Sent by Zoe M. Gillenwater on 9 July 2004 18:06
Larry McMahon-Padolski wrote:
> The reason for this post is that the site is sensitive to display size.
> I have "tuned" it for widths of 800 & 1024 and don't think I should be
> doing this, but I'm hard pressed to find a way out.
Why not just use relative units instead of pixels for your dimensions?
> When I view it on a
> screen larger than 1024 the columns don't break up, it just does not
> fill the
> screen. I think that handling a display width smaller than 800 is of
> limited value; my PC display will not even configure that small. It
> used to
> break up at 800!
It *does* break up at 800, and this is a problem, IMO. Many people
still use 800 x 600, and who knows if they even maximize. You need to
wrap your three floats in a container equal to or greater than the
combined widths of the floats so that you will get a horizontal scroll
instead of dropping floats at smaller window sizes. Unless you prefer
the drop over the scroll, but most folks don't.
>
> More than just Nescape and Opera....
> I use IE5.5, IE6, NS 7.1 and Opera (Mozilla 5.0) to review my pages.
> Personally,
> I use Opera. I'm certain the page does not render well on older
> browsers such as
> NS 4.79 and recognize the limitations of my approach.
Why don't you @import your style sheet so that it is hidden from NN4.x?
That way at least those folks have a useable, if unstyled, page.
Zoe
P.S. Lucky dog living in Evanston...
--
Zoe M. Gillenwater
Design Specialist
Highway Safety Research Center
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
