Browser survey

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Jerry Stuckle]

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jun 29, 12:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed
web designer.
ROFLMAO!

Yea, I just suck.

>I'll tell you what. Let's take one of your customers. Let me give him
my designs for his site. Wanna see how long they stay with you?

Absolutely! Contact Chick-fil-a and tell then you have a great new
idea for their Bowl site. We are going to change the entire design to
an even more Flash based design in August. So this is a great time to
tell them that you have a better idea for their site. That gives you
a whole month to convert them. Please post the results of your
efforts.

ROFLMAO! No, you didn't do that site. What a liar.

>Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my
customers. Wanna bet they stick with me?

Give me a url of one of your customers

>I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you
aren't that stoopid.

I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me
with a URL please.

Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Matt Probert wrote:

Travis Newbury <Tr***********@ hotmail.comwrot e:

>On Jun 28, 4:01=A0pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>>Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. =A0Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. =A0Professional s design sites
which resize themselves.

Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...

The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some
poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not
make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less
professional in their trade.

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

That's right, Matt. And did you look at the crap he supposedly created?

I KNOW he didn't have anything to do with that site.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Bergamot]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

63

Nice idea...

I think it's an interesting idea, too. But I get only 39.

--
Berg

[nully]

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu******** *************** *******@comcast .com...

Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer. So,
really well designed variable width page, there, then?

[reporter]

On Jun 28, 5:05*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. *Fortunately,
professionals stand out. *Much of that is the quality of their work.

Why so bitter, dude?

[Michael Fesser]

..oO(nully)

>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu******* *************** ********@comcas t.com...

>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer.

Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those
links. Maybe you should check your own system.

Micha

[nully]

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.de wrote in message
news:lj******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

.oO(nully)

>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu****** *************** *********@comca st.com...

>>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer.

Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those
links. Maybe you should check your own system.

You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif

[Dylan Parry]

nully wrote:

You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif

I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something similar?
I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I did notice
that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which
looks similar to something that Link Alert would add.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.

[Sherman Pendley]

"Andrew Heenan" <fi**@will.comw rites:

On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:

>Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?

If it matters to readers (and it does), then it *should* matter to HTML
authors.

It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that
everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer.

So we agree, then. A designer to whom screen size matters - i.e. one
who makes assumptions about visitors screen size - is a poor designer.

But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target
audience.

An even more useful approach is to not to use any fixed-width at all.

but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls,
carry on.

Horizontal scrollbars are the result of designers who *do* think
screen size matters, and insist that their pages must be precisely X
pixels wide, regardless of whether that matches their users reality or
not.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[nully]

"Dylan Parry" <us****@dylanpa rry.comwrote in message
news:g4******** **@dylanparry.c om...

nully wrote:

>You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif

I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something similar?
I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I did notice
that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which
looks similar to something that Link Alert would add.

Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. But it nicely
demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every
pixel. Its hardly a unique setup I'm using, so surely one of these ultimate
professional designers should have built in sufficient redundancy to
accommodate such browser configurations. ..