Viewing Thread:
"Table Sizes"

I am about to overhaul my web site.

I am now beginning to grips with HTML and the use of tables for layout.
When setting the sizes of the tables is it best to use pixels or percent. I know if I use percent the web page will re-size itself to whatever the visitor is using on their computer.
However the problem with this is that the page design will not necessarily be how I want them to view it.

If I use pixel size I would have to set a screen size. The most popular screen size of visitors to my web site is 800 x 600 (I know this by the counter I have on the home page). However I do have quite a few visitors who use other screen sizes.
Would it be an injustice and insult to all the other visitors who use a different screen size to set my web site to fit an 800 x 600 resolution?

I want my site to be as compatible as possible.

Has anyone got any ideas about which option I should take or maybe some design tips about using tables.

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been away from my PC for a couple of days.

Very good point, Gabbo, on the computer literacy. Never thought of that at all, although I should have after hearing what my friends know about PC's.

Thanks Tyla for your points as well. I didn't realise there was a difference between PC and Mac display's. I don't have access to a Mac so cannot view my site though their browser. I also do not have access to Dreamweaver, I simply do not have the funds to purchase this software, I did like using Dreamweaver when I used the Demo version, maybe I will be able to purchase a full version in the future.

As for my decision on the table topic I've decided to take notice of the old saying "You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time". So with this in mind I've decided to go with the majority of visitors to my site and go for an 800 x 600 resolution web page. I'm sure in the future when I'm totally "fluent" in HTML I'll try and design a self scalable web page.

Thanks everyone for all your advice and help, greatly appreciated.

800 x 600 isn't actually 800 x 600! That size comes from the total screen area. By the time you've accounted for scroll bars, address bar, message bar, tool bar etc, the screen size is actually a lot less. (Have a look on WebMonkey for their templates on page sizes)

Then you have the differences between mac and PC... pc=72ppi/dpi mac=96, so things look quite different, upto 25% larger in some cases (fonts).

If your usuing Dreamweaver, there is a function on the bottom of the screen on the status bar that allows you to test at various screen sizes so you can estimate the output.

True, 800x600 is becoming the norm but again, this depends on your market. You'd be surprised how many people still use 640x480!!

There are other tricks you can use to like scaleable fonts that re-size to the size of the screen. Combining fixed and % table widths for stronger integrity of the page...

Hope this was useful?

I'd have to agree with Gabbo. If Freeola (and most sites) can get by with one layout for that size, you can to. You'd just be making way to much work for yourself anyway. The site will look fine in 800 X 600.

ukconfederate wrote:
I might give visitors an option to view it in either 640x480, 800x600 & 1024x768. Designing each page 3 times for the corresponding screen size. Has anyone got any thoughts on this & has anyone actually done it?

I can't think of any reason why you can't do this, but what if a user came on to your site that was not computer literate and didn't have a clue what you was going on and just left without going on your site.

If I was you, I would just have one single site for the 800x600 resolution. Not many people have 640x480 now and the site will look good in both 800x600 and 1024x768.

I am unable to set certain cells to pixel size and others to percent as I use tables inside tables, if you see what I mean.

I have to set the left side bar to a pixel size, I use 110, because it houses the menu. The main part of the page is split up into several different tables and cells to house photos, graphics and text.

There is no point in printing the url of my site because it currently uses frames, which I now hate, and looks nothing like I want the new look to be.

I am totally re-writing the whole website in notepad. As such I've started again from scratch. I'm thinking that because it is hosted with Freeola, they give unlimited webspace, that I might give visitors an option to view it in either 640x480, 800x600 & 1024x768. Designing each page 3 times for the corresponding screen size.
Has anyone got any thoughts on this & has anyone actually done it?

Just in case you are interested, my website is personal webcam site about myself.

to be truely flexible, design your site for 600 by 400, and then stretch the appropriate cells so they run in other browsers. That way you exclude noone.

Why not set the cells that you need to have a certain width to a defined pixel size and the rest to 100%. It works for me everytime.

P.S. If you post the URL then we can actually see what you need to adapt to.

All our websites work for 800x600 and look good in 1024x768. Percentages are good if you just want a side bar and then info on the other side of the page (eg set on table cell for a pixel width (side bar) and the other to 100% so it can use all the other avaliable space). We use a top bar as well for the banner and so set it to 720.

Thanks Guys for the advice.

I've been messing around with the HTML code and screen size all day & I've decided I'm going to use pixel size and base it on 800 x 600 screen resolution.

At least this way I know most people who view my site will see it how I want them to.

Cheers :o)

I'm guessing the SR Web Site is set up for 800 X 600, as I'm using 1024 X 768, and their is a large White space between the end of the SR Web Site, (the end of the banner, for e.g.) and the Scroll Bars, but it looks fine, so working with 800 X 600 in mind will come out fine I'd say.