Greg K — Thu, 12 May 2005 20:06:30 +0000

I remember a few years ago working in a computer lab at the university. Someone went to a site, and when they went to print it, the site had CSS set to only print like 3/4" wide on the paper. Something that should of only took like 2 pages to print, ended up being like a 25 page print job. And they printed it like 4 times trying to get it to print right.

I was stumped at first myself, thinking someone screwed with the default margin settings on the printer.

Nice joke huh LOL.

-Greg

chrishirst — Thu, 12 May 2005 17:01:26 +0000

Yep Media Types and HTMLHelp

artsapimp — Thu, 12 May 2005 13:33:04 +0000

Are you saying you can specify different values for different media types without changing the stylesheet / redirecting the user?

andy206uk — Thu, 12 May 2005 10:40:07 +0000

If people moan about space down one side or the other, use a centered design. I've found it helps to minimise the moaning.

You can actually specify different media types, ie screen for the website and print for printing and the browser will load different stylesheets depending on what you are doing.

artsapimp — Fri, 06 May 2005 14:18:27 +0000

That is a great idea. I will have to play around with right side navigation to see how I like it.

I just hate having to click a "printer friendly" button before clicking the "print" button. I know it sounds like I'm lazy, but I am sure a lot of users feel the same way. That is why I attempt to make every page printer friendly.

Megan — Fri, 06 May 2005 13:50:13 +0000

If you want a printer friendly option then use a stylesheet switcher to provide a different stylesheet for printing.

ETA: This is another argument in favour of right side navigation. If the navigation (or something else...) is on the right, that is what gets cut off on printing rather than the main body text.

artsapimp — Fri, 06 May 2005 13:29:56 +0000

660 because it is printer friendly. I have found that 670 cuts part of the screen off and I didn't want to keep testing until I found the exact number of pixels (maybe 665?).

I use 1280 x 1024 both at home and at work. My browser is at full width 90% of the time just because it's easier to maximize than to just set the max height. The height is what I care about with my resolution.

Megan — Fri, 06 May 2005 13:24:24 +0000

Why 660???? That is awfully small at 1024 x 768. Why not 760???? I usually design fixed width at 760 px. If the max-width attribute worked it might be good to allow flexibility to a point, but otherwise it can cause problems with line lengths getting too long at higher resolutions (although, you could say that most people running at higher resolutions don't maximize their browsers anyway...). So, 100% can work if you are careful about line lengths.

My SR is 1152 x (forget that number) but I never have my browser at full width. I always have my opera panels on the left, and at work I keep my windows taskbar on the right side. I don't like it when line lengths get too long.