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

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



Cheers,

Jim.

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?



Cheers,

Jim.
Yes, you should use %'s to fit various widths and browser window

hights, as not all people brows with the browser windoe maximized.
I hope that helps.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

"Jim" <Jim34324 (AT) fwewef (DOT) cso> wrote:

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

alt.html.critique is not for asking general questions like this, it is
for posting an URL to a page or site authored by you so that others can
judge it for any flaws and/or things that could be improved.

Use alt.html for general authoring questions (follow-up set).

Regarding your question, see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmat...lexdesign.html
(It's the best I could locate quickly, it does have flaws).

--
Spartanicus

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
--
Carolyn Marenger

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

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

--
Cheers

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

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?

mbstevens wrote:

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

And if it is, then the solution is likely to be either "Let it expand
outside" or "Find a better background image".

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

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

This seems more like an example of why *not* to do a fixed size.
It doesn't accommodate larger text sizes very well. The non-standard
scrolling and failure to utilize my large window size are not very
user-friendly, either.

--
Berg

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

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.

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.

Carolyn
--
Carolyn Marenger