This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > February 2004 > Web Sites that fit screen without scrolling
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Web Sites that fit screen without scrolling
|
|
| millepa 2004-02-12, 3:37 pm |
| I design my web sites in Dreamweaver to fit in a table 640 wide. Why is it
that you still have to scroll to the right to see the entire web site? I was
told that this is a standard size that will eliminate the need for scrolling.
What am I doing wrong
| |
| Deaf Web Designer 2004-02-12, 3:37 pm |
| I agree with Darrel. If you will, if I can say something a bit more in
addition to Darrel's reference. There is no such standard for that matter. It
depends on lot of parameter, factor, design and content itself. No one website
project are same. Therefore, it varies greatly
If you must and prefer a fixed screen viewing in browser regardless of screen
resolution, table is a way to go. But it requires lot of work and understand
how table layout works. And design itself as well. 640 by 480 pixel or 800 by
600 pixel or larger. I would say that 800 by 600 pixel is ideal for my
situation. But you need to think a bit if we look at 800 by 600 pixel in
browser viewing. In terms of html source coding, it is rather bit tricky.
Let's say to set it as 780 to 785 pixel and 595 or something like that.
Because of browser navgiation on right side to stroll down - its pixel
resolution in that stroll area varies from Moz to MISE and Navigator and
platform/system architectures (OSX or Unix or Linux or legacy versions of
Windows or Window XP). As you see, there is lot of factors here
Not all screen resolution are set 72 dpi. OSX are set on 72dpi resolution for
precise viewing. Unfortunately, Windows' pixel set in 96 dpi. That is why we
notice some graphic image looks a bit bigger than intends on Mac
And if you happen to have long text, perhaps that you need to split it into
few pages. Hope that helps. Good luck with your project! Cheers, DW
| |
|
| I'll answer your question....
If your screen scrolls vertically (they need to scroll down) the window
places in a vertical scrollbar on the right. You need to account for it and
take off 20 pixels, resulting in a 620 width, not a 640.
"millepa" <pattie@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c0ghvb$p6l$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I design my web sites in Dreamweaver to fit in a table 640 wide. Why is
it
> that you still have to scroll to the right to see the entire web site? I
was
> told that this is a standard size that will eliminate the need for
scrolling.
> What am I doing wrong
>
| |
|
| Yeah, use that answer on the MCIWD exam once...I'm sure they'd get a laugh
since it's not even an option.
"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0gic5$pm3$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> scrolling.
>
> There is no standard size.
>
>
> I don't know. Can you show us the page?
>
> -Darrel
>
>
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-02-12, 3:41 pm |
| Deaf Web Designer wrote:
[snip]
> Not all screen resolution are set 72 dpi. OSX are set on 72dpi
> resolution for precise viewing. Unfortunately, Windows' pixel set in
> 96 dpi. That is why we notice some graphic image looks a bit bigger
> than intends on Mac
[snip]
On the web, "dpi" and "ppi" are meaningless. No OS has a clue about the
ppi/dpi that its images are being shown at. It is *impossible* for them to do
so.
"72" and "96" (etc) are just silly numbers quoted by people who haven't a clue
what is happening. It is a pity that "dpi" and "ppi" ever became apparent to
web authors - they just serve to confuse.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| darrel 2004-02-12, 4:29 pm |
| > Not all screen resolution are set 72 dpi. OSX are set on 72dpi
resolution for
> precise viewing. Unfortunately, Windows' pixel set in 96 dpi. That is
why we
> notice some graphic image looks a bit bigger than intends on Mac
Neither windows or OSX are set to any dpi. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel.
The only type those two numbers come into play is when the OS is making
translations for type sizes spec'ed in physical measurements. For example,
sometimes the OS and/or browser will translate 1" high type to 72 pixel high
type and sometimes it will translate to 96 pixel high type. In terms of
graphics, those two numbers are irrelevant.
Just FYI...
-Darrel
| |
| Gary White 2004-02-12, 5:32 pm |
| On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:55:24 -0600, "darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>For example,
>sometimes the OS and/or browser will translate 1" high type to 72 pixel high
>type and sometimes it will translate to 96 pixel high type. In terms of
>graphics, those two numbers are irrelevant.
Sort of. I know nothing about the Mac O/S, but on Windows machines,
calling the GetDeviceCaps API function with the LOGPIXELSX parameter,
will give you the number of logical pixels per inch horizontally and
with the LOGPIXELSY will give the logical pixels per inch vertically. Of
course, if you call that same function with the HORZSIZE and VERTSIZE
parameters, it will give you the size of the screen in millimeters.
Windows machines will report 96 pixels per inch. If you call it and get
the actual size, convert to inches, and then use the screen resolution
to check the math, you'll find that 96 pixels per inch is rarely
accurate.
Gary
| |
|
|
| James M. Shook 2004-02-12, 6:30 pm |
| In article <c0gll3$1ce$1@forums.macromedia.com> , "darrel"
<notreal@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Neither windows or OSX are set to any dpi. A pixel is a pixel is a pixel.
Although IE and other browser allow you to change "dpi" in their respective
Preferences....
-- James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|