browser width

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a
>>>>>>>>>> decade!)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> images and would like to use as much size as possible,
>>>>>>>>>> typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a variety
>>>>>>>>>> of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a
>>>>>>>>>> lot of people above that, particularly with the proliferation
>>>>>>>>>> of widescreen monitors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just trying
>>>>>>>>>> to fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make
>>>>>>>>> your site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to pull
>>>>>>>> images that will fit in what the user has. I want some idea on
>>>>>>>> window stats so that I'll have some idea of what to have the
>>>>>>>> server make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized
>>>>>>> design, you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design
>>>>>>> won't fit into a window smaller than that. That includes most
>>>>>>> cell phones - but more importantly, it could include a lot of
>>>>>>> browser windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser windows
>>>>>>> size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not
>>>>>>> taking up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you
>>>>>>> should plan the window for the images you're going to use. That
>>>>>>> is get images which look good (and, if they have text, are
>>>>>>> readable) and plan your layout around them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't
>>>>>> want. I want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit
>>>>>> that rather have the browser interpolate it, something browsers
>>>>>> are not terribly good at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to make
>>>>> the page fluid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at
>>>>>> 1250ish browser widths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple of
>>>>> sites use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>>> screen - whatever.
>>
>>
>> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
>> resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
>> wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>
>
> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.

Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen
them browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that
was years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a
larger image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say: "I'd
like to see that image smaller."
>
> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother, who
> can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
> typically runs one window at full screen size.
>
> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their potential
> customers.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the
>>>>>> merits of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically
>>>>>> said that I wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is certainly
>>>>>> rare).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery"
>>>>>> templates up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic poet"
>>>>>> who died recently, which is why I'm updating. The images are very
>>>>>> strong (some startling) and need to speak (with a little verse) on
>>>>>> their own, I don't want a lot of "whitespace". The visual aspect
>>>>>> is important and I mentioned before these are gallery pages, not
>>>>>> standard mixed text and images html.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>> and if you
>>>>
>>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken designs.
>>>> Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
>>> which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
>>>
>>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800.
>>> Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand my
>>> window to see the larger of the two.
>>>
>>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>>
>>
>> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they
>> want and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them
>> 5 choices.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>>
>>
>
> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
> they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate more
> than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the like.

I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a fixed
width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am fitting
images to whatever is being browsed.

Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then put
it up. I'd really like to see this.


>
> But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine.

Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This is
not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for taking
in what is no longer.

You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.

Jeff

It is your
> site, after all.
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

On Oct 22, 8:53 pm, Jeff <dont_bug....RemoveThis@all.uk> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:

> > Much better, generally, but the real advantage would be being able to
> > serve much larger images - Flash is much better at streaming images than
> > a browser,
>
> Why is that?

Because you have complete control over how you fetch that image. You
could, for example, slice the image up into blocks and have Flash
fetch them as and when they are needed. You could have a VAST version
of your image (much much larger than the screen) and Flash can stream
just the visible chunk of the image to the browser (so saving stacks
of bandwidth). Or use some sort of vector format to store your images.

> > give the user some feedback (progress bar, whatever) while it loads,
> > rather than have your user sit looking at a blank screen.
>
> Images usually load progressively rather than just pop up.

Depends on the browser, and the proxy if you have one.

> A few questions about Flash.
>
> Seems like all flash sites I've seen are a fixed width, can you show us
> some flash sites that resize?

www.thefwa.com

> How does flash do for online CMS. I would think very poorly, am I
> wrong here?

Nope... just as easy as with any other technology really. In some
respects easier - AS3 is a lot more powerful than JavaScript-enhanced
HTML for these things. Most of the work a CMS does is behind the
scenes - the content management part Flash can read XML, so you can
have whatever backend you care for spit out XML wrapped content. For
example we're in the process of creating a Flash-based online
magazine. The back-end is essentially a regular WordPress blog. Flash
processes the XML that WordPress provides for RSS/Atom feeds and
generates the whole magazine based on that, seamlessly.

> What would a typical client have to do to add a flash page to their site.

Depends on the client, and who you have to create the Flash, and
whether Flash would be suitable for your clients market. Flash is
great at some things, but I would use it for all sites. Highly visual
sites, such as galleries, it's almost ideal though, as it also adds a
layer of security - it is MUCH harder to steal an image out of a Flash
movie (if not impossible, other than taking a screenshot) compared to
a regular web page.
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a
>>>>>>>>>>> decade!)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>> images and would like to use as much size as possible,
>>>>>>>>>>> typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a variety
>>>>>>>>>>> of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are a
>>>>>>>>>>> lot of people above that, particularly with the proliferation
>>>>>>>>>>> of widescreen monitors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather, make
>>>>>>>>>> your site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to
>>>>>>>>> pull images that will fit in what the user has. I want some
>>>>>>>>> idea on window stats so that I'll have some idea of what to
>>>>>>>>> have the server make.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized
>>>>>>>> design, you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design
>>>>>>>> won't fit into a window smaller than that. That includes most
>>>>>>>> cell phones - but more importantly, it could include a lot of
>>>>>>>> browser windows.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser
>>>>>>>> windows size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen
>>>>>>> size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not
>>>>>>>> taking up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen, you
>>>>>>>> should plan the window for the images you're going to use. That
>>>>>>>> is get images which look good (and, if they have text, are
>>>>>>>> readable) and plan your layout around them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't
>>>>>>> want. I want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit
>>>>>>> that rather have the browser interpolate it, something browsers
>>>>>>> are not terribly good at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to make
>>>>>> the page fluid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this group:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at
>>>>>>> 1250ish browser widths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple of
>>>>>> sites use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>>>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>>>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>>>> screen - whatever.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run higher
>>> resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because some techy
>>> wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>>
>>
>> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
>> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
>
> Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen them
> browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that was
> years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a larger
> image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say: "I'd like to
> see that image smaller."

Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is too
big for their windows.

>>
>> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother,
>> who can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
>> typically runs one window at full screen size.
>>
>> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
>> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their
>> potential customers.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the
>>>>>>> merits of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically
>>>>>>> said that I wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is certainly
>>>>>>> rare).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery"
>>>>>>> templates up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic
>>>>>>> poet" who died recently, which is why I'm updating. The images
>>>>>>> are very strong (some startling) and need to speak (with a little
>>>>>>> verse) on their own, I don't want a lot of "whitespace". The
>>>>>>> visual aspect is important and I mentioned before these are
>>>>>>> gallery pages, not standard mixed text and images html.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> and if you
>>>>>
>>>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken
>>>>> designs. Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a size
>>>> which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they see fit.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>>>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or 600x800.
>>>> Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400, or expand
>>>> my window to see the larger of the two.
>>>>
>>>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they
>>> want and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving them
>>> 5 choices.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
>> they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate
>> more than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the like.
>
> I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a fixed
> width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am fitting
> images to whatever is being browsed.
>

I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you server a
picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it, you are
forcing a window size.

It has nothing to do with a fluid design.

> Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
> your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then put
> it up. I'd really like to see this.
>

You're the one asking for advice. You can take it or leave it. It's
your customers you're losing.

>
>>
>> But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine.
>
> Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
> this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
> anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
> poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This is
> not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for taking
> in what is no longer.
>

Nope. I didn't miss it. But customers don't have to be *paying* anything.

> You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
> you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.
>

Jeff, you come here and ask for suggestions. Then you argue when
suggestions are made. You don't want help; you just want validation of
your pre-conceived ideas.

> Jeff
>
> It is your
>> site, after all.
>>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.DeleteThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a
>>>>>>>>>>>> decade!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>> images and would like to use as much size as possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>> typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a variety
>>>>>>>>>>>> of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are
>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of people above that, particularly with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proliferation of widescreen monitors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just
>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather,
>>>>>>>>>>> make your site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to
>>>>>>>>>> pull images that will fit in what the user has. I want some
>>>>>>>>>> idea on window stats so that I'll have some idea of what to
>>>>>>>>>> have the server make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized
>>>>>>>>> design, you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design
>>>>>>>>> won't fit into a window smaller than that. That includes most
>>>>>>>>> cell phones - but more importantly, it could include a lot of
>>>>>>>>> browser windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser
>>>>>>>>> windows size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen
>>>>>>>> size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not
>>>>>>>>> taking up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen,
>>>>>>>>> you should plan the window for the images you're going to use.
>>>>>>>>> That is get images which look good (and, if they have text, are
>>>>>>>>> readable) and plan your layout around them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I don't
>>>>>>>> want. I want the window to resize and retrieve an image to fit
>>>>>>>> that rather have the browser interpolate it, something browsers
>>>>>>>> are not terribly good at.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to
>>>>>>> make the page fluid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this
>>>>>>>> group:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <URL: http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at
>>>>>>>> 1250ish browser widths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple
>>>>>>> of sites use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>>>>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>>>>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>>>>> screen - whatever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run
>>>> higher resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because
>>>> some techy wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
>>> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
>>
>>
>> Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen
>> them browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that
>> was years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a
>> larger image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say:
>> "I'd like to see that image smaller."
>
>
> Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is too
> big for their windows.

So, shouldn't the image resize?
>
>>>
>>> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother,
>>> who can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at all
>>> typically runs one window at full screen size.
>>>
>>> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
>>> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their
>>> potential customers.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the
>>>>>>>> merits of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically
>>>>>>>> said that I wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is
>>>>>>>> certainly rare).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery"
>>>>>>>> templates up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic
>>>>>>>> poet" who died recently, which is why I'm updating. The images
>>>>>>>> are very strong (some startling) and need to speak (with a
>>>>>>>> little verse) on their own, I don't want a lot of "whitespace".
>>>>>>>> The visual aspect is important and I mentioned before these are
>>>>>>>> gallery pages, not standard mixed text and images html.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and if you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken
>>>>>> designs. Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a
>>>>> size which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as they
>>>>> see fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>>>>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or
>>>>> 600x800. Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400,
>>>>> or expand my window to see the larger of the two.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they
>>>> want and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving
>>>> them 5 choices.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something and
>>> they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people hate
>>> more than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or the
>>> like.
>>
>>
>> I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a fixed
>> width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am fitting
>> images to whatever is being browsed.
>>
>
> I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you server a
> picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it, you are
> forcing a window size.

But I'm not forcing a window size. I'm serving an image to fit their
window size. Not their screen size.
>
> It has nothing to do with a fluid design.
>
>> Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
>> your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then
>> put it up. I'd really like to see this.
>>
>
> You're the one asking for advice. You can take it or leave it. It's
> your customers you're losing.
>
>>
>>>
>>> But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine.
>>
>>
>> Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
>> this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
>> anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
>> poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This
>> is not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for
>> taking in what is no longer.
>>
>
> Nope. I didn't miss it. But customers don't have to be *paying* anything.
>
>> You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
>> you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.
>>
>
> Jeff, you come here and ask for suggestions. Then you argue when
> suggestions are made. You don't want help; you just want validation of
> your pre-conceived ideas.

I asked this:

"Anyone have stats on browser widths?"

And then I gave you the reason why I didn't want to get in this
argument. But, since we are here, where is your better example?

Now, I've set up a lot of different websites, all commercial or
governmental. And while your "advice" is relevant to general web design
it really means little here.

Jeff
>
>> Jeff
>>
>> It is your
>>
>>> site, after all.
>>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jeff wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decade!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> images and would like to use as much size as possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of people above that, particularly with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proliferation of widescreen monitors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather,
>>>>>>>>>>>> make your site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to
>>>>>>>>>>> pull images that will fit in what the user has. I want some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea on window stats so that I'll have some idea of what to
>>>>>>>>>>> have the server make.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized
>>>>>>>>>> design, you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design
>>>>>>>>>> won't fit into a window smaller than that. That includes most
>>>>>>>>>> cell phones - but more importantly, it could include a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> browser windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser
>>>>>>>>>> windows size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not screen
>>>>>>>>> size.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's not
>>>>>>>>>> taking up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen,
>>>>>>>>>> you should plan the window for the images you're going to
>>>>>>>>>> use. That is get images which look good (and, if they have
>>>>>>>>>> text, are readable) and plan your layout around them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I
>>>>>>>>> don't want. I want the window to resize and retrieve an image
>>>>>>>>> to fit that rather have the browser interpolate it, something
>>>>>>>>> browsers are not terribly good at.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to
>>>>>>>> make the page fluid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this
>>>>>>>>> group:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <URL:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at
>>>>>>>>> 1250ish browser widths.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple
>>>>>>>> of sites use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>>>>>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>>>>>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>>>>>> screen - whatever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run
>>>>> higher resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because
>>>>> some techy wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
>>>> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen
>>> them browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and that
>>> was years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800, serving a
>>> larger image over 600px inner. I've never seen a photographer say:
>>> "I'd like to see that image smaller."
>>
>>
>> Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is
>> too big for their windows.
>
> So, shouldn't the image resize?

No. Why should it?

>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother,
>>>> who can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at
>>>> all typically runs one window at full screen size.
>>>>
>>>> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
>>>> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their
>>>> potential customers.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the
>>>>>>>>> merits of fixed versus fluid design which is why I specifically
>>>>>>>>> said that I wasn't doing a fixed width design (which is
>>>>>>>>> certainly rare).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery"
>>>>>>>>> templates up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic
>>>>>>>>> poet" who died recently, which is why I'm updating. The images
>>>>>>>>> are very strong (some startling) and need to speak (with a
>>>>>>>>> little verse) on their own, I don't want a lot of "whitespace".
>>>>>>>>> The visual aspect is important and I mentioned before these are
>>>>>>>>> gallery pages, not standard mixed text and images html.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and if you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken
>>>>>>> designs. Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a
>>>>>> size which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as
>>>>>> they see fit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>>>>>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or
>>>>>> 600x800. Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400,
>>>>>> or expand my window to see the larger of the two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they
>>>>> want and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving
>>>>> them 5 choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something
>>>> and they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people
>>>> hate more than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser or
>>>> the like.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a
>>> fixed width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am
>>> fitting images to whatever is being browsed.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you server
>> a picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it, you are
>> forcing a window size.
>
> But I'm not forcing a window size. I'm serving an image to fit their
> window size. Not their screen size.

And how are you going to know what window size they want? You can use
javascript to determine the current size - but that may not be what they
want.

>>
>> It has nothing to do with a fluid design.
>>
>>> Now, if you have a gallery/slideshow example (it doesn't have to be
>>> your work) that you want to post that does everything you like, then
>>> put it up. I'd really like to see this.
>>>
>>
>> You're the one asking for advice. You can take it or leave it. It's
>> your customers you're losing.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if you don't care about losing customers, that's fine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you also miss the point where I said in the very first line that
>>> this is my site? I'm not selling anything, not planning on selling
>>> anything. What about where I said I was doing this for an "acrobatic
>>> poet" that had died? How could this seem like a commercial site? This
>>> is not a site for zipping through and checking out, but a site for
>>> taking in what is no longer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. I didn't miss it. But customers don't have to be *paying*
>> anything.
>>
>>> You know Jerry, it seems you have just one concept on your mind and
>>> you can't understand that I don't fit in that box you are making.
>>>
>>
>> Jeff, you come here and ask for suggestions. Then you argue when
>> suggestions are made. You don't want help; you just want validation
>> of your pre-conceived ideas.
>
> I asked this:
>
> "Anyone have stats on browser widths?"
>
> And then I gave you the reason why I didn't want to get in this
> argument. But, since we are here, where is your better example?
>

Yes, you did. And I took it one step further, based on your comments.

And no, I'm not going to give you a "better example". I made a
recommendation. You are free to accept it or lose customers. Quite
frankly, I don't give a damn which. It's not my site.

I was just trying to be helpful.

> Now, I've set up a lot of different websites, all commercial or
> governmental. And while your "advice" is relevant to general web design
> it really means little here.
>
> Jeff
>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> It is your
>>>
>>>> site, after all.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: browser width 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on updating my old website (it's been about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a decade!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone have stats on browser widths? I'll have a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> images and would like to use as much size as possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically what I do is use Image::Magick to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of sizes and rewrite the html to fit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I usually design for a 1024 max, but I'm thinking there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are a lot of people above that, particularly with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proliferation of widescreen monitors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not planning on a fixed width window design, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to fit the images to what the window flows out to...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be writing for any specific width. Rather,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make your site fluid so it uses the available space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not going to have a fixed width design. But I want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pull images that will fit in what the user has. I want some
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea on window stats so that I'll have some idea of what to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have the server make.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Images, I'm talking images...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I do understand. I just didn't make myself clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as you start looking at images for a certain sized
>>>>>>>>>>> design, you're going to lose much of your fluid design.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, if you use an image that's 300x400, your design
>>>>>>>>>>> won't fit into a window smaller than that. That includes
>>>>>>>>>>> most cell phones - but more importantly, it could include a
>>>>>>>>>>> lot of browser windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's important is not the screen size - but the browser
>>>>>>>>>>> windows size.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is why I specifically mentioned window size, not
>>>>>>>>>> screen size.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, right now I have my browser open - but it's
>>>>>>>>>>> not taking up anywhere near the fill size of the screen.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rather than plan the images for the full size of the screen,
>>>>>>>>>>> you should plan the window for the images you're going to
>>>>>>>>>>> use. That is get images which look good (and, if they have
>>>>>>>>>>> text, are readable) and plan your layout around them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you wind up with a fixed size display, exactly what I
>>>>>>>>>> don't want. I want the window to resize and retrieve an image
>>>>>>>>>> to fit that rather have the browser interpolate it, something
>>>>>>>>>> browsers are not terribly good at.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. You can use wrap-around text and other styles to
>>>>>>>>> make the page fluid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyhow, I got what I wanted from a different thread in this
>>>>>>>>>> group:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <URL:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.safalra.com/shared/display-inner-statistics.php />
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I suspected, a very large number of people are browsing at
>>>>>>>>>> 1250ish browser widths.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's interesting, because almost no one I've seen on a couple
>>>>>>>>> of sites use that width. The average is around 600-800 px.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything is getting bigger.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To a certain extent, yes. But the sites I've checked are mainly
>>>>>>> consumer sites - people who don't necessarily have the largest
>>>>>>> monitor, or don't necessarily have their window expanded to full
>>>>>>> screen - whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that artists and photographers in particular run
>>>>>> higher resolutions. Should we ignore the target audience because
>>>>>> some techy wants to pick his image size in an awkward fashion?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes? Since when? None of the photographers I know do. They run
>>>>> smaller windows, much like I do. As do the couple of artists I know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then we are at opposite ends of the people we know. And I've seen
>>>> them browse. I've had them ask why the images are so small, and
>>>> that was years ago when I had them sized for both 640 and 800,
>>>> serving a larger image over 600px inner. I've never seen a
>>>> photographer say: "I'd like to see that image smaller."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we are. I've seen many photographers complain that an image is
>>> too big for their windows.
>>
>>
>> So, shouldn't the image resize?
>
>
> No. Why should it?

Well, didn't you just say, the image is too big?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, these people are computer savvy. People like my mother,
>>>>> who can operate a computer but doesn't understand multitasking at
>>>>> all typically runs one window at full screen size.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then if you don't care if people come to your site, you can do
>>>>> anything you want. My clients have learned to cater to their
>>>>> potential customers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You know, I really didn't want to get in a discussion of the
>>>>>>>>>> merits of fixed versus fluid design which is why I
>>>>>>>>>> specifically said that I wasn't doing a fixed width design
>>>>>>>>>> (which is certainly rare).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you like I'll post a link when I have the new "gallery"
>>>>>>>>>> templates up. I had a friend who was a wonderfull "acrobatic
>>>>>>>>>> poet" who died recently, which is why I'm updating. The images
>>>>>>>>>> are very strong (some startling) and need to speak (with a
>>>>>>>>>> little verse) on their own, I don't want a lot of
>>>>>>>>>> "whitespace". The visual aspect is important and I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>> before these are gallery pages, not standard mixed text and
>>>>>>>>>> images html.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's fine. But for a gallery, you should have thumbnails,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and if you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> want different sizes, allow the user to pick the size he wants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? Particularly when some choices will result in broken
>>>>>>>> designs. Have you ever done a gallery page?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because when they want to see the "big picture" they can pick a
>>>>>>> size which fits their current window resolution - or adjust as
>>>>>>> they see fit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, I might have my window set up for 400x500 (not that
>>>>>>> uncommon for me). You have an image with either 300x400 or
>>>>>>> 600x800. Now I have a choice - view the smaller image in 300x400,
>>>>>>> or expand my window to see the larger of the two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's all about giving the customer what they want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just have them expand their window to whatever size they
>>>>>> want and there it is? Seems to make a lot more sense than giving
>>>>>> them 5 choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you are giving them a choice. Force them to do something
>>>>> and they will be gone in a heartbeat. There is little that people
>>>>> hate more than being forced to use a certain screen size, browser
>>>>> or the like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't how many times I've had to say that I am not designing a
>>>> fixed width site. What is so hard for you to wrap around that? I am
>>>> fitting images to whatever is being browsed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say you were designing a fixed-width site. But if you
>>> server a picture at 800x600 and expect the user to be able to see it,
>>> you are forcing a window size.
>>
>>
>> But I'm not forcing a window size. I'm serving an image to fit their
>> window size. Not their screen size.
>
>
> And how are you going to know what window size they want? You can use
> javascript to determine the cu