html/css compliant

S

SpaceGirl

derek giroulle said:
Ididn't say that

I said

"so with 800*640 I cover over 95% of my users
So if I can get it to work for those environments"

I try to cater size independant and I make my designs liquid so that it
will fit any size and I test for designs that fit 800*640 as a minimum
and 1024 *760 as its optimum



derek

800x640!?? That's a very odd resolution. 800x600, yes. Or 640x480. But a mix
of the two is just weird. 750x550 is what I design for, as that usually just
about fits in a maximised Mozilla or IE browser on Windows.
 
J

Jean-Fran?ois Lacrampe

Toby A Inkster said:
Browser Platform
---------------------------------------------

I also have Multiwebs but it crashes all the time. And I have the source
code for Arena (the fore-runner to Amaya), but can't get it to compile.

Since you are evidently searching exhaustivity, there are some
important browsers missing in your list. Mac browsers. Safari is
getting quite spread these days (relatively speaking, of course, I'm
talking about the ~5% of not-IE browsers). Mac IE is still popular for
some users categories. Then there is FireFox, which is getting there
and Camino (on the way down).

Before you tell me you've got no Mac, let me point you to PearPC
(<http://pearpc.sourceforge.net>. It's a Mac emulator still in the
early stages, but that can run these browsers quite well (slowly, but
less than one would imagine if your PC is quick enough). You'll just
have to buy Panther (Mac OS X's last revision), but you can probably
find that at a discount on on eBay if price is an issue.

Regards,
JFLac
 
D

derek giroulle

SpaceGirl said:
800x640!?? That's a very odd resolution. 800x600, yes. Or 640x480. But a mix
of the two is just weird.

Sorry typo on my part (
750x550 is what I design for, as that usually just
about fits in a maximised Mozilla or IE browser on Windows.

Interesting that would improve some of the design asects ...
so if I don't get get the sliders on that format i'm ok

Still I try to be as liquid as possible

thanks derek
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Quoth the raven SpaceGirl:
Isn't the entire point to make sure it works on any device?

Of course. But you knew I meant a normal graphical browser.
Surely your sites should work perfectly on a 160x200 display (like
one of my web enabled cellphones!) :p

And so they do, as the stylesheet is disabled for those devices. The
phone displays nicely (un)formatted inline text.
 
N

Neal

Quoth the raven SpaceGirl:


Of course. But you knew I meant a normal graphical browser.


And so they do, as the stylesheet is disabled for those devices. The
phone displays nicely (un)formatted inline text.

Unfortunately many small-screen browsers still read the screen media type.
They shouldn't. Whether you want to not support that is your choice, I
think there's a good argument not to.
 
N

Neal

Sorry typo on my part (


Interesting that would improve some of the design asects ...
so if I don't get get the sliders on that format i'm ok

Still I try to be as liquid as possible

thanks derek


The only time you need to think of height is with the smallest monitor and
browser maximized. In that case, you want content visible in the viewport
on initial load even at a width of 550 and a height of 425px. (The only
users viewing narrower than that are either using a monitor that is tall
enough to compensate, or are viewing in an inordinately small window. Or
on a handheld that reads the screen stylesheet, but what are you gonna do
about that? :-\ )

The more critical thing is width. I will generally look at my layouts at a
variety of widths, even unconventional ones, to see the quirky things that
happen from time to time. But as users with large screens often view at
halfwidth, be sure it all works down to 500px wide and still looks ok at
twice that.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Jean-Fran?ois Lacrampe said:
Before you tell me you've got no Mac, let me point you to PearPC
(<http://pearpc.sourceforge.net>.

Interesting, but I doubt my desktop would be fast enough. From what I've
read about PPC emulators in general is that they run pretty slowly (the
PPC has tonnes of registers that are slow to emulate on Intel). I've just
gotten a pay rise at work though, so may be investing in a new computer
soon...
 
M

Mark Parnell

Isn't the entire point to make sure it works on any device? Surely your
sites should work perfectly on a 160x200 display (like one of my web enabled
cellphones!) :p

I realise this was at least partly tongue-in-cheek (at least I assume
that's what the smiley was for), but surely a site adjusting to anything
from 500px wide up is better than only showing properly at 800px wide
(or some other arbitrary width)?
 
S

SpaceGirl

Mark Parnell said:
I realise this was at least partly tongue-in-cheek (at least I assume
that's what the smiley was for), but surely a site adjusting to anything

it was
from 500px wide up is better than only showing properly at 800px wide
(or some other arbitrary width)?

totally!
 
S

SpaceGirl

Toby A Inkster said:
Interesting, but I doubt my desktop would be fast enough. From what I've
read about PPC emulators in general is that they run pretty slowly (the
PPC has tonnes of registers that are slow to emulate on Intel). I've just
gotten a pay rise at work though, so may be investing in a new computer
soon...

Yay for the pay raise :)

We're thinking of buying a little Mac so that we can test sites directly
under OSX.
 
D

derek giroulle

Neal said:
The only time you need to think of height is with the smallest monitor
and browser maximized. In that case, you want content visible in the
viewport on initial load even at a width of 550 and a height of 425px.
The more critical thing is width.
be sure it all works down to 500px wide and still
looks ok at twice that.

Thanks for the advice

I have been moving somewhat forward.

I published s first trial version a few days ago at
http://users.skynet.be/derex/_test/NL_frame.htm
today I updated it to reflect the new status

The "envelope" design is pretty liquid imho - but what do other members
think ? your opionion is appreciated.


Next I think I figured how to resolve the frame like behaviour
My solutions involve some tricks other people designed I don't give me
credit for other people's work, I simply integrated the solutions

I created in the open space left by my envelope a DMTHL window wich
scrolls if needed : I called that my "infostage"
in that staging-space I created a menu space and an iframe
I found a javascript solution that allows me to display new content in
the iframe

then I found a javascript solution for the menu to make it collapsable
that allows me to create a menu of more or less then 10 items that can
be expanded in sub and sub-sub menu's recursively so I can make it as
deep as I want

As the menu contains links to effective files, I hope the spiders will
find all the files on my site thus effectively resolving the frame
drawback
while allowing the functionality of a single TOC file and a staging area
for the info i want to produce in my site ( using an iframe)

Hope you like to solution?
 
D

derek giroulle

Whitecrest said:
You might want to take a look at the "want to see the worst website
ever" thread....

No thank you, the invitation will suffice,
That thread is a pissing contest...

It has currently degenerated about who has the biggest muscle, neck,
biceps and other bodily parts and consequently the smallest brain

I'm talking liquid design here and being as close a possible to being
CSS/HTML compliant.

Let the hulkies and the beerbellies fight it out over there
let's keep it intelligent this side

Derek
 
E

Els

Whitecrest said:
EVERY thread on usenet eventually turns into a pissing
contest.

That explains why it's mostly men who just keeeeeep going in
these threads... ;-)
 
D

Dylan Parry

Els said:
That explains why it's mostly men who just keeeeeep going in these
threads... ;-)

I think they are of the misguided opinion that it will impress the ladies,
silly boys. ;)
 
E

Els

Dylan said:
I think they are of the misguided opinion that it will
impress the ladies, silly boys. ;)

Very silly indeed. Nothing cute about a guy in wet pants cause
the wind decided to change direction :)
 
S

Sally Thompson

No, no, that's different. I'm talking pure miscalculation here.
(been there, seen that ;-) )

<giggle> And I thought you'd led such a sheltered life, too!
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top