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  10187 
Uncle Pirate wrote: I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either.
I (having taught computer science for 5 years at Central Texas College)
Also understand how most people use most applications full screen. I
don't think it is so much "don't understand the benefits of multiple
windows" as it is a I, and others, just like my applications full
screen. Currently, I create SCORM learning content (mostly based in
Flash)
I do not argue the benefits of web standards, accessibility, or the use
of css over tables for design of a site who's main goal is sales or
information meant for a generic audience. Our website does them all as
our audience is teachers and learning services at corporations. (sigh,
we are fixed width though). Our applications on the other hand are all
flash based, and if connecting to a SCORM LMS require javascript.
Speaking of which, Don't you find it interesting (as an educator) that
the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) SCORM standards (which are
probably more accepted as standards from their respected communities,
than w3c is with html and css) REQUIRE a browser with javascript AND if
using Flash, require IE (because of live connect). When the education
community got together and came up with a set of standards fr building
learning content, they decided this was the best way to go.
--
-=tn=-
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)?
(please don't take this as argumentative It is not meant that way)
--
-=tn=-
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote: 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. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes.
I predict that you used px or pt for the font size in your CSS, am I
right? Despite the daily advice in these newsgroups not to do so.
Did everyone know that about style tags?
Almost everyone knows about this shortcoming in Windows IE.
How does CSS address font sizing by the user's browser?
Very well, so long as (a) the user isn't using Windows IE; OR (b) the
author isn't using px or pt for the fon-size.
Now I'm wishing I had never started using style tags (or whatever they are called.
Embedded CSS?)
External CSS is preferable for other reasons but this particular
problem has nothing to do with how your CSS is attached to your HTML.
I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.
URL? FF will resize any font (allowing for the user's minimum font
size setting). Sure the others weren't images? ;-)
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
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.
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.
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;margin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)
I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.
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.
--
-=tn=-
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;margin: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?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB40 - It's my delight
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser
& go.
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to
adjust things under the hood depending on my destination
Indeed. That's why browsers install in windowing mode, IMHO.
(stole that analogy from
the 'webmasters newsgroup). So, what's "windowing"?
It's normal operation on X Windows as well as in MS Windows, in my
experience. It's strange that things seem so different for you.
What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768?
Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.
Most sites look fine at that setting.
Not to me. Oh, my 19" monitor is set at 1280x1024, but that's not
such a big issue. There's currently about 20 windows on it
(overlapping, of course). A browser window (there's only three of
those just now) rarely gets more than half the screen width.
The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running all the way across
the screen.
"The" CSS sites?
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display. I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
Travis Newbury wrote: You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
You have that choice.
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."
You might have that choice. But it lacks the flexibility to adapt,
and deprives many users of that choice.
--
Nick Kew
Alan J. Flavell wrote: That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
Laugh if you like, but the latest Windows binary of Amaya opened
full-screen for me. I could argue that was its best feature, but that's
another story for another day...
So, there's one for you that did.
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk...
[snip] It's a
well-established principle of web design that the final decision about
the presentation is taken by the reader;...
Whoops-e-daisy, "well-established" breaks down to "achieved widespread use"
in most people's parlance. The reality is that millions of successful sites
that enjoy great popularity
use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
...the author can only make what
seem to be appropriate proposals.
Then we are in agreement and you should have no objections if I as an author
propose in the code of my pages that the layout and the font be of a fixed
size.
Signed,
me
c.thornquist wrote: I want to get in my car & drive without having to adjust
things under the hood depending on my destination (stole that analogy
from the 'webmasters newsgroup).
But don't you also want flexibility? Like the ability to carry a
passenger and/or your luggage? And indeed the flexibility to adjust
your seat, mirror, etc to where you're comfortable?
So, what's "windowing"?
It makes it easy to do more than one thing. To take the desktop
analogy, I have a computer on my desk. But it doesn't take all
the space. I also have pen&paper, telephone, and a pint mug of tea.
At other times, I have other things there.
I value them all, and I value being able to have all of them to
hand at the same time, so for exampleI can use the computer while
speaking on the phone. I'd *hate* it if someone tried to impose
on me a computer so big I had no space for the other things.
Though when I have a more limited overall space (like when on a
busy train) I accept reduced convenience.
The same applies to my screen. Any modern desktop or mainstream
laptop is big enough to accommodate many different things on the
screen. I value that convenience. In more limited circumstances,
like a 'phone display, I'd accept reduced convenience.
--
Nick Kew
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser
& go.
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before.
If full screen means maximized then you're talking about a decision made by
the software author or the OS. Since you embrace the paradigm that default
equals best can we assume that your Windows machine with IE still has MSN as
the home page?
They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
Would that extra effort be clicking maximize? Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to
adjust things under the hood depending on my destination
Indeed. That's why browsers install in windowing mode, IMHO.
See above.
Signed,
me
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t... 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.
From a purely astethic point of view I find it to be one of the best if not
*the* best CSS positioned designs I have seen too date (I won't say YMMV
because it's woefully inadequate).
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
Congratulations, you found a way to break her design.
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.
User stylesheet YIKES!
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.
Three columns are stupid? IMO you have issues about design.
Signed,
me
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
> Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
> gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser
& go.
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
I just opened IE & it opened at 100%. I never changed the settings, so it
must be IE's default? Oh, you mean the "Restore Down/Maximize" button in IE
in the top right corner. Yeah, I probably set it to Maximize long ago. I
like my browser & all applications at 100%. Empty space is OK with me. It
gives your eyes a rest. So, I realize & accept that most sites are built for
800x600 and there will be some empty space. Visually, I prefer that to
filling my screen with text & banner ads.
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;)
Most sites look fine at that setting.
The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running all the way across
the screen.
"The" CSS sites?
Those built using CSS that are typical of w3.org's, I should have said.
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Carla
c.thornquist wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
I just opened IE & it opened at 100%.
Flavell wrote "installs"; you wrote "opened".
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
Then do as Alan suggests and use a stylesheet with max-width in it.
Then all the sites you're complaining about will be restricted to your
max-width. That way you get exactly your preferred width, not the
authors preferred width or some average preferred width based on the
half dozen people the author spoke to when building the site. A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
Studies have shown that narrow columns with wide margins are nearly as
bad as wide columns with narrow margins. Medium-to-wide columns with
moderate margins seem best but of course it also depends on font size,
etc. I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
How about a test? <g>
..pxunit { width: 420px; }
..emunit { width: <numberofchoicehere>em; }
<p class="pxunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>
<p class="emunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>
Then experiment by changing the text size in your various browsers.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.co .uk... c.thornquist wrote:
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar?
These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
No they don't look the same to me but (please don't be offended) they don't
excite me and I doubt they'd excite the people I know but that's purely a
matter of personal taste. By the way, what's up with arrow.gif, why does it
keep trying to download whenever I pass my cursor over the links? It took a
while for bg_home.jpg to download on dialup of course it's in the cache but
my cache is deleted when I close IE. I also have a batch file to delete
cookies/temp files/IEdat files every time I boot so my system stays squeaky.
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...153.css&page=0
I like these! But due to the BG image, fixed layout and fixed font size it's
not a fluid design so no joy there for the militant fluid fanatics (not that
I have any problem with fixed fonts and non-fluid designs I prefer them
myself). spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
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 is below 1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear). Some
here might be enraged with a site that doesn't flow to fit any device (not
me mind you, I believe in the right layout for the right device/media).
Loading a new page to change the look is not exactly a new idea. Nice site
though except for the manifesto (again this is my personal preferance, no
offense intended).
Signed,
me
"Travis Newbury" <tn@swingers.com> wrote in message
news:O7*****************@fe02.lga... Toby Inkster wrote:Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar?
These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...153.css&page=0
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your
screen, then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to
the left.
So now you are telling me how to use my browser?
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."
How are these different?
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"
They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a huge 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. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
Truer words were never spoken. My name is *me* and I officially endorse Mr.
Newbury's message.
Signed,
me
"Uncle Pirate" <st**@SureCann.com> wrote in message
news:42********@nntp.zianet.com... Travis Newbury wrote:
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. 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. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
I can't speak for Toby, but I see that both can be flexible to a point.
As a developer, I must make the decision of what will be a max size
and a minumum size. My reasoning of not using table layout is that it
is more difficult to work with than simple headings and paragraphs for
text, and all the fancy stuff separated with divs.
I disagree with your last statement in that the designer/developer isn't
deciding how you use your browser; he/she is deciding a max and min
*ideal* viewing size. It's still up to you (in either type of page)
whether to view it within the ideal conditions.
I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either. They will
most always close one before opening another. Teaching HTML and CSS, I
sometimes have a hard time getting students to have a browser window
open and a text editor saving the file and then refreshing the browser
to instantly see your changes. And that process is a whole lot easier
with windows that you can see parts of at the same time. I very rarely
ever have any application full screen as I usually have many things
going at once switching from one to another.
The efficacy of cascading multiple windows is dependant on your chosen
resolution. I prefer to use alt+tab or the taskbar YMMV.
Signed,
me
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*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf*****************************@40tude.net... 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;margin: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**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.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*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf*****************************@40tude.net... 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;margin: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.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:zJP2e.124616$Ze3.54954@attbi_s51...
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:LAM2e.119502$r55.56839@attbi_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.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:wvC2e.116947$r55.84800@attbi_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.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ur********************@twister.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.individual.ne t: 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
JRS: In article <3b*************@uni-berlin.de>, dated Wed, 30 Mar 2005
13:37:09, seen in news:comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, DU
<dr*******@hotNOSPAMmail.com> posted : Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <42***************@nowhere.not>, dated Sun, 27 Mar 2005
10:57:55, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, David Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> posted :
I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate.
Then write them down, and refer to them when posting.
Readers are more important than authors; they need to be at least as
numerous, since otherwise the authors are superfluous.
Wow! I've never read something as harsch as this.
You must have had an unduly sheltered life.
You can not be serious.
Naturally I am. News is not intended as a write-only medium; it is only
useful if it is read. Hence the convenience of readers is of great
importance. Authors are merely the servants of their readers.
I remember a particular netscape
newsgroup: I was once told that my signature should not be more than 2
lines long and my signature had 3 links of references to FAQ and
resources links useful for readers of the group. My signature had 3
lines, not 2.
You should know, and follow, the accepted standards. For Usenet, that
is a SigSep line of "-- " (not always possible), followed by up to four
lines. Two lines may have been a local convention there, but it's not a
reasonable one.
More technical newsgroups will not like
snipping much.
Rubbish.
-----
In the discussion, there has been undue concentration on particular
aspects of validation.
Validation is assuredly useful as a way of increasing the chances that a
page that works as intended in the browsers used for test will also work
well in most other browsers. That is what standards are for. (It is
not really needed if the pages are written, tested, and read using only
one version of only one browser, as could be the case on an Intranet.)
But it is also useful as a means of catching what are basically typos -
cases when the structural content of the file is what the author will in
hindsight feel that it should not have been (possibly caused by blunders
in editing). One should see most of those in reading the rendered page,
of course; but a second opinion of often valuable and in this case
cheaply obtained.
For example, I check every .htm file that is new after every brief
session of editing, using W3's TIDY in check-only mode driven by a batch
file; I just type 'try' at the open DOS prompt. It may not be the best
available validator; but it picks up most errors very easily.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Travis Newbury wrote: I (having taught computer science for 5 years at Central Texas College)
Also understand how most people use most applications full screen. I
don't think it is so much "don't understand the benefits of multiple
windows" as it is a I, and others, just like my applications full
screen. Currently, I create SCORM learning content (mostly based in Flash)
Still close by? Which campus? I believe they have a campus in El Paso
which is about 80 miles away from me.
As for full-screen vs. windowed, I'm a multiple window kind of guy. I
like Alan's? comparison of screen desktop with desk desktop. I even go
further than that; I have a switchbox that switches between my Linux
desktop and Windows desktop and remote from both of these to other
systems as well so I may have 4 computers instantly available (push of a
button or click of the mouse) and each of those desktops may have a
dozen or more applications open. Maximized windows just get in my way.
I do not argue the benefits of web standards, accessibility, or the use
of css over tables for design of a site who's main goal is sales or
information meant for a generic audience. Our website does them all as
our audience is teachers and learning services at corporations. (sigh,
we are fixed width though). Our applications on the other hand are all
flash based, and if connecting to a SCORM LMS require javascript.
Speaking of which, Don't you find it interesting (as an educator) that
the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) SCORM standards (which are
probably more accepted as standards from their respected communities,
than w3c is with html and css) REQUIRE a browser with javascript AND if
using Flash, require IE (because of live connect). When the education
community got together and came up with a set of standards fr building
learning content, they decided this was the best way to go.
That's too bad. I cannot think of a single valid reason to ever require
JavaScript, Flash, cookies, etc. But, NMSU has done it too. I have
multiple browsers installed so that I can get into the system where I
put in my leave time logging into a system that requires cookies and
JavaScript (why not do the tracking on YOUR computer instead of mine?),
the system opens new windows (I've set it for tabs) for screens with ONE
link to get to another new window with ONE link. It is IMO a horrible
thoughtless mess that I MUST deal with because it's part of my job. I
have to log into it frequently to reset user passwords, approve my
employee's time sheets, and enter any leave I take.
--
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
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
Apparently I'm "really so clue-impaired." Please enlighten me.
Carla
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3I********************@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. . Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?
How about a test? <g>
.pxunit { width: 420px; }
.emunit { width: <numberofchoicehere>em; }
<p class="pxunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>
<p class="emunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>
Then experiment by changing the text size in your various browsers.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
I just wanted an approximation. Didn't know there was none. I'll try your
test:)
Carla
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ar********************************@4ax.com... "c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph .gla.ac.uk... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
It makes reading tiring.
No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
Then do as Alan suggests and use a stylesheet with max-width in it.
Then all the sites you're complaining about will be restricted to your
max-width. That way you get exactly your preferred width, not the
authors preferred width or some average preferred width based on the
half dozen people the author spoke to when building the site.
Please don't imply that I am "complaining" about numerous sites. I only gave
the w3.org site as an example.
Neither you, nor I, know the decision making process involved on websites
belonging to others.
There will be sloppy sites, just as there are sloppy people & sloppy houses.
I detect an elitist attitude among some die-hard CSS purists.
A support technician at a hosting company I use said that web designers are
the plumbers (blue collar workers) of the internet. As with those in the
building trades union, web developers are paid well in large cities. Outside
of large metro areas we are hustling small business owners for work. They do
not want to pay more than $300.00-$500.00 for a website. So we have to build
them fast. If we want them to look good, then we use what works with the
settings & in the browsers that 90% of visitors use. That's reality.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
At 11-12px in Arial.
Studies have shown that narrow columns with wide margins are nearly as
bad as wide columns with narrow margins. Medium-to-wide columns with
moderate margins seem best but of course it also depends on font size,
etc.
I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
Steve
That you, Steve, for explaining em minus the attitude:)
Carla
Alan J. Flavell wrote: 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.
Like I wrote in another post, Amaya 9.1 actually installed and opened
first go maximized. I think I just used the word "opened" myself, which
isn't quite the same thing.
But no, Amaya is by no means a "usual browser".
me wrote: 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.
;-)
Heh, then your newsreader must be broken. I've replied to others in
this very thread, and in numerous other threads in this group and
quite a few other groups. Though I doubt if we read the same ~50 groups.
My life has had meaning for decades!
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
"Els" <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:kc***************************@40tude.net... me wrote:
"Els" <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:cf*****************************@40tude.net... 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;margin: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.
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?
Carla (clue-impaired yet again)
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote: "Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:ar********************************@4ax.com.. . "c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote:
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.
At 11-12px in Arial.
That's your default font size? That's rather on the small side. 12px
is what I have set as my minimum font size (my default is 14px so it's
still smaller than most browser defaults). So you'd have to agree that
if 4" is right for you it would be too narrow for many other people. What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)
420px divided by your font size in pixels
So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)
That you, Steve, for explaining em minus the attitude:)
Oh, I have lots of attitude...
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
c.thornquist wrote: "Els" <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:kc***************************@40tude.net...
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.
How does one implement a user stylesheet when browsing?
To be honest, I don't know. I remember having seen the option once in
one of my browsers, but I forgot where it was and even in which
browser.
Carla (clue-impaired yet again)
Like me then ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: UB40 - Keep on Moving
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.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). Then read the
documentation of your browser to see how to apply your stylesheet.
Your stylesheet can contain generic styles (e.g. setting a background
colour for all pages) or more specific stuff. See http://steve.pugh.net/articles/taming.html for an example of how I use
user styles to (un)fix a site that puts all its contents in narrow
columns.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
In article <I0i2e.3212$Vx1.1823@attbi_s01>, c.thornquist writes: I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby standards
(not related to health & safety) are required to be met, before
publication/viewing by others. That may aid in understanding both sides.
How about PAL or NTSC? If your television broadcast doesn't follow one
(the right one) of those standards, the user agents (television sets)
will probably not display it properly.
If you encode music on a small circular piece of metal without following
the standards set forth by Philips, the user agents (CD players) will
probably not display it properly.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
me wrote: (not that I have any problem with fixed fonts and non-fluid designs I
prefer them myself).
I must ask... for what reason do you prefer the font size to be fixed?
Surely, unless you resize your fonts half-way through reading it, you
can't possibly even *know* whether the font size is fixed or not?
Ditto fluid designs. Unless you resize your browser half-way through
reading the page, you can't know whether it's fluid or not.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:58:58 GMT, "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.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
Toby Inkster 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.
But they use the grid (mistakenly) to hold their images which include
curves and shapes, etc... Not that this can not be done with css,but it
usually isn't. Again because the graphic artists have not embraced css
yet (key word being "yet")
--
-=tn=-
Alan J. Flavell wrote: So to hell with those that use their browsers full screen eh? Not at all; but if they insist on using a browser window that's
inappropriate for purpose, and their browser fails to apply any
relevant max-width suggestions, they might not get the best result
possible.
But that is just my point, That exact same argument can be made for a
fixed width. Let me Pseudo quote you:
"Not at all, but if you insist on having a browser window that's
inappropriate for my fixed width site you might not get the best results
possible."
See, virtually the exact same argument. You are telling me my size is
inappropriate to view your site, and I am saying the exact same thing.
(Mind you the you and I are generic and not you and I specifically)
Wait a second! Who's browser is it? It is mine, so it is NOT
ridiculous for me to have it full screen!
Well, it wasn't me who was complaining about the results.
Sure you are, you are saying fixed width is wrong because you need to
change your browser window size right?
Making those proposals flexible, in the various ways which CSS allows,
can make a page which adapts itself more comfortably to variations in
the presentation situation. But if the reader takes that to extremes,
then the occasional sub-optimal result isn't so very surprising. At
least, to my way of thinking, it's better for the reader to have the
option of choice, as opposed to getting tiny fixed-size text cramped
into a narrow fixed-width column on an otherwise empty wide screen.
So which would *you* prefer?
I already said, I prefer a full screen browser.
--
-=tn=-
Alan J. Flavell wrote: That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
LOL! Like clicking the little box in the upper right corner.... Do
that once, and your set.
--
-=tn=-
Uncle Pirate wrote: Still close by? Which campus? I believe they have a campus in El Paso
which is about 80 miles away from me.
I was in Japan (Camp Foster, Kadena, and Kinser mostly) It was by far
the most rewarding job I have ever had. When the education community got together and came up with a set of
standards fr building learning content, they decided this was the best
way to go.
That's too bad. I cannot think of a single valid reason to ever require
JavaScript, Flash, cookies, etc. But, NMSU has done it too.
ADL (SCORM) did in fact need to require these things to make course ware
compatible with the most LMS's and LCMS's. It allowed the courses to be
launched from any web server, and speak to virtually LMS or LCMS. If
you read their reasoning it makes sense. Their goal was for the
courseware to be compatible with as many LMS/LCMS's as possible. In the
long run this really is to the benefit of the students until the
LMS/LCMS makers get their shit together. Not saying it is perfect, but
it is the best thing going right now.
I have several threads on the ADL website dedicated to the use of Flash
as the connection medium between the content and a LMS/LCMS that can
eliminate some of the requirements of IE. Flash is a perfect medium or
learning content.
--
-=tn=-
Els wrote: 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.
And that's why they call it personal preference...
--
-=tn=-
"Michael Stemper" <ms******@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message
news:20***********************@walkabout.empros.co m... In article <I0i2e.3212$Vx1.1823@attbi_s01>, c.thornquist writes:
I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby
standards
(not related to health & safety) are required to be met, before
publication/viewing by others. That may aid in understanding both sides.
How about PAL or NTSC? If your television broadcast doesn't follow one
(the right one) of those standards, the user agents (television sets)
will probably not display it properly.
If you encode music on a small circular piece of metal without following
the standards set forth by Philips, the user agents (CD players) will
probably not display it properly.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
But aren't those standards very basic (referring to the # of lines, refresh
rate & color definition - from http://www.ee.washington.edu/consele.../ntsc/95x4.htm ), like a
webpage requiring HTML, head & body tags? And saving your files with certain
extensions. That moves us to back-end development on the server. Web
designers work front-end, so the analogy should be with how TV content (what
we end up seeing on our TV screen) is developed. Right? I'm guessing there
are many ways of producing the content.
HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with an
organization impeding the creative process.
Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?
Carla This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
