By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,387 Members | 1,751 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,387 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Xah's Edu Corner: Tech Geekers and their Style

P: n/a
Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/

With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:

sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...bfe2330aa9.asp

so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.

What the fuck is going on?

And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).

Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work

in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.

And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.

«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»
There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:

1. They didn't do it intentionally.

2. They did it intentionally.

If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.

On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.

Dec 30 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
28 Replies


P: n/a
"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> writes:
Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/

With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.


In general, the IT industry doesn't address the needs of the Neandertals.

If you want a narrow column, you just reduce the size of your window!

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

"You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you
stand!"
Dec 30 '05 #2

P: n/a
[followups to comp.infosystems.www.authoring stylesheets, since that's
the only newsgroup the OP addressed where this is relevant (LISP?? what
was he thinking?]

Xah Lee wrote:
Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.
It's also pointless since that balances the text only in *your* browser,
using your settings. It will look unbalanced in other people's browsers.

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/

With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.


It isn't either basic or (obviously, since the world is still turning
after all these years without it) necessary.
Dec 30 '05 #3

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/

With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.

It isn't either basic or (obviously, since the world is still turning
after all these years without it) necessary.


This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>

--
Gus
Dec 30 '05 #4

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>


"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Dec 30 '05 #5

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>


"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.


Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most (if
not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN. Not
down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could resort
to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a Web page
to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to failure. And,
in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is this sensible
marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate every
reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for some
narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and tick
off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Dec 31 '05 #6

P: n/a
Ed Mullen wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>

"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.


Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most (if
not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN. Not
down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could resort
to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a Web page
to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to failure. And,
in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is this sensible
marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate every
reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for some
narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and tick
off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.


All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.

--
Gus
Dec 31 '05 #7

P: n/a
Xah Lee Wrote:
«Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/
»
Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html
»

Thanks! Very neat!

Way to go FireFox!

Recently i got the Web Developer tool bar for firefox. I loved it,
especially the Outline Tables feature, which can give one a quick
overview of the site's layout that is otherwise extremely time
consuming to see.

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Dec 31 '05 #8

P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html
»

Thanks! Very neat!

Way to go FireFox!


It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.

--
Gus
Dec 31 '05 #9

P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:
With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.


No, this is an indication of what happens to an industry paralyzed by
organized crime and a corrupt government.

Microsoft delendum est.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Jan 1 '06 #10

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>

"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.


Very nice assessment.


All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.


As a user, I guess I'll "not use it" by boycotting sites that use this
silly thing, eh?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 2 '06 #11

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:

« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html


It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.


Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 2 '06 #12

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:

All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.


As a user, I guess I'll "not use it" by boycotting sites that use this
silly thing, eh?


Your choice and your opinion.
You were also one of those knocking CSS a few years ago, yes?

--
Gus
Jan 2 '06 #13

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html


It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.

Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?


Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is aesthetically
superior.

--
Gus
Jan 2 '06 #14

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>

"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.


Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most
(if not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN.
Not down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could
resort to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a
Web page to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to
failure. And, in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is
this sensible marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate
every reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for
some narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and
tick off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.


All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.

My original post wasn't meant to deride anything standards efforts or
clever design. I appreciate this much the same way I might appreciate
the design of a car that runs on recovered restaurant grease as fuel.
It's academically interesting, admirable from an intellectual
standpoint, but I'm not about to try to convert my BMW just because it's
a "cool idea." It's not practical and, to me, makes no sense from a
useage standpoint. That's what I was trying to say.

If I ranted a bit and made offense, I apologize. But I stand by my
assessment that this is only intellectually interesting: That is, it
makes no sense in the real world, in the way that real people read. I
may admire the cleverness involved in solving the academic problem, I
may admire the elegance of the solution, but I disagree with the notion
that this was a problem in need of a solution. It, still, simply doesn't
make any sense from a human factors standpoint.

So, I admire, I apologize, and I still will shy away from
implementations of this "solution." Kay? No harm, no foul? ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 2 '06 #15

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html

It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.


Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?


Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is aesthetically
superior.

ROFL! As though this exact question--whether full or left-only
justification is better for readability--hadn't already been studied
exhaustively. It's a fact that for the most part people are better able
to navigate visually from one line to the next, without winding up on
the wrong line, when the right margin is ragged. As for esthetic
factors, they are often at odds with usability.
Jan 3 '06 #16

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:

> « This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html

It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.
Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?

Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is
aesthetically superior.

ROFL! As though this exact question--whether full or left-only
justification is better for readability--hadn't already been studied
exhaustively. It's a fact that for the most part people are better able
to navigate visually from one line to the next, without winding up on
the wrong line, when the right margin is ragged. As for esthetic
factors, they are often at odds with usability.


ROFLMAO! Another one that did not try to apply it as suggested.
Although this may be true for long lines (questionable studies, since I
find line to line navigation equally bothersome when ragged-right), the
subject example is using narrow columns. One would have to be cross-eyed
not to be able to follow line by line. With ragged-right, it confuses as
to where the column ends if the gutter between columns is not wide
enough and if there is no visual separator. Stand in the corner with the
other two.

--
Gus
Jan 3 '06 #17

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
ROFLMAO! Another one that did not try to apply it as suggested.
Although this may be true for long lines (questionable studies, since I
find line to line navigation equally bothersome when ragged-right), the
subject example is using narrow columns. One would have to be cross-eyed
not to be able to follow line by line. With ragged-right, it confuses as
to where the column ends if the gutter between columns is not wide
enough and if there is no visual separator. Stand in the corner with the
other two.

Well, again, you insist that we start from scratch, as though this issue
is new and needs a fresh look instead of being something old and
long-since settled. Do you think the conclusion changes every time
someone new comes along who hasn't considered the issue before?
Jan 3 '06 #18

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
ROFLMAO! Another one that did not try to apply it as suggested.
Although this may be true for long lines (questionable studies, since
I find line to line navigation equally bothersome when ragged-right),
the subject example is using narrow columns. One would have to be
cross-eyed not to be able to follow line by line. With ragged-right,
it confuses as to where the column ends if the gutter between columns
is not wide enough and if there is no visual separator. Stand in the
corner with the other two.

Well, again, you insist that we start from scratch, as though this issue
is new and needs a fresh look instead of being something old and
long-since settled. Do you think the conclusion changes every time
someone new comes along who hasn't considered the issue before?


I insist on nothing. I read. I determine what I like and don't like. I
like justified text. I think it looks better and can be read just as
easily as ragged right, if not easier. I can't recall reading a book
which was ragged right. So it has been discussed, you say, and the
consensus was that ragged right is easier to read? Was there a survey
taken of 500 random people? It was a handful here, right? Probably
browbeaten by 2 or 3 vocal members. There may even be some publication
wherein the author states this opinion as well, but it would be again
just his opinion. For any of this, I should accept what goes against
what I like? I think not! I quasi-conceded for long lines, but stuck
with my short columns which was the subject at hand and asked you to
compare. You didn't, so we're not even on the same page. As they say, "I
don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" and regarding
'justify' in the columns themselves, I like them both. I imagine others
like it as well since justify has been around for a while and they put
columns in CSS3 and Mozilla has implemented it. So you and the other two
in your corner don't like them. No problem with that. It's all in the
eye of the beholder.

--
Gus
Jan 4 '06 #19

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
[re: readability of justified text]

I quasi-conceded for long lines, but stuck with my short columns
which was the subject at hand and asked you to compare. You didn't,
so we're not even on the same page.


It sounds like you think this is the first case of justified text we've
ever come across. I for one don't need to make a specific test case to
know how readability will compare on-screen between justified text and
left-aligned. Left-aligned wins unless the paragraphs are very short,
then it doesn't matter much either way.

BTW, I have a special bookmarklet that changes all text on a page to
left-aligned. I only use it on sites that use justified text. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 4 '06 #20

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
[re: readability of justified text]

I quasi-conceded for long lines, but stuck with my short columns
which was the subject at hand and asked you to compare. You didn't,
so we're not even on the same page.

It sounds like you think this is the first case of justified text we've
ever come across.


Good for you and your "we" club. Is this the same membership as in the
"they say" club?
I for one don't need to make a specific test case to
know how readability will compare on-screen between justified text and
left-aligned.
Alright, another man that knows what he likes. Please don't bother to
make any extra effort regarding this piddly matter.
Left-aligned wins unless the paragraphs are very short,
then it doesn't matter much either way.
In this instance, in case you have not gone to the link, they are narrow
columns and exactly my point. I guess you did not read where I mention
that it does matter, since with ragged-right it gets difficult to
determine where the column ends if the inter-column gutter is not wide
enough. With justified text, it is much easier.
BTW, I have a special bookmarklet that changes all text on a page to
left-aligned. I only use it on sites that use justified text. ;)


What do you do with books and newspapers?

--
Gus
Jan 5 '06 #21

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:

What do you do with books and newspapers?


How many times does someone have to say it... the web is not paper.
Reading on-screen is not the same as reading on paper, either.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jan 5 '06 #22

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
What do you do with books and newspapers?


How many times does someone have to say it... the web is not paper.
Reading on-screen is not the same as reading on paper, either.


I gotta say, I've read this thread with, at first, great interest and
then growing amusement. And then I started to pay attention. I do read
books. I read magazines. I read newspapers. And I'm online a minimum
of probably 8 hours a day. I rarely notice how text is justified.
Unless ... I come across something that is out of the ordinary for the
particular medium (or, perhaps, if I'm Web surfing for layout design
examples which means I'm deliberately looking at such things). I do
notice it when I'm especially annoyed by layout that is counterintuitive
such as Web-based, newspaper style, multi-column layouts. Doing some
Googling for studies on usability I see some studies suggesting that
some majority of those studied prefer one way in a particular medium.
But it's hardly overwhelming. It does seem to be somewhat personal, and
it seems that a lot of people couldn't care less. Until layout becomes
intrusive, as I mentioned above.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 5 '06 #23

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Gus Richter wrote:
What do you do with books and newspapers?

How many times does someone have to say it... the web is not paper.
Reading on-screen is not the same as reading on paper, either.


I'll stop at this point and allow you finish with another tiresome cliché.

--
Gus
Jan 6 '06 #24

P: n/a
In article <5M********************@golden.net>,
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:
kchayka wrote:

How many times does someone have to say it... the web is not paper.
Reading on-screen is not the same as reading on paper, either.


I'll stop at this point and allow you finish with another tiresome cliché.


But it's not a cliché. Can you take a folio and reduce it to the size of
a book? Can you take a folio and reduce it to the size of a paperback
novel? You can do all that on a proper website and increase the size of
the font to be readable to the visually impaired to boot. And make it
intelligible to people who can't see. Poorly written sites can't do it
though. Neither can anything written on paper.
It's a new world. It will win over the layout artists of the old one on
this medium. The scribes of the fifteenth century coexisted for a
hundred years with the printing press, but I think the interval will be
shorter this time.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
Jan 6 '06 #25

P: n/a
Ed Mullen wrote:

It does seem to be somewhat personal, and
it seems that a lot of people couldn't care less.
What I really get a laugh about is the saying of, "You can't teach an
old dog new tricks" when in fact my experience is the opposite, that the
younger guys resist change the most and want to maintain the status quo.
Until layout becomes
intrusive, as I mentioned above.


What about the other segment which prefers justified? Wouldn't it be
nice to have an alternate stylesheet to satisfy all? I stated my
personal preference and don't look to convert anyone, but rather respect
their preferences. On the other hand, I don't appreciate being told that
my personal preference is wrong, that my preference had been discussed
before and that it was determined that my preference was decidedly odd.

--
Gus
Jan 6 '06 #26

P: n/a
Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>
> BTW, I have a special bookmarklet that changes all text on a page to
> left-aligned. I only use it on sites that use justified text. ;)

What do you do with books and newspapers?

How many times does someone have to say it... the web is not paper.
Reading on-screen is not the same as reading on paper, either.


I'll stop at this point and allow you finish with another tiresome cliché.


But it's not a cliché. Can you take a folio and reduce it to the size of
a book? Can you take a folio and reduce it to the size of a paperback
novel? You can do all that on a proper website and increase the size of
the font to be readable to the visually impaired to boot. And make it
intelligible to people who can't see. Poorly written sites can't do it
though. Neither can anything written on paper.
It's a new world. It will win over the layout artists of the old one on
this medium. The scribes of the fifteenth century coexisted for a
hundred years with the printing press, but I think the interval will be
shorter this time.


Unbelievable! Do any of you two know how to read? Here is a recap from
the above:

"kchayka" said that he uses a bookmarlette to change text to left-aligned.
"I" responded (with tongue in cheek), asking what he did with printed
material (that uses justify).
"kchayka" answers back with a clich totally out of context.
"I" tried to end the discussion due to communication problems.
"Leo" interjects by expounding his views regarding the clich, thereby
exhibiting the same communication problem.

I shall refrain from tongue in cheek comments in the future, or indicate
such to avoid confusion.

--
Gus
Jan 6 '06 #27

P: n/a
In article <pZ******************************@golden.net>,
Gus Richter <gu********@netscape.net> wrote:
I shall refrain from tongue in cheek comments in the future, or indicate
such to avoid confusion.


But I just learned how to read yesterday! The buzzword was cliche. I
admit I didn't follow the top of the thread. I stand by my soapbox, but
I wouldn't have mounted it if I thought you were tongue in cheek. Sorry.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
Jan 6 '06 #28

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:

It does seem to be somewhat personal, and it seems that a lot of
people couldn't care less.
What I really get a laugh about is the saying of, "You can't teach an
old dog new tricks" when in fact my experience is the opposite, that the
younger guys resist change the most and want to maintain the status quo.


Couldn't agree more. Of course, this is coming from "an old dog." ;-)
Until layout becomes intrusive, as I mentioned above.


What about the other segment which prefers justified? Wouldn't it be
nice to have an alternate stylesheet to satisfy all? I stated my
personal preference and don't look to convert anyone, but rather respect
their preferences. On the other hand, I don't appreciate being told that
my personal preference is wrong, that my preference had been discussed
before and that it was determined that my preference was decidedly odd.


I suspect that in Mozilla-based browsers using the userChrome and
userContent css files you could, potentially, create rules that would
override a Web page's justification. Being able to impose personal
preferences like this is (generally) a good thing. And another example
of why fluid design is also a good thing.

And, sure, no one especially likes being attacked on an ad-hominem
level. On the other hand, I'm always right until I'm wrong so I try not
to let that make me crazy. :-D Besides, it's obviously a matter of
choice, no one is harmed either way, so why pay any attention to
strident condemnations that are clearly misguided?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 7 '06 #29

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.