Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
There are 0 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-06 02:05
You can't use tables to force images to be smaller. The image size over-rides the table size. You need to resize at the image height and width level using a JavaScript document.write command.
|
 |
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-06 03:10
I am not trying to force the images to be smaller with a table. if you use <img src= "somefile" width="x%"> then the image resizes by itself. I was trying to use this inside a table with percentages so that both the image and table resized.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-06 20:23
Perhaps you can show us an example of using the percent attribute with and without a table so we can see what code you are actually using. There may be some small detail you are overlooking.
Also, I would tend to think that scaling down images via pixel widths and heights would be better than using a percentage setting. Experience tells me if I want to get precise results, exact pixel measurements tend to work better. Percentages don't always behave like you want them too.
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-07 02:26
heres an example of what I mean.(perhaps a css box would work.I will try that shortly if you think this ones a dead end)thanks for taking a look. 
http://home.iprimus.com.au/stevenleanne/resize/resize.html
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3747
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-08 02:16
It must be something specific to the way MSIE is calculating sizes and the various IF/Then rules in place in the programming of IE.
Interesting to note, Mozilla 1.1a does just what you want it to do and the tables and image resize quite nicely. Netscape 7.x probably works too since the Mozilla browsers are the developer's version of Netscape. Netscape 4.79 works too but to a more limited capacity since the image spans the complete table instead of just 30% of it.
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2003-Jun-08 09:58
thanks for the thorough run down on it. was just an idea for trying to come up with a bit of a novelty site to see how it went. browser incompatibility rules again.
thanks
|
|
huebdoo
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 68
|
Posted: 2003-Aug-01 21:51
You should still go with the lowest common dinominator, and that is still 800 x 600 > 760 X 420 (400) if Google bar is added.
Remember that most offices still have 15" monitors and yes, the management may have the big LED screens, but not the working man looking for a web designer to update the company web site.
I remember this issue when CD Roms came out and the issue was "should we design for speeds above X-2 CD-Rom?" And our company did not mainly because the product we made was for schools, and schools still have the slowest, oldest computers on the face of the earth.
I guess it all depends on your market and who you want to get attention from. If you want to go for the big web geek, then design 1024 x 768, If you want to go for Soccer Moms and Blue collar crowd ... keep it 760 x 420
|
|
jjofriends
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 52
|
Posted: 2003-Sep-22 06:35
Don't know how I missed this one...
I've been designing Web sites for five+ years now, and until about 18 months ago I designed for 640x480. It was a force of habit due to my designing for a fairly large Web site, and I usually was able to maximize impact in that small amount of real estate.
I have since switched to 800x600 for that site as well as my own, due to the continuing stats stating that 640x480 is pretty much dead, and I now personally use 1024x768 - all the sites I've worked on that have been updated to 800x600 are decent at the higher res.
I prefer not to stretch my tables - I tend to use a combination of minimal graphics and tables to get my desired effect, and it wouldn't scale well at all! I always end up building my entire page in a table though, and center the table so that way at higher resolutions it doesn't look like there's a ton of dead space on the right side. If you don't use stretched tables, centering is key!
|
|
huebdoo
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 68
|
Posted: 2003-Sep-22 20:56
Our company stats still show around 30% using 800x600 that is way too many people to move away from.
Not to mention who is your clientele
. Age demographic (Older people more than likely prefer 800x600)
. Corporate demographic (People in older firms or firms that are not that pro-active probably have 15" at all work stations ... have you tried 1024x768 on a 15"... good luck!
. Educational facilities / Hospitals etc. any Government funded institution will more than likely have the most god-awfull beat up machinery on board running. Once again more than likely 800x600
I would suggest using 760x400 web page size (covers for Google tool bar add-on... also I would suggest that you use an auto-stretch cell if you want it to fill the screen.
I myself still try to keep everything to the default to insure proper viewing in all formats and browsers.
I guess it all depends on who or how many people you want visiting your site... build using flash and heavy images you risk kissing good-bye the 56k crowd of middle America and corporate clients who dont have the time to wait for the back beat and jiggy graphics to stop....
Not to mention... build in Flash and kiss Google searches goodbye.
Build too artsy-fartsy and you risk the corporate section that doesn’t understand your freaky interface for navigation (click on the mango to go to the overview page)
Build it too dry and bore the heck out of the eyebrow crowd (those punks who have pierced eyebrows) but then again unless your product has a crack or is under $50.00 USD they wont probably download anyway.
|
|
with_hindsight
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 101
|
Posted: 2003-Sep-24 23:49
I thought the same and designed my last batch for 1024x768, only to find to my horror 53% on 800x600!!
So now i have come up with a winner, i design in 800x600 and use the right hand side 200 pixels for side bar advertising, if peeps r on 1024 they see my ads and links (i.e webmasters checking my reciprocals) and if peeps are 800 they simply see a full site with the ads off the page. Also this way I keep space for future Adsense campaigns.
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
