On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:

> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
> any of these techniques at all?
An Irish railway site might be expected to be slightly wider than standard.

--
Arthur Figgis

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>> any of these techniques at all?
> An Irish railway site might be expected to be slightly wider than standard.
>

👏

On 23/08/2022 19:14, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>> any of these techniques at all?
> An Irish railway site might be expected to be slightly wider than standard.
>

;-)

--
Colin

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 19:14:34 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:

>On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>> any of these techniques at all?
>An Irish railway site might be expected to be slightly wider than standard.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_narrow-gauge_railways_in_Ireland>

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>> any of these techniques at all?
> An Irish railway site might be expected to be slightly wider than standard.

Neat!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <te24ii$2uq6m$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:53:38 on Tue, 23 Aug
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 23/08/2022 09:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <7vc5ghd0i6m0b9javlemh6btu18mnuvtf7@4ax.com>, at 23:44:35
>>on Sun, 21 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 10:07:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> My suspicions is that most developers have massive screens and assume
>>>>> most homes have them at well.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt this is the root cause. Any developer working for a site of
>>>>any significance is going to know that most traffic these days will
>>>>come from mobile devices with small screens, usually in portrait
>>>>orientation. The trick is to decide when the display is actually a
>>>>desktop/laptop and what to do about it. If you browse using a low
>>>>res desktop/laptop don’t be surprised if you get sent down the
>>>>mobile phone rendering route. There’s only so many display
>>>>layouts that can be adequately tested and honed for useability.
>>>
>>> What's more often an issue is websites that don't work well when
>>>windowed. The majority of PC users, these days, run their browsers
>>>full screen. Which means that there are, basically, three common
>>>viewing sizes: PC, tablet and phone. And website designers tend to
>>>optimise around those three sizes. Which can have the effect of
>>>breaking websites when viewing them windowed on a PC screen,
>>>because the window isn't the full width of the screen itself but, on
>>>the other hand, it's not quite narrow enough to trigger the small screen view mode.

>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question
>>uses any of these techniques at all? Let alone why that might be the
>>reason the in-line photos sometimes fail to appear.
>
>We know why, a legacy user with a legacy browser on a legacy screen
>with the perennial bleat that it allegedly meets some long-superceded
>standard from when Victoria was queen.

That's not a reason, it's an alleged symptom. The *reason* has so far
evaded the assembled masses.

In any event, you've swallowed some trolling, hook line and sinker.

What's a "legacy screen" for example. It's just one of many screens I
use for different purposes. In this case almost exclusively for a 130 x
100 [columns x lines] display of usenet postings, which I dare say is
more than most others have. Other stuff I use a different screen.

Using two screens is helpful because it makes it easier to transcribe
information from sources who publish PDF and Word/Excel documents, into
Usenet/email postings.

And of course, when displaying a "legacy" web page such as the
Irish-Modeller one (as a result of a link turning up in a Usenet
posting), the resolution is more than adequate to view their photos
which are at most 495 x 372.

If I ever posted photos like that, people would complain they were
grainy and too small, because apparently I couldn't afford a more
expensive camera.

We could go on to discuss when Usenet standards were last updated, or
the user was first online, or even the browser's most recent update.

The latter's perhaps the easiest: Last Sunday at 5am

The middle one, around 1982; the first, well do your own homework.
--
Roland Perry

In message <0rj9gh5uqo23936fpmsq40k40fak207dvr@4ax.com>, at 14:03:24 on
Tue, 23 Aug 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>We know the reason why the photos on the Irish Modeller site don't
>immediately appear for you. It's because it won't serve an inline photo to a
>browser that doesn't accept cookies.

You must have missed my earlier posting which said nothing changed after
I enabled all cookies.
--
Roland Perry

In message <te23ko$2upbf$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:37:44 on Tue, 23 Aug
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>> any of these techniques at all? Let alone why that might be the reason
>> the in-line photos sometimes fail to appear.
>
>That's more likely to be something to do with JavaScript being enabled or
>not. That page displayed correctly, with the images, on my phone. How about
>on your phone?

My browser in question has both Java and Javascript enabled.

Why would I want to look at it on my phone, when I have a setup which is
slightly larger than an A3 page [in portrait mode]?

I'm sure I've said before how one of my other screens (the same physical
size) is capable of readably displaying four pages of A4 pdfs (two
across two down).
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 12:00:14 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <te23ko$2upbf$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:37:44 on Tue, 23 Aug
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> Do we have any evidence that the Irish Modeller site in question uses
>>> any of these techniques at all? Let alone why that might be the reason
>>> the in-line photos sometimes fail to appear.
>>
>>That's more likely to be something to do with JavaScript being enabled or
>>not. That page displayed correctly, with the images, on my phone. How about
>>on your phone?
>
>My browser in question has both Java and Javascript enabled.

Yes, it's apparently turning off cookies that's your problem. You should be grateful for all the IT support you get here
for your myriad technical problems!

>
>Why would I want to look at it on my phone, when I have a setup which is
>slightly larger than an A3 page [in portrait mode]?

I know perfectly well that the phone isn't the preferred device to view it on. I was simply asking if the page
displayed properly on the phone's browser (presumably Chrome).

>
>I'm sure I've said before how one of my other screens (the same physical
>size) is capable of readably displaying four pages of A4 pdfs (two
>across two down).

What is its resolution?

In message <9h94ghdf70qccvv246j6brmcli7i2idkjm@4ax.com>, at 13:36:07 on
Sun, 21 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> But let's try with yet another browser. This time no photos auto-load,
>>>>>>>> but the two "IMG" at the bottom do come up when clicked without
>>>>>>>> requiring a sign-in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Strabane-turntable.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what it looks like outside Perryworld (without clicking on
>>>>>>> anything or signing in):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ^^ that's arrived 92 wide, and viewable with no sideways scrolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> 92 what wide?
>>>>
>>>> May come as a huge surprise to you, but Usenet is primarily a text-based
>>>> medium. So 92 characters.
>>>
>>>We were discussing a website, not Usenet.
>>
>>Indeed, it wasn't me who suddenly changed the subject to graphical
>>screen resolution, via the deliberate misinterpretation of my "92"
>>metric, which could only have been characters, not pixels.
>
>Web page widths aren't measured in characters. Even you must know that.

Screen widths are though. Even ones also capable of graphics.

A classic IBM CGA is just as well known for being 80x25 as 640x200

(That's each character being 8x8 pixels, although conventionally only
7x7 was used most of the time, to avoid blending with adjacent cells).
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 13:02:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <9h94ghdf70qccvv246j6brmcli7i2idkjm@4ax.com>, at 13:36:07 on
>Sun, 21 Aug 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> But let's try with yet another browser. This time no photos auto-load,
>>>>>>>>> but the two "IMG" at the bottom do come up when clicked without
>>>>>>>>> requiring a sign-in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Strabane-turntable.jpg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is what it looks like outside Perryworld (without clicking on
>>>>>>>> anything or signing in):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^^ that's arrived 92 wide, and viewable with no sideways scrolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 92 what wide?
>>>>>
>>>>> May come as a huge surprise to you, but Usenet is primarily a text-based
>>>>> medium. So 92 characters.
>>>>
>>>>We were discussing a website, not Usenet.
>>>
>>>Indeed, it wasn't me who suddenly changed the subject to graphical
>>>screen resolution, via the deliberate misinterpretation of my "92"
>>>metric, which could only have been characters, not pixels.
>>
>>Web page widths aren't measured in characters. Even you must know that.
>
>Screen widths are though. Even ones also capable of graphics.
>
>A classic IBM CGA is just as well known for being 80x25 as 640x200
>
>(That's each character being 8x8 pixels, although conventionally only
>7x7 was used most of the time, to avoid blending with adjacent cells).

I have news for you: variable character widths have become the norm since you switched off in the 1980s.