|
|
Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 10/02/05 03:46
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> skrev i
> meddelandet news:1ug81fbh42g7e$.1u9odr1jdajkl.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Hint: make your browser window narrower.
>
> Considering that the screen was already little I do not think that
> was worth to make the window narrower..
Look at the picture again. Notice the toolbar panel to the left. Using
an 800x600 monitor, you are left with about 670 pixels of width for your
content. Lots of people have extra toolbars and side panels.
>>> Either Firefox should not be the browser to base your statements on
>>> and you might suggest another browser to find the problem you were
>>> talking about ( and in this case Firefox might not be so useful as
>>> you suggested) or there might be something which I am missing in
>>> your reasonment...
>>
>> It looks the same in Opera. Broken.
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/images/luigi_opera.jpg
>
> I have not tested in Opera. But if the problem is the same as the one
> which I see browsing at IE, I think that it is not much worth
> attention.
It is the same in Opera, Firefox, IE, and any other browser. Broken.
>> If you would switch to using <div>'s and float the images within the
>> text, this problem would not occur. (Provided you coded it properly,
>> of course.) For example, look at the way the lower images on this
>> page float in the text, no matter what the width of your browser.
>> http://www.countryrode.com/parts/apparel.php
>
> It is more flexible but the page is longer. The text seems to be
> below the pictures (at least the first).
The first image is like a heading. I said the *lower* images, which
would be content similar to yours.
The page is only longer than yours because it has more content. Imagine
how much _longer_ it would be if each image and the associated content
was in a two-column table like yours?
> Basically, a table can already be defined as such containing only 2
> columns whereas one gives information which are connected with the
> data ( pictures in this case) contained in the first one. Therefore
> it is only a design problem.
"Therefore it is only a design problem." RIGHT!!! Why do you think
this is attractive?
blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
xxxxxxxxxxx blahblahblahblabblah
x picture x blahblahblahblabblah
x x blahblahblahblabblah
xxxxxxxxxxx blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
blahblahblahblabblah
Did you ever see a magazine laid out like that?
> Having said that, I doubt whether the other example looks better,
> because I see a stronger visual connection between the pictures and
> the information on the right column (at least while browsing the page
> by a normal window size) on my page.
What is a normal window size? You have no idea what your visitors are
using...
--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|