help please, I'm both new to webpulishing and stupid

[orientdave]

:confused: Hi everyone; I'm a bit stupid I'm afraid and have been trying to teach myself web publishing and html by myself through trial and error..but I'm no techie and am getting a bit lost. If anyone could help me with a little problem I have.......
I am in the process of making my site davidsamworth.com (http://www.davidsamworth.com) with Dreamweaver 3 on my laptop (screen size 800 by 600). I stupidly, as it turns out, assumed that it would be shown full screen on all computers, but when I viewed it on my wife's desktop, (1024 by 768), the pages were small specs in the corner!!!
So it was no surprise to find out that if I 'fit' the pages to the desktop screen, I get only the top left corner up on my laptop.
Thus I wondered if the big players (tha yahoos etc) may be adding some code to their html to get their pages to 'fit' the screens they are called to?????????

Can anyone help me? I'd appreciate any hints or leads on how to configure my web documents to 'fit' different size screens..can it be done? How do yahoo ensure that their site fits perfectly horizontally across both my laptop and my wife's desktop screens??

[grahm]

according to my tracker, most people have the screen size set to 600x800 so that's what i code my site to..

i'm sure the big players have different pages based on the visitor's screen size.. not too hard to redirect visitors using a little JavaScript...

:)

[Bud]

Using tables, sites can be built to be seen correctly in most resolutions. An easy way is to build the site so it looks best in 800x600, nesting your content (and all other tables) inside a big table with one large cell, say 700 pixels wide, and then center that table.

I never need to build for multiple resolutions unless I'm using dynamic html (like with timelines and layers).

Very few people are on 640x480 anymore so I write a javascript to tell those that still use this res they won't be able to view the site properly until they increase the resolution.


Hope this helps :)

~bud

[orientdave]

Thanks Graham and Bud.....I'll try to learn some Javascript next!! I've set the site for 800*600 and will get on to the javascript in the new year!!!! Now, where's my letter to santa????
Dear Santa....
Javascript for dummies.....

Thanks again...your help is MUCH appreciated and has saved countless hairs from certain death by tearing-out.:)

[Vern]

Thanks, Bud,

and orientdave, for the question!

Never would have thought of that, and is soooo easy! :)

orientdave,

I learned javascript the hands on way cause I hate books, good for reference, but can't learn squat from scratch by reading.... Anyway, I stole the free javascripts from others from the java sites that I liked what they did, and studied/analized the script and eventually was able to tweak them to my preferences.

No sense in reinventing the wheel!
Best to connect with java newsgroups and forums and the massive teaching sites rather than doing it all from a book. (many things in these books remind me of the headaches of Algebra math, some 20+ years ago, I had to go through 9 months of hell, haven't used it sense!)

[Bud]

Always glad when I can help :)

In case anyone needs a javascript to show an alert box when a certain resolution is detected, here is the one I use:

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--

if(screen.width == "640" && screen.height == "480"){
alert("To view this site properly, you must have a screen resolution of at least 800x600. Your screen resolution is 640x480. You should consider changing your resolution setting!")

}

if(screen.width == "720" && screen.height == "480"){
alert("To view this site properly, you must have a screen resolution of at least 800x600. Your screen resolution is 720x480. You should consider changing your resolution setting!")

}

if(screen.width == "720" && screen.height == "576"){
alert("To view this site properly, you must have a screen resolution of at least 800x600. Your screen resolution is 720x576. You should consider changing your resolution setting!")

}
//-->
</SCRIPT>

I've included all common res below 800 x 600, you can modify it however you like :)

~bud

[Anvilman]

Ive had to face this issue many times throughout many layouts, but I've found the best way to do it is simply through tables. So make 1 table consisting of 1 cell, make that 100% wide. Now make all your stuff in there, if you want to see a good example of this, take a look at my site ( http://www.fearthestupid.com )

And it looks now that about 40-48% of web users use 800.600 resolution, the smarter people have moved to higher resolutions. I say this because this is what the 100,000 visitors ive tracked over my last year in running a website.

[dpartrick]

Originally posted by Anvilman
And it looks now that about 40-48% of web users use 800.600 resolution, the smarter people have moved to higher resolutions. I say this because this is what the 100,000 visitors ive tracked over my last year in running a website.

Um... the "smarter" use higher resolutions? Man, that's a pretty big generalization!

Oh, I would have liked to check your table idea out, but the link you posted didn't work for me...


David

[UnnDunn]

I always design my pages to be 'stretchy'. One of my pet peeves is a site that is locked at a certain resolution. Especially if that resolution is 640 wide. Although I can see why it is done (because it gives much tighter control over the design).

UnnDunn.com (http://www.unndunn.com) is my site.

[sandy]

Bud,

Thanks for posting your script. I've included it on my various pages. I appreciate your taking the time to provide it.

Sandy

[Bud]

Hi Sandy, glad it worked well for you :)

dpartrick, I'm with you, that's quite a generalization.

My question is, if I'm smarter by using 1024x768 as opposed to 800x600, does my intelligence go up proportionately as I move on to 1280x1024??? :D

~bud

[symo]

Just step aside... my IQ is 1600X1200... can't get much smarter than that without a 21 inch monitor :)

[Bud]

LOL

Symo, I think that makes you a genius!

~bud :cool:

[SBGlasby]

Maybe you should make 2 big Tables.... One on top for your LOGO.... and some navigations stuff.... or something....


I actually used this technique for a while.... and always wondered how some sites, the banners, logos, ect loaded.... then the rest of the page loaded..... then I lloked at their Code... they were using 2 tables.... " not nested"... 2 seperate tables...

the way tables are " I've read somewhere", and ..... "Everything inside the table" , must be in memory, before the contents will show in the Browser...

ie:... creating 1 big table... means the entire page has to load, prior to "anything at all " it being displayed....

what this means is.... people on broadband... probably won't notice.... but People on dial-ups..... may be staring at a blank screen...... for a while....

if that's not an issue... or consideration.... then so be it....

I know personally, If a page takes too long to load.... I hit the "BACK Button" , I think I read somewhere.... If a Page takes more than 10 seconds to show anything.... most people.... do the same....

[junglerat]

I don't know about version 3 of Dreamweaver, but I just started using version 4. Supposedly (and I say "supposedly") any html developed using Dreamweaver will, if done correctly automatically "adjust" for various screen resolutions.

This is particularly true if you are using vector graphics rather than simple gif, bmp, or jpg.

Vector graphics are "displayed" using a mathematical equation whereas the others use a "place a dot here, a dot there, another dot over there, etc...... meaning, when dot-by-dot (pixel) placement is displayed, the larger the resolution the more fuzzy the image. Vector graphics maintains the nice, crisp image regardless the screen resolution.

Now, as for tables: I've tested "full page tables" over various screen resolutions and at various bandwidths. The only problem I've encountered has been with netscape. Internet Explorer seems to work well but, for some reason, netscape is a bit finicky.

In terms of bandwidth, I "test" my pages at 56k....I don't believe serious web-users use a 28k modem connection anymore. Especially when a 56k modem can be had for less than $12.00 now and I don't know of any computer manufacturer who sells their platforms with a 28k modem anymore. Almost all now include - at a minimum - a 56k and/or an ethernet 10/100 card which, of course, is for cable modem (broadband)

I hope my mindless wanderings here are helpful. Lord knows I need lots of help m'self as I endeavor to put up a professionally looking site.

Semper fi
Bill D.

[Vern]

A new thinking concept SBGlasby,

Never really gave that much thought, 3 tables would be like opening 3 browser windows at the same time. The top FAST loading, mostly text one would load Really quick!
One table would take forever....

Or if you had many things that honestly reguires a table, like my midi listings tables, on other site, splitting that LARGE table into 3, making the 1st table small, 2nd bigger and the rest of bulk on third one.

Very Cool Idea! :)