Miscellaneous Operating Systems/Hardware

Anybody here good with outfoxing the people who write CSS ? Where's Jimmer, now that I need him ?

Apparently some website "designers" take it upon themselves to regulate how wide the display of their site can be. What happens when you go there with a high-res display is that you get a stripe of website about half the window wide down the center of your browser. This is going to be a problem with retina displays as well, I suspect.

I am ASSuming that this is done with CSS. Fireflop has a userCSS capability that I am hoping will countermand the stoopid-ass directives from runny-nosed nazi teenagers on a power trip. Any suggestions from you modern hip uptodate CSS programmers on how this might be accomplished ?

grazie grazie for your help in advance ....

Sorry you are seeing this ugliness...


. http://getfirebug.com/

http://jquerymobile.com/



R.

Me too


Might help, thank you ...


Who does this ? I mean, please Lord, can you just answer me this before I head off to that great Development Campus in the sky ? Or Underground, more likely ? Which moron of the thousands populating the tech sector thinks this is cool ?

You don't even need CSS to do this. <TABLE> with a fixed width in pixels, anybody?

Web designers who confuse a web page with DTP should be fired.

You are too kind. I'd turn them over to the Dominicans to teach them what hi-tech really is ... this is all over the place :

My personal view is that text is easier to read if you keep it around 80 columns wide, which is what I've tried to achieve on the home page in my SIG.

I can however, for the love of god, not understand why the designers of last example felt they had to cram _three_ columns of text/ads/links on to that small space. And why are the pictures are squeeezed into the text. Somebody needs to learn that classical news paper layout doesn't do it for the web...

That would probably be fine but from what I can see so far, some of these dorks are locking the presentation in to pixels. This is extremely common and extremely stoopid ... When retina displays become more common, this is going to create a lot of unhappy people.

When things are a new technology, mistakes are understandable. But the web has been around for decades. We already learned what we need to know. Why is Julia the highly paid knowledge worker such an imbecile ? Let's shoot her and her so-called teachers

So you have met the Australian PM then..
Its pronounces Ju-liar around here.

R.

J-J nailed it. Jesus, who is stoopid enough to do this shit in this day and age ?



Not to get pielitical but if Julia is going to start her small webdesign business with an SBA loan, I want my goddamned money back. With interest. 10% interest, compounded hourly. And it's everywhere.

Service economy, my rosy red ass


Disemboweled and fed to the sharks at Marine World would be more appropriate. Entertaining, too.

Well, I do that too. I also set a fixed width on websites. Sue me

Creating a website that scales all the way from iPad1 territory (1024xwhat? 650?) up to the current 2536xsomething monitors is a lot of work, and in the end it'll still look ugly unless you create all your pixmaps in a load of different resolutions. Cost/gain, people.

Fodder for a twelve-page rant but I'll let Mr Alver rattle the bars unreacted ... I can't hear you ...


Ja, it's all about the money, right ? That's the new Ultimate Ground of Being. Quality ? Pride in workmanship ? Fuck that crap, I got my thirty pieces of silver, that's what counts !

I'm so glad I grew up in a different time.

The classic or retro Ipad is 1024x768. Ipad 2 or whatever is many many more megapixels than that but still the same size. Do you set your fixed width in something as antiquated as... pixels... ??? What about poor old hamei with his 8-gigapixel IBM flat panel behemoth?

At least with the i-os devices scrolling and scaling is about as painless as possible...

Who's talking about money ? No one but you

It costs me a fuckton of extra code, testing, etc, etc... while I gain what? The approval of those few people who insist on a) running websites fullscreen on a huge monitor while b) bitching that it doesn't scale to said monitor? Seriously, not worth it Most of the stuff I make has pictures. Pictures are sized in pixels. Unless you prefer having those pictures dynamically blown up to proportions where you get the eighties block-effect, it just doesn't scale nicely.

I believe this is incorrect and will become even more incorrect.

First, in general it's not the huge monitors which have the problem. Most huge monitors have crappy resolution. It's the laptops which have high resolution these days. Macbook 13" and Macbook 15" have resolutions that are higher than 220 ppi (1). There have been Thinkpads with high resolution. iPhones and iPads are headed in that direction. You can disount us el-weirdo T221 users but Macbooks and iPads are mainstream products.

The conventional wisdom is that desktop displays won't go there (2) but I believe that is incorrect. Both Intel and Apple are sifting through history for "new, innovative" crap to patent (3). They both need stuff to sell in the future, so it is going to happen.

So Joe Q Public buys a Macbook Pro to replace his desktop (4). Retina Display [coming soon to a neighborhood near you] (5) gives you zoomy-zoomy display. Now you have a glorious, sharp, distinct, better than real life (thank you, Photoshop) hi-res 15" screen. With the browser blown up fullscreen (it is only a 15" screen, after all), these sites are a 3 1/2" wide (800 pixels times 1"/ 220 pixels) strip down the middle of the display. And nothing you can do about it, unlike the way the web was originally designed.

Not so wonderful.

Need some screenshits ? I can give you dozens. There seems to be a hidden epidemic of cowboy coding.


Seriously, too goddamned bad. This is the world wide web, not a book. The requirements have been there since the very beginning. That's why html is not just PostScript. There would be no need for html if that were not true.

Web "designers" are just being lazy and sloppy. It's going to bite them in the ass.

Meanwhile, it's biting me in the ass. Grrr.


(1) http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/appl ... a-display/

(2) http://www.extremetech.com/computing/13 ... p-displays

(3) (lost the link somewhere, too lazy to find it again)

(4) Hot Trend of 2008

(5) Marketing Schtick, 2012-2014

(It doesn't appear to be CSS though. From looking at the source for lots of sites, it seems that web "designers" have set aside everything that was taught about html. Tables and frames and framesets with the width fixed in pixels is pretty common these days. Grrrrr. )

Isn't this part of the push behind Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)? Not going to do so much for photos per se , but for other graphical elements... (If it isn't obvious, I've not touched SVG yet.)

Bringing a better web to you since 1999 ... it's a good thing we have important things like changing toolkits and moving the buttons on browser menus and other worthwhile "technologies" to attend to. ...

SVG *is* quite nice... it's just virtually unsupported by browsers. Some implement it partially, some don't implement it at all. All in all, not something you can use for a site that is supposed to be actually visited by people.

Hamei: is that a real dog or a stuffed animal? I would suspect the former, but if it is... tee hee, cute

We be bumpin' with gas now .... had to revisit this in the vain hope that someone, somewhere has ears :

Here is a typical website. This is unbelievably common today :


Here is the same website with ONE little change that took me all of five minutes to make .. (width=800 to width=100%.) That's all it took.

It's not perfect but it is 1000% better for almost zero effort. This is quite acceptable - this is the web, not a coffee table book.

Okay, I lied. i had to go back and remove the 600 <br> line breaks that the idiot had to insert because he didn't know doodly-squat about html.

So the "return on time invested" would have been grossly in favor of doing it correctly in the first place.

As jan-jaap so succinctly pointed out, the web is NOT desktop publishing.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

As an addendum : sure, svg is lovely but no one uses it. But resizing photographs is not necessary. If I have to put up with small photos because I want high resolution display, so be it. That's my problem. But putting up with total shit because the people who create these messes don't have a clue, that's another subject altogether. Puh- lease , no more goddamned fixed-pixel crap in html. They should never have included it in the language, then we wouldn't have to deal with this garbage.

Have to bump myself 'cuz editing doesn't put the article on top of the stack ... oops

bo's gorgeous in her navy pinstripe sleepingbag :)

it won't fix dodgy code/design but there's a little addon / bookmarklet that makes reading online a bit better. it ain't perfect (screws alignment every now and then) but it usually cleans up most of web litter . hope this works on irix?