steve40 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:05:21 +0000

At 800 x 600 it should be, I would really have a hizzy if it didn't. But as I originally planed for it to be at 1024, there is enough margin between the text and the pix so that it doesn't.

I could have based it on 8 x 6 like I did the last one, but then things go the other direction - they tend to get too small. So I chose the middle ground 1024.

Busy — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:09:15 +0000

Which text are you concerned about here? I had another look and can't find any text wrapping that doesn't look like it shouldn't be

steve40 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:04:28 +0000

Yeah I am used to that, its not my program so I can blame that on someone else. It seems FF wants a space some places, and IE does not, then IE wants a space some place, and FF does not?.

I tried briefly to add a little margin to that, no response so I did not pursue it any farther. Another instance is the W3C button at the bottom of the index page, IE neatly sticks it into the corner, and FF leaves a big margin at the bottom. Tried a little - margin in that and IE went to the basement, but FF just settled to the corner.

I don't really understand why it is, they have to have a different view of spacing on some things? but they do. But most people don't view your pages on two or three browsers like "uses do", so they never know the little diffrences.

I guess I can live with the text wrapping at 8 x 6, just like I have to live with it spreading to Georgia at really high resolutions. I have it fixed for FF, and Opera with a max-size 1280, but IE does not recognize that command. There is a java/css script IE does recognize, but only for text paragraph length, not width display of the whole page. "Useless". :flame:

Busy — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:01:54 +0000

I just took a look in IE (at 800x600) and no horz scroll bars
The only difference I can see between IE and FF is there is a different gap between picture and caption on the photo pages (nothing to loose sleep over thou), and the next -previous is slightly different height if you really wanted to get fussy.

steve40 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:02:30 +0000

Well, maybe the problem was "ME". I did add a max-width tag to the tables @1280. Works with FF, and opera, but you would know there is no way with IE. So it just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I tried something that was supposed to work "HAH". Needless to say it did not.

The albums do need more pictures, and they are forthcoming as I get the time. Thats why the odd pix on the waterfall page, the album is set up for 5 rows.

Busy — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:33:14 +0000

Theres nothing wrong with your site at 800x600, it looks good. The text is all good sizes (not to big not to small), except the 'Created with Web Album Generator' which is tiny and had to move forward to work out what it said .
The waterfalls page has one extra pic but it doesn't look out of place, gives it that "I'm going to ad more soon" feel. The flowers page only has the 5 but fits across perfectly without any scroll bars or anything (this on FF at 800x600)

I can't see what the problem was

steve40 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:29:17 +0000

OK, to be fair.

I am not trying to be an a-hole about this thing. So to be fair all the pages are now liquid. Go take a look and let me know what you think, "Honestly". I just hate the idea after all the work the site will not look as I planned, but I guess you cant win em all.

I have not used any max width, because IE does not support it. Since thats the biggest share of the web, using max width would be a waste of time. Even if IE-7 does support it, 6 will still be around forever.

The link is in my signature.

steve40 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:25:25 +0000

Busy.

Here are just a few of my reasons for the fixed 1024. The first is it is not possible to have an image re-sizeing even up to 1280, and not loose tremendous quality. Either its going to be to small if you originally sized it for 800, or its going to be huge at 800 if you originally sized it at 1280, I've been that route already.

An image over the text at least wont affect that, but if it is parallel to it then you have a problem when it gets to big, and starts crowding up on the text. I use 1024, and I mean all of it, I don't have tool bars and other junk on my browser, I despise them. I really don't see why anyone wants such crap. But I guess you cant account for everyone's taste as I said before.

The other reason is why its called a PC (personal computer), I wanted something that did not look like every other site on the internet, and it just required more room than 800 allows. I tried to make it fluid, but was not pleased with the way it looked.
I think this is why about all of your news services, and a lot of corporate sites are fixing at 1024, its just to much hassle to try to satisfy every browser size out there. Probably another reason is the same as mine, they deal with images and text mixed.

I know you can load a site down with java script, and several style sheets and work almost anything out, but again who wants to. Besides java is not even half supported anymore. IE-7 does not support it at all. I know you can go to sun and download a java vm, I did that it sucks, I got rid of it.

I did get the album to be compatible with 800, by making the thumbnails a lot smaller than I wanted to. 800 is like 640 finally got - its a dinosaur, and needs to just quietly pass on. I would probably be the last to say that, I held on to it with a vengeance, but I finally realized when it needed to go.

Busy — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:38:35 +0000

My view as a buyer or reader of a site is that if I have to 'work' to view the site I'd rather go elsewhere to buy/see/read whatever.
Alistapart is a good example, for yonks they had a fixed width 480x640 or whatever it was, sure it was annoying as it was so skinny it made the pages really long, now it's a stupid size and isn't worth the effort of having to scroll right just to cut of the logo in the left column, the content is cloned on so many other sites so those sites get my vistorship (my word )
I was viewing a site for a friend the other day, they wanted some performance parts (automotive), I looked at the site but had a fixed width so I just browsed what I could see and skiped the right column as I couldn't be bothered 'working' the site (and the part I wanted was over on the right as I found out when friend emailed the company), I gave up after several pages and went to their competition and even thou I paid a bit more for the item it was hassle free, mind you it was the third site I tried as the very first one was a flash only site.

Printing does matter and PDF is not the way to go, my girlfriend was trying to arrange some lodgings to coinside with a hot rod run and a photo gallery showing, she printed some pages off to show me (and didn't bookmark them), both the gallery and lodgings sites were fixed width and all the important stuff (like contact details and prices) were cut off, even the web addresses. As she couldn't remember where she found them, which is normal when your looking at hundreds of search results) we've decided to just wing it, go down for the day and if the gallery is still open take a peek, if not go elsewhere - two more companies lost business because they couldn't make a decent printable page.

And no I never email the webmaster, if they wanted everyones business not just a select bunch ...

Quote: If you have a photography related site, most of your visitors will be people who have the same interest. These folks run at least 1024, or better all the time.

What am I, chop suey? I was a freelance photographer and still am as a hobbiest, my screen is at 800x600 and now just maximised (always forget to check that).
The stats and theories about what/who etc are guesses at best, just because you have air con in your house doesn't mean everyone else does, just because you like coke or pepsi doesn't mean everyone else does ... is a numbers game, stats are just numbers with a large percentage of error and with pc's that percentage is even bigger as there are so many factors to weigh up, do I have side bars, do have screen max'd, do have tool bars, do I have this, do I have that ... no one could/would know even within 10%, 35% would be closer but probably still way off

steve40 — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:43:14 +0000

Well I settled it the site is 1024 fixed, I guess I am just going to be one of the rebels. Like one guy said on another board "Let the s-n of a b-----s squint". But at least I did go with % for the main part of the text, which will let explorer users re-size text. That does not seem to bother the layout at all, as long as it stays at 1024. That is if you don't have to have billboard size text, in that case maybe they just need new glasses.