 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: SharkD
Subject: Different stylesheets for different screen resolutions: still a good idea?
Date: 24 Sep 2009 00:00:06
Message: <4abaeec6$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been retooling my website and implemented a new script that loads a
stylesheet with bigger fonts depending on the visitor's screen
resolution. Is this still (or was it ever) a good idea? Vista and Seven
have resolution independent interfaces don't they? Wouldn't this make it
superfluous?
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I've been retooling my website and implemented a new script that loads a
> stylesheet with bigger fonts depending on the visitor's screen
> resolution. Is this still (or was it ever) a good idea? Vista and Seven
> have resolution independent interfaces don't they? Wouldn't this make it
> superfluous?
>
> -Mike
To date, I am yet to see a reliable way of detecting the user's resolution. You
also cannot detect the user's text size setting (in the browser) or the system's
dpi. That said, I do think that having a link that users can click to set their
preferred size can be kind of neat. IMHO, it should generally not be needed,
since the site design should tolerate any scale selected on the individual
user's machine.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Different stylesheets for different screen resolutions: still a good id=
Date: 24 Sep 2009 16:38:29
Message: <4abbd8c5$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reactor wrote:
> That said, I do think that having a link that users can click to set their
> preferred size can be kind of neat.
That's lame. The server shouldn't be tracking what the client already does
in presenting things to the user. Anyone who bases their design on specific
pixel sizes is doing it wrong.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: SharkD
Subject: Re: Different stylesheets for different screen resolutions: stilla good id=
Date: 25 Sep 2009 01:56:21
Message: <4abc5b85$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> That's lame. The server shouldn't be tracking what the client already
> does in presenting things to the user. Anyone who bases their design on
> specific pixel sizes is doing it wrong.
I'm already using relative sizes. Lameness non-existent.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Anyone who bases their design on specific pixel sizes is doing it wrong.
Do you think there will ever be a time when web graphics is entirely
vector-based, so the entire page can be easily scaled up or down?
Think about it: you have a text layout core with lays out the text, and
then a vector graphics which uses these metrics to draw some pretty
stuff around it. No more spacer GIFs or intricate multi-part images for
edges and corners, just a vector graphics program.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Think about it: you have a text layout core with lays out the text, and
> then a vector graphics which uses these metrics to draw some pretty
> stuff around it. No more spacer GIFs or intricate multi-part images for
> edges and corners, just a vector graphics program.
Flash?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Think about it: you have a text layout core with lays out the text,
>> and then a vector graphics which uses these metrics to draw some
>> pretty stuff around it. No more spacer GIFs or intricate multi-part
>> images for edges and corners, just a vector graphics program.
>
> Flash?
AH-AAH! KING OF THE IMPOSSIBLE!!
I love you Flash, but we've only got 24 hours to save the Earth!
No, wait, that's a completely different Flash... hmm... Well anyway, I
was thinking more of mising HTML with SVG - you know, open standards and
all that? (Plus you don't need animation for a page of text.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do you think there will ever be a time when web graphics is entirely
> vector-based, so the entire page can be easily scaled up or down?
Unless you're putting bitmapped pictures in there, it already is.
Indeed, even with bitmapped pictures, it already is. Do you use firefox? Go
to google's home page and type control+ a few times.
> Think about it: you have a text layout core with lays out the text, and
> then a vector graphics which uses these metrics to draw some pretty
> stuff around it. No more spacer GIFs or intricate multi-part images for
> edges and corners, just a vector graphics program.
Well, that's what HTML is all about. But really, I don't change anything on
my web page when I go from a 14" screen to a 21" screen. Why would I have to
change it when I scale it in software?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Indeed, even with bitmapped pictures, it already is. Do you use
> firefox? Go to google's home page and type control+ a few times.
Not completely. Cellpadding and cellspacing only take pixel dimensions IIRC.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:27:51 +0200, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Cellpadding and cellspacing only take pixel dimensions IIRC.
Yes, but CSS padding can/should be used instead, and is not limited to
pixels.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
