centering an image
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Which (current) browsers do NOT support <iframes> ?
Next: Pseudoclass link doesen't work in Firefox 3
From: Gus Richter on 16 Jan 2010 10:17 On 1/16/2010 6:59 AM, Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: > Gus Richter kirjoitti: > >> As I tried to explain to dorayme, it's a defect/fault of this Text >> Zoom feature - it breaks a page by rendering it differently as >> intended by the author by not changing the image size along with the >> text size. > > You've got this upside down. Text Zoom doesn't break a page, it's the > other way around, that is, the author is not distinguishing clearly > betwixt DTP and Web publishing. As I said to Chris: Since I fail in making myself clear, or what I say means nothing (to you), here is one link that may accomplish wherein I fail: <http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2008/10/07/zoom/> >> That's why I think that Text Zoom is not a good idea. > > It's the only one I use, in a browser that is. I can't recall a single > real use case where I'd changed to page zoom view. Hey, I'm ok with YOU using YOUR preference and obviously you can navigate with the realization that Text Zoom will probably cause layout distortions/problems. Aside: I totally realize that this Text Zoom vs. Page Zoom has people in a religious/political frenzy (probably because "I've been doing it this way and it's the best way because it has worked for me" type of attitude). Most people have problems with change and/or having a habit pointed out as being not right, not the best way, improper or possibly downright wrong. Google for 'page zoom vs. text zoom' and read all the comments to the articles. >> If text size only is desired >> without the image 'interfering', then the best choice is to use Opera >> which has the optional feature to totally NOT show images. > > IIRC, every browser I've ever used has provided the option to disable > images. That's how my IE6 is set :) Now you won't have to consider getting Lynx. ;-) Opera has the option available handily as a one-click under 'View' in the Classic pull-down Menu. Others probably have this capability with fancy moves (multi-clicks) or possibly as add-on. Your IE6 for example, requires; Tools/Internet Options/Advanced and then scrolling and searching for 'Show Pictures' with a click to select and another click for OK. Five clicks and another five to restore later on - very cool. -- Gus
From: Jonathan N. Little on 16 Jan 2010 10:53 Gus Richter wrote: > On 1/16/2010 6:59 AM, Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: >> Gus Richter kirjoitti: >> >>> As I tried to explain to dorayme, it's a defect/fault of this Text >>> Zoom feature - it breaks a page by rendering it differently as >>> intended by the author by not changing the image size along with the >>> text size. >> >> You've got this upside down. Text Zoom doesn't break a page, it's the >> other way around, that is, the author is not distinguishing clearly >> betwixt DTP and Web publishing. > > As I said to Chris: > Since I fail in making myself clear, or what I say means nothing (to > you), here is one link that may accomplish wherein I fail: > <http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2008/10/07/zoom/> > >>> That's why I think that Text Zoom is not a good idea. >> If you design with Page Zoom assumed and ignore Text Zoom you then are ignoring default text setting and min text size setting. IMO not good web design. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
From: dorayme on 16 Jan 2010 18:46 In article <hiri76$ikg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > On 1/15/2010 6:05 PM, dorayme wrote: > > In article<hiqqb3$g5g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Gus Richter<gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > > >>> ... > >>>> Since in my opinion, nobody should use text-only zoom, I therefore do > >>>> not use it and had put it out of my mind. > >>> > >>> I think it is all the more reason to use it when making pages (as > >>> opposed to merely using them) and all the more reason not to put it out > >>> of mind. > >> > >> You have twisted and turned a simple thing into a deep thinking > >> exercise. > > > > I have? You are doing all the twisting and talking, not me. It is bad > > practice to not cater for those who use text-only zoom. This is not deep > > thinking! It is the simple truth. > > The simple thing was an alternative method, which worked. It did not work as I have since explained after apologising for not explaining first up. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 16 Jan 2010 19:15 In article <hisi08$vbt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > On 1/16/2010 1:13 AM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > > Text zoom does not render any of my pages differently from what I > > intended. I don't design a web page as a piece of paper; it isn't. > > Please don't throw variations of a cliché at me. Don't tempt people then with appearing not to know this. > What the ....? Can you give more? Don't play a dorayme on me. You mean like being busy at the time of a reply and knowing that you and Jeff are old hands here and should know how to do the most elementary testing of a bit of markup and thinking my saying it does not work might get you to look further and reply before about a week goes by? You mean like dorayme in being conciliatory when he saw you were upset and apologising for not explaining? You mean like dorayme who has held its fat tongue while you make extraordinary speeches and demands on me and everyone and still keep coming back to make slurs on my carefully crafted bad name? > > >> Regarding the horizontal scrollbar, take dorayme's submission: > >> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/imgCentreProposal.html> > >> where using Page Zoom creates a the horizontal scrollbar. Simply adding > >> (for example) max-width:100%; to #container will prevent the > >> scrollbar and limit the container to the viewport. > > No comment on this? I guess it didn't impress you at all? You can get rid of the horizontal scrollbar (presumably in IE only?) by *changing* the design. Yes, the design. It may be that OP actually wanted 600px by 600px box. So that makes your suggestion less than impressive. Plus it only limits the width, not the height. -- dorayme
From: jeff on 16 Jan 2010 22:30
Gus Richter wrote: > On 1/16/2010 6:59 AM, Osmo Saarikumpu wrote: >> Gus Richter kirjoitti: >> >>> As I tried to explain to dorayme, it's a defect/fault of this Text >>> Zoom feature - it breaks a page by rendering it differently as >>> intended by the author by not changing the image size along with the >>> text size. >> >> You've got this upside down. Text Zoom doesn't break a page, it's the >> other way around, that is, the author is not distinguishing clearly >> betwixt DTP and Web publishing. > > As I said to Chris: > Since I fail in making myself clear, or what I say means nothing (to > you), here is one link that may accomplish wherein I fail: > <http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2008/10/07/zoom/> Seems clear to me, I noted this: "So, personal preference aside, I wonder whether designing around scaling text is still a skill we need to hold on to, and for how long. I�d be interested in hearing about reasons for and against, as I�m sure there will be both." I was unaware of the shift, but I think it is partially in response to the fact that wide aspect (16:10 rather than 4:3) high res monitors are common. Try looking at a common 750px or 1000px fixed width layout at 1920. Ain't much there! http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp "57% higher than 1024". For most of us here it is a moot point as we design by default pages that stand up to some degree of text zoom. Jeff |