Re: Screen too large - Larry Berlin's responce

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:35:27 -0600
>From: P3D RJ Thorpe responds:
>
>I fiddled around writing this over the last few days so there have been
>several replies before mine, but I couldn't let Larry have the last word
>on this because I think he is off base.
>
>We were talking about setting image widths to 100%
>....................
>To which, Larry responded:
>> I can't recommend this procedure, though it may work in some cases. 
>
>It works in every case!

***   Only those cases where someone resizes the window. There is a penalty
in the display because if you don't resize the window, which is the default
situation, there's no way you could view the image unless your browser
happened to be in a small window already. That is seldom the case if I'm
cruisin' graphics or stereo images! Such an image would be grossly enlarged
beyond it's intended pixel display.

>...................
>As a web page designer you have absolutely no control over how the
>layout of your page is seen by the viewer. They set up their viewing
>to their own preferences. This includes screen resolution, browser
>width, monitor size, everything. The only thing that approaches a 
>standard is to design your window for a 14" monitor with 640x480 
>resolution and hope the viewer has Netscape set to full width of the
>screen.

*********    As a designer you DO have that control, and the viewer
(individual not device) is definitely a variable. That's a given like,
saying the sun is shining. That's why you have the control. You are the
constant on your site.

The current standard for *graphics presentation* is a resolution of
equal-to or larger than 800 x 600 and 65,000 colors minimum. Sure there are
folk out there who surf in 256 colors, so what? Most of those same machines
are capable of being switched to a higher resolution and if the person doing
the surfing is interested in the graphics out there, that's where their
computer will be set. I do believe that's the majority circumstance of most
graphic/image related interest among web surfers. The option exists for a
huge percent of the others, so again it's their choice to see vibrant colors
that make sense or visual garbage. I believe that if they want graphics,
they'll use the right tools within reasonable budgetary bounds.


>
>> For another it asks the viewer to make changes of the browser window 
>> which is something most viewers won't do very often. 
>
>I can't speak for the average Joe on the net, but I do it all the time.
>If I go into a site and they say, "I have spent a lot of time 
>formatting this page just right. Please adjust your screen width to
>match the reference (box, ruler, line) below.", I do it because I
>know that my web experience will be the better for it. If you put a
>note at the top of your section of parallel views that says, "Please
>adjust the width of your browser so that the images on this page are
>7" wide (or whatever), you will be able to freeview them more easily
>that way." I doubt that most people would have a problem with that.

****  Sorry, some percentage will adjust the browser as *directed* but I
don't and many many others don't as well. In fact more than one of the books
about designing graphics for web sites specifically advise against that
strategy because 1). People won't do it,  2). It's possible to use HTML
coding so it looks reasonably good in any size window. There are times when
things are tighter than that but there are still options. I get rather
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:34:31 -0600
Errors-To: 3d-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originator: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
From: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: PHOTO-3D digest 1811
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:   The Stereoscopic Image (Photo-3D) Mailing List  

pissed at some of those sites that naievely think they control my browser
and say to them *hands off*. Know that someone out there will look at your
site in 1024 x 768 or larger. That's the direction we are generally trending
anyway. Why should someone invest in a great monitor and video card and then
scale it down for the tiny and ancient format of 640 x 480 for one's own
experience?

I too adjust my window but at my whim not the website's whim. 

..................... (I said)
>> It also means that on a large monitor such as that which was first 
>> mentioned in this thread, you would HAVE to reduce the browser window 
>> whether you wanted to or not.
>
>This is true but if you have a large monitor and you are viewing it at 
>full screen, regular page layout would look strange anyway. I run at
>1150x900 resolution so my browser is always set for about 2/3 the width
>of my monitor. To grab the right edge and move it in an inch or so is 
>no problem.

******  The point is, I almost always view full screen and the layout of
MOST PAGES allows for that freely and they don't look at all *strange*.
However, the typical parallel image, which is pretty small would look gross
enlarged to 100% of the browser window at full screen. The routines that
would reduce the image *if I resize the browser* do a fairly good job, but
enlarging an already pixelated image that much definitely isn't my idea of
*ideal for most circumstances*. I cannot advocate such a strategy because it
will look bad in all other formats, which are more likely to be used anyway
by the visitors I care about. It's the equivalent of downgrading the viewers
system and circumstances even when they have the extras for top flight.
>
>> You would be better off using a larger image format and specifying 
>> a smaller display size which scales the image smaller on the screen.
>> I would rather d/l the images and scale them in a graphics viewer 
>> for greater flexibility than adjust the browser window while I'm 
>> viewing web information.
>
>Larger image format is controlled by the web page author, the visitor
>has no choice. Smaller display size is controlled by the visitor.

**** No,  I'm talking about using whatever full image size you have and
specify smaller display size in the page coding. This has nothing at all to
do with the person visiting the site. It would reduce the image to a
viewable scale, but without the control you would have by reducing it your
self and fixing any goofs the automatic functions introduce. You can't do
that on the visitors monitor, only on your original image file. The only
Ideal is to display them at their own pixel size.

> If
>you think visitors are reluctant to simply move their right margin in
>an inch, they sure as hell are not going to bail out of your page, set
>their screen to a higher resolution, reboot their machine, relog onto
>the internet and go back to your page. 

**********  It's the other way around. They will likely be in hi-res mode to
begin with and aren't about to go out using less, especially if their
interest is graphics. If their interest isn't graphics, why would I bother
programming for them anyway? They will want to visit a text heavy site
instead. Why would anyone use less resolution on a system built for better
things? I'd keep it in maximum colors if 90% of all I had to do was type
email letters.

>Only some machines can change
>resolution on the fly. My pentium and Matrox card can't even do this.
>Besides, downloading to a graphics viewer and scaling a digitized 
>image is no different functionally than moving your browser border in.

*****  If you're already there, you don't need a special *on the fly*
transition. If you're not there you're not interested in images and graphics.

I find that my graphics programs do a much better job of enlarging and
reducing images and there are a whole host more tools available should I
desire them to lighten, darken or filter or whatever.... The browser is more
like a preview window, the good stuff is later if things call for closer
scrutiny.

I didn't say your method doesn't work.   ; -)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------