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  10503 
Travis Newbury wrote: kchayka wrote:
I drink to flexibility of design.
And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!
What's the point of having a full-size window if you aren't going to use it?
Because I prefer it that way, and it is my browser. And don't you
always say leave my browser preferences alone? Or does that only
include the preferences you think are important (say pop-ups or your
scroll bar)?
Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.
I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.
I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy .com> wrote in message
news:l2******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:58:58 GMT, "c.thornqui st"
<c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi****** *************** *********@ppepc 56.ph.gla.ac.uk ...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: [...] 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;)
Well, it seems that you may want to really grasp the fact that the WWW
is originally designed to provide the user with the ultimate final
control of presentation.
An analogy; if you find that a TV-show comes through with the sound set
too loud for your liking I would assume that you do /not/ call the TV
station to tell them to lower the volume?
You would do that locally on your own set, right?
Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.
Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...
<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>
...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.
Now; some well known (so called) browser makes it very hard to exercise
that "users ultimate final control" but it seems unfair to blame that
"defect" on how correctly authored CSS sites are delivered.
--
Rex
If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?
What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.
Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.
Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?
Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation. And the
Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.
Carla
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net > wrote in message
news:3e******** *************** *********@4ax.c om... "c.thornqui st" <c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?
Write a stylesheet that you would like applied to all sites (pay
attention to section 6.4.1 of the CSS 2 spec to understand how your
styles and the authors styles will combine).
Thanks much:)
Carla
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:29:48 GMT, "c.thornqui st"
<c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote:
[...] And saving your files with certain extensions.
File name extensions has no relevance on the www.
FN-extensions are relics that has managed to survive, and totally
confuse web authors and users for all too long.
On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.
Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.
Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.
--
Rex
Travis Newbury wrote: Els wrote:
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.
And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.
With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote: Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.
Well, except to tell the server that a given file should be sent with
Content-Type: text/html...
But yes, I guess you could set your server up to treat all files in a
given directory as HTML, removing the need for the .htm(l) extension.
--
Oli
c.thornquist wrote:
If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?
You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.
Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser
The viewer *still controls the volume*! You agree with us after all. :-)
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.
You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL
Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?
Now you are just being silly.
--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:52:21 GMT, "c.thornqui st"
<c.**********@i nsightbb.com> wrote: "Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy .com> wrote in message
news:l2******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
[...] Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.
Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...
<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>
...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.
[...]
If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should
you be allowed to rearrange it to your liking?
No, of course not; the thought of that would not even cross my mind.
OTOH, would you like to "control" my viewing angle when I look at your
artwork? What if I'm very short or very tall? or if my eyes are skewed
so I need to stand at one or the other side to get _my_ best view.
It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges here.
The original idea, that later lead to the invention of the www, was to
find a method that would allow "global" access to information that was
available on basically incompatible systems.
Your painting canvas and my browsers view port are pretty good examples
of initially "incompatib le" systems, but there is nothing in the
technology of the www that prohibits you from making your painting
available to me for viewing in my browsers view port.
The 'IMG' and 'OBJECT' elements stands at your service for that part,
still it shall be up to me to adjust my view port such as it gives me my
best possible view of your painting, right?
The basic "mistake" of so many www "designers" is to think of other
peoples browser view ports as "the designers own canvas" that can be
used at will to present some pixel perfect presentation of e.g. the
Waffle House food menu, or any other thought out design "dream".
But that is not the base of this media, the WWW is supposed to be a
"World Wide" accessible database that contains the, at any time, best
collection of acquired human knowledge, all relevantly linked together
with those hyperlinks that constitutes the threads in the "Web".
Just about anything can be housed inside such a concept, but it has to
be "housed" in a way that makes it widely accessible.
Feel free to present a painting or two to me over the www, but please
don't do it in a way that makes it obscure to me to get my best viewing
experience from it.
What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.
As I have tried to describe, the www is your free place to present
anything you want as you see fit.
But, the size of your possible target area will vary, all depending on
how clever you are to make your material accessible on a wide scale.
[...]
Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation.
And the Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.
Won't help me much some 20 years from now maybe. I have repeated cases
of glaucoma running in the family line and may have to look forward to
total blindness in the future (I'm 56 today).
Your lesson during that time period will be to figure out what
ALT-ernative www content you should give to any one of your paintings so
that they will still be accessible to me as a sound or tactile www
experience :-)
There is at least initial provisions for that too, already built into
current www technology.
--
Rex
kchayka wrote: Because I prefer it that way, and it is my browser. And don't you
always say leave my browser preferences alone? Or does that only
include the preferences you think are important (say pop-ups or your
scroll bar)? Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.
Doesn't seem silly to me. It is easier for me to read, and it lets
virtually all fixed width sites (the norm on the web right now) to fit
in my browser window with no changing. You on the other hand are
continually changing the size of your window to accommodate the vast
majority of the web (the fixed width sites you hate so much) So who is
silly?
I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.
I use FF. (Full screen so I can easily accommodate everyone).
I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.
I don't expect anyone to do anything. I am a realist. Right or wrong,
fixed width is the norm right now. My full screen browser assures that I
am not going to constantly be changing the size of my browser window
with every site I go to. So I may have a little empty space on the
right side, but I am never taking the time to resize my window. (Except
when I get to one of the very few flexible sites out there)
--
-=tn=-
kchayka wrote: I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way. And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.
See the joys of personal preference.
With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.
I always get a good result with full screen. And you know what, I can
only read one webpage at a time so I am not losing anything by not
having room on my screen for another window. And best of all, I never
have to change my window size unless I run into one of the few flexible
width sites. So, I guess, because of the current state of the web, I
feel I win in the long run.
--
-=tn=- This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
