I have put up with this but I wondered if anyone can point me to some way to make this nicer…
Looking at the previews, it does not show the differences I see here when viewing the pages directly in FF, in fact here it ALL looks horrid. When I am viewing the pages in FF the text looks OK, but the “text as an image” looks foul!
For instance in #2 below, the tabs, *“home, casino, poker, sports etc etc” *look really ragged and horrible, the ones below them, “UserCP, FAQ, members list, calendar etc etc” seem to render fine…
Equally, Google’s Banner/logo is horrible, the text below it is fine.
Here on openSuse forum, the edit/quote/post reply buttons as well as the little “light” next to my avatar showing if I am online are *really *bad, the text itself is OK
In the edit window, the little icon buttons for for font, insert link image etc are horrible, text is OK
It may be something to do with scaling of these “textpics”. Anything I can do??
I will try and find a way to post that shows the difference, and what I mean, but your thoughts are very welcome, please!
wakou wrote:
> Cheers Caf…
> I use “<ctrl> +” and "<ctrl> - " when I want to zoom a page in FF. The
> problems remain, (but bigger/smaller natch!)
are you using the Firefox add-on “NoSquint”?
if no, then go Firefox Menu > View > Zoom > and if the “Zoom Text
only” does not have a check mark, then click on it (to enable/place a
check mark) then try caf’s prescription again…
if you are using NoSquint (or any similar addon), try disabling it
then follow the above, and then try caf’s prescription again…or:
go to Firefox Menu > View > Zoom > Zoom Settings (NoSquint) > Zooming
and spin the “Primary zoom method” from “Full Page Zoom (images and
text)” to “Text Zoom (text only)” and then try caf’s suggestion
TyVVM Both of you!.. Much better! But… (ain’t there always a but with me )
It’s a bit two steps forward one step back, but is *much better! (Zoom > Text only, not using “squint” although I *am fast developing one!)
But now it is so difficult to use as webpages waste most of my screen and the banner graphics are smaller than I would ideally prefer. I would like everything bigger, but as nice and clear as it is now… I am ATM typing in to a minuscule box surrounded by vast acres of grey!
to me those look like a web design problem at the site you are
at…that is, to me it looks like they have decided the width of the
screen they want you to see…
yes, that is the problem…i just went to http://www.wassonline.com/
and in full screen i get three columns in the middle of the screen and
a bunch of wasted space on the sides…
imho that is really poor “web design”…good luck on getting them to
change it…they probably paid lots of money for that particular
“look” after doing tons of research on exactly how to best ‘excite’
the deficient gambler gene in some and get them to empty their pockets
and bank account before they leave…
there is science to how they hook in the weak and the losers…
As all tweets have to be < 168 characters, they could fit more on a screen? No doubt saving the space for advertising…
I agree that the WASS forum site is a truly HORRIBLE mess, loud flashing adverts etc etc
Join me in emailing vBulletin with some moaning?
I need fonts to be bigger than most people, I need new glasses! So the text box would be much better for me were it a good deal wider!
At least vBulletin allows you to extend the editing box vertically. Codeweavers have their own forum software; the box is wider (v good!) but horrid fontage (no choice), and you can only see about 20 lines of what you have typed, and there is no preview option…
Anyways, it is nice when you sit down at the ol’ computer and do some tinkering to have actually achieved something real at the close of play. Today I upped to KDE4.4 with no probs at all (Thanks due to Caf and mmarif4u) and also now Firefox looks Soooooo much nicer due to the advice in this thread.
I realise it was me needing to have everything slightly bigger than Mr Average Joe, and had zoomed all my regular pages and in doing so had foobed any “images of text” and made them look horrible.
Big TY’s to Caf and Palladium, also to someone called ?bogo?? on #openSuse IRC for their patience and expertise…
Onwards and upwards!
Next job? Mebbe tinker with DPI settings to suit my pore old eyepieces…
It is easy to bitch. Have you tried to design a web page that looks decent
on any screen from 640 x 480 to 1920 x 1080? Note the change in aspect ratio.
so you will, right? (bitch about my viewpoint that is…)
> Have you tried to design a web page that looks decent
> on any screen from 640 x 480 to 1920 x 1080? Note the change in aspect ratio.
yep.
if the ‘web designer’ stops trying to make it look like a magazine
page or TV ad (with specific, preset height/width format and
‘standard’ gutters and borders) and instead just use the space to
deliver information…then all those somewhere between 640x480 through
1440x900 to 1920x1080 ‘problems’ just fade away…
i try to make the largest majority of mine ‘flow’ according to what
the receiver has, or wants…and gladly encourage them to squeeze it
down to paperback book width if they wanna read it that way…
been doing it that way since 1995…
sure, i know the advertising department wants it to look like a shiny
magazine page, still…but, even they will get over that when 90% of
the content is being viewed on something carried in a pocket or purse…
>JosephKK wrote:
>> It is easy to bitch.
>
>so you will, right? (bitch about my viewpoint that is…)
>
Just did didn’t i?
>
>> Have you tried to design a web page that looks decent
>> on any screen from 640 x 480 to 1920 x 1080? Note the change in aspect ratio.
>
>yep.
Getting auto scaling right is hard, and when the text raveling changes
it gets really nasty. I got one page working so-so and quit doing it.
>
>if the ‘web designer’ stops trying to make it look like a magazine
>page or TV ad (with specific, preset height/width format and
>‘standard’ gutters and borders) and instead just use the space to
>deliver information…then all those somewhere between 640x480 through
>1440x900 to 1920x1080 ‘problems’ just fade away…
>
>i try to make the largest majority of mine ‘flow’ according to what
>the receiver has, or wants…and gladly encourage them to squeeze it
>down to paperback book width if they wanna read it that way…
>
>been doing it that way since 1995…
>
>sure, i know the advertising department wants it to look like a shiny
>magazine page, still…but, even they will get over that when 90% of
>the content is being viewed on something carried in a pocket or purse…
And even more extreme variation in aspect ratios as well. Then again
marketing types are often some of the slowest to learn types.
Why have people here switched over from the matter in question and started discussion about web-design ? >:(
Better to keep silent if nothing to say :X
The terrible image scaling really annoys !
)
O:O
