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)

[Travis Newbury]

On Jun 29, 8:16*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Sure. *www.fcc.gov. *Good luck.

Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are
almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has
their briowser full screen.

Also, if I were to build this site, it would be a flexible width (but
with max-width so the text is not 150 characters wide) with no flash.
There is no need for Flash on this site. This site is little more
than a list of links.

You see Jerry, even though I state it OVER AND OVER, you still are
either too blind, dumb, or ignorant to absorb the fact that I do not
think ALL sites need to be fixed width or contain Flash. This is an
example of one that doesn't need it.

You have shown your true colors there Jerry. You are quite the
professional...

[Neredbojias]

On 29 Jun 2008, "nully" <nu***@nully.nu llywrote:

>
"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. ..

Actually, it's a bug in Firefox that causes it. I've run across this bug in
creating my own pages.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

[Jerry Stuckle]

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

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

Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are
almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has
their briowser full screen.

It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have. Yes,
it's transitional. That's because we had to work a lot of existing
stuff into the new design. And they weren't willing to spend the time
or the money to make it work strict.

And yes, the text lines are short - there's a LOT of information on that
main window. The short lines are synopses and pointers to other
important information. But then a real web designer would see that and
understand it.

Also, if I were to build this site, it would be a flexible width (but
with max-width so the text is not 150 characters wide) with no flash.
There is no need for Flash on this site. This site is little more
than a list of links.

Nope, it uses all available space. And this is just the current page.
Information on the page changes often - sometimes there's more,
sometimes there's less.

You see Jerry, even though I state it OVER AND OVER, you still are
either too blind, dumb, or ignorant to absorb the fact that I do not
think ALL sites need to be fixed width or contain Flash. This is an
example of one that doesn't need it.

And there's no need for flash on the main page of chick-fil-a, either -
or a page that's wider than most browser windows. But you're too
stoopid to see that, Travis.

You have shown your true colors there Jerry. You are quite the
professional...

Yes, my sites use flash APPROPRIATELY - not just because it's there. My
sites resize themselves to the current window size.

I don't build the crap sites like you've shown you do. Fixed width?
Horizontal scroll bars for virtually every browser window? ROFLMAO!

But as I said earlier - a con artist can always find a sucker. But
sooner or later the conned will learn.

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

[Jerry Stuckle]

Sherman Pendley wrote:

"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--

Exactly, Sherm.

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

[Red E. Kilowatt]

Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message:
fP************* *************** **@comcast.com,

Travis Newbury wrote:

>On Jun 28, 2:53 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been
around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it
over and over again.

Design the page correctly and the content adjusts itself to any
window size within reason.

Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. Both are equally correct based on the website.

Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.

Hey, that's not fair to amateurs! Even I (with minimal web design
knowledge and skill) know better than to use fixed widths. Scroll bars
can be a minor annoyance on a typical desktop screen, but they really
suck when visiting a site on a mobile phone.

Some webmasters don't get it. Other webmasters don't want to get it. But
ultimately everyone is free to do what they want. Better that, than
having some self-appointed entity dictating how things have to be done.

Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match.

--
Red

[Jerry Stuckle]

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:

Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attg lobal.netwrote in message:
fP************* *************** **@comcast.com,

>Travis Newbury wrote:

>>On Jun 28, 2:53 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:
Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been
around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it
over and over again.

Design the page correctly and the content adjusts itself to any
window size within reason.
Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. Both are equally correct based on the website.

Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.

Hey, that's not fair to amateurs! Even I (with minimal web design
knowledge and skill) know better than to use fixed widths. Scroll bars
can be a minor annoyance on a typical desktop screen, but they really
suck when visiting a site on a mobile phone.

That's true, Red. Sorry, I didn't mean to be down on amateurs.

Some webmasters don't get it. Other webmasters don't want to get it. But
ultimately everyone is free to do what they want. Better that, than
having some self-appointed entity dictating how things have to be done.

Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match.

Yes, I just hate it when someone with such lousy skills calls himself a
"profession al". He's a blight on professionals, everywhere.

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

[Travis Newbury]

On Jun 29, 3:38*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

Sure. *www.fcc.gov. *Good luck.

Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur.

It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have.

I don't believe you really have sites Jerry. I think you are nothing
more than a wannabe. And I knew I read that word "stoopid" before.
Old habits die hard eh?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...L_enUS202US203

Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur.

It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have.

I don't believe you really have sites Jerry. I think you are nothing
more than a wannabe. And I knew I read that word "stoopid" before.
Old habits die hard eh?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...L_enUS202US203

Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.

ROFLMAO! Good luck, sucker. I've been programming longer than you've
been alive. 40+ years now. Including a number of those as a FTE of
IBM, and even more as a successful consultant.

What you believe is of absolutely no consideration to me. Such searches
just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and
what I'm saying.

But you can't - because I'm right.

Loser. And a stoopid one one, at that.
--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Travis Newbury]

On Jun 29, 5:58*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...rceid=navclien...
Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.

Such searches
just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and
what I'm saying.

No, apparently the truth pisses you off.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jun 29, 5:58 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attg lobal.netwrote:

>>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...rceid=navclien...
Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.

Such searches
just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and
what I'm saying.

No, apparently the truth pisses you off.

ROFLMAO!

Not at all. Just pointing out how desperate you are. It's the way
losers like you go every time you can't come up with valid responses.

You're a loser. All around.

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