Comments

rivimont — Fri, 25 May 2001 04:47:30 +0000

Yes, the links on the side are definetely too distracting.

I like the navigation implementation (the part that tells you what path you are in on the site with the little images).

~Chris

The Webmistress — Wed, 23 May 2001 08:39:21 +0000

Well summarised TheGizmoid!
My brain hurts all the time! LOL

Bookworm — Wed, 23 May 2001 08:39:07 +0000

Yes, I'm still working on it. I've got to re-think how the tables are layed out...
Mmmmph my brain hurts!

TheGizmoid — Wed, 23 May 2001 02:32:19 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by Bookworm
I can't really do much with percentages because of the way the table background images fit together. I tried it and it looked pants.

As The Webmistress stated, percentages really are the best way to go.

Sounds like you have a background image you really want to use and you are putting precedence on this over site functionality. 800x600 is the most commonly used resolution, but there are many who use 1024x768 or even higher. Percentage widths help make your site function reasonably the same in various resolutions.

Did you know that you can mix and match percentage widths with pixel widths? Say you have a column you want to accommodate a 150 pixel wide background. Go ahead and make that column 150 pixels. The browser will set aside that width and then everything else that's left over = 100%.

So in a 3-column layout you could have the left-hand column be 150 pixels and the right-hand column be 100 pixels and the center column be 90% (to allow a little breathing room on the sides). This will then "scale" according to the user's resolution settings and monitor size.

Just a thought.

Fringey — Tue, 22 May 2001 22:16:16 +0000

Definately, it fits together nicely that way. Good job

The Webmistress — Tue, 22 May 2001 15:56:43 +0000

Cool! Yeah, much better

Bookworm — Tue, 22 May 2001 14:26:37 +0000

Ok, now I've removed the right hand table as suggested, 'blue filtered' the border and widened the whole thing to 750.
I can't really do much with percentages because of the way the table background images fit together. I tried it and it looked pants.
The board itself is now 620 wide which is ample I think.
So...
Howzat?

The Webmistress — Tue, 22 May 2001 07:03:33 +0000

Better, much better. I like all the colours but I would still get rid of the left side & leave that just for the navigation.

The only real way around the table width is to do it in percentages. That way it will fit to the screen no matter what & it will certainly look better in larger ones, thus making it easier to read.

Fringey — Tue, 22 May 2001 01:47:08 +0000

okay, i think that you should overlay the borders with the same color blue than...

Eep... I changed my resolution to 640x480 and yes, it is passable, but i see that expanding the table and getting rid of the right background bar thingy wouldn't help all that much for this res. Perhaps you SHOULD just screw the 640x480 viewers. Not many people use it anyways. If you really want it to work you could get a web tracker - if you don't already have one, and see how many people tht visit your site use that res.. if it's quite a few then start worrying about making it work, but if it's like 5% than don't bother.

Or you could do that automatic redirect thing depending on the browser, or give a choice on the splash page. Do yuou really need a splash page anyways?

...640x480 is really scary, my IM box takes up a good half the screen... these forums don't work very well on it either...

Bookworm — Tue, 22 May 2001 01:10:46 +0000

Maroon? burgandy? where?
I'm gonna have to get my missus to help me with this. I'm working blind here.

And the borders are the same colour as the one's behind the headings, it's just that the headings have been ovelayed with a blue gradient.

I agree with the problem of it being rather narrow. The three tables add up to 700 wide. The idea is that it fits comfortably into 800*600 and is passable at 640*480. I could widen it to a total of 800 and sod the 640*480 viewers I suppose...