Fleur Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I have to say that one image is bad enough, but this is going too far! http://www.manxradio.com/readItem.aspx?ID=7652&cate=General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckett Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 I have to say that one image is bad enough, but this is going too far! http://www.manxradio.com/readItem.aspx?ID=7652&cate=General The 3 images thing is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Jackpot. Three Bells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The first thing that struck me is that the monitor screen is 'landscape' and the web page is 'portrait', leaving grey borders down the sides which could have accommodated the stuff at the bottom you have to scroll down to see !. The other disappointment is the postage stamp size baycam, (which is still showing sunshine !) and leaves a section of a larger image behind it. I used to leave the webcam on screen when not doing anything else, but it's not really up to that any more (and no direct link to go straight to it like .../webcam.aspx) ( just checked my little homepage and it only got 19 errors ! oops ) useful facility that one, but very 'fernickety' (thanks for the link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Jackpot. Three Bells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Send in the clones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 three wise monkeys ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The first thing that struck me is that the monitor screen is 'landscape' and the web page is 'portrait', leaving grey borders down the sides which could have accommodated the stuff at the bottom you have to scroll down to see !. That would mean it would look like shit in 800x600 resolution, which as sucky as it is, some people are using still. I thought the generally accepted minimum these days was 1024, it's certainly what my web designing buddies aim for. The grey bars down the side are simply you running a resolution width more than 800. That design just wouldn't work with unbounded positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomTucker Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 wish they had created RSS feeds for the site though. i use www.netvibes.com as my homepage and have 22 different news feeds so i can see news as its published on each site. if you arnt familiar with RSS you should take a look its great as theres always something to distract you from working! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The first thing that struck me is that the monitor screen is 'landscape' and the web page is 'portrait', leaving grey borders down the sides which could have accommodated the stuff at the bottom you have to scroll down to see !. That would mean it would look like shit in 800x600 resolution, which as sucky as it is, some people are using still. I thought the generally accepted minimum these days was 1024, it's certainly what my web designing buddies aim for. The grey bars down the side are simply you running a resolution width more than 800. That design just wouldn't work with unbounded positioning. What he said^^ - common practice. Examples: http://www.bbc.co.uk (800x600) http://www.apple.com/uk/quicktime (800x600) http://www.microsoft.com (1024x786) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Agreeing with the 800px rendering comments and would add... From the early days of webdesign we have been advised that the human brain finds it easier to follow text if you don't have to move your head to follow the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 microsoft.com adjusts to accomodate browser size (rendered server side though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It's simple to set a webpage to screen size by using percentages as opposed to pixels when styling the content. Difficulty arises when pages such as Manx Radios are overloaded with position specific content, links and images etc. I wouldn't have liked the job of coding that page, but then again I wouldn't want the credit either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Difficulty arises when pages such as Manx Radios are overloaded with position specific content, links and images etc Not with CSS it isn't. That particular design wouldn't accomodate it no matter how you tried though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Not with CSS it isn't. Pahhhhh, I was overjoyed to discover the instruction <br="clear all"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.