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  10483 
me wrote: 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 [window size] is below
1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear).
This must be something peculiar to your setup. I don't see a
horizontal scrollbar at csszengarden in a window size of ~800 pixels
wide. IE6, or numerous other browsers with Win2K.
The one previously mentioned link - style sheet 153 - gets a scrollbar
at about ~850 and below, but the rest of the choices do not.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
"Els" <el*********@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf******** *************** ******@40tude.n et... Travis Newbury wrote:
Els wrote:
How are these different?
a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
be able to fit a fixed width document in it.
You can have what ever size you want, you might have to scroll, but the
content is there for you. Your fluid design makes it hard for me to
read. I see no difference.
I find it harder to read a 1000px wide page in a 500px wide window
(horizontal scrolling for each line) than to read really long
sentences.
b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
use 500px wide windows for instance.
Fluid design is only as fluid small as the smallest image.
Correct, when using fluid design, one should take image size into
account.
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.
So, you have the option to
a) use a narrower window
b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;mar gin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)
I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.
No, with fixed width:
a) you don't have the option to make your window narrower than that
fixed width. Not without serious usability problems (horizontal
scrolling for each line you want to read).
b) setting a max-width that suits you will break the layout. Unless
the author of the fixed width page has made it fluid underneath the
fixed width. Most fixed width authors don't do that.
Yup, c) is an option for every Windows user.
In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.
I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way.
You don't like full screen then, you like large empty spaces.
The thing is, that I want my pages to be accessible by everyone. Not
just you.
My Dad browses full screen too. On 800x600. To cater for him and use
fixed width, I'd have to set the fixed with to 750px. (he uses IE
without a favourites bar open or something).
Now there are people who prefer a larger font-size. For them, the
fixed width of 750px means that the menu takes up half the space, and
the text contains lines of 3 or 4 words. Very hard to read. And very
silly, if they bought an expensive 22inch screen to accommodate their
bad eyesight! All that wasted space...
Now - tell me again that I should use fixed width because /you/ like
to use your browser full screen on a large resolution?
IIRC you said you use a user style sheet so override the fixed layout or
font there. IE users can override fonts if they choose by opting to do so in
the accessibility options.
Signed,
me
"Toby Inkster" <us**********@t obyinkster.co.u k> wrote in message
news:pa******** *************** *****@tobyinkst er.co.uk... Travis Newbury wrote:
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
No more so than table-based designs. After all, a table is a table -- a
grid of boxes.
Depends on the design.
Signed,
me
me wrote: "Els" <el*********@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf******** *************** ******@40tude.n et... Travis Newbury wrote:
Els wrote:
>How are these different?
a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
be able to fit a fixed width document in it.
You can have what ever size you want, you might have to scroll, but the
content is there for you. Your fluid design makes it hard for me to
read. I see no difference.
I find it harder to read a 1000px wide page in a 500px wide window
(horizontal scrolling for each line) than to read really long
sentences.
b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
use 500px wide windows for instance.
Fluid design is only as fluid small as the smallest image.
Correct, when using fluid design, one should take image size into
account.
>I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
>sometime s 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.
So, you have the option to
a) use a narrower window
b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;mar gin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)
I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.
No, with fixed width:
a) you don't have the option to make your window narrower than that
fixed width. Not without serious usability problems (horizontal
scrolling for each line you want to read).
b) setting a max-width that suits you will break the layout. Unless
the author of the fixed width page has made it fluid underneath the
fixed width. Most fixed width authors don't do that.
Yup, c) is an option for every Windows user.
In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.
I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way.
You don't like full screen then, you like large empty spaces.
The thing is, that I want my pages to be accessible by everyone. Not
just you.
My Dad browses full screen too. On 800x600. To cater for him and use
fixed width, I'd have to set the fixed with to 750px. (he uses IE
without a favourites bar open or something).
Now there are people who prefer a larger font-size. For them, the
fixed width of 750px means that the menu takes up half the space, and
the text contains lines of 3 or 4 words. Very hard to read. And very
silly, if they bought an expensive 22inch screen to accommodate their
bad eyesight! All that wasted space...
Now - tell me again that I should use fixed width because /you/ like
to use your browser full screen on a large resolution?
IIRC you said you use a user style sheet so override the fixed layout or
font there. IE users can override fonts if they choose by opting to do so in
the accessibility options.
You can't expect the ordinary surfer to use a user style sheet. (how
many people know what HTML looks like, let alone CSS?) You can expect
them however to make their window wider or narrower to their liking.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB40 - Legalise it
"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:zJP2e.1246 16$Ze3.54954@at tbi_s51...
"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:LAM2e.1195 02$r55.56839@at tbi_s52... <snip>
Re the site above, I need help learning to create secure forms (any
forms!). The customer has a Cobalt server, if that helps. Any tutorial
links would be appreciated.
Carla
Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine.
If you used h1 through h6 then the size is proportional in relation to the
base size and will change if the user opts too.
But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes.
You (like I) may be using a fixed size like 12px (or less useful 12pt, I
don't use this).
Did everyone know that about style
tags? How does CSS address font sizing by the user's browser? Now I'm
wishing I had never started using style tags (or whatever they are called.
Embedded CSS?)
I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.
I don't use FF but I know IE is sometimes lax about inheriting styles from
parent items. To avoid this I apply styles to every tag that needs it.
Maybe I'll seek a new career. I'm too old for this stuff.
Carla
If you can make money at this racket then more power to you!
Signed,
me
"c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:wvC2e.1169 47$r55.84800@at tbi_s52...
[snip] Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as opposed
to accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at
a stretch.
I know you can approximate the layout & look of a site built with tables
in CSS (saw it done in an example on a website), so why do so many CSS sites
look so bad? And so similar? Is it something inherent in coding with CSS?
IMO if IE had better support for CSS positioning and if an authoring tool
offered an intuitive method to use CSS positioning this situation might
improve.
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
Carla
I suspect some (many?) designers never came to grips with tables, errors can
be interesting to fix, call me weird but I kind of enjoy it, it's a
challenge. A table design can also be difficult to alter without the right
tools and know how. I suspect some find this cumbersome or frustrating.
Signed,
me
Toby Inkster wrote: Travis Newbury wrote:
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
No more so than table-based designs. After all, a table is a table -- a
grid of boxes.
True. Except there are far more *designers* using tables to keep their
artwork in place modifying that boxy look. I agree with Travis, we need
more artists (designers) using CSS or working with the *developers* to
get away from the boxy look with CSS.
I believe this just looking at my own pages; it is obvious that I am a
*developer*, not a *designer*. I can create some fairly good code but I
have to depend upon others to help me with my designs.
That's not to say that there are some very good designers that are also
very good with css; just take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com/ for
examples. I've spent hours there checking out the various designs.
Neat stuff!
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Peter1968 wrote: I just opened IE & it opened at 100%.
Flavell wrote "installs"; you wrote "opened".
Indeed. If you change the window size, or switch to fullscreen mode,
and exit the browser normally, then in my experience it'll remember
that, and open the browser the same way next time. It usually
inherits these settings when a new version of the same browser is
installed, too.
But the initial browser installation, for all the usual browsers, has
been windowed, not fullscreen, until some user action was taken to
change that.
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ur******** ************@tw ister.nyroc.rr. com... me wrote:
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 [window size] is below
1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear).
This must be something peculiar to your setup. I don't see a
horizontal scrollbar at csszengarden in a window size of ~800 pixels
wide. IE6, or numerous other browsers with Win2K.
That's weird the first time I visited there was a scroll bar but now it's
gone, go figure.
The one previously mentioned link - style sheet 153 - gets a scrollbar
at about ~850 and below, but the rest of the choices do not.
OT: Say how's your life now that I've given it meaning, you seem to delight
in trolling around after me commenting on just my posts. ;-)
Signed,
me
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila .cjb.net> writing in
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. 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
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.
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.
Thanks for that. Actually, the person has not paid me for subsequent work,
so I'm going to leave it be. If he pays me, I'll fix it.
--
Adrienne Boswell http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
