Quote:
Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head
I completely agree. That's why I suggested a small seamless repeating background, rather than making some sort of fixed dimension background. Doesn't matter what it is. Could be a logo or a gradient or whatever.
For example: If your content is 800x600, and you make a background 1024px wide, you're covered for users up to 1024px but anyone with a larger res gets a fucked up presentation. If you have a seamless repeating bg, everyone is covered no matter what their res is.
This goes for any sizes you want to insert into the equation. Fixed dimension, non-seamless backgrounds are bad news no matter what you're designing your content width to be. This should all be obvious & elementary to designers. The only reason I mentioned it at all is because he was talking about making a background of 1600px - 1800px, which to me sounded like he was making one big background image, which is not a good idea. Soon as someone with a resolution bigger than that comes along, his background is blown.
|
I disagree. I have made a lot of fixed size backgrounds. I usually go with 1600 wide (with content of course kept below 1000) ... the trick is to have that background fade out AND positioned correctly. This way, users with 1600+ wide resolution can see the whole image and then whatever it fades out to becomes the bg color. It's simple really, but takes some planning.
The beauty of the body tag is obviously that it doesn't create that vertical scrollbar even if it is wider that the users resolution. It's crazy not to take advantage of that.
If done right, users at 1024 see most of the bg image, users above that see all of it and users below it may see none of it, but that's the price THEY pay for being blind LOL
I'll try to find an example of what I am talking about...