WEB PAGE TOO WIDE?

[jwp1jwp1]

BlankHow can I shrink a web page that doesn't fit the screen?
So I can print it.
Even though I set the printer on landscape,it still cuts off the right side.
To view it, I have to scroll right & left.

 

[Scott M.]

BlankYou can't. A web page is created at a certain width. Good web
developers know not to make the page wider that about 770 pixels (so it will
fit on the screen and a printed page), but bad developers don't realize
this.

You could try copying the data from the web page and pasting it into Word
and re-configuring it yourself until it fits.

How can I shrink a web page that doesn't fit the screen?
So I can print it.
Even though I set the printer on landscape,it still cuts off the right side.
To view it, I have to scroll right & left.

 

[Guest]

-----Original Message-----
BlankYou can't. A web page is created at a certain

width.

Web pages have no preset width unless the designer makes
some effort to make it that way. (Like stuffing the
entire page into a table and then setting absolute sizes
on the columns - YUCK!) HTML as originally designed is
very portable to different screens unless you work to
muck it up. Unfortunately some people are willing to do
that work.

Mostly I just avoid sites like this but if I really want
some information off such a page, I usually cut and paste.

 

[Scott M.]

(Like stuffing the entire page into a table and then setting absolute
sizes on the columns - YUCK!)

Actually, this is considered a best practice. The most common screen
resolution in use today (for home users) is 800 x 600. Taking into account
a few pixels for the scroll bar and borders of a browser (usually about 30 -
40) leaves 760/770 pixels of space that most users will be able to see
without scrolling. If you happen to use a resolution higher than this (1024
x 768) you will just see extra blank space to the right. Try it, visit a
popular main stream site like cnn.com with your screen resoution set at 800
x 600. The entire page will fit perfectly into your screen. Increase your
resolution higher and you will just get an extra blank right margin.

This is more work on the designer's part, but it is considered an absolute
must for pages where layout is of any concern.

HTML as originally designed is very portable to different screens unless

you work to muck it up. Unfortunately some people > are willing to do that
work.

Actually, HTML as originally designed by Tim Berners-Lee, was originally
designed to add structure to text and graphics so that they could be
displayed in a more organized and visually interesting way. Tables (and the
ability to size them) have been a part of HTML from very early on. In fact,
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) was created to improve on a designer's ability
to add even more precision to placement and fit of elements within an HTML
document.

What you refer to as "muck" and "yuck" is interpreted by me as "The results
of someone who doesn't know how to use HTML/CSS properly and makes a mess
out of the page." If you truly understand how to code proper HTML in a way
that will be rendered the same in most major browsers and versions, there
should never be any question as to sizing - - it is a must!

Mostly I just avoid sites like this but if I really want some information

off such a page, I usually cut and paste.

I don't blame you. Many sites are created by "designers" that don't
understand what they are doing and probably just stole the code from another
site. Many designers follow the "It looks good to me." mantra, not
realizing that what a page looks like to them on their machine is not
necessarily what it will look like to others on other machines.

 

[Guest]

-----Original Message-----
Actually, this is considered a best practice.

It's a good practice not to demand a large screen but a
generally poor one to mandate the exact size unless you
control output devices. If you stick to reasonable HTML,
it will look fine regardless of window size let alone
screen size. (Checking your page on a Pilot is a pretty
good test.) If you need a table to render actual tabular
data, by all means do so, but don't use it as a page
formatting aid designed to force your users to have the
same resolution, window size, and printer as you.
(Assuming you even tried to print your page.)

CSS, is generally better than tables as page formatting
but there's already quite a lot of CSS abuse going on
too ;-)

 

[Guest]

Another great thing about CSS is that the user gets to
specify his own sheet. (So I expect to see a lot of
authors putting "important" on rules to make users bow to
that as well ;-))

 

[Guest]

Some printer drivers give the option to reduce the size of the prints

 

[Scott M.]

It's a good practice not to demand a large screen but a

generally poor one to mandate the exact size unless you
control output devices. If you stick to reasonable HTML,
it will look fine regardless of window size let alone
screen size. (Checking your page on a Pilot is a pretty
good test.) If you need a table to render actual tabular
data, by all means do so, but don't use it as a page
formatting aid designed to force your users to have the
same resolution, window size, and printer as you.
(Assuming you even tried to print your page.)

I'm sorry, but if you walked into a room full of web professionals with that
argument, they'd laugh you right back out.

No one is mandating anything. If you build a site geared for the 800 x 600
resolution, it will fit into that size and larger resolutions. If a user
happens to have an older, smaller monitor that is running at 640 x 480
(which statistics show is a very small percentage of users), then they can
still view the page, but it will be wider than their screen is. In fact,
using JavaScript, thbe page can determine what the screen resolution is and
adjust to specific table sizes appropriate for that width.

The use of tables as a means of determining page layout is an absolute
standard for any good page design. If a page needs to be rendered in a
handheld device, then HTML is not the language for the page, WML (wireless
markup language) is.

CSS, is generally better than tables as page formatting
but there's already quite a lot of CSS abuse going on
too ;-)

It's not an either/or situation. CSS can and is used WITH tables for very
precise layout.

I'm sorry, but I do this for a living and I have trained thousands of people
on how to properly use HTML. I am aware of W3C standards and ADA (Americans
With Disabilities Act) guidelines for proper page design. I have spent
years in web development with (HTML, CSS, XML, ASP, ASP.NET, etc.) and I
have to say that this is not a matter of my personal opinion. You are
certainly entitled to your opinion, but your comments only lead me to
believe that you really don't know enough about the technologies involved or
have any real practical experience building and testing web pages/web sites
because if you did, you be able to see how ridiculous your comments sound.
It's like saying, "You shouldn't use math in order to build a ship that can
travel to the moon."

The very first thing that should be done when planning a web site is to
determine who the target audience is and build for that level (and up). The
last step in development is to test the pages in every possible resolution,
platform, browser and version that meets the original target audience's
potential configuration.

A web page should look the SAME in each possible configuration tested (and
it IS possible to achieve this if you know how to properly use HTML/CSS). I
want to go to sleep at night KNOWING that all users will see the same thing
when they visit my pages. Letting the browser "figure out on its own" how
to render the page (which is what you are suggesting by advocating the lack
of use of tables and sizes) is NOT an acceptable option since it will result
in different configurations seeing different version of the page rendered.

Again, the *proper* use of HTML/CSS results in a page that works for
everyone. No doubt, your experience has been with pages that were not
*properly* designed.

 

[Scott M.]

Another great thing about CSS is that the user gets to

specify his own sheet. (So I expect to see a lot of
authors putting "important" on rules to make users bow to
that as well ;-))

What? No they don't. The designer places a tag into their page like this:

<LINK REL="Stylesheet" TYPE="text/css" HREF="styleSheetFile.css">

and the page will use the rules specified in this file. The user can't
substitue their own file. What are you talking about?

 

[Scott M.]

If you are referring to the IE feature, you must remember that this can be
overridden and is not even supported in other browsers and even earlier
versions of IE. It's not a standard. But if a user decides to go ahead and
use it, then the developer can no longer be responsible for the look of the
page. There's a very good chance that the user would make the page look
worse.

Did you hear the one about the guy who goes to the doctor and says "Doc, it
hurts when I go like this?", the doctor replied "Then don't do that!"