Date: 31 Aug 97 17:16:13 +0000 From: David Marsh <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-ID: <3130.7182T1036T652@bigfoot.com> Subject: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages On 29-Aug-97 00:04:45, email@example.com (Walter Ian Kaye) said: [Source: email, Subject was: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages] >Hmm... I'm getting an idea... >How about some sort of "geek code" (but not as geeky) where we enumerate >what the page uses, something like: [snip] > *: any [snip] >WW: window width >So, an enumeration might look like: > 216=Y; WW=472-*; JS=1; CK=0; J=0; TBL=2+; IMG=1,#5:6K,WHA ^^^^^^ While this idea perhaps has some merit, forcing a given window size onto viewers (we are obviously talking graphical browsers in this context) is a really bad idea, and guaranteed to irritate. It's far better that the width is either not specified, allowing the browser to layout the page to fit (as ought to be intended) or specified as a *percentage* width (in the case of table structures) so that the desired centred/indentation effect (the most common usage for this) is scalable. I much prefer to have two browser windows open at once, both of which are naturally narrower than full screen width (which of course varies from platform to platform and screenmode to screenmode in any case), so I really resent being ordered to comply with viewing requirements of 640x480 or 800x600 or worse. A more useful hint for page designers would be to consider bandwidth and the hardware setups of genuine users. Apparently, a large proportion of Windows users haven't figured out how to increase their screenmode from the default 640x480, and furthermore, screens larger than 800x600 are still the exception rather than the norm. For those reasons, I prefer to ensure that the 'total graphic width' of the images in my webpages is not greater than 400 pixels, which allows two browser windows to fit happily into an 800x600 screen, and just squash into lower resolution screens. Smaller images of course, take less time to download. A further consideration is that there are really two types of image on the web, inline and downloadable. My belief is that inline images in documents should not be overly large, so that while they may prettify a document, they do not stall the downloading and layout of the text (the important, informational bit). Likewise, downloadable images (eg maps, technical drawings, clip art, whatever) should be accessed through <A HREF..>s using textual or thumbnail links, so that users can download these images in the background and continue reading, without having to wait for the (by implication) large image to load before continuing to read. -- David Marsh, firstname.lastname@example.org | http://squelch.home.ml.org/ | Glasgow/Glaschu, Scotland. *If urgent, phone: +44 141 636-6084.* // >CYCLEWAY: cycle activism UK/IE: http://squelch.home.ml.org/cycleway/< \X/ [Actively seeking work: see http://squelch.home.ml.org/tgfx/cv.html] LIFE: What happens to you while you are making other plans.