To be honest though, with that layout it's only going to be a problem with really small monitors, ie. netbooks. If the navigation was at the top of the page, you'd be forever scrolling back and forth to view the pictures anyway.

At some point you have to decide what the minimum size monitor you want to design for is. The vast majority of people have monitors of 1024x768 or higher. I wouldn't base my whole design around the thought of someone with a netbook not being able to find their way around as well as the large majority of users.

Of course, using CSS you could always control the layout to suit the monitor...

Dan

Quite clearly to me. To this extent:



I've circled the points I used to get the reflection right. It looks too extreme when the angle of correction is shown, but when it's cropped...



...it looks right. Well, I think it does, anyway.

Note, I'm not trying to get the bank level, but in the centre of the frame, two points on an object and its reflection should be lined up vertically. Unless you want it to be wonky...

Dan

Brian, I can see the content fine now, as long as I extend the height of the broweser to accommodate it. I too no longer use frames for layout (although I do use iframes for content that I don't need search engines to find, and I want to update easily*), and much prefer the control of CSS.

I would be very tempted if I were you, and if I wanted to keep on using frames, to change the layout of the page, perhaps like this...




...as I think it would solve the problems you're having at the moment with the height of the frame.

Having said that, can't you just specifiy the height and width of the frames? Looking at the source for my own website, where I use iframes, I have:

< iframe name="bonus" src="frames/bonus1.htm" frameborder="0" width="200" height="400" >

That seems to do the trick for me.

Dan

* (forgot I'd asterisked, hence the edit) one of the websites I've done uses Blogger for the whole site apart from one iframe (the 'gigs' page). Due to the design, if I wanted to update this part without using iframes, I'd have to edit the Blogger template. Everything else on there is done with DIVs, and the visibility attribute. Along with some Flash and javascipt...

I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned that it's wonky...

Dan

Well, it was Cromer off season.

Dan

My Mrs has a Samsung NC10 and it's superb, easily gets 6 hours+ battery life, nice keyboard etc. We used it mainly for storage on holiday the other week (no internet access /), didn't have to charge it once.

Dan

That's for Micro SD, which is much smaller than an SD card.

This one is the 15-1 reader that Brian mentioned, as far as I know it would just transfer at the rate your computer port was capable of, so if it is USB1.1 it would still work, but just be a lot slower. However, USB2.0 was released back in 2000, so chances are your USB ports will be this standard anyway.

Dan

Thanks all!

I wasn't expecting to spend so much time on the beaches, but we kept being drawn back to them. Just had a quick count-up of sand, shingle, groyne and reflection shots, and there are over 150 that I've kept. These days I only keep a photo if it's sharp, well composed (in my eyes), well exposed... I try to weed out any similar shots that don't cut the mustard, so 150 of one sort of subject in a week is quite high for me, but I found the beaches very inspiring.

As a guide, although I took around 50 of the Grebe shots in the other thread, I only kept 7, and was brutal with the editing down - those 7 are sharp etc etc, the others didn't quite cut it.

Dan

Dan

If the card reader's built in, probably not. If you've got a seperate reader, it would depend entirely on the spec of that.

Dan