What determines URL variations in Screen displays?

[neokm]

This cuts to the chase of my quest for info that I feel I should know but have only TS'ers to ask since I'm not in a work environment any longer plus, I can't seem to find anything in my pub's on file as to how I can unify my screen images.

I find that in dealing with Euro sites in particular, but numerous others as well - - - I always get about 15% image spillover offscreen.   How can I control "what the original sent portrait screen" size to "my own monitor parameters?  Is this a monitor screen resolution format selection determined by the author??? Any help on this subject will spare me from a lot of scrolling LtoR??!!

If the answer seems too simple - send reply by e-mail.  (After that up-arrow / down arrow alpha listing control Q last week, I don't want to exeed my own ignorance).
 
 [ 03-03-2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[tacit]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking here.

If you build a page in tables, the width of the table will determine the width of the page--a table wider than your screen will spill off the edge of the screen, making you scroll sideways.

If you don't  build in tables, then the Web page will wrap when it hits the edge of your screen--unless you have a graphic that is wider than your screen somewhere on the page.

[neokm]

Tacit: Sorry for the confusion - sometimes I speak as if I am describing a circular staircase with my hands in my pockets.

My Q is this: Why do I have to scroll L to R on some web sites to view all of the image area and on others - like TS - I can see it all - without scrolling??!!
Mike

Not to sound too out of it - - - I think it's because of the proportions to screen resolutions - - - i.e. 512 x 384  /  640 x 400 / 640 x 480 /  800 x 600 / 832 x 624 / 1024 x 768
and so on - - - Is it the proportion of width to height relative to pixels, rows and lines etc??
 
 [ 03-03-2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[Paddy]

neokm, when designing a web page, the designer basically has two options if he is using tables (which a lot of us use to position elements) - make the table a set width (say, 800 pixels) or make it vary according to the VIEWER's browser window. However, within that variation, unless the page is entirely text, there are likely to be some graphics which DO have a set width - so there is a limit to how narrow the table will get, if the viewer makes his browser window smaller. You will start to have spill over - try it with the TS page. The banner eventually isn't entirely visible if you shrink the window.

With a fixed width table, if your browser window or screen resolution is smaller than the width of the table/page as set by the designer, you will have to scroll sideways. Some designers make the mistake of making their tables on their pages too wide for the average viewer (or too wide for those with older, smaller monitors, with perhaps a maximum resolution of 480X640 pixels) Given that there are relatively few people with monitors with that low a resolution out there these days, many of us DO err on the side of the majority. I have checked my own web site statistics, and from that it would appear that less than 2% of the visitors have screen resolutions under 800 pixels wide. So, some 2% of my visitors have to scroll sideways a bit, but so be it (or at least until I have the time to figure out what causes one bit of my table to go whacko on a PC browser ONLY when I don't specify the total width!)

What is your screen resolution and which web sites have caused you to scroll?
 
 [ 03-03-2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Paddy ]

[neokm]

Thanks Paddy - - - I suppose I would have figured some of my questions out as you did - if I was designing instead of surfing as I do  these days.

I am running with Apple ColorSyncs 17" at 640 x 480 rez .  However I have following options -
512 x 384 / 640 x 400 / 640 x 480 / 832 x 624 / 1020 x 768 / 1152 x 870
each with mio. colors

I just keep them set at 640 x 480 because most sites mention this config as a point for max. viewing.  

It's the european sites that really seem oversized and over designed - - - add to this, it is a PC world over there.  Seems I also have to always download some oddball software to see all of the bells and whistles they dump on a site.  I can also expect some major spamming in the aftermath.  

I visit < www.glist.com/zeitungen.html > frequently and then link off to various pub's ( if you select any alpha letter in the listing you will see city names / newspaper names ) for a european take on the news of the day and also < www.bb-live.de > to pick up current happenings in my wife's hometown.

Thank you so much for your answer back.
Mike
 
 [ 03-04-2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[kelly]

Mike. I used to run 640 x 480 on my 15" Apple Monitor.  

IMO with a 17" monitor,  you would be better off running at 800 x 600 in thousands of colors.

Or as close to that as you can get.  

My 2 cents.

[neokm]

Thanks Kelly:  I'll set my monitor at 832 x 624 @ 75Hz and thousands of colors.  It does 'pucker' it up a bit, my nav bar and icons seem pretty tiny but I definitely have more L to R area.  I'll live with it awhile and see what affect it'll have in various situations.

PS: I checked it out briefly and this setting is a definite improvement.  Not going to be as much scrolling anymore.
 
 [ 03-04-2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[Xairbusdriver]

my $ .02:

Well, I guess we all have different likes! Great how that can work! But I have always assumed that 800 x 600 is pretty much the minimum size of any viewer. I suspect you may be misinterpreting what may have been mentioned on some site. I think they may have been saying that the minimum resolution you should use is 640 x 480. Not that that is a recommed resolution. I would think that 640 x 480 on a 17" monitor would be pretty pixelated, even on my 15" iMac, it is exceedingly wasteful of pixels, can't see much of the desktop that way. I'm running at 1024 x 768 which is as much as I can get on this machine. Sometimes need to zoom the PC designed sites cause their always smaller on a Mac, but other than that, I lkie it. Gives one a lot more real estate to work with.

Jim C.

[kelly]

Mike. Is the picture all the way to the edges of the Screen?  

Or at least near them?

It should be the same at different Resolutions. But you may need to adjust it.

Manuals here.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=50127

[neokm]

Picture goes all the way to edges on desktop (blue happy-mac's), same on ATT homepage. . . I get about 1/2" white on left and right side of TS gray tint background.  

I downloaded tha Applevision Manual some time ago - - - I don't see the 800 x 600 res on my monitor options (I believe it's a VESA mode and my card or computer might be outdated.

I guess I will explore more with what I can do. I'm starting to make some sense of it.

[kelly]

Yeah. I'm talking about the Desktop and such. Not web sites.  

That white on the side is same for everyone.

If your monitor doesn't support 800 X 600 fine.

Do you have the AppleVision Extension?

[neokm]

I have Apple ColorSync extension and software which I down loaded from Apple over a year ago back when I bought two of these monitors from www.pcsurplusonline.com  (under $100 w/free ship).  But like most computer parts I buy - I never seem to luck out on the manuals and drivers. ( Which is why TS is such a valuable resource to me.)

Getting back to what I have - - - I also downloaded the Applevision Monitor Manual.  As I remember, The ColorSync Displays were a upgrade from the older AppleVision 750 and 750AV monitors.

I have a video card on each system as well, although I can't remember the specs on them.  They are plugged into the card and not the HDI-45 pigtail monitor socket.

All in all I really like them - with these improvements to my preferences - (I also do a text zoom to 120%), I think I'll be just fine now.  These settings appear to work really well for me.

[kelly]

The AppleVision Extension should be in your Extensions Folder.  

Off hand I don't remember what machine and OS you're using.

But this should probably cover it. If you don't already have it.

Apple Displays Software 1.7.1 Document and Software

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=58278

http://www.info.apple.com/support/downloads.html

[neokm]

I am running with two 6115CD's each with apple video cards. One has a 300Mz NewTech CPU w/1mb 2nd level cache and the other has a 240Mz Sonnet CPU (2nd level cache n/a).  Both have a scant 72mb ram and are running on OS 9.1. and have 4.5GgB HdD's  I have considered the 9.2 free-bee upgrade but seems I recall reading that it's not advisable on my old gear.  Very happy with 9.1  Nothing to write home about but as my wife keeps reminding me - - - we don't need a newer computer to make it any easier to spend money on the internet - - - what we have seems to be spending it fast enough.

Thanks again for your help and everyone else as well.
 
 [ 03-05-2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[kelly]

Ok. 9.1 Check your OS CD for Display Software options.  

FWIW. I have a 6100 and an 8100.

The 8100 has a Sonnet Upgrade in it. 260 or  so I think.

The thing I would most recomend is to max out your RAM.

Pairs of these are pretty cheap. Maybe just do one machine.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Item.cfm...tem=OWC72PS64MB

You probably already have these.  

http://www.erf.net/~brd/mac/6100faq.html

http://www.kan.org/6100/index.html