Is 800 x 600 old hat?

B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
Er, scratch what I said above. I have a GeForce 7300 LE which
does the color adjust. (-NVidia was *last* 'puter.) Apparently
it's limited to 1280x1024, though, (unless the monitor has
something to do with it??)

I'm just a po' farm boy tryin' to survive in this here city with
his silo intact.


Ahh, don't be an octopussy! Clams don't grow on trees (but then
trees don't grow on clams, either.)

Merging octopussy and trees:

http://tinyurl.com/222se
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

dorayme said:
Very nice, B.
Thanks.

Just one little thing I noticed, without looking at your code, the
block in which the top heading image is in, seems to be em based for
height. Not sure it needs to be as the img is fixed and upping the
text unnecessarily uses screen height in this respect.

Could be. I'll have a look at it after the holiday. <g> Oh well, it's
only one number in one file. Changed now. Both sites, actually.

I do this one as well:
http://countryrode.com/
 
N

Neredbojias

Merging octopussy and trees:

http://tinyurl.com/222se

Now see what happens when you don't get enough sex?

The pages _are_ nicely-composed. Didn't look at the source but the guy
seems adept.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave
 
D

David Segall

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.

http://www.freezeblock.com/
At 800x600 <http://www.freezeblock.com/homeowner.php> looks fine
except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4). At 1680x1050 I think the line
length of the first two lines is far too long although I like the way
you have used the illustrations and the boxed testimonials to limit
the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem to have given up on
<http://www.freezeblock.com/install.php> so it looks like a fixed
width page except that the heading looks centered at 800x600 and right
justified at 1680x1050.
You were very brave to include a table
<http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/stuff/flmodels.php> in your candidate
site. It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
maximimum width.
A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line length,
but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
how to achieve it.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

David said:
At 800x600 <http://www.freezeblock.com/homeowner.php> looks fine
except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).

What is the error you see, and what told you of the error? Neither the
W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.
At 1680x1050 I think the line length of the first two lines is far too
long although I like the way you have used the illustrations and the
boxed testimonials to limit the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem
to have given up on <http://www.freezeblock.com/install.php> so it
looks like a fixed width page except that the heading looks centered
at 800x600 and right justified at 1680x1050.

Do you really use your browser window maximized? said:
You were very brave to include a table
<http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/stuff/flmodels.php> in your candidate
site.

How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.
It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
maximimum width.

The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.
I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post

I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
rather well.
that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
how to achieve it.

I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
 
N

Neredbojias

It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen

Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
particular page?
and I think the line length
on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my 1680x1050
monitor.

Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave
 
S

Sherm Pendley

David Segall said:
The post
that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
how a web page should be designed

Pious? Spare me. Piety concerns religious belief - the belief that a
thing is true, when in reality it's not known for a fact whether it's
true or not.

The people making pious statements are the ones who claim to know all
about random Joe User visiting their site - what browser he's using,
whether he's disabled JavaScript, etc. They believe in something that
has not been proven as fact.

Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
irrational belief that I do know these things.

sherm--
 
D

dorayme

Sherm Pendley said:
Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
irrational belief that I do know these things.

sherm--

Everyone concerned with this question will get a rather different
feeling about it if they think of the ideas being ideals and the
implementations approximations. In other words, to take the ideal
of fluid design, in reality they are less than perfect in that it
is extremely hard to make a design show up as we might want for
all screen sizes or even no screen size. The idea is that the
author gets it right if he or she makes as decent a compromise
between the competing claims as possible. Those choosing em based
designs and em widths succeed well enough in this (beau)regard.
Those choosing pixel based designs and fixed widths too often
fail spectacularly.

(btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name, and it tuns
up in replies on my newsreader.)
 
S

Sherm Pendley

dorayme said:
(btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name

No it doesn't. "sherm--" is part of my postings, not part of my sig. My
sig begins with the correct "-- " delimiter.

sherm--
 
D

dorayme

Sherm Pendley said:
No it doesn't. "sherm--" is part of my postings, not part of my sig. My
sig begins with the correct "-- " delimiter.

sherm--

Right. First time I noticed it! Is there some reason for this? I
mean, lets face it, I am not exactly the most modest being in the
universe yet provide for my name to auto disappear in replies.
Sure, it hurt like hell making the decision to do so, do you
think I like my name missing the rare opportunity to appear? <g>
 
D

David Segall

Neredbojias said:
Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
particular page?
I just tried it on your home page.
Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?
http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html

I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.
 
D

David Segall

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
What is the error you see, and what told you of the error? Neither the
W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.




How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.


The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.


I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
rather well.


I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
 
D

David Segall

Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
What is the error you see, and what told you of the error?
When the link spans more than one line the box breaks and the first
and second line overlap.
Neither the
W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.

Do you really use your browser window maximized? <g>
Usually. I'm not good at managing multiple windows on one screen and I
have a second small monitor if I want to keep some reference data
visible.
How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.


The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.


I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
rather well.


I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
No. You were _not_ pious. Unlike the post I responded to you were
careful to specify "within reason" and I assumed that you do not think
that expecting a site to work on a mobile phone and a wide screen
monitor was within reason.
 

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

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top