This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > October 2007 > browser width
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]
|
|
|
| I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
monitors.
I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to fit
the images to what the window flows out to...
Jeff
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-22, 3:17 am |
| Jeff wrote:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
> Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>
> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
> monitors.
>
> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying to fit
> the images to what the window flows out to...
>
> Jeff
>
Jeff,
You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your site
fluid so it uses the available space.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make your site
> fluid so it uses the available space.
No, you didn't read what I wrote.
I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull images
that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window stats so
that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.
Images, I'm talking images...
Jeff
>
| |
| John Hosking 2007-10-22, 3:17 am |
| Jeff wrote:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths?
My FF is currently set to 1013px (viewport 1003px). IE is 1077 (but the
scrollbars take up some space). My Opera is currently set to 969px. And
my Lynx browser has a viewport width of 800px. HTH
> I'll have a lot of images and
> would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
> Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
Sounds like work. Why not make a single image of a size reasonable for
downloading on the Web, and just always use that?
>
> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
> people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
> monitors.
My monitor does 1280px, but I almost never have my browser that wide.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
| |
|
| John Hosking wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> My FF is currently set to 1013px (viewport 1003px). IE is 1077 (but the
> scrollbars take up some space). My Opera is currently set to 969px. And
> my Lynx browser has a viewport width of 800px. HTH
Thanks.
>
>
>
> Sounds like work.
Actually not much. Server does all the work when I upload one larger
image. What I do is just specify the sizes in a config file and the
server reads this and makes the sizes needed. I prepend the size to the
image name. So if I upload my_pic.jpg, the server could make
700a-my_pic.jpg, 400w-my_pic.jpg and 300h-my_pic.jpg. Those would be a
max size in either dimension of 700px, a max width of 400px, and a max
height of 300px. It's easy to parse that way, you just add on the prefix
size you want to the base image name.
Why not make a single image of a size reasonable for
> downloading on the Web, and just always use that?
Because of all the browser widths. If you have an image that safely
fits in a 800px wide window (maybe 700px) it will look really small in a
1024 browser.
Now, I'm only doing this for gallery/slideshow pages, but I'll have a
lot of those. For a "normal" page of mixed text and images I won't and
shouldn't care. But if you just have one image and a small amount of
text you want that image to be relatively large for greater impact. You
don't want too much "whitespace" around the image.
Jeff
>
>
>
> My monitor does 1280px, but I almost never have my browser that wide.
>
>
| |
| Mark Goodge 2007-10-22, 3:17 am |
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:30:25 -0400, Jeff put finger to keyboard and
typed:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
>would like to use as much size as possible, typically what I do is use
>Image::Magick to create a variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>
>I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a lot of
>people above that, particularly with the proliferation of widescreen
>monitors.
I run Google Analytics on all the sites I look after. On all of them,
1024x800 is still by far the most common screen size. I wouldn't
suggesting assuming a larger viewport any time in the near future.
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!"
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-22, 3:17 am |
| Jeff wrote:
> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a decade!)
>
> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of images and
The browser I have running right now (Firefox; I use more than one and
they're not all the same or conistent sizes) is running on a 1400x1050
monitor. Its viewport is 1054x844.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Doug Baiter 2007-10-22, 6:18 am |
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:44:18 -0400, Jeff <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>
You'll have to excuse Jerry - he wades in with a load of complete
tripe whenever he 'feels' he has something to offer, and the original
question is somewhat irrelevant...
| |
| Andy Dingley 2007-10-22, 6:18 am |
| On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug...@all.uk> wrote:
> Anyone have stats on browser widths?
1000 x 800 is still a big player, so you can't assume any bigger than
that. There's also a lot more variation than there was a few years
ago.
800x600 (an old, small desktop) is getting to the negligible level,
but 800x400 and the like (tiny palmtops) is getting more common. Wider
proportioned screens are also becoming more significant at these low
total resolutions, so vertical scrolling is even more an inevitable
necessity, but we should still work hard to avoid sideways-scrollling.
Bandwidth continues to increase, so the volume of an image is less
significant than the screen size. This is even true for mobile.
So all in all, fluid design is where it's at. I'm now using 600-ish
widths as a general default width for images (even in portrait) when
previously I'd have used 480. I'm careful not to do "narrow stripe"
design though.
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>
> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull images
> that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on window stats so
> that I'll have some idea of what to have the server make.
>
> Images, I'm talking images...
>
> Jeff
>
Jeff,
Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized design,
you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design won't fit
into a window smaller than that. That includes most cell phones - but
more importantly, it could include a lot of browser windows.
What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows size.
For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not taking
up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you should
plan the window for the images you're going to use. That is get images
which look good (and, if they have text, are readable) and plan your
layout around them. You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
shrink the images to make the page as a whole look better.
And don't mind the troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>
> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized design,
> you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>
> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design won't fit
> into a window smaller than that. That includes most cell phones - but
> more importantly, it could include a lot of browser windows.
>
> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows size.
Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen size.
> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not taking up
> anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>
> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you should
> plan the window for the images you're going to use. That is get images
> which look good (and, if they have text, are readable) and plan your
> layout around them.
Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't want. I
want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit that rather have
the browser interpolate it, something browsers are not terribly good at.
Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:
<URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/displ...-statistics.php />
As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at 1250ish
browser widths.
You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the merits
of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically said that I
wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is certainly rare).
If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery" templates
up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic poet" who died
recently, which is why I'm updating. The images are very strong (some
startling) and need to speak (with a little verse) on their own, I don't
want a lot of "whitespace". The visual aspect is important and I
mentioned before these are gallery pages, not standard mixed text and
images html.
Jeff
You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
> shrink the images to make the page as a whole look better.
>
> And don't mind the troll.
>
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| On Oct 22, 9:40 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 22 Oct, 05:30, Jeff <dont_bug...@all.uk> wrote:
>
>
> 1000 x 800 is still a big player, so you can't assume any bigger than
> that. There's also a lot more variation than there was a few years
> ago.
>
> 800x600 (an old, small desktop) is getting to the negligible level,
> but 800x400 and the like (tiny palmtops) is getting more common. Wider
> proportioned screens are also becoming more significant at these low
> total resolutions, so vertical scrolling is even more an inevitable
> necessity, but we should still work hard to avoid sideways-scrollling.
>
> Bandwidth continues to increase, so the volume of an image is less
> significant than the screen size. This is even true for mobile.
>
> So all in all, fluid design is where it's at. I'm now using 600-ish
> widths as a general default width for images (even in portrait) when
> previously I'd have used 480. I'm careful not to do "narrow stripe"
> design though.
Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser. You can
then have your images any size you like.
| |
|
|
"SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:1193059529.673774.285010@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 9:40 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser. You can
> then have your images any size you like.
One can have images any size one likes (including exactly the size of the
browser canvas) without resorting to flash.
Ponders... does flash resize images better or worser than the native
browser?
--
Richard.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| rf wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:1193059529.673774.285010@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> One can have images any size one likes (including exactly the size of the
> browser canvas) without resorting to flash.
>
> Ponders... does flash resize images better or worser than the native
> browser?
>
Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
a browser, and if the image is particularly large you can preload it and
give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| Andy Dingley 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| On 22 Oct, 14:25, SpaceGirl <nothespacegirls...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Do your site in Flash and let it scale to fill be browser.
FRO Travis
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen size.
>
>
>
> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't want. I
> want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit that rather have
> the browser interpolate it, something browsers are not terribly good at.
>
Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to make the
page fluid.
> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:
>
> <URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/displ...-statistics.php />
>
> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at 1250ish
> browser widths.
>
That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple of sites
use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the merits of
> fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically said that I wasn't
> doing a fixed width design (which is certainly rare).
>
> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery" templates
> up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic poet" who died
> recently, which is why I'm updating. The images are very strong (some
> startling) and need to speak (with a little verse) on their own, I don't
> want a lot of "whitespace". The visual aspect is important and I
> mentioned before these are gallery pages, not standard mixed text and
> images html.
>
> Jeff
>
That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails, and if you
want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>
> You may (probably will, in fact) decide to grow or
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
|
|
|
| Brian Wakem 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> rf wrote:
>
> Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
> serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
> a browser, and if the image is particularly large you can preload it and
> give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
> rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.
They may just get a blank screen anyway.
I just visited northleithmill.com and found "This content requires the
Macromedia Flash Player.Get Flash", which is rather odd as I actually do
have flash installed and enabled on this machine. I can watch flash movies
on youtube for example.
--
Brian Wakem
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| Brian Wakem wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> I just visited northleithmill.com and found "This content requires the
> Macromedia Flash Player.Get Flash", which is rather odd as I actually do
> have flash installed and enabled on this machine. I can watch flash movies
> on youtube for example.
Yeah we never get time to update NLM :( YOu're not missing anything to
be honest :D
Reason for the message - you need Flash 9 (47) at least. 96% of people
have it installed, but there are still a few of you out there!
YouTube uses Flash 8.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| Brian Wakem wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> Youtube uses 8? I have 7.0.63.0 installed. Oh well, I cannot say I fell
> compelled to upgrade.
Oh! Guess I'm wrong then.
8 has a much MUCH better video codec... and 9 now has HD codecs and
hardware support (super fast).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to make the
> page fluid.
>
>
> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple of sites
> use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
Everything is getting bigger.
>
>
> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
Of course.
and if you
> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
Have you ever done a gallery page?
Jeff
>
>
>
| |
|
| Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:03:33 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I should mention that that graph is slightly misleading due to the peaks
> from maximised browsers at common screen resolutions swamping all the other
> data. I've also created a version that groups the data into 50-pixel
> chunks, although I haven't attached a scale yet:
>
>
> http://www.safalra.com/shared/displ...ics-average.php
>
>
Thanks. Can you put a scale to that so we can get a better idea?
Jeff
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> rf wrote:
>
>
> Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
> serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
> a browser,
Why is that?
and if the image is particularly large you can preload it and
> give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
> rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.
Images usually load progressively rather than just pop up.
>
A few questions about Flash.
Seems like all flash sites I've seen are a fixed width, can you show us
some flash sites that resize?
How does flash do for online CMS. I would think very poorly, am I
wrong here?
What would a typical client have to do to add a flash page to their site.
Jeff
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Everything is getting bigger.
>
To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest monitor,
or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full screen - whatever.
>
> Of course.
>
> and if you
>
> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
> Have you ever done a gallery page?
>
> Jeff
>
Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800.
Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my
window to see the larger of the two.
It's all about giving the customer what they want.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Safalra (Stephen Morley) 2007-10-22, 6:19 pm |
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:47:16 -0400, Jeff wrote:
> Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
>
> Thanks. Can you put a scale to that so we can get a better idea?
Done. At some point I'll neaten it up and make it into a proper page on the
site. It coded it quickly to get some kind of idea of the distribution, and
only posted a link on Usenet because it was relevant to the discussion. The
graph really should be an image, but it was quicker to make it out of divs.
--
Safalra (Stephen Morley)
Sortable Tables In java script:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/j...ortable-tables/
| |
|
|
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest monitor,
> or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full screen - whatever.
You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>
>
> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
> which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
>
> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800. Now
> I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my window
> to see the larger of the two.
>
> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they want
and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them 5 choices.
Jeff
>
| |
|
| Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:47:16 -0400, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Done. At some point I'll neaten it up and make it into a proper page on the
> site. It coded it quickly to get some kind of idea of the distribution, and
> only posted a link on Usenet because it was relevant to the discussion. The
> graph really should be an image, but it was quicker to make it out of divs.
Thanks. I think the divs work fine.
Jeff
>
>
| |
|
|
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-22, 10:18 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
> resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
> wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother, who
can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
typically runs one window at full screen size.
But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their potential
customers.
>
> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they want
> and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them 5 choices.
>
> Jeff
>
Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate more
than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the like.
But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine. It is your
site, after all.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen
them browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that
was years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a
larger image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say: "I'd
like to see that image smaller."
>
> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother, who
> can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
> typically runs one window at full screen size.
>
> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their potential
> customers.
>
>
> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
> they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate more
> than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the like.
I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a fixed
width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am fitting
images to whatever is being browsed.
Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then put
it up. I'd really like to see this.
>
> But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine.
Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This is
not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for taking
in what is no longer.
You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.
Jeff
It is your
> site, after all.
>
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen them
> browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that was
> years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a larger
> image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say: "I'd like to
> see that image smaller."
Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is too
big for their windows.
>
> I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a fixed
> width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am fitting
> images to whatever is being browsed.
>
I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you server a
picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it, you are
forcing a window size.
It has nothing to do with a fluid design.
> Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
> your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then put
> it up. I'd really like to see this.
>
You're the one asking for advice. You can take it or leave it. It's
your customers you're losing.
>
>
> Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
> this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
> anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
> poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This is
> not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for taking
> in what is no longer.
>
Nope. I didn't miss it. But customers don't have to be *paying* anything.
> You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
> you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.
>
Jeff, you come here and ask for suggestions. Then you argue when
suggestions are made. You don't want help; you just want validation of
your pre-conceived ideas.
> Jeff
>
> It is your
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is too
> big for their windows.
So, shouldn't the image resize?
>
>
> I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you server a
> picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it, you are
> forcing a window size.
But I'm not forcing a window size. I'm serving an image to fit their
window size. Not their screen size.
>
> It has nothing to do with a fluid design.
>
>
> You're the one asking for advice. You can take it or leave it. It's
> your customers you're losing.
>
>
> Nope. I didn't miss it. But customers don't have to be *paying* anything.
>
>
> Jeff, you come here and ask for suggestions. Then you argue when
> suggestions are made. You don't want help; you just want validation of
> your pre-conceived ideas.
I asked this:
"Anyone have stats on browser widths?"
And then I gave you the reason why I didn't want to get in this
argument. But, since we are here, where is your better example?
Now, I've set up a lot of different websites, all commercial or
governmental. And while your "advice" is relevant to general web design
it really means little here.
Jeff
>
>
>
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
> So, shouldn't the image resize?
No. Why should it?
>
> But I'm not forcing a window size. I'm serving an image to fit their
> window size. Not their screen size.
And how are you going to know what window size they want? You can use
javascript to determine the current size - but that may not be what they
want.
>
> I asked this:
>
> "Anyone have stats on browser widths?"
>
> And then I gave you the reason why I didn't want to get in this
> argument. But, since we are here, where is your better example?
>
Yes, you did. And I took it one step further, based on your comments.
And no, I'm not going to give you a "better example". I made a
recommendation. You are free to accept it or lose customers. Quite
frankly, I don't give a damn which. It's not my site.
I was just trying to be helpful.
> Now, I've set up a lot of different websites, all commercial or
> governmental. And while your "advice" is relevant to general web design
> it really means little here.
>
> Jeff
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
|
| Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> No. Why should it?
Well, didn't you just say, the image is too big?
>
>
>
> And how are you going to know what window size they want? You can use
> javascript to determine the current size - but that may not be what they
> want.
Wouldn't they be browsing at the size they want.
>
>
> Yes, you did. And I took it one step further, based on your comments.
Actually, you never answered the only question I had. You just took
the sidetrip. Now, don't you think I've been around long enough to have
heard all of this before?
>
> And no, I'm not going to give you a "better example". I made a
> recommendation. You are free to accept it or lose customers. Quite
> frankly, I don't give a damn which. It's not my site.
>
> I was just trying to be helpful.
Yes. But it sidestepped the only bit I wanted. Obviously I googled for
inner window stats and didn't find what I wanted. So I posted to a group
that certailnly has seen this more recently than I have. And I got a
discussion over design. Without ever actually putting up a design.
You may have simply thought, I don't have that and posted nothing. I
can take that, see my other post in this group on "full height columns".
I've been around for a while, there's always personality disputes and
other issues in the html groups. These groups are never well mannered
but this group has been my recent favorite.
Jeff
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Jeff" <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote in message
news:13hrpq4sh0g6c56@corp.supernews.com...[color=darkred]
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
Have either of your turkeys ever heard of trimming posts? I know you have
not Jerry, but what about you Jeff. Give it a go, huh?
I for one cease to read after the second fold, as I'll bet most others do. I
still have to download it though, just to ignore it.
--
Richard.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| rf wrote:
> I for one cease to read after the second fold, as I'll bet most others
> do. I still have to download it though, just to ignore it.
Get a newsreader that displays number of lines, or post size. ;-)
Ignore them when they get over a hundred lines. You used 41 lines to
reply to Jeff's 367 lines, so I read your post.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| On Oct 22, 8:53 pm, Jeff <dont_bug...@all.uk> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> Why is that?
Because you have complete control over how you fetch that image. You
could, for example, slice the image up into blocks and have Flash
fetch them as and when they are needed. You could have a VAST version
of your image (much much larger than the screen) and Flash can stream
just the visible chunk of the image to the browser (so saving stacks
of bandwidth). Or use some sort of vector format to store your images.
>
> Images usually load progressively rather than just pop up.
Depends on the browser, and the proxy if you have one.
> A few questions about Flash.
>
> Seems like all flash sites I've seen are a fixed width, can you show us
> some flash sites that resize?
www.thefwa.com
> How does flash do for online CMS. I would think very poorly, am I
> wrong here?
Nope... just as easy as with any other technology really. In some
respects easier - AS3 is a lot more powerful than JavaScript-enhanced
HTML for these things. Most of the work a CMS does is behind the
scenes - the content management part :) Flash can read XML, so you can
have whatever backend you care for spit out XML wrapped content. For
example we're in the process of creating a Flash-based online
magazine. The back-end is essentially a regular WordPress blog. Flash
processes the XML that WordPress provides for RSS/Atom feeds and
generates the whole magazine based on that, seamlessly.
> What would a typical client have to do to add a flash page to their site.
Depends on the client, and who you have to create the Flash, and
whether Flash would be suitable for your clients market. Flash is
great at some things, but I would use it for all sites. Highly visual
sites, such as galleries, it's almost ideal though, as it also adds a
layer of security - it is MUCH harder to steal an image out of a Flash
movie (if not impossible, other than taking a screenshot) compared to
a regular web page.
| |
|
|
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kbmTi.15327$kj1.13408@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> rf wrote:
>
>
> Get a newsreader that displays number of lines, or post size. ;-)
Point.
I keep trying to get around to dusting off xnews again.
> Ignore them when they get over a hundred lines. You used 41 lines to
> reply to Jeff's 367 lines, so I read your post.
In included those lines to make a point. So many attributions. I don't
expect any change of course.
--
Richard.
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| rf wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>
> Point.
>
> I keep trying to get around to dusting off xnews again.
Try Dialog. <g>
>
> In included those lines to make a point. So many attributions. I
> don't expect any change of course.
Point shown accurately.
Wasn't complaining, just mentioning the numbers of lines my reader
displayed for me .. and why I didn't download the body of the large one.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
| |
|
| <snip>
>
>
> Have either of your turkeys ever heard of trimming posts? I know you have
> not Jerry, but what about you Jeff. Give it a go, huh?
Why would anyone even read this thread? I left it untrimmed as we
were still discussing what wa in the first paragraph.
>
> I for one cease to read after the second fold,
Then you would have been ahead.
>as I'll bet most others do. I
> still have to download it though, just to ignore it.
So, I owe you 11K. But no one downloads the entire message just the
header. Surely you saw where this was going somewhere up the thread?
Jeff
>
| |
|
| <snip>
>
>
>
>
> www.thefwa.com
Oddly, on the slow connection I'm at here, I saw a blank screen for over
a half minute.
I did like that it flowed out, much like floating thumbs.
I can't say that I ever figured out how to use the site though.
>
>
>
>
> Nope... just as easy as with any other technology really. In some
> respects easier - AS3 is a lot more powerful than JavaScript-enhanced
> HTML for these things. Most of the work a CMS does is behind the
> scenes - the content management part :) Flash can read XML, so you can
> have whatever backend you care for spit out XML wrapped content. For
> example we're in the process of creating a Flash-based online
> magazine. The back-end is essentially a regular WordPress blog. Flash
> processes the XML that WordPress provides for RSS/Atom feeds and
> generates the whole magazine based on that, seamlessly.
That would work for me. How much of the layout (look and feel) can
you write with action script? Or do you need to do that elsewhere and
add the content and backend stuff with AS3? I have some decade old
multimedia stuff I'd like to port up sometime. I'd be more inclined to
put the flash in the html rather than have everything flash though.
>
>
>
>
> Depends on the client, and who you have to create the Flash, and
> whether Flash would be suitable for your clients market. Flash is
> great at some things, but I would use it for all sites. Highly visual
> sites, such as galleries, it's almost ideal though, as it also adds a
> layer of security - it is MUCH harder to steal an image out of a Flash
> movie (if not impossible, other than taking a screenshot) compared to
> a regular web page.
I see your point there and have considered flash for similar uses.
I've run XML to MP3 players, for example, but that's trivial.
Jeff
>
>
>
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-23, 10:16 pm |
| Jeff wrote:
>
> Oddly, on the slow connection I'm at here, I saw a blank screen for over
> a half minute.
> I did like that it flowed out, much like floating thumbs.
>
> I can't say that I ever figured out how to use the site though.
It doesn't win an usability points, but it does demonstrate full-page
liquid layout.
> That would work for me. How much of the layout (look and feel) can you
> write with action script? Or do you need to do that elsewhere and add
> the content and backend stuff with AS3? I have some decade old
> multimedia stuff I'd like to port up sometime. I'd be more inclined to
> put the flash in the html rather than have everything flash though.
You really have to write it in script. Flash has progressed a long way
from timelines and animation in a purely visual way. There is an
extremely powerful Java-like language that controls everything (AS3),
and basically you may not see a THING in Flash itself until you run your
site. Generally we build the visual elements in Illustrator or
PhotoShop, and where required copy and paste them into Flash. Then we
turn those images into Objects that Flash can understand and delete them
off the stage. Once named, they can be added and removed to the
"display" as and when you want. Alternatively we can load in content on
the fly using the loader functionality.
This is a very in-depth subject so I'm glossing over heck of a lot here!
Take a look at www.kirupa.com for some nice intro lessons for free.
> I see your point there and have considered flash for similar uses.
> I've run XML to MP3 players, for example, but that's trivial.
>
> Jeff
Have fun!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
>
> It doesn't win an usability points, but it does demonstrate full-page
> liquid layout.
>
>
>
> You really have to write it in script. Flash has progressed a long way
> from timelines and animation in a purely visual way.
Thanks. I'll give the site below a look later. I'm pre flash and did
some things with the flash predecessor with the timelines back in '96.
I'm not even sure if I have a flash editor here, I'll have to fire up
the underused Mac. If I did, it would be just plain CS. I'm not going to
fork out any large or even medium sum of money if I don't.
I rarely design anything (one or two a year). Just write the glue and
the bits of html that hold most sites together. But since this is my
personal site, then I can use my own relatively poor design skills and
whack away... Got a group for flash newbies?
Jeff
There is an
> extremely powerful Java-like language that controls everything (AS3),
> and basically you may not see a THING in Flash itself until you run your
> site. Generally we build the visual elements in Illustrator or
> PhotoShop, and where required copy and paste them into Flash. Then we
> turn those images into Objects that Flash can understand and delete them
> off the stage. Once named, they can be added and removed to the
> "display" as and when you want. Alternatively we can load in content on
> the fly using the loader functionality.
>
> This is a very in-depth subject so I'm glossing over heck of a lot here!
> Take a look at www.kirupa.com for some nice intro lessons for free.
>
>
>
> Have fun!
>
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|