On or around Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:38:58 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<firstname.lastname@example.org> enlightened us thusly:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:47:41 +0000, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
>>I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
>>website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
>>women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
>>I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
>>thanks muchly folks.
>Like it... Nothing overdone, just gets to the point mostly.
>Couple of comments - I don't like tables with borders. I think it
>would look better with border = 0 IMHO.
>I would also choose a minimum screen res - 800 x 600 probably and fix
>the table widths to fit in that width. On a high res screen the
>content spreads very wide and makes it look disjointed.
I'm with you on both those points. Borders around the frames don't add
anything. A single-pixel line might be OK, or no borders at all.
As to resolution - 800x600 is starting to fade, now, although I know people
who still stick to it ("because it makes the buttons and writing nice and
big" - don't seem to have noticed that you can tweak the sizes of such in
modern windows) more or less religiously.
most people seem to be using higher resolutions, these days. I tend to
scale pictures for web posting (other then for such as photo.net) so they
fit in an 800x600 window, which means that you can see it all by going
full-screen if you still run 800x600, or it'll pretty much fit inside your
browser on 1024x768 or above. I run 1280x960 here, and an 800x600 picture
still appears a reasonable size. Apart from sites such as photo.net which
are about photo critique (and thus you want to lose the minimum detail, so
no re-sizing) this works fine. There's absolutely no point in having
pictures at 3000x2000 resolution except for ones that people may want to
print - almost no-one has a monitor which will show it without rescaling
I think, for a photo-promo site, I'd go for a 3-level approach; which makes
the coding more hassle, granted; have a page of thumbnails, clicking 'em
gets a medium-resolution picture (say within 800x600 as above, fairly well
compressed to something like 100KB, so it's fast loading) and then have a
"large" button which gets you something like 1600x1200 and less compression.
Unless you want to sell full-res ones, in which case, the 800x600 ish one
can have a "buy this picture" button.
just my â‚¬0.02-worth.
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk
my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25