Page gets squeeze in AOL small window

[arbor]

Finally got to upload my files and it works!

Now the problem. I noticed that on AOL's smaller window, the page gets squeezed in (leading to broken lines and other problems). I thought maybe my home page is too wide but I noticed that alta vista has even wider width but does not get squeezed in. it simply shows less.

How do I set up my page so that it does not get squeezed in?

Thanks

[Armand]

You are using tables with width set in percentages thus causing the "troubles."[nbsp][nbsp]You'll see what I mean if you resize the browser (yes you can do that even with the rinky dink AOL built-in browser [hey, I can say that, I use AOL too, just never their browser ::p]).

Switch to fixed pixel widths (i.e. "600" or something versus "100%") or use the invisible pixel gif trick. But you are probably better off just setting the widths to pixels.

HTH

P.S. Nice looking site, but I'd respectfully suggest utilizing the title tags better... "Untitled Document" >> site title or something.
[This message has been edited by Armand (edited 02-15-00@09:50 am)]

[arbor]

Thanks Armand, I'll try that.

Just uploaded files to see how it would. Still got a ways to go before officially launching it. Will put tags and titles soon... gotta read up on best way to do it. Any suggestion other than AOTA?

Here is another question. I noticed that on Netscape4, the tiny corner image opens up slow and funny looking colored box (where the image is) appearing in between. Any way to get rid of that?

Thanks

[Charles Capps]

Could you give us the URL of the page, so we can look at the problem ourselves?

[Justin]

When in doubt - check the profile ;)[nbsp]

[Charles Capps]

When in doubt, never assume that information not specified as probably being correct is indeed correct...[nbsp][nbsp]:)

[Justin]

When in doubt - cheat :)

I had forgotten that he had also emailed about the problem, and the site in question was included in the email... though it is the same as he lists in the profile, I agree that it's best to ask than assume...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest (http://www.FutureQuest.net/index.php) Support

[Charles Capps]

Cheater![nbsp][nbsp]:þ

*looks at the site*
The main problem is that it's wider than 640 pixels...[nbsp][nbsp]Users on very low end machines[nbsp][nbsp]will end up with a squished screen.[nbsp][nbsp]Altavista gets away with it because they adjust their site to the width of the screen automagically for many elements, then set static widths for other elements.
Following Armand's advice should fix the problem...

As for the colored box....[nbsp][nbsp]The thing that looks like a sheet of paper w/ three colored ojbects on it?[nbsp][nbsp]Is that what you're talking about?[nbsp]

[Armand]

Yep, one in profile had the symptoms described and seemed logical guess. :P

I don't see the problem involving the corner images and all color wise.[nbsp][nbsp]Am curious why the slow/heavy page load since it seems that the only images are the those corner graphics visibly.
[This message has been edited by Armand (edited 02-15-00@10:15 pm)]

[arbor]

Wow, I was out sick most of yesterday you guys did all right without me.

Following Armand and another person's advice, I fixed the width of my page to 720 pixels(I was at around 760 to begin with). That works just fine.

Do you think I should narrow it down further?

Thanks.

[arbor]

I just tried to edit my previous message but was told that I am not authrized. How do I become authorized?

Armand you are right, I only have two small flower images on top. Is the page opening up slow? Any idea why? I do have a lot of tables in there. Could that be it?

Thanks.

[Armand]

Normally I do too much nested tables, so I shouldn't say much about that.[nbsp][nbsp]But given your design, I'm not sure I see the reason for many if any nested tables really since it follows a simple 3 column style.[nbsp][nbsp]That's just me though.

Edit: I'm showing something loading as being like 57+k in size.[nbsp][nbsp]Thought it might have been the flowers, but just checked and it isn't.[nbsp][nbsp]Wow... suppose I need to look at the source code... hmmm.[nbsp][nbsp]Am I the only noticing this.

Oh on the size issue... well it depends on your preference I suppose.[nbsp][nbsp]But remember visitors may have a resolution of anywhere from 640x480 on up to 1024X768.[nbsp][nbsp]If you don't want any visitors to have to scroll right, then size for about 600.[nbsp][nbsp]Otherwise, let them deal with what you want I suppose.
[This message has been edited by Armand (edited 02-16-00@11:47 am)]

[arbor]

Oops! I forgot to mention that there are four small images on the corner of the search box to round out the edges. Could this be slowing things up? Also, I put the whole page in a large table. Maybe I should break it up into three or four large tables? Could this possibly speed things up?

I am seeing that awful looking colored box over the images on Netscape before the real image shows up(only happens on Netscape). Anyway to get rid of it?

Dan, I am using Dreamweaver and it is very hard to control table width with percent setting. I wind up losing a lot of spaces within each table. Maybe I am doing something wrong.

Thanks

[Dan Kaplan]

I differ somewhat in opinion and approach to those that have been expressed above.[nbsp][nbsp]I do almost everything with percent sizing, nesting tables if need be to fix certain sections' size.[nbsp][nbsp]The reason I do it this way is that I don't care for the look of 600 pixel wide tables on a 800 pixel wide display any more than I like 640 wide tables on a 600 display.[nbsp][nbsp]It's usually not too difficult to set things up to size to 100% of the display, and I've yet to encounter any uncorrectable problems.

Whew, I've been interrupted about 10 times while typing this.[nbsp][nbsp]I wouldn't be surprised if a few responses have slipped in before me in the mean time...

Dynamic