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!!
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.
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....
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.