So you hit CTRL and HOME for the top or CTRL and END for the bottom of a page. And yes, lots of people do know that. Simple, Josh.
Yahoo! Model Search
- Could you be the next
catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now
ristian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:08 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems>> And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users> are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600screen resolution !=
On Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:53 PM, Christian Montoya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could have sworn I got all these e-mails last night, what's going on?!?
Ditto.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://w
I could have sworn I got all these e-mails last night, what's going on?!?
--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.or
> and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over
> the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it
>
I could show you a million websites with the background graphic
positioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that background
image up and do
I wish the menu section was a bit wide but there is no time right now to do it as there are 2 sites due and both have same layout with diff color schemes. From: Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:39 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu sug
csslist wrote:
and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big
long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so
your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether
you like it or not.
So now one has to scroll both the window and the
> And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why
> answer?
You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there is
nothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If the
client wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Just
keep in mi
First of all I appriciate all help I get and I can take critizism fine when I ask for it. Ok, so if we do it your way on your browser (lets just say..) to read the page you will have to scroll the screen down and so when you want a new link you will have to scroll all the way back up to do it, whe
ur sites are a perfect example of what they didn't want, yours may make sense
to you but it doesn't mean you're right.
And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer?
From:
Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005
didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re:
On 11/25/05, csslist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of
> the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine.
>
This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport:
http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpg
Notice the
csslist wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
"So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order
to get to the content. Cute."
Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertical scroller because I havent
resized the flash >form on that 1 FRICKIN page, so there is a scroll bar,
geezo
its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. "So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute." Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertic
ristian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:08 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems>> And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users> are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600screen resolution !=
>
> And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users
> are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600
screen resolution != viewport size
this is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to you
that my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger than
that
I wish the menu section was a bit wide but there is no time right now to do it as there are 2 sites due and both have same layout with diff color schemes. From: Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:39 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu sug
First of all I appriciate all help I get and I can take critizism fine when I ask for it. Ok, so if we do it your way on your browser (lets just say..) to read the page you will have to scroll the screen down and so when you want a new link you will have to scroll all the way back up to do it, whe
> And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why
> answer?
You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there is
nothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If the
client wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Just
keep in mi
On 11/25/05, csslist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of
> the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine.
>
This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport:
http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpg
Notice the
didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re:
its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. "So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute." Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertic
csslist wrote:
and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big
long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so
your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether
you like it or not.
So now one has to scroll both the window and the
> and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over
> the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it
>
I could show you a million websites with the background graphic
positioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that background
image up and do
and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would dep
This website has too many things defined in absolute sizes to be
robust for font resizing. What you should do is take the overflow:auto
out of the left container altogether and let it flow down as far as
the content. Then when you increase text size everything flows
together and it looks fine. Besi
menu suggestions and problems I dont know, not sure how to do that but I will look it up. I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg thanksFrom: "Stephen Stagg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sub
menu would look better at different text-sizes
because the menu-item borders would fit better.
Stephen
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist
Sent: 25 November 2005 00:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] menu
suggestions and problems
The site isn't truely fluid as it uses a one piece bgFrom: "Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsTo make the site truly fluid you'll need to use relative size uni
I dont know, not sure how to do that but I will look it up. I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg thanksFrom: "Stephen Stagg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsCould you
Could you use the Javascript getComputedStyle() function on an interval loop
to test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu's
class could be changed to one with overflow:scroll.
(Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820)
Also if you define you DL height in
To make the site truly fluid you'll need to use relative size units (em, %)
in place of pixels. This will ensure that container elements change size in
proportion to the font contained therein.
Regards
Scott Swabey
Lafinboy Productions
www.lafinboy.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PRO
32 matches
Mail list logo
