On 2010/08/22 12:51 (GMT+0100) Chris Price composed: > On 2010/08/22 07:03 (GMT-0400) Felix Miata composed:
>> Sites designed "for" widths defined in px are not designed for the web, >> they're designed for resolutions (and thus to exclude comfort and/or >> usability for those using other resolutions), as print designs are for >> particular paper, cover or billboard sizes. Conversely, designs styled for >> the web are resolution independent, working well even when width is below >> 800px or above 1280px. > This sounds a little purist and not particularly practical for many > designers. While graphics generated by the css are fluid, images are not so > while fonts and html elements may wax and wane at will, graphics designed > for the page remain fixed per pixel. The web wasn't designed for graphics, and for the most part still isn't. Images _can_ be sized in em/ex. The degradation they suffer rendered at other than intrinsic size causes no materially different loss of "experience" than images rendered too small to see the available detail. IOW, an image that's intrinsically 384px by 384px and displayed on the designer's 96 DPI screen will be 4" by 4". On my 192 DPI screen with browser default size set to 32px it will be 2" by 2", which is 1/4 size, and much too small to tell me much compared to the 4 times larger display on the 96 DPI screen. If OTOH, CSS specified that same image to be 6em tall by 6em wide, and specified all other sizes in em, then the image would display 4" by 4" on both the designer's screen and my screen. On his all the expected detail would be preserved, and all the layout totally as he intended. On mine too would the layout remain totally as he intended, with the image proportionally the same size to the layout, and also 4" by 4", just with poorer detail, but only if the image was exactly the same image. If OTOH the image was one less optimized/compacted in the first place, one intended for use by the higher DPI screens that are already common, then there wouldn't be material degradation, and possibly none at all, depending on the image itself and the browser engine rendering it. > You can't say that pages designed for widths are not designed for the web. I sure do. > If a page is designed to look good in a web browser it is designed for the > web. Not at all. CSS came along well after the web. Before it and <font> came along, inherent adaptability and usability could not be destroyed by the page designer's artificial constraints. It wasn't about "looking good", it was about universal availability and adaptability. That is the inherent web still. Anything constraining the web's inherent adaptability is pretending to be for something else instead, and simply hosted on the web for its ubiquitous availability only - absent universality. Sizing in px is top of the heap in that regard, as it totally ignores the user's environment and preferences. > (you can do print design that is resolution independent - moreso than > you can for web browsers). Observation of this assertion is first instance for me. Please elaborate. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
