaki (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:9aidnbLbsM5kFrTYRVnytw (AT) eclipse (DOT) net.uk...

"Paul Watt" <paulio (AT) wattio (DOT) NOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4osmu5Fg8m29U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net...
"carolyn" <cajunk (AT) marenger (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:10009$45291302$cf700565$12191 (AT) PRIMUS (DOT) CA...

Jim wrote:

Should sites be built to 800x600 pixels or use percentages to get
the
site
to fit the width and height of the browser?

If you build it to 800 pixels wide, what am I to do with the other
480
pixels in my viewport? (I am not including scroll bars and other
window
effects.)

Other than the obvious reason of 'to read the rest of the page', why
should
I scroll down when I have so much unused display area?

Carolyn

There are occasions when a fixed size is neccessary, not ideal I'll
grant
you but sometimes you've no choice. see my latest project as a example
http://www.simongogerly.com

Error Line 21 column 228: end tag for element "P" which is not open.
Error Line 23 column 70: end tag for element "P" which is not open.



Two errors that in no way effect the way the page looks (and are now
sorted
anyway as the projects finished). Thank you very,very much for pointing
them
out.
/end sarcasam

hehe i wasnt being horrible, though it is the little things that count.