[OT] dynamic resolution web sites

[Jack]

--- Jason Dewayne Clinton <me at jasonclinton.com> wrote:

> On Friday 04 November 2005 11:53 am, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > Last I checked, XHTML/CSS handle dynamic
> resolutions just fine...
> 
> Bahumbug. You need to check again. I run at
> 1600x1200 at 98 DPI and I 
> can say with certainty that pages that are designed
> to fill the entire 
> width of the page start to become unreadable when
> the font is 11pt. 
Well there are configuration issues, web design issues
and graphics issues all at play  in this. Not to
mention individual browser interpretation issues.
First off if you configure your browser in a certain
way you will override the browser's ability to render
the web page to the best resoultion. Secondly, if the
coder who wrote the web page did a poor job then the
page may also display at a constant size which may not
be readable on some displays. Thirdly, SVG wont help
render fonts any better, unless you have some very
strange installed fonts.

> That means that lines are REALLY long and it becomes
> hard to follow 
> line-by-line. Resolution isn't just width and
> height. On a good 
> platform (X11 and Mac OSX) it also means the DPI of
> the monitor. And 
DPI of the monitor? Please share with us whatever
you're smoking. ;')
Seriously though, I understand what you're trying to
say here, but most websites are designed for 800x600
or 1024x768 *total* pixels. The DPI is really
irrelevant when speaking of monitors. The bigger the
monitor, the more total pixels and hence the lower the
DPI of a webpage will be if stretched to higher than
designed resolution. True, SVG might make this
irrelevant ... someday.

> that's to say nothing of the printing issues that
> are created by virtue 
> of printing being done at 600 DPI or more while
> screens are in the 
> lowly range of 75 - 110 DPI. The nasty differences
> are apparent when 
> you try to print off a map from a web page and it
> becomes less 
> readable.
And for what reason would you try to print at 600 dpi
something that only has maybe 150 dpi, unless of
course you are shrinking the output. This is like
scanning in a 35mm negative at 600 dpi and trying to
print an 8x10 picture from it and expect photo quality
results.
It is possible to scan in a 4x6 print at 600 dpi and
print out a 6x8 print at photo quality. Most prints
have 300 dpi, while most negatives have 3000-5000 dpi.

> 
> What /should/ happen is that web pages should become
> /sharper/ 
> and /easier to read/ when more pixels are available;
> not smaller and 
> harder to read.
> 
Well, considering web pages weren't designed to do
this, I have to disagree that they /should/. While at
the same time I'll say it would be /nice/ if they did.
However there are a lot of poorly designed websites,
and a great many websites assign point sizes to text,
and absolute pixel sizes to graphics, rather than
proportional measures. So until the majority of the
web gets rewritten to your standard you'll likely
continue to have issues.

While, I'll give SVG in web pages two thumbs up for
coolness factor, it'll be some time before I'll be
doing any graphics for the web in SVG, unless it is
for a targetted audience.

Brian JD