S
SBR
I never complained about the answer you gave me, someone else did. While
your answer did not help me at all, I did find it informative.
your answer did not help me at all, I did find it informative.
S
SBR
Mark Parnell said:
It's not unfounded when I'm using past site statistics to make this
assumption.
That's okay with me. The site actually was designed around 1024, and looks
even better with wasted space around it.
Then they'll have to horizontal scroll or leave. I really don't care if
they do. I'm not ehere to satisfy every person that comes to the site and
happens to have their browser open to a width of 300 and thinks they an
still accurately view web pages. What about the images on my site One of
my pictures has a width of 400 pixels. I guess I shouldn't use images in
case someone has their browser window open to 200 pixels because then they'd
have to scroll. You can't satisfy everyone.
If they don't want to scroll, they can click that little square box in the
top right of their screen. That is much easierthan my working my ass off to
satisfy a small minority.
It already is accessible to "as many visitors as possible." Key phrase
being "as possible." I'm not trying to make it accessible to every single
person that comes, just the vast majority of them. As I said, 1/100 having
to scroll because they have some kind of funky browser configuration is okay
with me,
I think you're missing my point though. I don't have the time or desire to
learn CSS for one web site. It would take ME more effort to make my site
viewable by all configurations than I am willing to put forth. And as my
image example has shown, unless I am making a site with nothing but text, it
is impossible to make it completely fluid. Your own site causes horizontal
scrolling when I unminimize my browser.
S
SBR
MOST sites are somewhat fixed and have no problem.
Once the screen is scaled, all sites with images are screwed. You show me a
site that is not all text that I can NOT induce horizontal scrolling on by
changing my browser size and I will admit I'm wrong.
R
rf
R
rf
A certain brucie once said to me:
For whom are you making this site? You or your visitors.
Cheers
Richard.
BTW apologies for the empty post, bloody mouse got away from me :-(
J
Jeff Thies
SBR said:
There's a lot of reasons to not use fixed widths.
With that said, it's very difficult in a graphically complex layout to use
percentages.
If you *must* use a fixed width, 752 is what I see.
Jeff
N
Neal
Images should be treated carefully, to be sure. As author, you need to
make a sort of decision as to what is the biggest safe width to use. For
me, I'd go up to 350px or so. Some think that's too big, some think it's
too small a limit.
Bottom line is, as you've illustrated, images are content with inherent
pixel size. I'd suggest that since this leads to problems with fluid
layouts that you use as few images as possible and those that you do use,
keep them as small as you can sensibly manage.
Bear in mind, too, that IE will not scale the images with the text, so if
you enlarge the text size to "Largest" the pics will seem smaller -
conversely, they'll seem bigger next to "Smallest". Other browsers do
scale pics with the overall zoom of the page - so your 200px image will
render at 400px on a browser set to zoom to 200%. Problems, problems.
I hazard an unscientific guess that few users browse with a viewport
narrower than 500px. We can debate whether that is safe to assume or not -
I'm not saying it's foolproof by any standard. But if we, for the moment,
accept this, then we can infer that images in a heading div or which
otherwise take up a full page could be as wide as 400px and not cause
horizontal scrolling at normal zoom, and that in a two-column layout an
image ought to be half that width (or less, if the column is smaller than
half the width of the viewport).
However, I must stress that we have no way of knowing the user's viewport
width. And I'm not so bold as to demand my visitors change their
preferences for my site. It's like asking your houseguests to wear a
particular eyeglass prescription when it's not what works for their needs.
Remember, we call them visitors to our site, but really it's our data
which is the guest on the user's computer. That makes us the ones on their
turf. When on Rome's computer, do as Rome does, and all that.
So while images can pose difficulties in making a purely fluid design, you
can mitigate the problems by keeping images to a minimum and making the
ones you use are optimized and tested at a variety of settings - including
OS, browser, viewport sizes, zooms, etc., and all the combinations.
C
C A Upsdell
SBR said:
There is an implied assumption, however, namely that the user with an
800x600 resolution has their browser set to full-screen mode. This is a
very chancy assumption: people commonly resize their browser windows to
sizes smaller than the full-screen size, and this is something which you
will not find in the stats of your website visitors.
The best width is 100% ... perhaps with max-width set to prevent pages from
growing so wide that they become hard to read on very wide browser windows.
R
rossz
SpaceGirl said:Accept teleworkers?
Unfortunately, no. I would, the owner wouldn't.
T
The Doormouse
I agree.
I will back that up.
I agree with the poster's statement. IMO, there is no good reason for
100% accessibility, due to diminished returns.
My suggestions for web accessibility for a web page are as follows:
* standards-compliant (HTML 4.01 or XHTML)
* works at 800x600 and also 1024x768
* works on IE6, Firefox and Netscape
* Alt text for images
Is this 100% accessible? No.
Am I approaching 95%? IMO, yes.
Lately I have considered dropping Netscape support in select instances
due partly to the fact that it is a dead browser. Most of my pages are
Netscape-compliant anyways, but as I move towards XML accessibility,
Netscape becomes burdensome.
How much market share do they still have, anyways?
The Doormouse
I will back that up.
I agree with the poster's statement. IMO, there is no good reason for
100% accessibility, due to diminished returns.
My suggestions for web accessibility for a web page are as follows:
* standards-compliant (HTML 4.01 or XHTML)
* works at 800x600 and also 1024x768
* works on IE6, Firefox and Netscape
* Alt text for images
Is this 100% accessible? No.
Am I approaching 95%? IMO, yes.
Lately I have considered dropping Netscape support in select instances
due partly to the fact that it is a dead browser. Most of my pages are
Netscape-compliant anyways, but as I move towards XML accessibility,
Netscape becomes burdensome.
How much market share do they still have, anyways?
The Doormouse
S
SpaceGirl
rossz said:
shucks
C
C A Upsdell
The Doormouse said:
Netscape 7 and all the related Gecko browsers (Mozilla, Firebird, etc.) are
thriving rather than dying.
Depends very much on the type of site. Stats I keep range from 1-21%. See
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm .
W
Whitecrest
Never said that did I. I said use a percent.
T
Toby A Inkster
SBR said:
Then why did you ask your original question?
L
Lauri Raittila
In said:
Well, of course you don't have problems if you are using browswer
maximized. ther people have.
No, only sites with too big graphics. What is too big is unknown, but
surely nothing is safe in all conditions.
But there is lots of pages where images only need to be scrolled when you
use smaller window than you prefer when reading text. Of course, it
depends on many things again.
L
Lauri Raittila
Not so. I have seen site that wanted to use 20% for content width.
Someone using 21" screen and fullscreen browser...
Of course it is. Even more safe than 100%, that most likely causes
horizontal scrolling if you don't do something.
(that is because rule with value "15,000px" is ignored, of course)
Someone using 21" screen and fullscreen browser...
Of course it is. Even more safe than 100%, that most likely causes
horizontal scrolling if you don't do something.
(that is because rule with value "15,000px" is ignored, of course)
C
Charles Banas
Lauri said:
i should hope so. that would make my 1600px-wide screen look (and feel)
very very small....
M
Michael Wilcox
SBR said:
It's impossible to know how much space is available for a web page's use
when you're in the author's standpoint. You don't know if the user will
have a side bar open, or a bunch of toolbars at the top, or is simply
not working at the maximum size their browser allows.
Thus, making a page that has no restrictions on its width is best.
S
SBR
Neal said:
That's why I like tables. If I want a certain paragraph to sit next to a
certain picture, I can force it that way. I don't have to worry about
someone enlarging their font size to 40 and screwing up the way I want the
site to look.
S
SBR
I'm making it for the site owner, and it's being done for free. As long as
it looks good in her browser I'm good to go. If I was being paid by the
hour, or if my audience was disabled, I might take the time to ensure that
every single bit of the site looks exactly right under every ridiculous
circumstance. Until then, I will design it to ensure that someone with the
minimum resolution who has their browser window fully open can see it. And
if they can't, then maybe .5% of my visitors will be inconvenienced and
actually have to take the effort to hit the maximize button. I'm not
selling products from the site, and it's mainly informational. Whether or
not 1 out of eveyr 100 people has a minor inconvenience viewing it won't
effect her sales at all.