background image

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. hi,
    i'm trying to put a background image onto my html page, but the image should
    be fixed, and should have the width and height of a browser (i need to
    resize it).
    how do i do that (with code)?

    so far i've got: :)

    <BODY background="back.jpg" bgproperties="fixed">


    --
    ivan
    -
    No double negatives are not disallowed.

    remove "MAKNI" from reply address
     
    Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Sharp_Shooter" <> wrote:

    > i'm trying to put a background image onto my html page,


    Stop trying. Most pages that have a background image would become better
    (maybe _much_ better) if the background image were removed.

    > but the image should be fixed,


    No it shouldn't. Fixing it would make things worse - making text even
    less legible.

    > and should have the width and height of a browser (i
    > need to resize it).


    Not possible.

    > how do i do that (with code)?


    If you specify a background image, do it in CSS, and always specify
    background color and content color too.

    > <BODY background="back.jpg" bgproperties="fixed">


    That's proprietary markup, and using CSS for the fixing would "work"
    (i.e. do the damage) more often.

    You are _not_ ready for using background images yet. It seems that you
    intend to use a photograph, or a photograph-like image - that's what
    JPEG format is for. And this adds to the legibility problem.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Sep 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sharp_Shooter wrote:
    > i'm trying to put a background image onto my html page, but the image should
    > be fixed


    CSS:
    body {
    background-image: url(back.jpg);
    background-attachment: fixed;
    }

    > and should have the width and height of a browser (i need to resize it).


    So you want your 800x600 image to look pixelized in my 1280x1024 browser
    window? Stop wanting that.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Sep 28, 2004
    #3
  4. "Leif K-Brooks" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > So you want your 800x600 image to look pixelized in my 1280x1024 browser
    > window? Stop wanting that.


    is there a way to do that?
    it doesn't matter why, i just need to do that.

    so, the question is, how?


    --
    ivan
    -
    No double negatives are not disallowed.

    remove "MAKNI" from reply address
     
    Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Sharp_Shooter

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:45:01 +0200, Sharp_Shooter
    <> wrote:

    > hi,
    > i'm trying to put a background image onto my html page, but the image
    > should
    > be fixed, and should have the width and height of a browser (i need to
    > resize it).
    > how do i do that (with code)?
    >
    > so far i've got: :)
    >
    > <BODY background="back.jpg" bgproperties="fixed">


    That bg will be HUGE to download. And it's likely to make the page
    unreadable.

    Probably not a good idea to use a large photo as a background. One, even
    if you could stretch it, it'll look all pixellated on a lot of viewports
    (or distorted, if the viewport isn't at the same ratio as yours). Two, if
    it's big enough to not look pixellated at different sizes it'll take far
    too long to download.
     
    Neal, Sep 28, 2004
    #5
  6. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9572B965CDC50jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    > "Sharp_Shooter" <> wrote:
    >
    > Stop trying. Most pages that have a background image would become better
    > (maybe _much_ better) if the background image were removed.


    if i said that i need that, then i do!

    > No it shouldn't. Fixing it would make things worse - making text even
    > less legible.


    no, it wouldn't. not in my case.
    belive me!

    > You are _not_ ready for using background images yet. It seems that you
    > intend to use a photograph, or a photograph-like image - that's what
    > JPEG format is for. And this adds to the legibility problem.


    and you should_think a little bit before you answer.
    first of all, i know what jpeg format is for, and
    second, the page isn't going to be online, but strictly for offline use!
    so, as i see it, it doesn't really matter if the background image is a jpg,
    gif or any other format!


    i just asked a simple question.

    so is there any answer?
    something that i can use?


    --
    ivan
    -
    No double negatives are not disallowed.

    remove "MAKNI" from reply address
     
    Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004
    #6
  7. "Neal" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Probably not a good idea to use a large photo as a background. One, even
    > if you could stretch it, it'll look all pixellated on a lot of viewports
    > (or distorted, if the viewport isn't at the same ratio as yours). Two, if
    > it's big enough to not look pixellated at different sizes it'll take far
    > too long to download.


    btw. the image size is less that 3 kB, so i think that wouldn't be a
    problem.
    it also has like 2-3 colors on it, and is not going to be pixelated.

    i just stated BACK.JPG as an e.g., FORGET IT, it could also say BACK.GIF,
    BACK. ... it doesn't matter!

    all i need is a way to resize it!


    thnx.


    --
    ivan
    -
    No double negatives are not disallowed.

    remove "MAKNI" from reply address
     
    Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004
    #7
  8. Sharp_Shooter

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:02:34 +0200, Sharp_Shooter
    <> wrote:

    > all i need is a way to resize it!


    Read through http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/colors.html#q2 - you'll note that
    CSS doesn't do that. We've been trying to explain to you why it shouldn't.

    Your resistance to see the logic in this suggests you approach this as a
    help desk. It is not. It's a discussion. If this ng was all just, "How do
    I get my letters red" "CSS color:#ff0000; on the selector for that
    element" etc. why would the people qualified to answer questions hang
    around? What fun would it be?

    The discussion of these questions, rather than the gamesay of
    question-answer, makes this ng useful for you.
     
    Neal, Sep 28, 2004
    #8
  9. Sharp_Shooter wrote:
    :: "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    :: news:Xns9572B965CDC50jkorpelacstutfi@193.229.0.31...
    ::: "Sharp_Shooter" <> wrote:
    :::
    ::: Stop trying. Most pages that have a background image would become
    ::: better (maybe _much_ better) if the background image were removed.
    ::
    :: if i said that i need that, then i do!
    ::
    ::: No it shouldn't. Fixing it would make things worse - making text
    ::: even less legible.
    ::
    :: no, it wouldn't. not in my case.
    :: belive me!
    ::
    ::: You are _not_ ready for using background images yet. It seems that
    ::: you intend to use a photograph, or a photograph-like image - that's
    ::: what JPEG format is for. And this adds to the legibility problem.
    ::
    :: and you should_think a little bit before you answer.
    :: first of all, i know what jpeg format is for, and
    :: second, the page isn't going to be online, but strictly for offline
    :: use! so, as i see it, it doesn't really matter if the background
    :: image is a jpg, gif or any other format!
    ::
    ::
    :: i just asked a simple question.
    ::
    :: so is there any answer?
    :: something that i can use?
    ::
    If this is a page for your own use at a known display size, just take the
    image to your favorite image manipulating software, make it the size you
    want it, and use it as your background.

    Stephen
     
    Stephen T. Fox, Sep 28, 2004
    #9
  10. "Stephen T. Fox" <> wrote in message
    news:ysj6d.11938$Cn.626@trnddc04...
    > If this is a page for your own use at a known display size, just take the
    > image to your favorite image manipulating software, make it the size you
    > want it, and use it as your background.


    no, the problem is that, if i change the resolution, then it wouldn't be a
    fullscreen background image.


    --
    ivan
    -
    No double negatives are not disallowed.

    remove "MAKNI" from reply address
     
    Sharp_Shooter, Sep 28, 2004
    #10
  11. Sharp_Shooter

    CPA Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:08 -0400, Neal <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:02:34 +0200, Sharp_Shooter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > all i need is a way to resize it!

    >
    > Read through http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/colors.html#q2 - you'll note that
    > CSS doesn't do that. We've been trying to explain to you why it shouldn't.


    I've noticed that newsgroups pertaining to web design seem to have
    replies that veer off away from the straight answer. In this instance
    the answer to the OP is that there is no way to do what this person
    wants to do. None, nada, not even the 'magic-bullet' of CSS. Ain't
    gonna happen with existing code for webpages.

    It does get frustrating when a question never receives a direct
    answer. Suggestions are OK but gee, give the OP an answer to the
    question first?

    > Your resistance to see the logic in this suggests you approach this as a
    > help desk. It is not. It's a discussion. If this ng was all just, "How do
    > I get my letters red" "CSS color:#ff0000; on the selector for that
    > element" etc.


    The 'resistance' is because the question isn't really being answered,
    it's being deflected.

    >why would the people qualified to answer questions hang
    > around? What fun would it be?


    At times I suspect the 'fun' is in expressing opinions as facts. I
    use background images. I like background images. There is _nothing_
    wrong with using background images. Those who replied to the contrary
    are expressing their own preferences not univeral 'truth'.

    > The discussion of these questions, rather than the gamesay of
    > question-answer, makes this ng useful for you.


    Not really. Avoiding a direct answer to the OP question makes reading
    these newsgroups frustrating. Especially for newbies who are foolish
    enough to think they will get direct replies to simple questions.

    Not wanting to single you out with this reply so don't take this
    personally. My comments are for the 'group' who have replied to the
    OP and other similar 'groups' who monopolize the threads in other web
    design newsgroups.


    Charles.Angelich

    tech:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/
    arts:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/faf/
    music
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/dos/samples.asp
     
    CPA, Sep 28, 2004
    #11
  12. Sharp_Shooter

    Toby Inkster Guest

    CPA wrote:

    > It does get frustrating when a question never receives a direct
    > answer. Suggestions are OK but gee, give the OP an answer to the
    > question first?


    I'll happily give a straight answer for anyone who wants one. My
    consultancy fee is £35/hour.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Sep 28, 2004
    #12
  13. Sharp_Shooter

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Sharp_Shooter wrote:

    > i'm trying to put a background image onto my html page, but the image should
    > be fixed, and should have the width and height of a browser (i need to
    > resize it).


    Background images can't be resized yet. Resizing of background images is
    due in CSS 3.

    You may be able to fake it though by stretching an image to 100% width in
    CSS and then layering it below the rest of the page using z-index.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Sep 28, 2004
    #13
  14. Sharp_Shooter

    CPA Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:35:19 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    > CPA wrote:
    >
    > > It does get frustrating when a question never receives a direct
    > > answer. Suggestions are OK but gee, give the OP an answer to the
    > > question first?

    >
    > I'll happily give a straight answer for anyone who wants one. My
    > consultancy fee is £35/hour.


    Sounds a bargain - I'm sure your check is in the mail!


    Charles.Angelich

    tech:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/
    arts:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/faf/
    music
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/dos/samples.asp
     
    CPA, Sep 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Sharp_Shooter

    Neal Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:00:16 -0400, CPA <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:08 -0400, Neal <> wrote:
    >> why would the people qualified to answer questions hang
    >> around? What fun would it be?

    >
    > At times I suspect the 'fun' is in expressing opinions as facts. I
    > use background images. I like background images. There is _nothing_
    > wrong with using background images. Those who replied to the contrary
    > are expressing their own preferences not univeral 'truth'.


    I love background images too. But I have the sense to realize that serving
    them at full-screen is prone to trouble.

    >> The discussion of these questions, rather than the gamesay of
    >> question-answer, makes this ng useful for you.

    >
    > Not really. Avoiding a direct answer to the OP question makes reading
    > these newsgroups frustrating. Especially for newbies who are foolish
    > enough to think they will get direct replies to simple questions.


    Whose fault is that? I blame the ISPs which provide Usenet access without
    the requisite advice on what it is and why it exists.

    > Not wanting to single you out with this reply so don't take this
    > personally. My comments are for the 'group' who have replied to the
    > OP and other similar 'groups' who monopolize the threads in other web
    > design newsgroups.


    Certainly not taken personally. But be aware that Usenet has been around a
    LONG time, and isn't likely to accept a watering down. Once we resort to
    Q+A we lose the attraction this ng holds on the regs. Then it's useless.

    The only way this ng can be viable is for the participants to not use it
    as a Q+A forum.
     
    Neal, Sep 29, 2004
    #15
  16. Sharp_Shooter

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:00:16 -0400, CPA <> declared
    in alt.html:

    > I
    > use background images. I like background images. There is _nothing_
    > wrong with using background images. Those who replied to the contrary
    > are expressing their own preferences not univeral 'truth'.


    Truth: Background images usually make it harder to read the text on the
    page.
    Truth: If the background image actually makes the text easier to read,
    then it is more difficult to read for anyone with image loading
    disabled, or who couldn't download the picture for whatever reason.
    Truth: It is very rare that a background image will neither increase nor
    decrease legibility.
    Opinion: If a background image makes no difference to the legibility of
    the page, it is so similar to the plain colour background of the page,
    you might as well not use it.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    "Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004
     
    Mark Parnell, Sep 29, 2004
    #16
  17. Sharp_Shooter

    CPA Guest

    On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:28:09 -0400, Neal <> wrote:

    > >> why would the people qualified to answer questions hang
    > >> around? What fun would it be?

    > >
    > > At times I suspect the 'fun' is in expressing opinions as facts. I
    > > use background images. I like background images. There is _nothing_
    > > wrong with using background images. Those who replied to the contrary
    > > are expressing their own preferences not univeral 'truth'.

    >
    > I love background images too. But I have the sense to realize that serving
    > them at full-screen is prone to trouble.


    True, it's not my first choice but if I were convinced it was the best
    way to go I would compensate in whatever ways were available to me.
    It's the total 'package' size of the page and number of times the
    server must be accessed to retrieve those parts that determines the
    overall speed of the page.

    > >> The discussion of these questions, rather than the gamesay of
    > >> question-answer, makes this ng useful for you.

    > >
    > > Not really. Avoiding a direct answer to the OP question makes reading
    > > these newsgroups frustrating. Especially for newbies who are foolish
    > > enough to think they will get direct replies to simple questions.

    >
    > Whose fault is that? I blame the ISPs which provide Usenet access without
    > the requisite advice on what it is and why it exists.


    No message system exists to enable it's users to taunt one another,
    well maybe slashdot but not many others. ;-)

    > > Not wanting to single you out with this reply so don't take this
    > > personally. My comments are for the 'group' who have replied to the
    > > OP and other similar 'groups' who monopolize the threads in other web
    > > design newsgroups.

    >
    > Certainly not taken personally. But be aware that Usenet has been around a
    > LONG time, and isn't likely to accept a watering down. Once we resort to
    > Q+A we lose the attraction this ng holds on the regs. Then it's useless.


    I have mixed feelings about quantity of users over quality of users.
    I guess I'm old fashioned in that regard.

    > The only way this ng can be viable is for the participants to not use it
    > as a Q+A forum.


    All forums are Q&A to some degree. It's the nature of the beast.


    Charles.Angelich

    tech:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/
    arts:
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/faf/
    music
    http:/www.devedia.com/dosghost/dos/samples.asp
     
    CPA, Sep 29, 2004
    #17
  18. Sharp_Shooter

    Spartanicus Guest

    CPA <> wrote:

    >I've noticed that newsgroups pertaining to web design seem to have
    >replies that veer off away from the straight answer.


    This is a discussion group, we discuss the implications of what people
    propose. A reply may contain something useful, but that's entirely
    optional. This isn't a helpdesk.

    >In this instance
    >the answer to the OP is that there is no way to do what this person
    >wants to do. None, nada, not even the 'magic-bullet' of CSS. Ain't
    >gonna happen with existing code for webpages.


    Incorrect. Instead of helping him to do something stupid, we've pointed
    out that the OP should stop wanting that.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Sep 29, 2004
    #18
  19. Sharp_Shooter

    WebcastMaker Guest

    In article <11k56ru793t77$>,
    says...
    > > use background images. I like background images. There is _nothing_
    > > wrong with using background images. Those who replied to the contrary
    > > are expressing their own preferences not univeral 'truth'.

    > Truth: Background images usually make it harder to read the text on the
    > page.


    Totally depends on the image and it is used.

    > Truth: If the background image actually makes the text easier to read,
    > then it is more difficult to read for anyone with image loading
    > disabled, or who couldn't download the picture for whatever reason.
    > Truth: It is very rare that a background image will neither increase nor
    > decrease legibility.


    Totally depends on the image and how it is used

    > Opinion: If a background image makes no difference to the legibility of
    > the page, it is so similar to the plain colour background of the page,
    > you might as well not use it.


    Not disagreeing with you, but your answers seem to imply you are
    limiting what the background image is, how it is being used, and what
    the page layout might be.

    A background image with multiple sections and curves can make a site
    look very intricate when it is really a simple layout.

    YMMV
    --
    WebcastMaker
    Webcasting for free
    http://www.webentations.com
    http://www.webcastmaker.com (CBT)
     
    WebcastMaker, Sep 29, 2004
    #19
  20. Sharp_Shooter

    ...D. Guest

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:23:18 +0200, "Sharp_Shooter"
    <> wrote:

    >"Stephen T. Fox" <> wrote in message
    >news:ysj6d.11938$Cn.626@trnddc04...
    >> If this is a page for your own use at a known display size, just take the
    >> image to your favorite image manipulating software, make it the size you
    >> want it, and use it as your background.

    >
    >no, the problem is that, if i change the resolution, then it wouldn't be a
    >fullscreen background image.


    That's why you amke it a 1280 x 1024 image (not many users at 1600 x 1200
    I do not think). And make sure it is an image that has good content so
    that those people seeing it at 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600 feel it is a
    complete image. And use Irfanview to reformulate the jpg to get it down
    under 100 KBs. I wouldn't do a bg image anymore, but my 1st website was
    that way. I didn't even know what tables were.

    Which BTW, now that i think about it, why not this? You could make a big
    table at a set size, say optimized for 800 x 600 viewers - you can add a
    bg image to a table, right? Make the table the same size as the image.
    There you go, a fixed size background image in a big table. center the
    table, and have no borders showing for the table. (you can center a table,
    right?? I know left or right, so you should be able to center one - if not
    then put it to the left.)

    Hmmm... why can't that work?


    ...D.
     
    ...D., Sep 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Raydog
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    22,311
    Raydog
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. Noozer
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    52,460
  3. jc
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,783
  4. jc
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,407
    Neredbojias
    Mar 19, 2008
  5. Dj Frenzy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    350
    Robert
    Feb 10, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page