Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Whats the simplest way doing a resizing/shrinking proportional to thePX of the screen

Reply
Thread Tools

Whats the simplest way doing a resizing/shrinking proportional to thePX of the screen

 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
shajnday wrote:

> ok, so javascripting is a problem, why then the most popular sites like
> A... e-... have it in their inner coding. I assume they covered every
> groups of users in with the supreme quality and comprehensive coding(as
> they hired the coders which do understand this inner codings the best so
> as the correlations and beahavings 'when & if' a user has that turend
> on/off or is using that or that so they adjusted their codings in that
> manner so you always open their pages without compatibility issues.

<snip>

Why are you rambling? Millions/billions of web sites use JavaScript
(note the capital letters of the name) for many reasons, but they do not
attempt to figure out my *browser or screen size*.

What popular site is "A... e-..."?

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
In article <j7p5i6$h24$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Google is helpful. See this:
> <http://andylangton.co.uk/articles/ja...viewport-size-
> javascript/>
>
> Mine: "Your viewport width is 962x662."


One of the things I often do, others might too, is open up a
website and then after it is loaded, adjust the browser window.
The reading given by this JS seems to be the onload size, the
actual size you might be looking at might be quite different.
There needs to be a refresh for every user adjustment. What a
kettle of worms.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
dorayme wrote:

> What a kettle of worms.


Exactamundo!

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
dorayme wrote:
> What a
> kettle of worms.


A kettle of fish, a can of worms...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
In article <j7q7ov$on5$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > What a
> > kettle of worms.

>
> A kettle of fish, a can of worms...


Yes, but a kettle of worms sounded like a messier thing to me. <g>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
dorayme wrote:
> In article<j7q7ov$on5$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> What a
>>> kettle of worms.

>>
>> A kettle of fish, a can of worms...

>
> Yes, but a kettle of worms sounded like a messier thing to me.<g>
>


A plate of worms sounds worse

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
shajnday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
On 21 list, 01:03, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <j7q7ov$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> *"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > What a
> > > kettle of worms.

>
> > A kettle of fish, a can of worms...

>
> Yes, but a kettle of worms sounded like a messier thing to me. <g>
>
> --
> dorayme


that's a no-no for javascripting, i see you guys and gals just want
some ultra-compatible train which is good for everybody???

i know trains depend about who is driving them and accidents happen
when you do not expect them, new trains are expensive and you have to
maintain them,
they are not for every country. Some countries even can't go to
internet like bangladesh and so other as similar to them...

so making a superb train would only serve to elite, and that is not my
intention, intentions are for most of us, or for general public(some
sites and browsers are explicitly made not for everbody so they have
some extra-requirements!) i doubt the 15" screen size will get out of
the trend so as i doubt the sell of 15.4" size will get out of human
perception of perfect size for a me(human). So some standards will not
be overpassed like 15" screen size so as 15.4" screen size, 17" and
19-20" for a normal computing user. So there are standards which could
not be overpassed in the near future, 15.6" is a foolishness to detain
people astray of the normal human reasonable thinking. 22" for a
computer user is a big screen, more then that in. is wide or big for a
computer user and it serves for a companies of for some extra-sensible
stuff; movie fans, music programs, special programs, presentations,
etc.etc. So choices are ours, i doubt there is only one perfect
solution in this swamp.
i just am picking the most appropriate idea-way-method which suits the
need of the content i'm working on, this site on which i'm working on
nowadays jai.comule.com seems a sweety thing to do in a way so that
most browsers could read it as it was imagined, as it is on my home-
server. It could be fluid but i'm still doubtfull about doing that as
intention was to make it plain and simple...the shame is the program-
side which hardens our job, and not automatically adjusting the
content from the resolution in which from is it made to a user-
resolution, that would be a supreme thing. But that browsers would
eventually loose the profits in this "game", i think...i.e. they would
have to appoint a standard which would be perfect to all-of-us and
that is too sociall for them, i guess. I don't know if they would
profit from a social work...you could, but not in that bounderings
like when you are marketing the whole idea of your company: IE, Apple,
chrome...and other bumbo.jumbo...

If all browsers start to be social based thaen we would see the
raising of the compatibilities in views, viewports, screens, coding
would become easier for all ...which longterm effects would that bring
i could not dare to say nor try to explain...is it good,...??



 
Reply With Quote
 
shajnday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011



I'm still making my pain-in-the-arss with two things(including the the
fluid, the design i have to redesign from the start);

1.) i have 3 screen resolutions opened right now; 1024 x 768, 1280 x
800 and 1680 x 1050 pixels, all three are showing the webpage ok, but
still on the 1024 x 768px it would have to get a horizontal-scroll to
the right side but it isn't scrolling. Is there anykind of a fix to
make it scroll to the right side?

The difficulty is that that it would have to go to the right by the
force of the nature but it doesn't go...


in 1680 x 1050px it shows as the whole page but the footer is showing
different on every page it dissipates, so my lack of knowings is to
make footer solid to the grounds like most webpage designers are doing
that, my way is/was to make it dependable about the content above it,
it is relative to that content above it.
....that is not so a good idea.


2.) inconsistance in showing in Opera, you could see in Opera
http://jai.comule.com/mojiradovi2.html

The footer goes up from it's imagined postioning which was intended
to be the same at all pages in all browsing: Footer+CSS oznake.


somewhere i'm loosing bunch of pixels which definately it is a good
example in Opera. That is all which i'm in a need to fix before
starting a fluide remake, which i'm sure it will be much much
successful presentation of the work i'm doing.


If you could take an eyelook on it, ...


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)
m>,
shajnday <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> that's a no-no for javascripting, i see you guys and gals just want
> some ultra-compatible train which is good for everybody???
>


Good enough for everyone will do. It is kind to stop the train to
pick up the poorest travellers, provide them with a seat that is
not too uncomfortable.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2011
shajnday wrote:

> 2.) inconsistance in showing in Opera, you could see in Opera
> http://jai.comule.com/mojiradovi2.html


Your text is too small for my tired old eyes, so I increased the text
size a bit. In Firefox, I pressed Control-Plus twice. Your design fell
apart.

You also have annoying hover effects on links and things. Changing sizes
on hover pushes things out of their boundaries and makes them jump.

You display the W3C XHTML icon, but you have errors. (Why XHTML? You are
serving the page as text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml )

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Setting Proportional Width of Bound GridView Andrew Hayes ASP .Net 3 12-08-2006 05:04 PM
Table proportional widths? Brian HTML 2 02-09-2006 04:14 PM
Eclipse editor with proportional font Roedy Green Java 0 07-14-2005 09:08 AM
non proportional fonts Tina ASP .Net 0 12-08-2004 09:45 PM
Proportional font. Soup Computer Support 1 09-16-2003 10:54 AM



Advertisments