http://www.galtsvalley.com

Hi all. I've recently made some major stylistic changes to my site and now
it is essentially a new design with some new CSS plumbing. I am hoping that
a few hardy souls can go check it out and tell me how it renders on their
platform/browser combos. I have tested it under W2K, WXP, and System 9 on a
Power Mac 8600:

W2K: IE5.5 and Opera 7.1 (some small issues in Opera)
WXP: IE6 and NS7.1 (in IE6 a strange jerkiness when clicking on links that
are not inline... bottom margins seem to collapse a bit...)
OS9/Mac: IE5.1 and NS6 (very good)

Reports on Mozilla, Firebird, other NS and IE versions, and later Mac
platforms most appreciated!

Brian

B McDonald wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://www.galtsvalley.com
>
> Hi all. I've recently made some major stylistic changes to my site and now
> it is essentially a new design with some new CSS plumbing. I am hoping
> that a few hardy souls can go check it out and tell me how it renders on
> their platform/browser combos. I have tested it under W2K, WXP, and System
> 9 on a Power Mac 8600:
>
> W2K: IE5.5 and Opera 7.1 (some small issues in Opera)
> WXP: IE6 and NS7.1 (in IE6 a strange jerkiness when clicking on links that
> are not inline... bottom margins seem to collapse a bit...)
> OS9/Mac: IE5.1 and NS6 (very good)
>
> Reports on Mozilla, Firebird, other NS and IE versions, and later Mac
> platforms most appreciated!
>
> Brian[/color]

Looks ok on Konqueror and Mozilla Firebird, but you might want to correct
those errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...svalley.com%2F

--
mvg,
Christophe Vanfleteren

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
> http://www.galtsvalley.com
>
> I am hoping that
> a few hardy souls can go check it out and tell me how it renders on their
> platform/browser combos.[/color]

Moz 1.3/Win 2k. For some reason, you think you know better than I
what font-size I prefer.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

>[color=blue]
> Moz 1.3/Win 2k. For some reason, you think you know better than I
> what font-size I prefer.
>
> --
> Brian[/color]

Wait. Which? I have defined most font sizes as %. They will scale with
personal settings. The only one I can think of off-hand that won't is
GALTSVALLEY.COM at the top - it's px.

Believe it or not, I actually took your advice soon after you gave it two or
three weeks ago.

Brian

Wait. Thinking...

I guess I missed the point. It's not that you can enlarge or reduce the text
on my site, it's that I reduce it or enlarge it as a % of the settings you
have set for yourself. So - are you saying I should define all my font sizes
as em?

Brian

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
> Wait. Thinking...
>
> I guess I missed the point. It's not that you can enlarge or reduce the text
> on my site, it's that I reduce it or enlarge it as a % of the settings you
> have set for yourself. So - are you saying I should define all my font sizes
> as em?[/color]

No. Just don't use 65%, 70%, 80%. Your text should be 100%. Headers
larger, copyright notices smaller. All else 100%. Drop the Verdana and
you'll see why.

The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

>[color=blue]
> No. Just don't use 65%, 70%, 80%. Your text should be 100%. Headers
> larger, copyright notices smaller. All else 100%. Drop the Verdana and
> you'll see why.
>[/color]

Thanks. I conducted a little test and set the font-style to 'sans serif' and
the font-size to 100%. I'm not disappointed by what I see... but I do have a
couple questions.

(1) What should I set the line-height to? or does it not matter?
(2) I generally keep my IE text size setting set to "medium". With font-size
set to 100%, when the IE text size is set to anything larger than medium the
text immediately gets bolded. I don't like that. Should I care?
[color=blue]
> The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
> scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.
>[/color]

Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
a loss here. What decade are we in?

B McDonald wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
>>scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.
>>[/color]
>
>
> Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
> a loss here. What decade are we in?
>
>[/color]
The default setting for majority of monitors are at 800x600. There are quite a
few people that do not know who to change their resolution to anything higher
even though their monitor support is and would probably even look better.

--
TrickyNick
Nick_At-Sign_TrickyNick_Period_com
http://www.trickynick.com/
Development: http://www.trickynick.com/test/

> The default setting for majority of monitors are at 800x600. There are
quite a[color=blue]
> few people that do not know who to change their resolution to anything[/color]
higher[color=blue]
> even though their monitor support is and would probably even look better.
>[/color]

See. I knew that. Just two weeks ago I changed the screen resolution on my
best friend's parent's computer. They were in awe of the result. Their
machine turned into a brand new computer for them.

But still - why should I, or anyone for that matter, design for such a
limitation? It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.

Brian

B McDonald wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>The default setting for majority of monitors are at 800x600. There are[/color]
>
> quite a
>[color=green]
>>few people that do not know who to change their resolution to anything[/color]
>
> higher
>[color=green]
>>even though their monitor support is and would probably even look better.
>>[/color]
>
>
> See. I knew that. Just two weeks ago I changed the screen resolution on my
> best friend's parent's computer. They were in awe of the result. Their
> machine turned into a brand new computer for them.
>
> But still - why should I, or anyone for that matter, design for such a
> limitation? It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
> to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.
>
> Brian
>
>[/color]

So, you want to design your page which most people will have to scroll
horizontally to see all your information?

Remember, majority of people are not as computer savvy as we are.

--
TrickyNick
Nick_At-Sign_TrickyNick_Period_com
http://www.trickynick.com/
Development: http://www.trickynick.com/test/

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
>
> But still - why should I, or anyone for that matter, design for such a
> limitation?[/color]

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnySizeDesign
[color=blue]
> It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
> to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.[/color]

If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
off your site and reduce the noise.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > No. Just don't use 65%, 70%, 80%. Your text should be 100%. Headers
> > larger, copyright notices smaller. All else 100%. Drop the Verdana and
> > you'll see why.
> >[/color]
>
> Thanks. I conducted a little test and set the font-style to 'sans serif' and
> the font-size to 100%. I'm not disappointed by what I see... but I do have a
> couple questions.[/color]

That's good. Do understand that your visitors will most likely *not* have
their computers and monitors (and browser window sizes) the same as yours.
[color=blue]
> (1) What should I set the line-height to? or does it not matter?[/color]

Leave it to the default, except in the most unusual circumstances.
[color=blue]
> (2) I generally keep my IE text size setting set to "medium". With font-size
> set to 100%, when the IE text size is set to anything larger than medium the
> text immediately gets bolded. I don't like that. Should I care?[/color]

100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)
[color=blue][color=green]
> > The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
> > scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.[/color][/color]

If the CSS for that "banner" was set at some number of em, it wouldn't
overflow.
[color=blue]
>
> Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
> a loss here. What decade are we in?[/color]

The object here is to design for... no size. Make it float so that in my
740px window, I still don't need scrollbars. Monitor resolution is not
equal to browser window size. Most people with high resolution screens do
not browse with the window maximized.

http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Here's a site of mine. Note how you can change your font to any size, and
make the browser window whatever size you care to, and it all still fits.
http://www.freezeblock.com/ No scrollbars necessary.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

> So, you want to design your page which most people will have to scroll[color=blue]
> horizontally to see all your information?
>
> Remember, majority of people are not as computer savvy as we are.
>[/color]

I know. It's a good point to remember. But often certain "rules of good
design" are bandied about in ciwas like edicts. (Look at "Beauregard T.
Shagnasty"'s remark - he curtly commands that I "redesign (my) template to
eliminate it".) Did Mr. Shagnasty stop a moment to reflect on whether or not
it matters, in every case, that a website be designed to fit the 800x600
viewport? I'm not sure it's important in my case. I'm not sure the added
grief is worth my effort. And I would sooner tell the CSS violator of the
800x600 dimension, that it's happening and nothing more (or perhaps profer a
work-around that will preserve the same effect).

Now, Brian's remark (also curt) about me force-feeding people like him my
font-size preferences - that's excellent advice. Maybe he was curt (if he
even remembers) because I (seemingly) ignored him the first time. But he's
convinced me that his issue is one with which I've got to concern myself.
And he's made me hell-bent on pleasing people like him.

It's a fine line to walk you Shagnasty's of the world.

Brian

> > It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose[color=blue][color=green]
> > to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.[/color]
>
> If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
> off your site and reduce the noise.
>[/color]

Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us if
he didn't write his daily poetry?

Maybe you should stick to technical advice.

> > Thanks. I conducted a little test and set the font-style to 'sans serif'
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > the font-size to 100%. I'm not disappointed by what I see... but I do[/color][/color]
have a[color=blue][color=green]
> > couple questions.[/color]
>
> That's good. Do understand that your visitors will most likely *not* have
> their computers and monitors (and browser window sizes) the same as yours.
>[color=green]
> > (1) What should I set the line-height to? or does it not matter?[/color]
>
> Leave it to the default, except in the most unusual circumstances.
>[/color]

Ok.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > (2) I generally keep my IE text size setting set to "medium". With[/color][/color]
font-size[color=blue][color=green]
> > set to 100%, when the IE text size is set to anything larger than medium[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > text immediately gets bolded. I don't like that. Should I care?[/color]
>
> 100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
> problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
> set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)
>[/color]

Ok. I use IE as my baseline because that's how most people exerience the
web.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
> > > scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.[/color][/color]
>
> If the CSS for that "banner" was set at some number of em, it wouldn't
> overflow.
>[color=green]
> >
> > Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm[/color][/color]
at[color=blue][color=green]
> > a loss here. What decade are we in?[/color]
>
> The object here is to design for... no size. Make it float so that in my
> 740px window, I still don't need scrollbars. Monitor resolution is not
> equal to browser window size. Most people with high resolution screens do
> not browse with the window maximized.
>
> http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>
> Here's a site of mine. Note how you can change your font to any size, and
> make the browser window whatever size you care to, and it all still fits.
> http://www.freezeblock.com/ No scrollbars necessary.
>[/color]

You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago. Thanks for the
thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
800x600 matters to me.

Brian
[color=blue]
> --
> -bts
> -This space intentionally left blank.[/color]

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
> > 100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
> > problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
> > set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)[/color]
>
> Ok. I use IE as my baseline because that's how most people exerience the
> web.[/color]

OT: this may change, as more people learn that the next version of IE
isn't due until 2006 - and then you'll have to buy the entire OS.

<snip>[color=blue][color=green]
> > The object here is to design for... no size. Make it float so that in my
> > 740px window, I still don't need scrollbars. Monitor resolution is not
> > equal to browser window size. Most people with high resolution screens do
> > not browse with the window maximized.
> >
> > http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
> >
> > Here's a site of mine. Note how you can change your font to any size, and
> > make the browser window whatever size you care to, and it all still fits.
> > http://www.freezeblock.com/ No scrollbars necessary.
> >[/color]
>
> You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago.[/color]

Not a problem. Most answers in these groups are "curt." If we all had time
to write lengthy flowing stories... Besides, I'm trying to watch the Cubs
whack the Braves.
[color=blue]
> Thanks for the
> thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
> 800x600 matters to me.[/color]

Except for p3nis spam, size doesn't matter <g>.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:TBqeb.24198$oa4.21432@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> 100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
> problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
> set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)[/color]

If most users don't know how to change their resolution and end up
discovering that a higher resolution is, in fact, preferred, then how can
you assume that the default font size is the user's preference? Maybe they
just haven't figured out how to change it yet. :)

Jonathan


--
http://www.snook.ca/

Jonathan Snook pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:TBqeb.24198$oa4.21432@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > 100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
> > problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
> > set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)[/color]
>
> If most users don't know how to change their resolution and end up
> discovering that a higher resolution is, in fact, preferred, then how can
> you assume that the default font size is the user's preference? Maybe they
> just haven't figured out how to change it yet. :)[/color]

Quite right, but even the clueless user is still in charge. Better that
than an author forcing something they *may* not know they don't like. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

> > You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago.[color=blue]
>
> Not a problem. Most answers in these groups are "curt." If we all had time
> to write lengthy flowing stories... Besides, I'm trying to watch the Cubs
> whack the Braves.
>[color=green]
> > Thanks for the
> > thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
> > 800x600 matters to me.[/color]
>
> Except for p3nis spam, size doesn't matter <g>.
>[/color]

And maybe mine was a non-argument from the start. Maybe a little thinking on
the subject (of 800x600)was all that stood between me and realizing I should
take a look at it.

The big issue, for me, is how to achieve the size of GALTSVALLEY.COM (as you
see under non-restrictive screen res) without resorting to an image. Your
FreezeBlock.com site header is an image; the letters are about the same size
of the letters in GALTSVALLEY.COM (at my screen res). The question: How can
I reproduce the same effect already achieved (in plain text) but that would
render fine in 800x600?

testing...

For example, changing the font-size from 80px to 475% recreates the effect
at my screen res. Is it as simple as that?

testing...

No. Changing my screen res to 800x600 shows the 'M' in ".COM" just goes off
the RHS of the page.

Is the solution that I would just have to settle for smaller letters?

Brian

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
<snip>[color=blue]
> And maybe mine was a non-argument from the start. Maybe a little thinking on
> the subject (of 800x600)was all that stood between me and realizing I should
> take a look at it.[/color]

Hey, we're getting somewhere! <g> Think fluid.
[color=blue]
> The big issue, for me, is how to achieve the size of GALTSVALLEY.COM (as you
> see under non-restrictive screen res) without resorting to an image. Your
> FreezeBlock.com site header is an image;[/color]

...supplied by the client who had a neighborhood kid make it before I was
called to do the site. It isn't a particularly good one either, so I
couldn't mess with it with my limited graphics capabilities. The kid
actually did the first version of the site, and *everything* was a
graphic.
[color=blue]
> the letters are about the same size
> of the letters in GALTSVALLEY.COM (at my screen res). The question: How can
> I reproduce the same effect already achieved (in plain text) but that would
> render fine in 800x600?
>
> testing...
>
> For example, changing the font-size from 80px to 475% recreates the effect
> at my screen res. Is it as simple as that?[/color]

Probably. IMO the banner would look better if it was about 2/3 browser
width at 800x600. Maybe around 300% ? Some number of em?
[color=blue]
> testing...
>
> No. Changing my screen res to 800x600 shows the 'M' in ".COM" just goes off
> the RHS of the page.[/color]

Instead of changing your resolution to test, put this bit of JavaScript in
a local page:

<a href="javascript:resizeTo(640,480)">640x480</a> /
<a href="javascript:resizeTo(800,600)">800x600</a> /
<a href="javascript:resizeTo(1004,728)">1024x768</a>

The last is a bit smaller to allow for my taskbar.
[color=blue]
> Is the solution that I would just have to settle for smaller letters?[/color]

They are pretty large. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

"B McDonald" <no@spam.com> exclaimed in <4Fpeb.1713$sU3.143@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>:
[color=blue]
> Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
> a loss here. What decade are we in?[/color]

We're in the "Noone knows what resolutions are in use, and it doesn't
matter if we did" decade - but alot of designers haven't caught on
yet.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

"B McDonald" <no@spam.com> exclaimed in <nLqeb.1723$C84.339@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
>> > to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.[/color]
>>
>> If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
>> off your site and reduce the noise.
>>[/color]
>
> Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us if
> he didn't write his daily poetry?[/color]

Well, if he wrote only for himself, then we'd be neither better nor worse
off, since none of us would read it.

But perhaps he DID write for others, too ?

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
>Brian wrote ...[color=green]
>> B McDonald wrote:[/color][/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
>> > to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.[/color]
>>
>> If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
>> off your site and reduce the noise.[/color]
>
> Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of
> us if he didn't write his daily poetry?[/color]
[snip]

The real answer to the question that you are responding to is "cater for your
client's target audience, and they may not be the masses".

You may be your own client, of course. (As I am for all of my sites).

That doesn't mean specifically code to inhibit the rest. And there are many
equal-cost alternatives where one version is more widely accessible than
another, and it worth getting into the habit of doing things the more
accessible way.

But there comes a point at which it is valid to say "that is all I am prepared
to spend on this, everyone else can take pot-luck or walk away".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

B McDonald wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window?
> I'm at a loss here. What decade are we in?[/color]

My reading is that still nearly half of viewers have that size screen,
although the proportion is steadily reducing.

Some say "design so that resolution doesn't matter". But that is hard when
images are being provided, whether GIF (or whatever) diagrams, or JPEG
photographs. Hard decisions have to be made - they are not flexible like text
is.

After some tests on 640 x 480 screens, I decided not to spend any time
worrying about that case. I don't deliberately exclude them - I simply ignore
them. What they do it up to them. If they are able to resize, horizontally
scroll, manage with just the alt text - fine. If they walk away - also fine.

After a lot of checking, I decided for my latest site that all photographs
would fit in a 700 x 500 (width x height) pixel box, snug in at least one
dimension. (Eg. 700 x 470, or 350 x 500). I was doomed to irritate some
people. (Including low-speed-dial-up users! And I have been told that my
photographs are too small for broadband users with high-resolution screens!)

Sometimes you just have to say "life's too short, this is my decision and I'll
live with it".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:58:40 GMT, "B McDonald" <no@spam.com> wrote:

Snipped
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
>> scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.
>>[/color]
>
>Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
>a loss here. What decade are we in?[/color]

In a decade in which there are many elderly people with failing
eyesight who cannot read the small print on larger resolutions.

Regards, Alex[color=blue]
>[/color]

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
>>>to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.[/color]
>>
>>If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
>>off your site and reduce the noise.[/color]
>
> Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us if
> he didn't write his daily poetry?[/color]

I didn't say don't write. I said shut off the web site. Save
yourself money and time coding. If you don't care whether your
audience is capable of reading what you write, then do what Pablo
Neruda did: write on hard copy.
[color=blue]
> Maybe you should stick to technical advice.[/color]

Maybe you should stick to pen and paper.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

"Brian" wrote:[color=blue]
> B McDonald wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
> >>>to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.
> >>
> >>If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
> >>off your site and reduce the noise.[/color]
> >
> > Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us[/color][/color]
if[color=blue][color=green]
> > he didn't write his daily poetry?[/color]
>
> I didn't say don't write. I said shut off the web site. Save
> yourself money and time coding. If you don't care whether your
> audience is capable of reading what you write, then do what Pablo
> Neruda did: write on hard copy.
>[color=green]
> > Maybe you should stick to technical advice.[/color]
>
> Maybe you should stick to pen and paper.
>[/color]

I must admit that there is both purity and beauty in seeing the promise of
Web standards adhered to. But I fail to see the beauty or necessity in such
personal remarks. All you had to do to win me over was to explain why I
should care about designing for 800x600 viewports - kinda like Mr. Shagnasty
did. Responding to this thread probably has no point seeing as in another,
later thread I come 'round on the subject. Your technical advice - when
fully proffered - is excellent. My remark was a compliment. And technical
advice is the point of this forum.

Brian

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
>
> But often certain "rules of good
> design" are bandied about in ciwas like edicts.[/color]

Didn't we just have this discussion in the em v. px thread? We do not
issue edicts, we provide advice. For free. If you don't like it, you
got what you paid for. If you don't want advice about stylesheets and
authoring for the www, don't ask for a site critique in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stysheets.
[color=blue]
> Did Mr. Shagnasty stop a moment to reflect on whether or not
> it matters, in every case, that a website be designed to fit the 800x600
> viewport?[/color]

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnySizeDesign
[color=blue]
> I'm not sure it's important in my case. I'm not sure the added
> grief is worth my effort.[/color]

"*added* grief?" Properly written HTML, with no css at all, works in
any resolution. Adding code that restricts that flexibility was extra
effort. If you are going to put in extra effort, you might as well do
so while keeping html's flexibility.
[color=blue]
> And I would sooner tell the CSS violator of the
> 800x600 dimension, that it's happening and nothing more (or perhaps profer a
> work-around that will preserve the same effect).[/color]

I'm not sure I'd call it a workaround, but here's a solution:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnySizeDesign
[color=blue]
> Brian's remark (also curt) about me force-feeding people like him my
> font-size preferences[/color]
[snip[color=blue]
> Maybe he was curt (if he
> even remembers) because I (seemingly) ignored him the first time.[/color]

I was curt because we've already had the discussion. Numerous times.
A curt answer should suffice. You are not a newbie here. You've been
around for at least a month, probably longer. That gives you plenty
of time to read others' posts, including those about font-size. I'm
treating you like a regular, which I figure you expected. Question.
Answer. Just like that.

BTW, it's not that I'm angry about it. Really, I could care less.
Except that you asked for a critique, and I thought I would offer one.
I went to your site, as you asked. I noticed a mistake[1]. I
pointed that mistake out. Disregard it if you want. It is your site.
You can do whatever you want. But please don't complain that you
got the critique you asked for.


[1] I consider defining font size for body at less than 100% a
mistake. You may disagree.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> B McDonald wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
>>>>to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.
>>>
>>>If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
>>>off your site and reduce the noise.[/color]
>>
>> Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest
>> of us if he didn't write his daily poetry?[/color]
>
> I didn't say don't write. I said shut off the web site. Save
> yourself money and time coding. If you don't care whether your
> audience is capable of reading what you write, then do what Pablo
> Neruda did: write on hard copy.[/color]
[snip]

There is a difference between writing for a target audience and writing for
the masses.

There is a difference between writing for a target audience and not caring
whether your audience is capable of reading what you write.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brian" wrote:
>[color=green]
>>B McDonald wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Maybe you should stick to technical advice.[/color][/color][/color]

A rude remark.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Maybe you should stick to pen and paper.[/color][/color]

A remark in kind.
[color=blue]
> I fail to see the beauty or necessity in such personal remarks.[/color]

One who slings mud ought not complain that the world is dirty.
[color=blue]
> All you had to do to win me over[/color]

I'm not trying to win you over. You asked for a critique. I gave you
one.
[color=blue]
> was to explain why I should care about designing for
> 800x600 viewports[/color]

Why explain it here when all the information already exists on a web
page whose url I gave you? Read the "design for any resolution" faq
entry. It does a better job than I'd do in a post.
[color=blue]
> Responding to this thread probably has no point seeing as in another,
> later thread I come 'round on the subject.[/color]

I do not control the order in which posts arrive on my newsserver.
[color=blue]
> My remark was a compliment.[/color]

Which remark? The only remark not about Neruda was this one:
[color=blue]
> Maybe you should stick to technical advice.[/color]

At best, that's a backhanded compliment.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> There is a difference between writing for a target audience and
> writing for the masses.
>
> There is a difference between writing for a target audience and not
> caring whether your audience is capable of reading what you write.[/color]

There is a difference between claiming you know the hardware and
software profile of your audience, and actually knowing it.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Have you just finished reading Atlas Shrugged?

Mr. Shagnasty was good enough to offer up some explanation on the 800x600
theme after he stated it in his initial critique. I thank you for the links
too. Remember, I wasn't aware of the 800x600 problem before it was brought
to my attention. The point of this post was to discover the problems with my
site design. I initially protested the idea that I should care about the
display of my site in ultra-constrained viewports. I wondered why it affects
me. It was nice of all involved to explain to me why I would want to do such
a thing. Now the self-education begins.

The vast majority of readers misinterpret Atlas Shrugged.

Brian

B McDonald wrote:[color=blue]
> Have you just finished reading Atlas Shrugged?[/color]

Can't say that I have.
[color=blue]
> Mr. Shagnasty was good enough to offer up some explanation on the 800x600
> theme after he stated it in his initial critique. I thank you for the links
> too.[/color]

You are quite welcome. Those faq entries themselves contain lots of
links, as well at some back and forth dialog, occasionally from ciwa*
regulars. I hope they help.

--
Best,
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> There is a difference between writing for a target audience and
>> writing for the masses.
>>
>> There is a difference between writing for a target audience and not
>> caring whether your audience is capable of reading what you write.[/color]
>
> There is a difference between claiming you know the hardware and
> software profile of your audience, and actually knowing it.[/color]

There is an old military saying. Time spent in reconnaissance is never wasted.

It is important to try to find out such things. A lot of effort can be saved
by doing so. We may identify that only X% of extra users would be gained by
enabling a certain s/w & h/w profile to acces while a web site easily, while
more than X% extra users can be gained by some other means costing the same
amount, such as adding more content or promoting the site.

We may never be certain - either way. So we deal with uncertainty in the
various ways that businesses deal with uncertainty daily. We look at
probabilities and risks, etc. Then we make our decisions and accept the
consequences.

Some principles of marketing have served us well outside the web. They can
serve us well on the web too. And that especially concerns understanding the
potential audiences / customers / etc. It is obvious that we don't need to
serve everyone in the world. We need to understand who we DO need to serve,
and the trade-offs between extra cost v. extra customers.

Whatever web site we are developing, probably most web-accessing people in the
world are not plausibly in the target audience. And their problems are not our
problems. We may simply decide, for example, that people who don't speak
English are not in our target audience. We won't explicitly cater for them. We
won't even waste time thinking about whether they have suitable translation
capability. We may simply decide that non-English-speaking people are not our
problem.

This thread has talked about 800 x 600 screens. What would the discussion have
been if it had talked about 640 x 480 screens? Is there any plausible reason
for any web site developer to spend an extra minute thinking about the issues
of VGA screens? In many cases, I suggest not. Which suggests that we are
entirely valid if we decide whether or not we should cater for people with
particular sceen sizes.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

> This thread has talked about 800 x 600 screens. What would the discussion
have[color=blue]
> been if it had talked about 640 x 480 screens? Is there any plausible[/color]
reason[color=blue]
> for any web site developer to spend an extra minute thinking about the[/color]
issues[color=blue]
> of VGA screens? In many cases, I suggest not. Which suggests that we are
> entirely valid if we decide whether or not we should cater for people with
> particular sceen sizes.
>[/color]

Thank you for expressing that point of view. And not that I've been seeking
any form of validation or even vindication. But I genuinely and
unantagonistically meant it when I asked why should I design for 800x600. It
was offered up as a site critique... perhaps (/perhaps/) a little
uncritically (sorry Mr. Shagnasty). But I've been all over this territory
before and I ultimately decided to shrink my goddam company header!

(wanna see? -- http://www.galtsvalley.com)

I'm getting around to doing what Brian suggested as well... even though he
treated me like an opposing soccer fan.

I am a man not a soccer ball!

Still, it sure was fun to talk about Pablo Neruda.

;-)

Brian

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> exclaimed in <YB_eb.11$_o5.3@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>:
[color=blue]
> been if it had talked about 640 x 480 screens? Is there any plausible reason
> for any web site developer to spend an extra minute thinking about the issues
> of VGA screens? In many cases, I suggest not. Which suggests that we are[/color]

No, there is no plausible reason for any web site developer to spend any
extra time thinking about any resolution.

There are quite a few plausible reasons why the site developer should ONLY
spend time thinking about NO resolution.

But is there any point in repeating this, thread after thread ? I think
not.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> exclaimed in <0gyeb.8360$4D.6420157@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>:
[color=blue]
> My reading is that still nearly half of viewers have that size screen,
> although the proportion is steadily reducing.[/color]

That's odd reading - there are no reliable statistics on the matter. What
exist doesn't count: it talks about the *resolution*, not the physical
reality[1].



[color=blue]
> Some say "design so that resolution doesn't matter". But that is hard when
> images are being provided, whether GIF (or whatever) diagrams, or JPEG
> photographs. Hard decisions have to be made - they are not flexible like text[/color]

We've been down this road before. I can only conclude, to my surprise, that
you don't read what we write.

If the CONTENT itself is 800 pixels wide, then there is nothing you can do
to make that fit 640. That has nothing what so ever to do with the
RESOLUTION on the client's monitor.

"Content" does not equal "current resolution of client monitor".



[color=blue]
> people. (Including low-speed-dial-up users! And I have been told that my
> photographs are too small for broadband users with high-resolution screens!)[/color]

Same thing. If the CONTENT is x number of pixels, then it IS x number of
pixels. There is nothing contradictory about this.

We've allready discussed it. Problems arise when you take content which does
not have an inherent size and squeeze that content into a, by you, perceived
physical reality.[2]

Your image is not a problem.



[color=blue]
> Sometimes you just have to say "life's too short, this is my decision and I'll
> live with it".[/color]

You're right. It is, of course, your choice whether you want to spend that
short life doing simple things in a complicated manner.



[1]
Aka the window size, if any.

[2]
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow"

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
>
> Thank you for expressing that point of view. And not that I've been seeking
> any form of validation or even vindication. But I genuinely and
> unantagonistically meant it when I asked why should I design for 800x600. It
> was offered up as a site critique... perhaps (/perhaps/) a little
> uncritically (sorry Mr. Shagnasty). But I've been all over this territory
> before and I ultimately decided to shrink my goddam company header![/color]

Yay! <g>
[color=blue]
> (wanna see? -- http://www.galtsvalley.com)[/color]

It looks much better now, it floats, and even works perfectly at a browser
width of 640. Nice job. Tina says it well: think NO resolution.

Think fluid.
[color=blue]
> I'm getting around to doing what Brian suggested as well... even though he
> treated me like an opposing soccer fan.
>
> I am a man not a soccer ball![/color]

<rof,l>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> There is a difference between claiming you know the hardware and
>> software profile of your audience, and actually knowing it.[/color][/color]

This wasn't answered in your post.
[color=blue]
> It is important to try to find out such things. A lot of effort can
> be saved by doing so. We may identify that only X% of extra users
> would be gained by enabling a certain s/w & h/w profile to acces
> while a web site easily,[/color]

The question is not may, but can: "We can identify that only X%..."
Which leads to the question, can you? Reliably? How?
[color=blue]
> while more than X% extra users can be gained by some other means
> costing the same amount, such as adding more content or promoting
> the site.[/color]

Uh huh. How do we determine this?
[color=blue]
> We may never be certain - either way. So we deal with uncertainty
> in the various ways that businesses deal with uncertainty daily.[/color]

We are stuck with uncertainty about the hardware and software profiles
of a site's would-be visitors. That's the only thing we of which can
be certain. Knowing that, isn't it prudent to not shut any of them out?
[color=blue]
> Some principles of marketing have served us well outside the web.[/color]

I've never been too keen on marketing types. They use a lot of
resources for no measurable gain.
[color=blue]
> It is obvious that we don't need to serve everyone in the world. We
> need to understand who we DO need to serve, and the trade-offs
> between extra cost v. extra customers.[/color]

There is no extra cost to creating a site that works on every
resolution. Why do you keep insisting that there is?
[color=blue]
> This thread has talked about 800 x 600 screens. What would the
> discussion have been if it had talked about 640 x 480 screens?[/color]

The same. Don't shut out any potential visitors unnecessarily.
[color=blue]
> Is there any plausible reason for any web site developer to spend
> an extra minute thinking about the issues of VGA screens?[/color]

I couldn't say it better than Tina Holmboe already did.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

"Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
news:cy6fb.482536$Oz4.327033@rwcrnsc54...[color=blue]
> There is no extra cost to creating a site that works on every
> resolution. Why do you keep insisting that there is?[/color]

really? so, your site will work great on my PDA? all your images will show
without horizontal scroll?

Would you recommend that a site about photography have all images sized to
work on a PDA? What about a cell phone? Is that practical? I think not. I
would drop your site in a minute on my 1600x1200 screen.

Jonathan

--
http://www.snook.ca/

"Jonathan Snook" <goto_www.snook.ca@snook.ca> exclaimed in <Ozcfb.78300$3r1.35652@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.r ogers.com>:[color=blue]
> "Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
> news:cy6fb.482536$Oz4.327033@rwcrnsc54...[color=green]
>> There is no extra cost to creating a site that works on every
>> resolution. Why do you keep insisting that there is?[/color]
>
> really? so, your site will work great on my PDA? all your images will show
> without horizontal scroll?
>[/color]

[color=blue]
> Would you recommend that a site about photography have all images sized to
> work on a PDA? What about a cell phone? Is that practical? I think not. I
> would drop your site in a minute on my 1600x1200 screen.[/color]

A web browser provides you, the visitor, with a peephole into the
imagination of someone else.

You can compare it to taking photographs of artwork. If a painting is too
wide to fit, you'll have to step back, sacrificing detail to see the
whole picture. This is the nature of the physical world.

A photograph on the web has an intrinsic size. If that size is too large
for the browser, some genius came up with the idea of scrollbars - instead
of having the image cut, or having to rescale it to fit, the user can
move his little peephole about, seeing the entire thing. You do the same
thing with your camera if you focus on another section of the above painting.

That is what scrollbars are there FOR.

Textual content does NOT have an intrinsic width in the same way. That means
it is flexible, and can adapt to the size of your peephole - *unless* the
author has decided to make it hard on you by trying to impose a size on
the content that does not exist *in* the content.


Resolution - and it really isn't worth repeating any more - has nothing
to do with it. The nature of the content has everything to do with it.

Noone - and I mean NOONE - has claimed you should degrade your images to
fit someones window size.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905