Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ] http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250  10476 
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******** *************** *******@ppepc56 .ph.gla.ac.uk.. . On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing" . I just want to open my browser
& go.
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before.
If full screen means maximized then you're talking about a decision made by
the software author or the OS. Since you embrace the paradigm that default
equals best can we assume that your Windows machine with IE still has MSN as
the home page?
They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
Would that extra effort be clicking maximize? Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to
adjust things under the hood depending on my destination
Indeed. That's why browsers install in windowing mode, IMHO.
See above.
Signed,
me
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila .cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@news.individu al.net... in alt.html, Adrienne wrote: The sites are: http://www.loreal.com/ and
Hurts my eyes and is very bad indeed.
http://win04.startlogic.com/infinica/ (yes I know the text is too small,
but the site owner demanded it despite many warnings)
Unfortunaltely can hardly be called good example of CSS layout.
From a purely astethic point of view I find it to be one of the best if not
*the* best CSS positioned designs I have seen too date (I won't say YMMV
because it's woefully inadequate).
The good
thing about CSS is that you can do lots of things with it that you can't
do with table layouts. The bad thing is the same.
Show him and yourself this screen cap:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/crap/screen.png
Congratulations , you found a way to break her design.
To fix it so that design don't break I had to:
- disable my general userstylesheet (line-height 1.5)
- disable my current font size userstylesheet (was something like 16px)
- disable my min font size thingy (it was 12px)
especially the last one I never use normally, I'm in user mode before
that.
User stylesheet YIKES!
Anyway, the problem is in sites coding. (the 3col layout is IMO stupid
idea anyway) It would be possible, of course, to make it not break, even
using current CSS.
Three columns are stupid? IMO you have issues about design.
Signed,
me
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******** *************** *******@ppepc56 .ph.gla.ac.uk.. . On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
> Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
> gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing" . I just want to open my browser
& go.
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
I just opened IE & it opened at 100%. I never changed the settings, so it
must be IE's default? Oh, you mean the "Restore Down/Maximize" button in IE
in the top right corner. Yeah, I probably set it to Maximize long ago. I
like my browser & all applications at 100%. Empty space is OK with me. It
gives your eyes a rest. So, I realize & accept that most sites are built for
800x600 and there will be some empty space. Visually, I prefer that to
filling my screen with text & banner ads.
What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768?
Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.
Not if the author broke up the text into columns;)
Most sites look fine at that setting.
The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running all the way across
the screen.
"The" CSS sites?
Those built using CSS that are typical of w3.org's, I should have said.
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Carla
c.thornquist wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
I just opened IE & it opened at 100%.
Flavell wrote "installs"; you wrote "opened".
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******* *************** ********@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. .. On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
Then do as Alan suggests and use a stylesheet with max-width in it.
Then all the sites you're complaining about will be restricted to your
max-width. That way you get exactly your preferred width, not the
authors preferred width or some average preferred width based on the
half dozen people the author spoke to when building the site. A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
Studies have shown that narrow columns with wide margins are nearly as
bad as wide columns with narrow margins. Medium-to-wide columns with
moderate margins seem best but of course it also depends on font size,
etc. I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
How about a test? <g>
..pxunit { width: 420px; }
..emunit { width: <numberofchoice here>em; }
<p class="pxunit"> A long paragraph of text here...</p>
<p class="emunit"> A long paragraph of text here...</p>
Then experiment by changing the text size in your various browsers.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
"Toby Inkster" <us**********@t obyinkster.co.u k> wrote in message
news:pa******** *************** *****@tobyinkst er.co.uk... c.thornquist wrote:
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar?
These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
No they don't look the same to me but (please don't be offended) they don't
excite me and I doubt they'd excite the people I know but that's purely a
matter of personal taste. By the way, what's up with arrow.gif, why does it
keep trying to download whenever I pass my cursor over the links? It took a
while for bg_home.jpg to download on dialup of course it's in the cache but
my cache is deleted when I close IE. I also have a batch file to delete
cookies/temp files/IEdat files every time I boot so my system stays squeaky.
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...153.css&page=0
I like these! But due to the BG image, fixed layout and fixed font size it's
not a fluid design so no joy there for the militant fluid fanatics (not that
I have any problem with fixed fonts and non-fluid designs I prefer them
myself). spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
Yes you do have a choice of maximum size but not minmum size, not at: http://www.csszengarden.com/. In IE6 on Windows I see a horizontal scrollbar
if the resolution is below 1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear). Some
here might be enraged with a site that doesn't flow to fit any device (not
me mind you, I believe in the right layout for the right device/media).
Loading a new page to change the look is not exactly a new idea. Nice site
though except for the manifesto (again this is my personal preferance, no
offense intended).
Signed,
me
"Travis Newbury" <tn@swingers.co m> wrote in message
news:O7******** *********@fe02. lga... Toby Inkster wrote:Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar?
These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...153.css&page=0
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your
screen, then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to
the left.
So now you are telling me how to use my browser?
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."
How are these different?
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"
They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a huge space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
Truer words were never spoken. My name is *me* and I officially endorse Mr.
Newbury's message.
Signed,
me
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann. com> wrote in message
news:42******** @nntp.zianet.co m... Travis Newbury wrote:
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
I can't speak for Toby, but I see that both can be flexible to a point.
As a developer, I must make the decision of what will be a max size
and a minumum size. My reasoning of not using table layout is that it
is more difficult to work with than simple headings and paragraphs for
text, and all the fancy stuff separated with divs.
I disagree with your last statement in that the designer/developer isn't
deciding how you use your browser; he/she is deciding a max and min
*ideal* viewing size. It's still up to you (in either type of page)
whether to view it within the ideal conditions.
I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either. They will
most always close one before opening another. Teaching HTML and CSS, I
sometimes have a hard time getting students to have a browser window
open and a text editor saving the file and then refreshing the browser
to instantly see your changes. And that process is a whole lot easier
with windows that you can see parts of at the same time. I very rarely
ever have any application full screen as I usually have many things
going at once switching from one to another.
The efficacy of cascading multiple windows is dependant on your chosen
resolution. I prefer to use alt+tab or the taskbar YMMV.
Signed,
me This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
