Google Answers: HTML/screen res optimization

View Question

Q: HTML/screen res optimization ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars

Question

Subject: HTML/screen res optimization
Category: Computers > Internet
Asked by: omniscientbeing-ga
List Price: $10.00

Posted: 18 Oct 2002 09:12 PDT
Expires: 17 Nov 2002 08:12 PST
Question ID: 83081

I have designed a website (using MS FrontPage 2K) with my monitor settings at 1024 x 768 pixels, so that the site looks best at that res., but on systems set for 800 x 600, part of the frames (it is a frames site) are chopped off). I now wish to optimize my entire site for 800 x 600 res., without re-doing everything from scratch, so that it looks best at that res., and if user's system is set for 1024 x 768, there will just be some extra space on the right side of the screen. My quesiton is, now that the site is fully coded and organized, how can I "optimize" it for 800 x 600 res? What code do I need to write, or is there a "resolution optimize" setting in FrontPage where I can change it? I don't want links to tutorials of HTML help--I will accept working code only, or exact instructions on changing FrontPage 2K settings to achieve my goal only. Thank you, ~omniscientbeing-ga
Request for Question Clarification by duncan2-ga on 18 Oct 2002 09:42 PDT Can you clarify what you mean by "optimize" please? Are you looking to code your tables to be a maximum width of 800 x 600, or are you wanting the page to stretch to the browser width?
Clarification of Question by omniscientbeing-ga on 18 Oct 2002 10:04 PDT What I'm saying is, I have had my dev. machine screen res. set for 1024 x 780 as I developed this site, so that it looks good for that res. But, for systems where the res. = 800 x 600, the pages are cut off on the screen. So, I wish to change the properties of my entire site (either with code or by changing settings in FrontPage, I don't care which) so that it is as if I had developed the entire site with my dev. system set at screen res. = 800 x 600.
Clarification of Question by omniscientbeing-ga on 18 Oct 2002 11:23 PDT OK, thanks for the comments so far, but I am still seeking a solution. Let me clarify, however, that the site is done with 3 frames--a top banner frame (which contains only a banner), a left nav-bar frame, and a main content frame. So I am going to begin experimenting now with re-sizing the 3 frames (perhaps I might have to re-do my banner in Photoshop, I'm not sure). Perhaps the fact that it is a frames site may make a difference to how I can optimize it for a lower (800 x 600) res. than the 1024 x 768 it was created in. Thank you! ~omniscientbeing-ga
Clarification of Question by omniscientbeing-ga on 18 Oct 2002 11:30 PDT I decided I can most clearly show you all what I am after with a live, working example: The following site, (from the non-profit Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific), http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/ , (which uses tables rather than frames) when viewed at 800 x 600 fills the entire screen, as if it were developed for that resolution. When viewed at 1024 x 870, however, it looks the same except there is a white space on the right, since everyhting has been compressed. I viewed the source for this site and could find no code that might be responsible for these resolution settings. This is exactly what I am trying to do with my site (only I stupidly developed it at 1024 x 760 and am now trying to change it after-the fact). I know Frontpage has a Preview In Browser feature that allows you to see what the page looks like in different resolutions, but it doesn't (as far as I can see) save it that way, or CONVERT it, which I guess it in effect what I need to do. Thanks.

Answer

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
Answered By: slawek-ga on 18 Oct 2002 13:53 PDT
Rated: 5 out of 5 stars

Good Day omniscientbeing, As a professional web designer, here is some information that will help you achieve what you require with the least amount of work. Perhaps even in minutes. This will come at small sacrifice on your layout. As I understand it, you have three frames with a top frame that spans 1024 pixels. Change that frame to about 770 pixels. Why not 800? Because if a vertical scroll bar appears, the vertical scroll bar will steal some of the width resolution. The result will be a horizontal scroll bar for the amount of pixels that the vertical scroll bar stole. Now, underneath that as I understand it you have two frames that make up the width of the screen. Hopefully your menu portion around 250 pixels or more, because the only way to change the resolution compatibility without too much work is if we can get rid of one of side-by-side frames, and make the other one 770 pixels wide. Of course, since we are getting rid of the menu all you have to do is place the menu at the top or bottom of this frame (standard design practice is to place it at the top only, with an anchor to the top of the page at the bottom of the page), or create a third frame, with all three frames being horizontal and spanning about 770 pixels. Top frame can be the banner, second frame you can use for the menu, third frame will be used for display purposes. If your menu frame is less than 224 pixels wide, you still might be okay. If the width of the current main display frame is hard coded and not determined by the widest image in the display area, the text will re-wrap itself correctly without any changes after you change the hard coded width of the main display frame to 770 pixels. If there are any images that you are using which are beyond 770 pixels wide, hopefully they are only a few, and all you have to do is slightly trim those few images which are stretching the frame beyond maximum display area of 800 pixels in width. Last but not least, although probably not required in this case, it is nice to know what the asterisk () can achieve with frames: The asterisk is a wild card. This is as close to calculating real time as it gets with HTML. If for example you want to set-up a menu on the left side that is 200 pixels wide, and use the rest of the horizontal space for a second frame, you can specify the width of the second frame as width=??. HTML will than take total display width, subtract the one hard coded amount of pixels (in this example 200), and use the remainder for the second frame. So there is a small chance that you might be able to simply change the display frame to the size of "*", and it will recalculate everything. I am assuming that you have some images that almost use the whole width of the display area, in which case this would not work (the image width will not resize itself, and if the image is 800 pixels wide it will over ride everything else). This allows you to maximize the display space with any resolution (again, you have to make sure that no images are wider than the remaining space or the images will stretch the frame beyond that which fits on one screen). The only code in the Internet coding world that can resize itself real time is Flash. For everything else, hopefully the above will guide you to a quick resolution fix. :) If you have any questions on my solution, please don?t hesitate to ask for a clarification before you rate my answer. Thank you for your question omniscientbeing. Regards, Slawek-ga
Request for Answer Clarification by omniscientbeing-ga on 20 Oct 2002 19:39 PDT OK, I do not wish to get rid of my left nav bar frame, which I believe you are suggesting, although then you say, "...or create a third frame, with all three frames being horizontal and spanning about 770 pixels. Top frame can be the banner, second frame you can use for the menu, third frame will be used for display purposes." This confuses me. This frame setp is the sam setup I have now, it's just that it looks reat in 1024 x 768 but is cut off (too wide) in 800 x 600. Let me paste the frames page code below so you can see exactly what I have going-- First thing Monday morning (well, by 10 AM EST) I will paste my HTML code for the Frames page (I don't have it with me) so that you can see the frames setup with my *'s as you mentioned. Then you can comment briefly on how your Answer applies scpeficially to my code, after which I will promptly rate your answer. I really want a way to make this existing site compatibile with both 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768, without creating 2 diferent sites or instructing the visitor that they need to change the screen resolution settings, as one Comment suggests. I also want to avoid significant design changes which affect the look and feel of the site, because my current site design is the one that has been approved by the powers-that-be, so to speak, so that's the one I want to implement, otherwise I have to go through a bunch of meetings and demo's again to get the new site approved.
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 20 Oct 2002 23:41 PDT Good Day, My sentence, as quoted by you refers to creating a new third frame, after getting rid of the left navigational frame. The difference from your current set-up is that from the sounds of it you only have one frame that spans the width of the screen. The remaining two frames together make up the width of the screen: You current set-up: \|--------- B A N N E R ---------\| 1024 pixels ________________________________ \|-M E N U-\|------B O D Y--------\| i.e. menu=200 pixels, body=* My proposed set-up: \|--------- B A N N E R ---------\| 770 pixels \|----------- M E N U -----------\| 770 pixels \|----------- B O D Y -----------\| 770 pixels If there are no images on the pages which exceed the width of: (aprx. 770 pixels) - {subtract} (required space for menu in a side frame), than simply recoding the frame width specifications from 1024 to aprx. 770 will resize all your pages. If you do have images which are wider than:(aprx. 770 pixels) - (required space for menu in a side frame), than those images will override the frame width coding as specified in HTML. I can relate to you on not wanting to sit through a meeting, and proposing changes to layout as I have suggested. Believe me I have done my share of those in the past. One of the reasons people hire me is to avoid those things. I have made those mistakes the hard way, and have done a lot of convincing, and free work to redesign something. There is a way to recode the width of the images without opening each one up in an image editor the use of the WIDTH tag in the <IMG> expression. However, the results are VERY POOR. For best results, you would have to open each image in an image editor, change the colour depth to 16 million, resize while maintaining aspect ratio (width to height ratio), and reducing the colours back to the desired depth. Of course, than you would have to recode the WIDTH and HEIGHT figures in the HTML if they have been specified (always a good idea as it speeds up layout while loading the page). I am afraid that showing me the code might: A) Not be enough information if the image width is not specified, B) If image width is specified, I will be able to tell you what will work for this particular page which I am looking at, and my solution (which will probably be exactly the same as described, or very slightly different) might not be good for the other pages depending on widest image used. Images over the width of: (aprx. 770 pixels) - (required space for menu in a side frame) are the downfall if they exist. If they don't exist, you would still have to open the individual files that specify width to be used in frames. I guess I could go on with if scenarios for quite a while, but assuming that you use images which are wide I would move the menu from the side, and place it between the banner and body. Don't even "tell" anyone. Send a casual memo. You'd be surprised how often the "powers-that-are" "sleep" through the meetings. Most might not even notice. Other will ask "why". Casually tell them, "after some testing and feed back, I was informed that to ease navigation, we need to reduce the width to accommodate lower resolutions in a friendlier manner". After all, some people purposely make the page 1024, and WANT the menu to be out of the view. You pick what you want, and scroll it away to the side. Although I don't agree with that method, you can use this idea to your advantage, and come out looking very impressive. I don?t know the conditions under which you work, and how you are expected to perform. I do hope that I was able, and intend to continue to further attempt, to be of aide. However, there are some limits on what can be done, and what can?t be done. I am just a messenger on the HTML subject. There are a lot of things I would change about it, but can?t. All I can do is help you achieve the most with what is available, and I hope that you feel that I have done just that. Of course, I will await to see your code and perhaps there is something in it, which we have not discussed that we can use to our advantage. Regards, slawek-ga
Request for Answer Clarification by omniscientbeing-ga on 21 Oct 2002 09:31 PDT OK, thanks for what you have posted thus far. As a final step, if you can add anything after viewing my Frames code which I have posted as a Comment below, that would help a lot. Thank you very much, ~omniscientbeing-ga
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 21 Oct 2002 10:22 PDT Good Day omniscientbeing-ga <frameset rows="109," framespacing="0" border="1"> <frame name="banner" scrolling="no" noresize target="main" src="Banner.htm"> <frameset cols="154,"> <frame name="contents" target="main" src="LeftNav.htm"> <frame name="main" src="drc.htm"> Since you already use "" to fill the screen, your frames ultimate width of "" will be determined by: A) Table width hard coded width in pixel size. Solution: Recode table width in "body" html files. Quickest way is to use something like the DOS edit. Hopefully you have all the width numbers set to the exact the same width. If so, just load the file and use the replace feature. Close the file, open next. Now the replace feature already has filled in values and all you need to do is select "Replace All". B) Images which are wide
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 21 Oct 2002 10:47 PDT SORRY ABOUT THE INCOMPLETE CLARIFICATION. I HIT TAB THINKING I AM IN A WORD EDITOR, WHICH SELECTED THE POST BUTTON, AND HIT ENTER BEFORE I REALIZED WHAT HAPPENED. HERE IS THE FULL CLARIFICATION. Good Day omniscientbeing-ga <frameset rows="109," framespacing="0" border="1"> <frame name="banner" scrolling="no" noresize target="main" src="Banner.htm"> <frameset cols="154,"> <frame name="contents" target="main" src="LeftNav.htm"> <frame name="main" src="drc.htm"> since you already use "" to fill the screen, your frames ultimate width of "" will be determined by: A) Table width hard coded width in pixel size. Solution: Recode table width in "body" html files. Quickest way is to use something like the DOS edit. Hopefully you have all the width numbers set to the exact the same width. If so, just load the file and use the replace feature. Close the file, open next. Now the replace feature already has filled in values and all you need to do is select "Replace All". This is most likely the case. Although you could have used percentages, that would most likely have some pretty unstable results. The browsers would get confused trying to set-up a "*" frame with width of 100% i.e. If that is the case though, image width is probably defining the final width. For this please see next step. This solution might have some unusual results depending on the alignment settings you are now using. B) Images that are wide can determine final width, if they are the widest "pre-defined" item on the page (by pre-defined I mean there is a very positive number on how wide the item is supposed to be. Two options here, second one is not recommended: 1) Open the wide images, and resize them (again, wide means greater than 770pixels - "side bar menu" 2) Force the image to use less space by giving it a fixed width (very poor image quality). I am not sure if it is an option, but maybe dump this on a web designer? There are tools that might make this task a little less tedious, but there is not "one click solution". Also, if you are doing it on your own, here are some suggestions: - Work on ONE PAGE ONLY. Perfect your system. Test using two versions of Netscape, and two version of IE. Last thing you want to find out is that the new layout does not work on a major web browser, and you are back to square one with the same problem, under a different browser. - Once you have a system, than you can see about where you can cut corners, which steps you can "bundle together" to perform on many files in a row. This will save you switching between apps, and testing between each step of the way. Get one file converted and tested, and write down what you do as you go. Than see if you can perform one of the steps on all the files. It may not sound like much, but believe me going "conveyor belt style" will literary save your 30-80% of the time required. As for future design, always try to use a few different machines to test the site. This will let you test a few browsers, few resolutions, few contrast settings on monitors (sometimes on your monitor something is easy to see, but going to another with different settings you will find that some things are not readable). I always design one "perfect page", and us it as a guide for the others. Wishing you the best in your efforts. Regards, slawek-ga

omniscientbeing-ga rated this answer: 5 out of 5 stars

I decided to go ahead and rate this Question in order to officially
close it out, but if you have any thoughts on my Frames code I'd
appreciate it if you'd post it below. Thanks for your help, I know you
went somewhat beyond the call of duty here, given the price of the
Question. Thanks too, to all the Commenters, your help is much
appreciated. I can work out my problem based on all the info you have
provided me here. Thanks! (I may have future Questions on this same
website).

Comments

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
From: arcadesdude-ga on 18 Oct 2002 09:51 PDT

I haven't used Frontpage myself but I can give you some tips if you
want to work with the code.

Make sure all table settings use width="100%" (or another percent)
instead of just pixels. This will allow the page to be resized
correctly for lower resolutions.

Make sure the width of your images is not more than 500-700 pixels (or
so) in any one place. If you do just shrink the image[s] or move them
around a bit an see what works. This will assure you will not get a
horizontal scroll bar at the lower resolutions.

Use align=left on items where it won't look any different than
align=center so that you have more horizontal "room" to work with.

Those tips should cover most resize problems and allow you to "shrink"
the webpage down to 800x600.

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
From: omniscientbeing-ga on 18 Oct 2002 10:08 PDT

OK, but this site has hundreds of images and pages throughout, and
what I am trying to avoid is going back through it object by object
and hand-shrinking it down to 800x600. I am looking for some kind of
tool that I can use to globally affect the enttire site to "shrink it
down" as you say, to 800 x 600, from the 1024 x 768 it was developed
at.

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
From: tar_heel_v-ga on 18 Oct 2002 11:04 PDT

There are couple of things you may be able to do.

One, place a script that checks the viewers resolution and recommends
that for best use, they change their settings to 1024 x 768.  You can
find an example here:

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/info1.htm

Another option is to optimize a version of the page for 800 x 600,
using the 1024 x 768 as the default, but add a script that redirects
the viewer, based upon their screen resolution, to the version suited
for their resolution:

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex9/info3.htm

Maybe you can use the first option while you optimize the page for 800
x 600 viewers by adjusting table widths and using the other hints from
arcadesdude-ga.

I don't know of a tool or utility that will automatically resize
graphics based upon the browser's resolution, but I will keep looking!

-THV

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
From: omniscientbeing-ga on 18 Oct 2002 15:30 PDT

Slawek-ha,

I just wanted you to know that I quickly read you Answer, although I
won't have time to fully evaluate it until Sunday night. I may have a
small clarificaation for you at that time.

Thanks,

omnscientbeing-ga

Subject: Re: HTML/screen res optimization
From: omniscientbeing-ga on 21 Oct 2002 07:45 PDT

Here is my code for the Frames page:

<html>

<head>
<title>Welcome to Dolphin Research Center!</title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
</head>

<frameset rows="109,*" framespacing="0" border="1">
  <frame name="banner" scrolling="no" noresize target="main" src="Banner.htm">
  <frameset cols="154,*">
    <frame name="contents" target="main" src="LeftNav.htm">
    <frame name="main" src="drc.htm">
  </frameset>
  <noframes>
  <body>

  <p>This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.</p>

  </body>
  </noframes>
</frameset>

</html>

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.

Search Google Answers for

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Good Day omniscientbeing, As a professional web designer, here is some information that will help you achieve what you require with the least amount of work. Perhaps even in minutes. This will come at small sacrifice on your layout. As I understand it, you have three frames with a top frame that spans 1024 pixels. Change that frame to about 770 pixels. Why not 800? Because if a vertical scroll bar appears, the vertical scroll bar will steal some of the width resolution. The result will be a horizontal scroll bar for the amount of pixels that the vertical scroll bar stole. Now, underneath that as I understand it you have two frames that make up the width of the screen. Hopefully your menu portion around 250 pixels or more, because the only way to change the resolution compatibility without too much work is if we can get rid of one of side-by-side frames, and make the other one 770 pixels wide. Of course, since we are getting rid of the menu all you have to do is place the menu at the top or bottom of this frame (standard design practice is to place it at the top only, with an anchor to the top of the page at the bottom of the page), or create a third frame, with all three frames being horizontal and spanning about 770 pixels. Top frame can be the banner, second frame you can use for the menu, third frame will be used for display purposes. If your menu frame is less than 224 pixels wide, you still might be okay. If the width of the current main display frame is hard coded and not determined by the widest image in the display area, the text will re-wrap itself correctly without any changes after you change the hard coded width of the main display frame to 770 pixels. If there are any images that you are using which are beyond 770 pixels wide, hopefully they are only a few, and all you have to do is slightly trim those few images which are stretching the frame beyond maximum display area of 800 pixels in width. Last but not least, although probably not required in this case, it is nice to know what the asterisk () can achieve with frames: The asterisk is a wild card. This is as close to calculating real time as it gets with HTML. If for example you want to set-up a menu on the left side that is 200 pixels wide, and use the rest of the horizontal space for a second frame, you can specify the width of the second frame as width=??. HTML will than take total display width, subtract the one hard coded amount of pixels (in this example 200), and use the remainder for the second frame. So there is a small chance that you might be able to simply change the display frame to the size of "*", and it will recalculate everything. I am assuming that you have some images that almost use the whole width of the display area, in which case this would not work (the image width will not resize itself, and if the image is 800 pixels wide it will over ride everything else). This allows you to maximize the display space with any resolution (again, you have to make sure that no images are wider than the remaining space or the images will stretch the frame beyond that which fits on one screen). The only code in the Internet coding world that can resize itself real time is Flash. For everything else, hopefully the above will guide you to a quick resolution fix. :) If you have any questions on my solution, please don?t hesitate to ask for a clarification before you rate my answer. Thank you for your question omniscientbeing. Regards, Slawek-ga
Request for Answer Clarification by omniscientbeing-ga on 20 Oct 2002 19:39 PDT OK, I do not wish to get rid of my left nav bar frame, which I believe you are suggesting, although then you say, "...or create a third frame, with all three frames being horizontal and spanning about 770 pixels. Top frame can be the banner, second frame you can use for the menu, third frame will be used for display purposes." This confuses me. This frame setp is the sam setup I have now, it's just that it looks reat in 1024 x 768 but is cut off (too wide) in 800 x 600. Let me paste the frames page code below so you can see exactly what I have going-- First thing Monday morning (well, by 10 AM EST) I will paste my HTML code for the Frames page (I don't have it with me) so that you can see the frames setup with my *'s as you mentioned. Then you can comment briefly on how your Answer applies scpeficially to my code, after which I will promptly rate your answer. I really want a way to make this existing site compatibile with both 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768, without creating 2 diferent sites or instructing the visitor that they need to change the screen resolution settings, as one Comment suggests. I also want to avoid significant design changes which affect the look and feel of the site, because my current site design is the one that has been approved by the powers-that-be, so to speak, so that's the one I want to implement, otherwise I have to go through a bunch of meetings and demo's again to get the new site approved.
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 20 Oct 2002 23:41 PDT Good Day, My sentence, as quoted by you refers to creating a new third frame, after getting rid of the left navigational frame. The difference from your current set-up is that from the sounds of it you only have one frame that spans the width of the screen. The remaining two frames together make up the width of the screen: You current set-up: \|--------- B A N N E R ---------\| 1024 pixels ________________________________ \|-M E N U-\|------B O D Y--------\| i.e. menu=200 pixels, body=* My proposed set-up: \|--------- B A N N E R ---------\| 770 pixels \|----------- M E N U -----------\| 770 pixels \|----------- B O D Y -----------\| 770 pixels If there are no images on the pages which exceed the width of: (aprx. 770 pixels) - {subtract} (required space for menu in a side frame), than simply recoding the frame width specifications from 1024 to aprx. 770 will resize all your pages. If you do have images which are wider than:(aprx. 770 pixels) - (required space for menu in a side frame), than those images will override the frame width coding as specified in HTML. I can relate to you on not wanting to sit through a meeting, and proposing changes to layout as I have suggested. Believe me I have done my share of those in the past. One of the reasons people hire me is to avoid those things. I have made those mistakes the hard way, and have done a lot of convincing, and free work to redesign something. There is a way to recode the width of the images without opening each one up in an image editor the use of the WIDTH tag in the <IMG> expression. However, the results are VERY POOR. For best results, you would have to open each image in an image editor, change the colour depth to 16 million, resize while maintaining aspect ratio (width to height ratio), and reducing the colours back to the desired depth. Of course, than you would have to recode the WIDTH and HEIGHT figures in the HTML if they have been specified (always a good idea as it speeds up layout while loading the page). I am afraid that showing me the code might: A) Not be enough information if the image width is not specified, B) If image width is specified, I will be able to tell you what will work for this particular page which I am looking at, and my solution (which will probably be exactly the same as described, or very slightly different) might not be good for the other pages depending on widest image used. Images over the width of: (aprx. 770 pixels) - (required space for menu in a side frame) are the downfall if they exist. If they don't exist, you would still have to open the individual files that specify width to be used in frames. I guess I could go on with if scenarios for quite a while, but assuming that you use images which are wide I would move the menu from the side, and place it between the banner and body. Don't even "tell" anyone. Send a casual memo. You'd be surprised how often the "powers-that-are" "sleep" through the meetings. Most might not even notice. Other will ask "why". Casually tell them, "after some testing and feed back, I was informed that to ease navigation, we need to reduce the width to accommodate lower resolutions in a friendlier manner". After all, some people purposely make the page 1024, and WANT the menu to be out of the view. You pick what you want, and scroll it away to the side. Although I don't agree with that method, you can use this idea to your advantage, and come out looking very impressive. I don?t know the conditions under which you work, and how you are expected to perform. I do hope that I was able, and intend to continue to further attempt, to be of aide. However, there are some limits on what can be done, and what can?t be done. I am just a messenger on the HTML subject. There are a lot of things I would change about it, but can?t. All I can do is help you achieve the most with what is available, and I hope that you feel that I have done just that. Of course, I will await to see your code and perhaps there is something in it, which we have not discussed that we can use to our advantage. Regards, slawek-ga
Request for Answer Clarification by omniscientbeing-ga on 21 Oct 2002 09:31 PDT OK, thanks for what you have posted thus far. As a final step, if you can add anything after viewing my Frames code which I have posted as a Comment below, that would help a lot. Thank you very much, ~omniscientbeing-ga
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 21 Oct 2002 10:22 PDT Good Day omniscientbeing-ga <frameset rows="109," framespacing="0" border="1"> <frame name="banner" scrolling="no" noresize target="main" src="Banner.htm"> <frameset cols="154,"> <frame name="contents" target="main" src="LeftNav.htm"> <frame name="main" src="drc.htm"> Since you already use "" to fill the screen, your frames ultimate width of "" will be determined by: A) Table width hard coded width in pixel size. Solution: Recode table width in "body" html files. Quickest way is to use something like the DOS edit. Hopefully you have all the width numbers set to the exact the same width. If so, just load the file and use the replace feature. Close the file, open next. Now the replace feature already has filled in values and all you need to do is select "Replace All". B) Images which are wide
Clarification of Answer by slawek-ga on 21 Oct 2002 10:47 PDT SORRY ABOUT THE INCOMPLETE CLARIFICATION. I HIT TAB THINKING I AM IN A WORD EDITOR, WHICH SELECTED THE POST BUTTON, AND HIT ENTER BEFORE I REALIZED WHAT HAPPENED. HERE IS THE FULL CLARIFICATION. Good Day omniscientbeing-ga <frameset rows="109," framespacing="0" border="1"> <frame name="banner" scrolling="no" noresize target="main" src="Banner.htm"> <frameset cols="154,"> <frame name="contents" target="main" src="LeftNav.htm"> <frame name="main" src="drc.htm"> since you already use "" to fill the screen, your frames ultimate width of "" will be determined by: A) Table width hard coded width in pixel size. Solution: Recode table width in "body" html files. Quickest way is to use something like the DOS edit. Hopefully you have all the width numbers set to the exact the same width. If so, just load the file and use the replace feature. Close the file, open next. Now the replace feature already has filled in values and all you need to do is select "Replace All". This is most likely the case. Although you could have used percentages, that would most likely have some pretty unstable results. The browsers would get confused trying to set-up a "*" frame with width of 100% i.e. If that is the case though, image width is probably defining the final width. For this please see next step. This solution might have some unusual results depending on the alignment settings you are now using. B) Images that are wide can determine final width, if they are the widest "pre-defined" item on the page (by pre-defined I mean there is a very positive number on how wide the item is supposed to be. Two options here, second one is not recommended: 1) Open the wide images, and resize them (again, wide means greater than 770pixels - "side bar menu" 2) Force the image to use less space by giving it a fixed width (very poor image quality). I am not sure if it is an option, but maybe dump this on a web designer? There are tools that might make this task a little less tedious, but there is not "one click solution". Also, if you are doing it on your own, here are some suggestions: - Work on ONE PAGE ONLY. Perfect your system. Test using two versions of Netscape, and two version of IE. Last thing you want to find out is that the new layout does not work on a major web browser, and you are back to square one with the same problem, under a different browser. - Once you have a system, than you can see about where you can cut corners, which steps you can "bundle together" to perform on many files in a row. This will save you switching between apps, and testing between each step of the way. Get one file converted and tested, and write down what you do as you go. Than see if you can perform one of the steps on all the files. It may not sound like much, but believe me going "conveyor belt style" will literary save your 30-80% of the time required. As for future design, always try to use a few different machines to test the site. This will let you test a few browsers, few resolutions, few contrast settings on monitors (sometimes on your monitor something is easy to see, but going to another with different settings you will find that some things are not readable). I always design one "perfect page", and us it as a guide for the others. Wishing you the best in your efforts. Regards, slawek-ga