Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
I wonder if you could help with a problem which is taking me to my wits end!
I am dealing with a client who has little knowledge on web browsers, site design and particularly screen resolution.
Under strict instruction, we have produced a highly structured site designed primarily for 800 x 600 resolution. The site required tables, with fixed pixel widths - there is no other way that the design (which they were also insistent they have to look like a brochure!) will work.
After convincing the client that they cannot avoid a minimum of 'scrolling' (they thought think that everyone views the web using precisely their own browser set up for toolbars, favourites etc.) they are now 'shocked' to see that their site which neatly occupies a 'standard' 800 x 600 screen looks 'smaller' when viewed at 1024 or 768 or above.
Everthing 'works', there are no differences in their site at either resolution, they just cannot get their head around the 'additional space' when viewed at a higher resolution.
I have told them to the best of my ability why their site appears smaller at a high resolution, the actual advantages of this, etc. etc. etc. but they are still 'very concerned'.
Can someone please offer any more help in explaining why a site is affected by the screen resolution!
To add insult to injury, the client is actually a leading technology consultancy! It's just the people who have been tasked with managing their site are complete novices.
I assure you, this post is not a 'wind-up' :)
If you detect 1024x768 & IE, set it to zoom to 1.28
Since about 90% of visitors use IE 5.5 or IE 6.x you know the zoom will work.
Here's a simple little demo from Microsoft:
I noticed that your client used some examples of sites that looked similar at different resolutions. Now I can almost guarantee you that he searched through a lot of sites to find those few examples.
I think you need to realize that this client is seeing how far he can push you, and how much he can get "included" in your quoted price. He "cherry picks" the sites that are good examples and doesn't admit that he realizes most sites do look very different at different resolutions.
The after-thought requirement for all pages to fit on a printed sheet is crazy. 1 site out of 5 will, and I'm sure he knows that. He is trying to change his requirements from site design to "end all - be all".
Make it clear where you stand, and that there are costs for his added requirements.
When you change resolutions, you are therefore telling your PC to shrink content in tradeoff for added desktop space. If you make a change to a computer setting, then you see such results, plain and simple.
Good luck with this client
Is there a better way to get around this problem?
However, and one of the reasons I won't ever be a millionaire, is that I am discouraging them from taking a course of action which will result in additional costs from my company.
They already have (in it's 800 x 600 optimised form) IMHO a very good site which meets the exact terms of their brief, meets their wider marketing objectives and thensome.
I feel that not trying to 'milk' a naive client is the ethical thing to do, even if we are percieved as being 'difficult' in trying to save them money and do the right thing!
But, if they do insist then it will cost them extra...
Is the document.body.style.zoom a css job?
The code on the ref page doesn't look like it.
<DIV style="zoom: 100%">
<H1> Welcome to seattle!</H1>
<P>A great city in the beautiful state of Washington.</P>
Also if someone was to solely concentrate on this feature then it will mean All Nescape users and IE5 and below will not see the site as it's meant to, let alone all the other less known browser like Opera and so on.
The must be another way of doing this?