Re: Table Width/Heights
by Nathan <natelyle(at)chartermi.net>
|
Date: |
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:00:57 -0500 |
To: |
"Angel One" <angelone(at)angelonearth.net> |
Cc: |
HWG Techniques Email List <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org> |
References: |
2 |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
>Yeah, I thought you meant appearing at all four corners at once. Even then
>screen res. wouldn't allow for whether a user has things like the quick
>launch or address bars up.
>I should add that I code pages for 800 x 600 (as others have said too), &
>with a quick launch & all the top bars (address, etc.). I believe that gives
>me the most common screen res. with (almost) the smallest area that would be
>visible. Then I test in other resolutions & make any changes that are
>needed. I frequently find sites that have a left frame without a scroll bar
>& the links go below the quick-launch. Most of which are made for larger
>screen resolutions......
This sounds much like what I've made my own practice. I found out the hard
way about taking into account things like the IE side bar (now in N6 too).
"Horizontal Scroll" has long been a pet peeve of mine, and things like that
taught me to be cautious. :)
I have occasionally run across the odd person still using a 640x480
resolution, but about a year and a half ago I made the final "committment"
to 800x600 and haven't looked back. All part of the percentages game I
suppose.
~Nathan Lyle
E-mail: natelyle(at)chartermi.net
Web: http://www.nathanlyle.com
Phone: (906)485-4806
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." - Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890)
- British explorer
HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA