Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : what makes web page "best viewed at" 800 x 600?
Some web sites say they are best viewed at 800 x 600, while some indicate they are best viewed at a higher resolution. Are there some settings that make a difference to the "best viewed at" resolution?
Our web site, www.taxtips.ca, does not all fit on the screen when viewed at 800 x 600 resolution. The user has to scroll to the right to see the whole page. This has changed recently, because 2 people I know say they did not used to have to scroll to the right to see the whole page. I did not change anything that I know of that would do this.
I use MS FrontPage to maintain the site.
Appreciate any help anyone can provide!!
Vladdy
11-01-2003, 11:41 PM
Incompetent web designers make pages "best viewed at/in/with...".
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Vladdy
Incompetent web designers make pages "best viewed at/in/with...". I put that on my site, that does not mean it does not still look good at 800 by 600 on mozilla, it just means I think it looks best at 1024 by 786 on ie. My site will function and look good on just about all graphical browsers, except some images slide a little in opera but I have had 10 opera hits and 2 were me and 3 one of my friends.
Vladdy
11-02-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by PeOfEo
My site will function and look good on just about all graphical browsers, except some images slide a little in opera but I have had 10 opera hits and 2 were me and 3 one of my friends.
Try increasing font size in mozilla and see what happens to your site....
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 01:25 PM
so? The content is still there and the site is still useable even if the bottom is over lapped. I design for the settings that I specified not a bunch of hypathetical situations. As you can see the site still functions fine though it is not as 'pretty' it still works.
Jeff Mott
11-02-2003, 02:40 PM
but I have had 10 opera hits and 2 were me and 3 one of my friendsNote that Opera allows the user to choose which browser it should identify itself as, and it will identify itself as MSIE 6 by default.
So, from what you are all saying should I assume that there is nothing I can do so that people do not have to scroll to the right to see the whole web page if they are viewing it at 800 x 600 resolution?
Vladdy
11-02-2003, 04:09 PM
You can stop using Front Page - about the worst WYSIWYG editor out there and learn some HTML coding.
You can design your site so that it can be viewed with any device/resolution/color depth/etc; a site which presentation adjusts to whatever the browser size and user preferences (such as default font size) are.
Then you would not need the silly "Best viewed in ...." because your site would take advantage of client capabilities regardless what the client is.
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 04:25 PM
vladdy my site functions on numerous browsers and platforms. I did not design for one resotution or one browser by any means. But leaving the best viewed in I think is just a little note. So then just hypathetically if someone is on some out there browser, lets say ie2, they will know that it is not the site they should blame but rather the browser. If there is something out of place on a site people generally blame the site and not the browser, sure its the webmasters fault if they designed the site for ie only but say the person is on an out there browser then they will know why it is screwed up instead of blaming the webmaster for the screw ups. That is the general intent to leaving that there. I am not saying you should design for one browser platform and resotution by any means, I am simply saying I think it is good etiquite.
Vladdy
11-02-2003, 04:50 PM
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fknights.europe.webmatrixhosting.net%2Findex.aspx
IncaWarrior
11-02-2003, 04:50 PM
you know how much work i had to go to to get that bottom scroll bar for low resolutions :p
some websites just work better in higher resolutions because of pictures and other content
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Vladdy
http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fknights.europe.webmatrixhosting.net%2Findex.aspx That is not accurate lol, it still displays iframes, I left links inplace of the iframes for browsers that could not display it. That also falls into that ie2 category, actually ie2 would display my site better then lynx. Your trying to say something about my site because I think it is good etiquite to put on my site what I think is the best browser + resolution to view it with? I do that out of common coutesy so the user can know why the sites layout is messed up when they are using lynx. Not that I am going to get very many lynx hits to begin with, not enough to justify making my layout horrid for all of the main stream browsers. The content is accessable because of the links I provided in the iframes, and the side bar would work if the iframes did not work because the link targets would just open in the new window.
Vladdy
11-02-2003, 06:20 PM
Pe,
You made a point that your
site functions on numerous browsers and platforms
I merely showed you that it does not make sense it text browsers. It's not just about having links that allow to reach your iframed content - when a user comes across something like that they would not bother going any further than the home page.
If you want to be courteous to your visitors design so that your web design makes sense no matter what is used to view it. I stay by my statement that the need for "best viewed in..." is a sign of poor design. Your site only confirms it.
There is nothing in your site layout that requires frames, tables and setting default font to 11px so that IE users have to use magnifying glass to read it.
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 06:27 PM
My site does need frames. I did that as a for conveiniance to me and to save on bandwidth. Smaller font just looks nicer and I know my audiance too. The reason for tables in there is due to ie bugs, I designed it all in css but then tried numerous hacks to control the middle content and had to use a hybrid layout. My site does function on numerous platforms and browsers. All of the graphical browsers that I tested it on delivered the content adiquitly. Even if someone made a site that could addapt and display content well for any platform resolution and browser, it is still going to look the best in one of the newer graphical browsers. The majority of my users are using ie6 (big supprise) so I am going to make sure it looks to best on that, and I wanted my layout to be the way it is now. In order to acheive that I had to use tables for the mid content disjointed in lynx (or atleast the lynx viewer). But oh well, I know my audiance and the chance of me getting a real lynx hit of some user who is not just trying to see how my site performs in lynx is extreamly low.
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 06:31 PM
Just to appease you let me revise what I said earlier. My site functions on most graphical browsers. I try to follow the standads set by the w3c and revising a whole site layout for users who will never visit my site to begin with is absurd.
Vladdy
11-02-2003, 06:49 PM
My site does need frames. I did that as a for conveiniance to me and to save on bandwidth.
Putting YOUR convinience above your users does not earn you points. You would save way more bandwidth by removing all the presentation (<tables>) from your HTML and putting it in CSS file.
Smaller font just looks nicer and I know my audiance too.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What looks looks good to you may not look good your audience. While knowing your limited audience is an acceptable excuse, it does not make such design practice acceptable.
The reason for tables in there is due to ie bugs, I designed it all in css but then tried numerous hacks to control the middle content and had to use a hybrid layout.
Not being able to work around IE bugs is not an excuse for using tables, but another evidence of sub par design.
My site does function on numerous platforms and browsers. All of the graphical browsers that I tested it on delivered the content adiquitly.
Nope, what you showed that your site only works in graphical browsers (which can be considered "graphical" platform). For the rest of the media (text, speech) the content delivery is inadequate.
Even if someone made a site that could addapt and display content well for any platform resolution and browser, it is still going to look the best in one of the newer graphical browsers.
It's not about looking the best, but delivering the content in accordance with client capabilities.
The majority of my users are using ie6 (big supprise) so I am going to make sure it looks to best on that, and I wanted my layout to be the way it is now. In order to acheive that I had to use tables for the mid content disjointed in lynx (or atleast the lynx viewer). But oh well, I know my audiance and the chance of me getting a real lynx hit of some user who is not just trying to see how my site performs in lynx is extreamly low.
Once again, considering the nature of your site and it's limited audience, your design is fine. Just do not present it as an acceptable approach for commercial sites with more diverse user demographics.
IncaWarrior
11-02-2003, 07:17 PM
is there any way to make nice boxes with round edges like that without tables (or large pictures)?
some people like to make sites that look nice
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
is there any way to make nice boxes with round edges like that without tables (or large pictures)?There certainly is: http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15922 -- and it's bound to save you bandwidth.
What makes you think that using CSS to layout a page means it won't look good? Take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com. Also, the first link in my sig will be up soon, and will sport valid XHTML 1.1 with a CSS layout that is accessible to every imaginable user agent.
IncaWarrior
11-02-2003, 07:57 PM
that's a very simple border. what about if you want a simple picture for the border? with tables i can make it only a few pixals wide and just repeat it. what about CSS?
Yes, CSS can repeat borders, if that is what you are asking.
IncaWarrior
11-02-2003, 08:00 PM
how? i've never seen a background for a div...
Paul Jr
11-02-2003, 08:14 PM
You have an image, 50 by 50px.
<div style="width:200px;height:300px;background-image:url(/folder/background.gif) repeat-y;">Blah blah blah</div>
Last I checked that worked, right?
Jeff Mott
11-02-2003, 08:56 PM
Two things. First,not enough to justify making my layout horrid for all of the main stream browsersUsing CSS in no way means your page will look horrid.
And second, you saidThe majority of my users are using ie6 (big supprise) so I am going to make sure it looks to best on thatand Vladdy saidIt's not about looking the best, but delivering the content...and Vladdy was right. You can take this site as an example. I remember someone once describing this site as ugly. While I wouldn't go that far, I would admit that there is no real spice to its look. However, I'd bet that this site gets far more hits and returning visitors than a site with a breath-taking flash animation. The reason: content. A site's content, and not its look, is first and foremost what will attract or repel people.
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Vladdy
Putting YOUR convinience above your users does not earn you points. You would save way more bandwidth by removing all the presentation (<tables>) from your HTML and putting it in CSS file.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What looks looks good to you may not look good your audience. While knowing your limited audience is an acceptable excuse, it does not make such design practice acceptable.
Not being able to work around IE bugs is not an excuse for using tables, but another evidence of sub par design.
Nope, what you showed that your site only works in graphical browsers (which can be considered "graphical" platform). For the rest of the media (text, speech) the content delivery is inadequate.
It's not about looking the best, but delivering the content in accordance with client capabilities.
Once again, considering the nature of your site and it's limited audience, your design is fine. Just do not present it as an acceptable approach for commercial sites with more diverse user demographics. Did you read up on my earlier posts? It is a HYBRID layout. IE bugs, I could not get the images and the iframe positioned becaus of it. Because I use an iframe I have no secondary pages with a layout so the external file is not neccessary. I use a table because I had spent hours trying screwing with hacks just to get that to work in ie5 and 6 at the same time as well as working in netscape based browsers and looking reasonable in opera. Nothing I tired worked. For the sake of my viewers I went down this path and I do not want to attempt to redo it because I have other projects to tackle. The design I am working on now is all css and looks good in all browsers, no iframes. I did view it on text based browsers
http://knights.europe.webmatrixhosting.net/wfrp/index.html
take a peak at it in the lynx viewer. http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fknights.europe.webmatrixhosting.net%2Fwfrp%2Findex.html
the layout is quite different from my clan's layout and it will use divs with auto overflow, not iframes....
it is just a template, a layout at this point. The known quirks are the naviagation, the drop downs do not work in ns browsers, I am providing a backup for that reason which will not make it as pretty but it will work and the users will never know that it did now work for them.
IncaWarrior
11-02-2003, 10:43 PM
ooh now if only you could put two background images
PeOfEo
11-02-2003, 10:46 PM
?
Paul Jr
11-02-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by PeOfEo
?
Agreed...
IncaWarrior
11-03-2003, 01:41 PM
like have one background going horizontally and one going vertically, but i don't think you can do that with the same layer
PeOfEo
11-03-2003, 03:59 PM
why would you want to? I am confused
IncaWarrior
11-03-2003, 05:43 PM
to have something like this:
_______________
|
|
|
|
|
|
with repeating both ways
Looks like a job for borders, to me...
IncaWarrior
11-03-2003, 07:48 PM
note that those are images going both ways
The usefulness of what you are asking eludes me . Perhaps I still do not understand what you want. Do you have a screen shot of what this should look like?
IncaWarrior
11-03-2003, 08:00 PM
have one picture ( | ) repeat across horizontally, and the other picture ( - ) repeat vertically
||||||||||||||||||
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
so there's a top bar and side bar
I see no reason to need to do this in one <div>. You can simply use two. One for your header, and one for your sidebar. Apart from that, and depending on the scenario, you could perhaps make a background image that uses a technique much like the one shown in Sliding Doors (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors/) article at ALA.
IncaWarrior
11-04-2003, 07:56 PM
well you can't get it to work for a page because when you scroll the div doesn't move