Webpage Design

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work with an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600 desktop.
I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a better image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:23:43 GMT, edjh scribbled:

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work with an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600 desktop.
I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a better image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:23:43 GMT, edjh scribbled:

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work

with

an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600

desktop.

I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a

better

image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

Every office I’ve worked in used 800×600

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:27:33 GMT, "Sam R"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:23:43 GMT, edjh scribbled:

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work

with

an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600

desktop.

I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a

better

image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

Every office I’ve worked in used 800×600

That’s not backing up a factual statement.

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:27:33 GMT, "Sam R"
scribbled:

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

Every office I’ve worked in used 800×600

That’s not backing up a factual statement.

It is used because it is considered the minimum usable resolution that everybody should at least have their system set to, therefore it covers everybody who will be viewing a website.

This was very true a few years ago but even though people are now using higher resolutions there are still a lot only using 800×600.

Stuart

The reason 760×410 is used to size a webpage is given the viewers browser. Consider the toolbars and the slider on the side. If yoou were to use standard 600×800 then yoou wouold use the entie monitor of someone who has theres set to 600×800, therefore the veiwer woud have to use the sideways and up&down sliders to veiw your page in entirety. Hope that helps.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:59:49 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:27:33 GMT, "Sam R"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:23:43 GMT, edjh scribbled:

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work

with

an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600

desktop.

I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a

better

image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

Every office I’ve worked in used 800×600

That’s not backing up a factual statement.

no, but its a statment that as a real working professional, its what he saw. Its what I’ve seen too. I’m not going to say everybody on earth works in 800×600, but every webmaster i’ve ever talked to, says work in 800×600.

:

The reason 760×410 is used to size a webpage is given the viewers browser. Consider the toolbars and the slider on the side. If yoou were to use standard 600×800 then yoou wouold use the entie monitor of someone who has theres set to 600×800, therefore the veiwer woud have to use the sideways and up&down sliders to veiw your page in entirety. Hope that helps.

No, it doesn’t as it is not a good strategy to design for a full screen view. And this should of course be discussed in a web design related group.

—
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

howldog wrote:

every webmaster i’ve ever talked to, says
work in 800×600.

…. including me.

A page should "not break" at higher resolutions. The only time that I support a fixed-width page is when the design is aimed for 800×600.

The Doormouse

—
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

keep reading

Arts

""a:\"" wrote in message

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work

with

an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600

desktop.

I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a better image size to work with?

Thanks

Thanks for confirming this.

wrote in message

The reason 760×410 is used to size a webpage is given the viewers browser. Consider the toolbars and the slider on the side. If yoou were to use standard 600×800 then yoou wouold use the entie monitor of someone who has theres set to 600×800, therefore the veiwer woud have to use the sideways and up&down sliders to veiw your page in entirety. Hope that helps.

Hi, There is nothing wrong with a higher resolution, 1024 x 768 is OK let people upgrade to higher or tell them to! by giving the following. "This site is best in 1024 x 768" I hate when they make pages for 800 x 600 what a vaste of space on the desktop! I use high res 1280 x 960 and have full
menus in every program witout scrolling! It’s just a question of settings!

And what they have in offices????!!!!
Don’t surf the internet during worktime! – Back to work!!!!

Pepe

According to this: based on measurements instead of opinions, more than DOUBLE the amount of surfers use 1024 x 768 over 800 x 600.

"Amsterdam — OneStat.com today reported that more and more internet users choose for screen resolution 1024 x 768 which is the most popular screen resolution for exploring the internet. The finding has important implications for web site designers because most web sites are designed for a screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels.

The screen resolution 1024 x 768 has reached an all time high and has risen from 48.3 percent in June 2003 to 54.02 percent. Users with monitors set to the most common resolution 800 x 600 for web sites have an approximate 24.66 percent global usage share. A year ago this percentage was 31.7 percent.

"Our software is the ultimate solution for each webmaster to measure screen resolutions of your website visitors," said Niels Brinkman, co-founder of OneStat.com.

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:

1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%

All numbers are an average of the last 2 months. OneStat.com is the number one provider of real-time web site analysis software in the world. Our superior technology powers thousands of web sites in different countries all over the world. With our accurate, detailed & reliable reports we will be able to answer questions about visitor behaviour, site performance and retention."

orig link:
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20040621194133821

""a:\"" wrote in message

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work

with

an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600

desktop.

I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a better image size to work with?

Thanks

"Jeff H." wrote:

— snip —

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:
1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%

— snip —

This is only reporting the users’ video resolutions. It doesn’t address users (such as myself) who run at a high resolution on a large format monitor but use the browser in a window — not full screen. I would estimate that my browser window is approximately equivalent to 800 x 600 … more or less, leaving the rest of the screen for other information. So, a study of video resolution settings says nothing about the viewer’s actual browser space.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:40:55 -0400, Tom Thomas
scribbled:

It doesn’t address users (such as myself)

No one cares about you.

What’s the advantage of NOT running a browser full screen?

All I do is press Windows Key + D to minimize all apps at once and to view the desktop when required.

JD

This is only reporting the users’ video resolutions. It doesn’t address users (such as myself) who run at a high resolution on a large format monitor but use the browser in a window — not full screen.

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:23:43 GMT, edjh scribbled:

"a:\" wrote:

I read somewhere that when designing a webpage with PS, you should work with an image size of 760 x 410 and design for someone having an 800×600 desktop.
I’m just wondering if that is what everyone else uses or is there a better image size to work with?

Thanks

There is no "what everybody uses". 800×600 is still the most commonly used, that’s all.

And you can back that factual statement up of course?

I read it on the internet. And that’s good enough for me. Perhaps it’s changed.

Even if it’s bigger it makes sense to design for a smaller rather than a larger size.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

howldog wrote in
news::

no, but its a statment that as a real working professional, its what he saw. Its what I’ve seen too. I’m not going to say everybody on earth works in 800×600, but every webmaster i’ve ever talked to, says work in 800×600.

And for good reason. Use a more reasonable resolution and sure as hell at least one of the money people is going to be a technophobe and cause you no end of grief because you "obviously" screwed up and made a page that is broken.

I’d guess most of the world’s problems are directly traceable to pig- headed, willful ignorance.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:40:55 -0400, Tom Thomas
wrote:

"Jeff H." wrote:

— snip —

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:
1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%

— snip —

This is only reporting the users’ video resolutions. It doesn’t address users (such as myself) who run at a high resolution on a large format monitor but use the browser in a window — not full screen.

And for which any page designer who knows what they are doing will have designed to make the page fit any screen/window size.

I never design for less than 1024×768, yet none of my sites would have a problem at 640×480. Use the right techniques and it really doesn’t matter.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:33:06 -0600, "Jeff H."
wrote:

What’s the advantage of NOT running a browser full screen?
All I do is press Windows Key + D to minimize all apps at once and to view the desktop when required.

Window/screen size should be immaterial to a well-designed site.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Why do you say that? The vast majority of surfers now use 1024 x 768. A site should be as appealing and functional to the majority of visitors.

JD

Even if it’s bigger it makes sense to design for a smaller rather than a larger size.

"Jeff H." wrote:

What’s the advantage of NOT running a browser full screen?
All I do is press Windows Key + D to minimize all apps at once and to view the desktop when required.

I agree with Hecate that proper web design flows to whatever the window size; however, to answer your question, most pages just look pretty silly at full screen on a 21" monitor at high resolution. There’s often not enough content to fill even a couple lines of text.

Further, large amounts of text become difficult to read when stretched too wide. This is the reason that newspapers are formatted into columns rather than printed continuously all the way across the page.

Your "Windows+D" solution just shows me a blank desktop. What about the two or three other applications that are running? I want to see them, not a blank screen.

To each his own. But, no web page should be designed for a specific screen size. The whole point of proper HTML is that it adapts to the viewer’s environment.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:40:55 -0400, Tom Thomas
wrote:

"Jeff H." wrote:

— snip —

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:
1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%

— snip —

This is only reporting the users’ video resolutions. It doesn’t address users (such as myself) who run at a high resolution on a large format monitor but use the browser in a window — not full screen.

And for which any page designer who knows what they are doing will have designed to make the page fit any screen/window size.
I never design for less than 1024×768, yet none of my sites would have a problem at 640×480. Use the right techniques and it really doesn’t matter.

That sounds like a great technique, can you tell us more how to do this? Are those web designers who don’t use this technique just uninformed, or are there other problems associated with this technique, such as browser specific, etc.?

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:40:55 -0400, Tom Thomas
wrote:

"Jeff H." wrote:

— snip —

The most popular screen resolutions on the web in the world are:
1. 1024 x 768 54.02%
2. 800 x 600 24.66%
3. 1280 x 1024 14.1%
4. 1152 x 864 4%
5. 640 x 480 0.6%
6. 1600 x 1200 0.8%
7. 1152 x 870 0.1%

— snip —

This is only reporting the users’ video resolutions. It doesn’t address users (such as myself) who run at a high resolution on a large format monitor but use the browser in a window — not full screen.

And for which any page designer who knows what they are doing will have designed to make the page fit any screen/window size.
I never design for less than 1024×768, yet none of my sites would have a problem at 640×480. Use the right techniques and it really doesn’t matter.

That sounds like a great technique, can you tell us more how to do this? Are those web designers who don’t use this technique just uninformed, or are there other problems associated with this technique, such as browser specific, etc.?

Can I cocurr?

It seems reasonable to assume that there is some intelligence at the other end of the wire

Arts

"Tom Thomas" wrote in message

"Jeff H." wrote:

To each his own. But, no web page should be designed for a specific screen size. The whole point of proper HTML is that it adapts to the viewer’s environment.
——————————-
Tom

Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 12:24:59 GMT, wrote:

The easiest way for most people making small sites is to use nested tables.

That sounds like a great technique, can you tell us more how to do this? Are those web designers who don’t use this technique just uninformed, or are there other problems associated with this technique, such as browser specific, etc.?

The easiest way for most people making small sites is to use nested tables. Basically, you set up a three column table, a fourth table sits in the middle column and you can adjust the percentage of the outer columns to give a minimum outer column size (to allow for nav bars) whilst making the centre a 100% column. The 100% means that the central column, and it’s contents will expand and contract to fill the available window space.

hat’s a bit of a simplified explanation, but it’s mostly how it works.

You can also do something similar using CSS.

There’s no reason why a good designer shouldn’t implement variable size pages. However, the ratio of good designers to bad ones is, I feel, not positive. Far too many people around who woke up one morning, bored with their jobs and said to themselves "I made my own 3 page site – I know, I’ll be a web designer".

It’s not browser specific (in that you can code for any problems with Netscape – it’s usually Netscape that causes problems) and except for early browsers will implement fully. And you can code for early browsers and send them to a crippled mirror site anyway.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate –
Could you point us to an example site?
– Max

Hecate posted:

The easiest way for most people making small sites is to use nested tables. Basically, you set up a three column table, a fourth table sits in the middle column and you can adjust the percentage of the outer columns to give a minimum outer column size (to allow for nav bars) whilst making the centre a 100% column. The 100% means that the central column, and it’s contents will expand and contract to fill the available window space.

hat’s a bit of a simplified explanation, but it’s mostly how it works.
You can also do something similar using CSS.

—
MisterMax
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand, Tour de France: http://buten.net/max/
(Yes,RemoveDoubles is part of my email address. The double letters in my last name are not.)

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

I personally design using the variable width table options allowed within HTML.
I utilise an array of nested tables with 100% widths for the overall table, and limit
navigational areas to fixed pixel widths.

For example on my business website, www.bluecrack.com. I have a large table with a number of tables nested inside. The outside one has a set width of 100%.
This way, irrespective of the viewers/users resolution settings my site appears to
take up the full width of the window.

I have nested tables within my header area, so as to align navigational elements to
either the left or right. This is done using table cells and alignment within tags.

The left navigational element, currently containing a newsletter subscription box,
and to also hold in the future my client testimonials, has a fixed width set. This is
set to be a little wider than the name and e-mail form areas.

This is repeated on the other side of the screen with the promotional links to my
hosting packages. Set to the same pixel width as the left column for consistency of
appearance.

At this point when users view this website, www.bluecrack.com, and change their
resolution settings, minimise the size of their viewing window, or open one of the
search/favourite/media portions of their browser the centre column of page content
adjusts accordingly. This is most visible on the copyright, and privacy policy pages.
Where the content extends for more than a single screen height.

I deem that this practice is integral to the success of a web site, and the design work
of the web site designer. Even in situations where you know for ‘certain’ the screen
resolution to be used, such as a business intranet, I still design using variable width
tables. Because you never know when hardware will be upgraded. And I am sure no
business is willing to pay you to come back in and re-design their intranet site purely
because it no longer takes up the entire browser window.

Design from the outset with the option to adjust to inevitable future changes that can
be outside of you control.

While this information, that I have presented is not directly related for designing web
sites using PhotoShop, I feel that is done address the initial question of whether ‘real’
people out there work for just one size browser and work within those constraints
imposed by the dimensions available within the on screen real estate.

I hope think helps clarify your thoughts for the designs that you may do in the future.

Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:26:57 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" scribbled:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

You can’t even get word wrap right.

Thanks Fiona, for the insight. Nice to get some input from an actual expert willing to help, instead of criticize.

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote in
message

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

I personally design using the variable width table options allowed within HTML.
I utilise an array of nested tables with 100% widths for the overall

table,

and limit
navigational areas to fixed pixel widths.

For example on my business website, www.bluecrack.com. I have a large

table

with a number of tables nested inside. The outside one has a set width of 100%.
This way, irrespective of the viewers/users resolution settings my site appears to
take up the full width of the window.

I have nested tables within my header area, so as to align navigational elements to
either the left or right. This is done using table cells and alignment within tags.

The left navigational element, currently containing a newsletter subscription box,
and to also hold in the future my client testimonials, has a fixed width set. This is
set to be a little wider than the name and e-mail form areas.
This is repeated on the other side of the screen with the promotional

links

to my
hosting packages. Set to the same pixel width as the left column for consistency of
appearance.

At this point when users view this website, www.bluecrack.com, and change their
resolution settings, minimise the size of their viewing window, or open

one

of the
search/favourite/media portions of their browser the centre column of page content
adjusts accordingly. This is most visible on the copyright, and privacy policy pages.
Where the content extends for more than a single screen height.
I deem that this practice is integral to the success of a web site, and

the

design work
of the web site designer. Even in situations where you know for ‘certain’ the screen
resolution to be used, such as a business intranet, I still design using variable width
tables. Because you never know when hardware will be upgraded. And I am

sure

no
business is willing to pay you to come back in and re-design their

intranet

site purely
because it no longer takes up the entire browser window.
Design from the outset with the option to adjust to inevitable future changes that can
be outside of you control.

While this information, that I have presented is not directly related for designing web
sites using PhotoShop, I feel that is done address the initial question of whether ‘real’
people out there work for just one size browser and work within those constraints
imposed by the dimensions available within the on screen real estate.
I hope think helps clarify your thoughts for the designs that you may do

in

the future.

Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

Thanks, Fiona and Hecate. Your inputs sure beat the heck out of the debate of what size monitors are more popular.

Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia wrote:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

I personally design using the variable width table options allowed within HTML.
I utilise an array of nested tables with 100% widths for the overall table, and limit
navigational areas to fixed pixel widths.

For example on my business website, www.bluecrack.com. I have a large table with a number of tables nested inside. The outside one has a set width of 100%.
This way, irrespective of the viewers/users resolution settings my site appears to
take up the full width of the window.

I have nested tables within my header area, so as to align navigational elements to
either the left or right. This is done using table cells and alignment within tags.

The left navigational element, currently containing a newsletter subscription box,
and to also hold in the future my client testimonials, has a fixed width set. This is
set to be a little wider than the name and e-mail form areas.
This is repeated on the other side of the screen with the promotional links to my
hosting packages. Set to the same pixel width as the left column for consistency of
appearance.

At this point when users view this website, www.bluecrack.com, and change their
resolution settings, minimise the size of their viewing window, or open one of the
search/favourite/media portions of their browser the centre column of page content
adjusts accordingly. This is most visible on the copyright, and privacy policy pages.
Where the content extends for more than a single screen height.
I deem that this practice is integral to the success of a web site, and the design work
of the web site designer. Even in situations where you know for ‘certain’ the screen
resolution to be used, such as a business intranet, I still design using variable width
tables. Because you never know when hardware will be upgraded. And I am sure no
business is willing to pay you to come back in and re-design their intranet site purely
because it no longer takes up the entire browser window.
Design from the outset with the option to adjust to inevitable future changes that can
be outside of you control.

While this information, that I have presented is not directly related for designing web
sites using PhotoShop, I feel that is done address the initial question of whether ‘real’
people out there work for just one size browser and work within those constraints
imposed by the dimensions available within the on screen real estate.
I hope think helps clarify your thoughts for the designs that you may do in the future.

Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

"Jeff H." wrote in message

What’s the advantage of NOT running a browser full screen?
All I do is press Windows Key + D to minimize all apps at once and to view the desktop when required.

JD

Jeff,

I work this way, with IE in a window – I have my e-mail box open in back so when a new msg comes in, I can see if it’s spam (ignore), business (attend to right now) or family junk (depends who it is). I also have a word doc open, waiting to cut and paste information from the web. Other times I have an open database that I’m correcting using information from the web and again, cut and paste from. It’s MUCH more efficient to work with multiple programs not only open but ‘up’ – if you have the space to do it in:)

But I also use the Win+D because I’ve got my desktop set up like a webpage with links to frequently used files, programs, websites and information done in flash. Makes my navigation of frequently used files and sites so much faster.

Mary

all hail the one

If mere mortals access www.bluecrack.com then click on View -> Source

Then they may read first hand the coding of a lesser mortal

Arts

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:26:57 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" scribbled:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

You can’t even get word wrap right.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:20:46 -0400, "Jesper" scribbled:

Thanks Fiona, for the insight. Nice to get some input from an actual expert willing to help, instead of criticize.

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote in
message

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

I personally design using the variable width table options allowed within HTML.
I utilise an array of nested tables with 100% widths for the overall

table,

and limit
navigational areas to fixed pixel widths.

For example on my business website, www.bluecrack.com. I have a large

table

with a number of tables nested inside. The outside one has a set width of 100%.
This way, irrespective of the viewers/users resolution settings my site appears to
take up the full width of the window.

I have nested tables within my header area, so as to align navigational elements to
either the left or right. This is done using table cells and alignment within tags.

The left navigational element, currently containing a newsletter subscription box,
and to also hold in the future my client testimonials, has a fixed width set. This is
set to be a little wider than the name and e-mail form areas.
This is repeated on the other side of the screen with the promotional

links

to my
hosting packages. Set to the same pixel width as the left column for consistency of
appearance.

At this point when users view this website, www.bluecrack.com, and change their
resolution settings, minimise the size of their viewing window, or open

one

of the
search/favourite/media portions of their browser the centre column of page content
adjusts accordingly. This is most visible on the copyright, and privacy policy pages.
Where the content extends for more than a single screen height.
I deem that this practice is integral to the success of a web site, and

the

design work
of the web site designer. Even in situations where you know for ‘certain’ the screen
resolution to be used, such as a business intranet, I still design using variable width
tables. Because you never know when hardware will be upgraded. And I am

sure

no
business is willing to pay you to come back in and re-design their

intranet

site purely
because it no longer takes up the entire browser window.
Design from the outset with the option to adjust to inevitable future changes that can
be outside of you control.

While this information, that I have presented is not directly related for designing web
sites using PhotoShop, I feel that is done address the initial question of whether ‘real’
people out there work for just one size browser and work within those constraints
imposed by the dimensions available within the on screen real estate.
I hope think helps clarify your thoughts for the designs that you may do

in

the future.

Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

"Pepe" wrote in message

Hi, There is nothing wrong with a higher resolution, 1024 x 768 is OK let people upgrade to higher or tell them to! by giving the following. "This site is best in 1024 x 768" I hate when they make pages for 800 x

600

what a vaste of space on the desktop! I use high res 1280 x 960 and have full
menus in every program witout scrolling! It’s just a question of settings!
And what they have in offices????!!!!
Don’t surf the internet during worktime! – Back to work!!!!
Pepe

Funny post… I use two monitors side by side at work, one at 1920 x 1600 and one at 1024 x 768, but I make sure all my sites look good at 800 x 600 and again look good at higher resolutions…

And by the way, most successful offices utilize a myriad of web based applications or web sites to do their day to day business, so its not exactly surfing the ‘net…

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb that is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

wrote:

That sounds like a great technique, can you tell us more how to do this? Are those web designers who don’t use this technique just uninformed, or are there other problems associated with this technique, such as browser specific, etc.?

Here’s an entertaining rant on "browser specific" sites etc. http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

(back to lurking)

—
Mutley!! Doooooo Something!!
Fix Outlook Express – http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ as recommended by your friendly neighbourhood MeltDown.

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

I think someone may have hijacked Voivod’s id

Voivod is usually far more subtle and sublime

Will the real Voivod please post in?

Well, I certainly apologize if it is not the real poster. But if it was the real voivod, the person needs some serious attitude adjustment, lol.

Jesper wrote:

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb that is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

Fight! Fight!!

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" posted:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

I personally design using the variable width table options allowed within HTML.
I utilise an array of nested tables with 100% widths for the overall table, and limit
navigational areas to fixed pixel widths.

<snip>

I hope think helps clarify your thoughts for the designs that you may do in the future.

Fiona Fell

Fiona –
Thanks for showing us your site; it’s an interesting mix of fixed-width and percentage tables. I think it could probably be done more easily with a standard 4-column css layout. Putting the blank space in the middle is better than using only part of the screen.

Non-layout comment & suggestion:
* None of your graphics show in my browser.
* The links on your breadcrumbs are backwards: the links are to the present page; they should be to the upstream pages.

– Max
—
MisterMax
Slideshows of Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand, Tour de France: http://buten.net/max/
(Yes,RemoveDoubles is part of my email address. The double letters in my last name are not.)

I think someone may have hijacked Voivod’s id

Voivod is usually far more subtle and sublime

Will the real Voivod please post in?

Arts

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message

Jesper wrote:

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb

that

is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

Fight! Fight!!

"Jesper" wrote in message

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

I think someone may have hijacked Voivod’s id

Voivod is usually far more subtle and sublime

Will the real Voivod please post in?

Well, I certainly apologize if it is not the real poster. But if it was the real voivod, the person needs some serious attitude adjustment, lol.

yes, it is good to be light-hearted from time-to-time

Arts

Please forgive my ‘obviously’ abysmal use of word wrap. If the use of word wrap is seen as the most important element to a post, then I may hesitate to contribute in the future to this group. To assist others, I shall continue to post until another petty unrelated offtopic discussion begins in response.

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables design, but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access to public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older than most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.

I understand also that my breadcrumbs are not presented in exactly the same way others have done, I appreciate your comments and suggestions and will take heed to them in my next site design revision.

—
Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

If you quit posting, you basically let the ingrates win.

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote in
message

Please forgive my ‘obviously’ abysmal use of word wrap. If the use of word wrap is seen as the most important element to a post, then I may hesitate

to

contribute in the future to this group. To assist others, I shall continue to post until another petty unrelated offtopic discussion begins in response.

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables

design,

but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access

to

public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older

than

most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.
I understand also that my breadcrumbs are not presented in exactly the

same

way others have done, I appreciate your comments and suggestions and will take heed to them in my next site design revision.

—
Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:24:56 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote:

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables design, but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access to public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older than most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.

Hi Fiona,

I always used to code the pages using tables as well, but it’s wise to move onto CSS wherever possible because that’s the way the standards are moving. It also makes it much easier to use XML which is also the ways standards are going. Whilst I appreciate that you want a form of backwards compatibility I would suggest building the same site twice (using Dreamweaver templates you won’t have to repeat most of the site anyway, and serve the required pages to older browsers and the CSS to newer ones. It only requires a browser check when the person first hits the site.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:40:11 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

Jeff,

I work this way, with IE in a window – I have my e-mail box open in back so when a new msg comes in, I can see if it’s spam (ignore), business (attend to right now) or family junk (depends who it is). I also have a word doc open, waiting to cut and paste information from the web. Other times I have an open database that I’m correcting using information from the web and again, cut and paste from. It’s MUCH more efficient to work with multiple programs not only open but ‘up’ – if you have the space to do it in:)
But I also use the Win+D because I’ve got my desktop set up like a webpage with links to frequently used files, programs, websites and information done in flash. Makes my navigation of frequently used files and sites so much faster.

Assuming you’re using Windows, you can keep all the pages up if you want and cycle through them using alt-tab. Then, (if you’re using XP) you can just click "show desktop" on the windows toolbar to collapse them all immediately.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 20:18:55 GMT, "Littlemoot" wrote:

wrote:

That sounds like a great technique, can you tell us more how to do this? Are those web designers who don’t use this technique just uninformed, or are there other problems associated with this technique, such as browser specific, etc.?

Here’s an entertaining rant on "browser specific" sites etc. http://members.optusnet.com.au/~night.owl/morons.html

(back to lurking)

Rants are fun, but with the majority of users , well, using IE or IE based browsers, unless your site is targeted at geeks, you develop for IE first and then see if it works in the other browsers. I always try to make sure it works in Firefox, and then Opera. I couldn’t
[personally care less if it works in Netscape given that Netscape is a
pile of manure anyway. 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

AFAICT, show desktop is the equivalent of Win-M. Win-D allows to toggle between desktop and what was seen before.

JD

Assuming you’re using Windows, you can keep all the pages up if you want and cycle through them using alt-tab. Then, (if you’re using XP) you can just click "show desktop" on the windows toolbar to collapse them all immediately.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:02:46 -0400, "Jesper" scribbled:

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb that

I must have missed you being proclaimed God-King of usenet and your subsequent rules of behavior proclamation….

is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

"Don’t believe someone is an expert web designer if they can’t even compose a sentence properly." is a helpful thought.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:24:56 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" scribbled:

Please forgive my ‘obviously’ abysmal use of word wrap. If the use of word wrap is seen as the most important element to a post, then I may hesitate to

As a designer you don’t find readability, form and flow just as, if not more, important than content?

contribute in the future to this group. To assist others, I shall continue

You say ‘this group’ as if you were only posting to one….

to post until another petty unrelated offtopic discussion begins in response.

Aww, you’re going to take your ball and go home if usenet doesn’t bend over backwards and suit your needs?

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:24:56 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote:

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables design, but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access to public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older than most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.

Hi Fiona,

I always used to code the pages using tables as well, but it’s wise to move onto CSS wherever possible because that’s the way the standards are moving. It also makes it much easier to use XML which is also the ways standards are going. Whilst I appreciate that you want a form of backwards compatibility I would suggest building the same site twice (using Dreamweaver templates you won’t have to repeat most of the site anyway, and serve the required pages to older browsers and the CSS to newer ones. It only requires a browser check when the person first hits the site.

I’m all for Fiona’s intent to design her pages for the widest web audience possible, and also appreciate Hecate’s suggestion for a duplicate design and browser choice. It is a difficult call.

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:24:56 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote:

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables design, but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access to public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older than most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.

Hi Fiona,

I always used to code the pages using tables as well, but it’s wise to move onto CSS wherever possible because that’s the way the standards are moving. It also makes it much easier to use XML which is also the ways standards are going. Whilst I appreciate that you want a form of backwards compatibility I would suggest building the same site twice (using Dreamweaver templates you won’t have to repeat most of the site anyway, and serve the required pages to older browsers and the CSS to newer ones. It only requires a browser check when the person first hits the site.

As a beginner web page designer, I find that the books and tutorials don’t go into too much details about designing pages for the widest audience possible. Perhaps that’s why so many sites are done without this consideration. If there are books or tutorials on this topic, please let me know.

"hemorrvoid" blew:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:02:46 -0400, "Jesper" scribbled:

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb

that

I must have missed you being proclaimed God-King of usenet and your subsequent rules of behavior proclamation….

Sorry you missed that.

is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

"Don’t believe someone is an expert web designer if they can’t even compose a sentence properly." is a helpful thought.

What you believe is irrelevant here. Now go outside and wait for your school ..

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:40:11 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

Jeff,

I work this way, with IE in a window – I have my e-mail box open in back

so

when a new msg comes in, I can see if it’s spam (ignore), business

(attend

to right now) or family junk (depends who it is). I also have a word doc open, waiting to cut and paste information from the web. Other times I

have

an open database that I’m correcting using information from the web and again, cut and paste from. It’s MUCH more efficient to work with multiple programs not only open but ‘up’ – if you have the space to do it in:)
But I also use the Win+D because I’ve got my desktop set up like a

webpage

with links to frequently used files, programs, websites and information

done

in flash. Makes my navigation of frequently used files and sites so much faster.

Assuming you’re using Windows, you can keep all the pages up if you want and cycle through them using alt-tab. Then, (if you’re using XP) you can just click "show desktop" on the windows toolbar to collapse them all immediately.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

But that’s more keystrokes (time) than just click & go if they’re all available at the same time. But yes, if you don’t feel comfortable with seeing more space at once, this would be the most efficient way to go – I agree.

Mary

Because, ya know, I wouldn’t have time to screw around in an ng if I don’t ultra conserve every second I can 😉

Hi Fiona

Please don’t take the naughty comments to heart

It is good to have you posting here – there is a regular bunch of posters and I think sometimes we try to outdo each other in who’s the most haughty

But I for one welcome you here and your postings

Arts

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote in
message

Please forgive my ‘obviously’ abysmal use of word wrap. If the use of word wrap is seen as the most important element to a post, then I may hesitate

to

contribute in the future to this group. To assist others, I shall continue to post until another petty unrelated offtopic discussion begins in response.

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables

design,

but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of the people who are looking for design services in my region have only access

to

public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older

than

most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most up-to-date technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended design.
I understand also that my breadcrumbs are not presented in exactly the

same

way others have done, I appreciate your comments and suggestions and will take heed to them in my next site design revision.

—
Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:47:34 -0400, "Jesper" scribbled:

"hemorrvoid" blew:

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:02:46 -0400, "Jesper" scribbled:

"hemorrvoid" popped in message

An ‘actual expert’ who can’t even compose a sentence without fucking it up?

I must have missed your constructive input, and I don’t mean the thumb

that

I must have missed you being proclaimed God-King of usenet and your subsequent rules of behavior proclamation….

Sorry you missed that.

Me too, I enjoy comedies the most.

is up your ass. I mean where you actually formed a helping thought.

"Don’t believe someone is an expert web designer if they can’t even compose a sentence properly." is a helpful thought.

What you believe is irrelevant here. Now go outside and wait for your school

Where you live, do schools often cruise by your house?

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:23:47 GMT, wrote:

As a beginner web page designer, I find that the books and tutorials don’t go into too much details about designing pages for the widest audience possible. Perhaps that’s why so many sites are done without this consideration. If there are books or tutorials on this topic, please let me know.

First, make yourself familiar with (the admittedly dry and occasionally boring <g>) stuff at www.w3.org.

Look at lots of web sites and see what they do right – and more importantly, what they do wrong. Examine the source code for stuff you find interesting or useful.

Get yourself a book on html – something like "Mastering HTML" which also gives you a reference section with all the HTML tags, and info about scripting and so forth. Also look for books which include XHTML. And then there’s CSS. There’s a "Visual Quickstart" book which covers all three, and there books are usually good starting places.

I don’t know what software you’re using but look for something like "Macromedia Dreamweaver Training from The Source", if you use DW. (If you do use Macromedia products, books form The Source are excellent).

Also, look for books that are purely about design rather than coding: for instance, "Designing with Web Standards" by Zeldman.

Hope that’s enough to get you started.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:12:45 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

Because, ya know, I wouldn’t have time to screw around in an ng if I don’t ultra conserve every second I can 😉

LOL! I find it a bit of light relief, plus the chance to learn some useful info. At least, that’s what I tell my boss. <g> But then, that’s not a problem because I *am* my boss 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Yes, don’t be intimidated by the few disgruntled elitists that roam this group. Creativity, whether it be web or graphic design, is not a perfect science, as distressing as that is to some here. Ultimately it’s what is pleasing to the eye, and the customer.
One of my professors at the CI of A told me that it’s right when the customer says it is, lol.

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

Hi Fiona

Please don’t take the naughty comments to heart

It is good to have you posting here – there is a regular bunch of posters and I think sometimes we try to outdo each other in who’s the most haughty
But I for one welcome you here and your postings

Arts

"Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" wrote in
message

Please forgive my ‘obviously’ abysmal use of word wrap. If the use of

word

wrap is seen as the most important element to a post, then I may

hesitate

to

contribute in the future to this group. To assist others, I shall

continue

to post until another petty unrelated offtopic discussion begins in response.

I understand that CSS offer alternative to my hard coded HTML tables

design,

but I have designed for my audience, current and anticipated. Many of

the

people who are looking for design services in my region have only access

to

public library Internet resources, and browser versions that are older

than

most. I do not want to alienate those that do not have the most

up-to-date

technology from viewing an accurate representation of my intended

design.

I understand also that my breadcrumbs are not presented in exactly the

same

way others have done, I appreciate your comments and suggestions and

will

take heed to them in my next site design revision.

—
Fiona Fell
<< head creative geek
<< bluecrack multimedia

———————————————————– bluecrack multimedia : Supporting You and Your Business
Host your site with us NOW! and get the 1st Month FREE
Find us online @ http://www.bluecrack.com
———————————————————–

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:12:45 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

Because, ya know, I wouldn’t have time to screw around in an ng if I

don’t

ultra conserve every second I can 😉

LOL! I find it a bit of light relief, plus the chance to learn some useful info. At least, that’s what I tell my boss. <g> But then, that’s not a problem because I *am* my boss 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Yes! I do learn loads from all the ng’s I check out. Not formally trained in any of this – have a degree in business admin, nothing creative like I ended up doing. NGs are great:)

Thanks. I also found "Web Design on a Shoestring" a good read and has many book references.

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:23:47 GMT, wrote:

As a beginner web page designer, I find that the books and tutorials don’t go into too much details about designing pages for the widest audience possible. Perhaps that’s why so many sites are done without this consideration. If there are books or tutorials on this topic, please let me know.

First, make yourself familiar with (the admittedly dry and occasionally boring <g>) stuff at www.w3.org.

Look at lots of web sites and see what they do right – and more importantly, what they do wrong. Examine the source code for stuff you find interesting or useful.

Get yourself a book on html – something like "Mastering HTML" which also gives you a reference section with all the HTML tags, and info about scripting and so forth. Also look for books which include XHTML. And then there’s CSS. There’s a "Visual Quickstart" book which covers all three, and there books are usually good starting places.
I don’t know what software you’re using but look for something like "Macromedia Dreamweaver Training from The Source", if you use DW. (If you do use Macromedia products, books form The Source are excellent).
Also, look for books that are purely about design rather than coding: for instance, "Designing with Web Standards" by Zeldman.
Hope that’s enough to get you started.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:26:57 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" scribbled:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

You can’t even get word wrap right.

Ouch ! 😉

Stephan

ah Stephan behold the mighty one has spoke

He (or she or the one) uses few word with great effect

tis a wonder to behold

Arts

ps – you will soon be a disciple too?

A

"Stephan" wrote in message

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:26:57 +1000, "Fiona Fell : bluecrack multimedia" scribbled:

I have read over the conversation discussed here and felt that as a web designer
my personal experience and ‘business practices’ may assist people in designing
other sites.

You can’t even get word wrap right.

Ouch ! 😉

Stephan

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:09:21 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:12:45 -0400, "Mary E. Hill" wrote:

Because, ya know, I wouldn’t have time to screw around in an ng if I

don’t

ultra conserve every second I can 😉

LOL! I find it a bit of light relief, plus the chance to learn some useful info. At least, that’s what I tell my boss. <g> But then, that’s not a problem because I *am* my boss 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Yes! I do learn loads from all the ng’s I check out. Not formally trained in any of this – have a degree in business admin, nothing creative like I ended up doing. NGs are great:)

You just have to learn who to ignore 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Arty Phacting" wrote in message

ah Stephan behold the mighty one has spoke

He (or she or the one) uses few word with great effect

tis a wonder to behold

Arts

ps – you will soon be a disciple too?

A

no

Stephan