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)

[William Gill]

Bergamot wrote:

William Gill wrote:

>You might also be interested in factoring in some of the articles
regarding "optimal line length" such as:

http://webusability.com/article_line_length_12_2002.htm

I didn't bother reading it - too much horizontal scrolling necessary.
If this is their idea of optimal, I'll stick with fluid designs.

I didn't mean to imply this was the be all and end all on "optimal
line length", I just grabbed it as one example of some other factors you
may want to consider. There are numerous articles on the subject. I
think it reasonable to assume that lines that are either too long or too
short, are counterproducti ve, but I'm equally sure what qualifies as
"just right" is subject to much debate. As Chris said, he may rethink
his three column preference, and knowing he is capable of thinking, I
suggested something else to add to the mix. Besides, even if there was
an optimal line length formula, would it take into account all the
reasons people require different font sizes, or would it assume
something called "normal?"

[Scott Bryce]

dorayme wrote:

Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.

And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

At least this sort of thing should make you a soft core proponent?

Yes. You might call me a soft-core proponent of fluid designs. I
personally don't like them, but I understand the arguments in favor of
them. But what I REALLY don't like is fixed width designs created by
people who don't know why they are evil. I lean back in my chair, put my
feet up on the desk, and press control+ so I can read the text from WAY
back here.... and the site falls apart.

In other words, the subject of line length is not necessarily much to
do with fluidity.

My personal opinion is that the medium is such that there is no correct
answer to the question of fluid designs vs fixed width designs. There
are just too many factors that determine how a site will be viewed by
the user. So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
ones you are going to break (and hopefully the site won't). And yes, I
understand that the to many factors argument is really an argument in
favor of fluid designs. I'm not arguing against them. I am only arguing
that the rule is not as hard and fast as people who argue for them think.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:

dorayme wrote:

>Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.

And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Scott Bryce]

William Gill wrote:

I think it reasonable to assume that lines that are either too long
or too short, are counterproducti ve, but I'm equally sure what
qualifies as "just right" is subject to much debate.

It is also subject to the end-user's environment. I subscribe to the 10
to 14 words on a line rule. A fluid design breaks that rule unless the
user resizes his window. A fixed width design breaks that rule if the
user resizes the font.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think there are any correct
answers in this medium.

That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be debate. If there are no
answers, there are no guidelines. The debate allows us to weigh the
various options and decide what we think is best. Without the debate,
more people will make wrong choices, having too little information to
make better choices.

[Guy Macon]

Scott Bryce wrote:

>
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.

Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Scott Bryce]

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:

>And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?

Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
window maximized.

If I have a reason to need to see more than one window at a time, I will
resize my browser window. And I will concede that fluid designs usually
work best when I do.

[Scott Bryce]

Guy Macon wrote:

Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how long
his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user wants short
lines he can reduce the width of his browser window. Liquid design
gives the user control of the line width. This is a Good Thing.

I understand your argument, but you don't understand that you are
arguing against yourself. (Which is why i don't think there are any
correct answers in this medium.)

If a site has a fluid design, you argue, the user has the option of
resizing his browser window to view the site however he wants to. (And I
have done that from time to time, though I find it annoying that I have
to.) But if the site has a fixed width design, you don't see why you
should have to resize your browser window to read the site.

OK. I don't see why I should have to resize my browser window to read
fluid sites.

You can't win.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Guy Macon wrote:

Scott Bryce wrote:

>Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

>>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.

Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.

Guy,

Forget it. He's made up his mind. Don't confuse him with the facts.
They might overload that peanut he calls a brain.

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

[Jonathan N. Little]

Scott Bryce wrote:

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

>On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:

>>And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?

Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
window maximized.

If I have a reason to need to see more than one window at a time, I will
resize my browser window. And I will concede that fluid designs usually
work best when I do.

So you prefer?

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2008-07-02, Ed Jay wrote:

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/wrote:

>>
Scott Bryce wrote:

>>>
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

>>>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.

Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.

I try to strike the happy medium. I designed my site for 100% width on a
1024px wide viewer port. It's completely fluid for viewer ports less than
1024, but fixed for larger (max-width:1024px;). This gives me 6-inch wide
lines of text.

max-width: 1024px;
width:expressio n(document.body .clientWidth 1024? "1024px": "100%" );
(for IE).

That may still be too wide for easy reading if the viewer has a
very small font size, or too narrow if a very large size.

I specify max-width in ems, the number varying depending on the
page.

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