Display settings.

[Animation]

Looking at my stats I see that 80% of visitors use either 800x600
or 1024x768. !0% use 1280x1024.
So I am aiming to make my site fit the 80%. It looks great at 800x600, (which is the setting I use), but at 1024x768 the display is moved over to the left of the screen. I cannot display any higher on my system and I shudder to think what it looks like at 1280 and beyond :roll:

Most sites I browse do not have this problem, the displays always being centred no matter what the setting.

I believe that there is some coding which mentions 100% instead
of a number. Maybe other beginners have this same trouble, and I wonder if anyone knows the solution? My web site builder just says
"Make it OK for a single setting," which I'm sure is now wrong these days.
Albert.

[Sharron]

Jonra has solutions for centering, but I don't remember what they are. I imagine it a fluidity issue. Is your site fixed in size? are the graphics adaptable to a fluid format?

I know I just bulit a site centered to 800x600,, fixed, with Jonra's help with code it centers now, not code he suggested as the most effective choice, but it is centered. I need to go back and change that, but have not yet.

The site I just built is fixed at 800x600 as I said, now clients thinks he wants it to fill the entire screen at different resolutions, the site does not lend itself to that though, and would be almost like starting over to do so.

Search the forum posts for centering and see if you can find the threads.

[jonra01]

I see you have already changed it.

The <center> tag is deprecated code, which means it may not be supported in future browsers. At least, that's what the purists will tell you. In actual use, I doubt very much if the browser makers will stop supporting this tag. It is remotely possible that it will happen, which is why I recommend this solution - http://css-demos.jonra.com/css-center-div.html

[WoodYouLike]

Hi John
besides being 'hooked' on the snake-game ;-) I'm trying to find more time to understand more about css and your website will be a great help for that, I;m sure.
(Now to find the time ;-(

[Animation]

[quote="Sharron"]Jonra has solutions for centering, but I don't remember what they are. I imagine it a fluidity issue. Is your site fixed in size? are the graphics adaptable to a fluid format?

I know I just bulit a site centered to 800x600,, fixed, with Jonra's help with code it centers now, not code he suggested as the most effective choice, but it is centered. I need to go back and change that, but have not yet.
quote]

Thanks Jonra for that link about centering. I'm a little surprised to hear that others are still building web sites like me based only on 800x600.
I had a look at your site, Sharron, and centering at x800 and x1024 seems similar to what I am trying out as a test.
Will try Jonra's info out.
I wonder what some of our sites look like on x1280?

Instead of getting on with things I seem to spend all my time searching
the internet for info on all this web site mumbo jumbo and I should be
helping the wifey do the housework :roll:
She is in danger of becoming an Internet widow :wink:
Albert.

[jonra01]

I'm a little surprised to hear that others are still building web sites like me based only on 800x600.
There is a big argument about this in the web dev circle. Some people feel that a page should expand to fill the entire screen while others, me among them, feel that a fluid design makes for poor usability.

If a text area expands in width to more than about 45 ems it becomes harder to read. Extremely long lines of text require scanning, which studies have shown affect usability.

I'm of the opinion that the design should suit the content, not the other way around. If you look at my sites you will notice that they all use a different layout.

Things probably won't change much until you can flow text from one column to another like a magazine or newspaper layout. The other change that is needed is for the max-width propery to be supported in all browsers.

These changes will allow you to have a more fluid layout with columns that can be displayed side by side on wider screens and flowed down on narrower screens. I don't expect this to be fully supported for several more years.

[JWJ]

This is a very interesting point John. As you know, I have some pages that are almost entirely images, and the fluid approach seems to work quite well. I have others that are much more textual, and I take your point about the long lines. BTW, forgive my ignorance, but how much is 45 ems in characters?

Where I have noticed a reasonable compromise with fluid text is on my index page which, for entirely different reasons, has been built in 4 columns. This seems to cope better with differing screen sizes, probably because each column still doen't get too wide.

Is this approach of multiple columns a pseudo-solution for now, until column flow is fully and properly catered for? I'm giving thoughts to a new design for my site and more columns was one of the things I was contemplating.

[jonra01]

Is this approach of multiple columns a pseudo-solution for now, until column flow is fully and properly catered for? I'm giving thoughts to a new design for my site and more columns was one of the things I was contemplating.
The only problem with using multiple columns is at smaller screen sizes. You could use relative positioning so the columns on the right would drop down if the screen is too narrow. Of course, this could leave you with 3 columns on top and one below.

This page is set to 46 em http://css-demos.jonra.com/

[Sharron]

personaly I don't like a page to fill the entire screen. I much prefer to center with some room around the edges. Much like hanging a picture or pictures on a wall. Or a mat around a mat around the photo, then in a frame.


My pages tend to be (new ones anyway, lol) 750xwhatever. Those who use the higher resolutions should expect to see some blank space.

[webado]

There's something I'd like to try.

I'm thinking of using only .em for all sizes: of fonts, of width and height of things. This might afford some proportional fluidity.

How do you reset a font-size or any other size to the default size so .em is the same as whatever it is right at the highest level? Like if you don't set any font-size at all?

But I think I may meet a couple of problems: graphics sizes still need to be specified in px - I think. And likely positioning of divs may require pixels as well. Am I wrong?

[jonra01]

There's something I'd like to try.

I'm thinking of using only .em for all sizes: of fonts, of width and height of things. This might afford some proportional fluidity.

How do you reset a font-size or any other size to the default size so .em is the same as whatever it is right at the highest level? Like if you don't set any font-size at all?

But I think I may meet a couple of problems: graphics sizes still need to be specified in px - I think. And likely positioning of divs may require pixels as well. Am I wrong?
Images will need px. Positioning could be done with %, em, or px. As a side note, you can also use centimeters 'cm' for positioning. I can't imagine doing this for anything other than a print layout. In that case being able to specify position by cm could come in handy.

[webado]

OK, so this is rather promising - I might give it a try, thanks.

I have at times manipulated image width as % of a table cell width and it seems to work (at least in IE) unless I'm dreaming - keeping in mind how much image quality may be lost if it's blown up to much more than it is in pixels in reality.

Have to think how to make use of this.

[JWJ]

Thanks John. 46 ems looks like a nice size.
personaly I don't like a page to fill the entire screen. I much prefer to center with some room around the edges.
I couldn't agree more. I've set all of my tables to 80% and I like the spaciousness the 10% margins provide.

[jonra01]

You have some great photos on your site. I like them all. The ones I like the best in Street 'seens' are "Cobbled...", "seats", and "set in concrete". My favorites in the Textured gallery are "stake out" and "composted". I think my favorite of all is "radiator" in "lines seen"

I think the layout works fine up to 1280 x 1024, which is the highest I can view.

You didn't ask about anything else, but as long as I looked I might as well share some thoughts.

I was a little frustrated that I couldn't see the images at a little larger size. It would be nice to be able to click on the image on the gallery page to view an image 2X as large.

It would be better if there was a top menu with the links that are on the home page. You could combine "indoor" and "outdoor" into "galleries". If someone arrives at your site through an inner page there is no simple way to reach the home page or your contact page.

[Animation]

"

I think the layout works fine up to 1280 x 1024, which is the highest I can view.

You didn't ask about anything else, but as long as I looked I might as well share some thoughts.

I was a little frustrated that I couldn't see the images at a little larger size. It would be nice to be able to click on the image on the gallery page to view an image 2X as large.

It would be better if there was a top menu with the links that are on the home page. You could combine "indoor" and "outdoor" into "galleries". If someone arrives at your site through an inner page there is no simple way to reach the home page or your contact page.

Your viewing at 1280x1024 is of very great interest to me as I cannot do that on my out of date PC here. Yes, none are viewable large because I consider that they are not "compositions" to be spread across the whole vdu, but simply little ideas and humorous interludes, shall we say, which do not merit large sizes.
Glad you enjoyed the pics, (there are another 40 going up soon), today I go out again with my little camera searching for more.....which I enjoy doing much more than struggling with making a web site work
correctly :)
Albert.

[chison]

my site today stat

drill down 72 72.00% 1024x768
drill down 14 14.00% 1280x1024
drill down 11 11.00% 800x600
drill down 2 2.00% 1152x864
drill down 1 1.00% 1600x1200

[jonra01]

my site today stat

drill down 72 72.00% 1024x768
drill down 14 14.00% 1280x1024
drill down 11 11.00% 800x600
drill down 2 2.00% 1152x864
drill down 1 1.00% 1600x1200
These numbers aren't very meaningful. They are for page views and don't show the percentage for visitors. If you have a couple of people look at a lot of pages they can skew the results. On top of that, the sampling is too small to be accurate.