The Underscore Archives

		There is another reason for setting table widths at around the 600 
pixel mark: printing. I've known customers and friends who insist on 
being able to print out a web-page as they see it and, assuming you 
don't want to rely on CSS and don't want a web-page that stretches 
(making text difficult to read IMHO), then 600-ish is a pretty 
reliable bet.

Jake



>  > it seems that with
>>  netscape you have to choose to use all pixel widths or all percentages, it
>>  doesn't let you have a mixture of the two
>
>The HTML spec says you're not supposed to mix percentages and pixel
>widths...which is a very good reason not to do it.
>
>>  I suggest you fix the table width to about 620 pixels, so that it will work
>>  on 640 x 480 resolution, text is also easier to read if in a reasonably
>>  narrow column like that. You can also make column widths and row heights
>>  really rigid if you you use pixel widths, by putting in extra rows and
>>  columns 1 pixel wide/high using a transparent image as a shim.
>
>Generally bad idea, as *so* few people use 640x480 any more, and if you
>design rigidly like that you're going to annoy the people running at
>1600x1200 who will see a *really* narrow/tiny site, lost in a huge
>screen.
>
>Ditch tables for layout, use CSS, use liquid layouts.
>
>Tim
>
>--
>Tim Beadle, Information Systems Developer
>Institute of Physics Publishing
>Dirac House, Temple Back
>Bristol BS1 6BE, UK
>tel +44 (0)117 930 1262
>fax +44 (0)117 920 0960
><tim.beadle at iop.org>
>http://iop.org/
>
>--
>underscore_ list info/archive -> http://www.under-score.org.uk


--