|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/31/06 23:36
In article
<1149112750.442104.196840@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"cwdjrxyz" <spamtrap1@cwdjr.info> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Yes, thanks for this cw. Nice colours and much else. It was not
> > quite what I was expecting. Apart from the tables and stuff, I
> > was expecting a candidate that is very good at being flexible
> > enough to be easy at 700px wide but take advantage of much bigger
> > (is 1600 too much to ask? Perhaps a bit!).
>
> No problem. I just wrote a demo page myself rather than wasting a lot
> of time searching the web. See http://www.cwdjr.net/picsnap/parrot.html
> . If script is turned on, you get a 1600 x 1200 px jpg of over 500 KB
> size, and it is scaled using script to fit 90% of whatever screen width
> is detected for your browser. If someone has their script turned off,
> they get the same image at 400 x 300 px at about 32 KB so that it will
> fit most browsers without scrolling with the possible exception of
> cellphones and other very small devices. Of course those who have a
> very slow dialup connection might not like to wait for a 500 KB image
> to download. The large image was obtained by the computer from my
> digital camera. The smaller image was obtained from the large one using
> PaintShop to reduce the size.
I think you have largely misunderstood my request. Your example
is just one pic? My question was about whole web design rather
than just some pics. But it is a very nice parrot. In any case,
your script does not work on my main browser Safari (that handles
javascript fine otherwise)?
It is interesting to ask my question and see the answers that
actually come, the websites that are flexible and use not js and
what the compromises have to be to satisfy the idea of being
usefully flexible rather than paying some sort of lip service to
the concept. Even a 700px fixed width site is usefully seen on a
bigger monitor at enlarged fonts. Let us call this type of
usefulness, EELBM "Everything is easier to look at on a big
monitor". I am asking to see interesting evidence of the idea of
really useful flexible designs that go beyond EELBM.
Just in case anyone should suppose I am defending fixed, I almost
never make fixed width pages... But, true, I am thinking maybe I
should to keep life simple, to see what it feels like! And it
will be nice for the under 800px crowd and EELBM will be the bone
thrown to the 1600px crowd.
It is just a lip-service thing to flexible design for things to
spread out on a big screen, just for the sake of spreading out.
There needs to be a point in the spread, a use for it, a benefit.
After paras get too wide, it is counterproductive and this
discussion could go on and on... but it would be instructive to
see what folk regard as really usefully flexible and why...
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|