quote:

---

Look at my weblog please!

---

That has to be the worst pickup line I've ever heard!!!


 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Hey, at least he said please.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
I don't need lines to pick up posable men!
 

---

Posted by Posable_Man (Member # 5105) on :
 

 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It's pretty simple. You've got the content id set to be 70% of the width, and the links id set to be 200px. Sometimes those add up to more than 100%. Normally, this would result in the page overflowing, except for where you have the links id conceptually anchored to: the right side (this is indicated by float: right).

Which results in overlap at screen resolutions where 70% + 200px is greater than the width.

You have few options for "fixing" it, actually, with the way your page is laid out now. Well, sort of. If Internet Explorer supported standards well, I'd say just put a min-width on the body for the value where 30% would equal 200px. That way, there would never be any overlap, though if one made the page too small one would have to scroll. Of course, IE doesn't support min-width, so scratch that (you can still do it for other people, but its not really a solution).

You could always set the links id to take up a certain percentage of your screen (less than or equal to 30). While this would solve that problem, it would result in the page looking considerably less elegant at higher widths. As the trend for screen size is bigger and bigger, I'd avoid this.

Another thing is you could make the links div a child of the content div, give it a relative positioning and set it to position itself right: -200px. That should ensure it gets anchored to the right side of the content rather than the right side of the screen, meaning it will never overlap with the content. This is the most working solution of the lot, but requires more fiddling and testing to make sure it works on all browsers.

So yeah, those are your basic options if you want to keep the code almost entirely the same.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Go with an assumption of 800x600 for the page, then use CSS to define static DIVs for the two columns. *shrug* That's what I call gestapo design.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
See, TomD is of the school of "inelegant but functional".

Don't listen to him, for his is the way of the darkside (plus, your blog will really feel lost on those larger screens).


 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Thanks, fugu! And Tom, even though I'm not going to listen to you. I think I'll try the third suggestion and see if I can get it to work. Will probably be back with more silly questions later.

Oh, and by the way:

quote:

---

You could always set the links id to take up a certain percentage of your screen (less than or equal to 30). While this would solve that problem, it would result in the page looking considerably less elegant at higher widths. As the trend for screen size is bigger and bigger, I'd avoid this.

---