471,605 Members | 1,605 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,605 software developers and data experts.

Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

Hello Styleists!

I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
List Apart.

URL: http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html

This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
using Firefox, all is well -
the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!

When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
gone! I discovered this by accident, when I was using the page above
(example_1.htm) as a template for one of my pages, where I have some
roll over image buttons for navigation on the left side, and all was
ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

Would some one take a look at the url above, using ie 7 and give me a
hint about fixing this?

Thanks,

eholz1
Nov 17 '07 #1
29 1825
eholz1 wrote:
>
ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!
Put your test page on the web somewhere and post the URL. Do not post
code here. Before you do this, however, validate both your HTML and CSS
to make sure there aren't any syntax errors causing the problem.

--
Berg
Nov 17 '07 #2
rf

"Bergamot" <be******@visi.comwrote in message
news:5q************@mid.individual.net...
eholz1 wrote:
>>
ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

Put your test page on the web somewhere and post the URL. Do not post
code here. Before you do this, however, validate both your HTML and CSS
to make sure there aren't any syntax errors causing the problem.
Er, he/she did, or more to the point he/she doesn't need to.

It seems the page at alistapart:
http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
is broken when viewed with IE7. Indeed, the left hand column is simply
missing.

I'm not too keen on alistapart examples so I won't bother diagnosing the
problem.

--
Richard.
Nov 17 '07 #3
rf

"VK" <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:ba**********************************@b36g2000 hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>Only table layout eliminates this danger.

Er, what again?
<snip drivel>

No further comment required.

--
Richard.
Nov 17 '07 #4
VK
On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.comwrote:
>Only table layout eliminates this danger.
No further comment required.
Oh? So what is _your_ professional advise will be to OP? "IE users
will not see one third of your page and hell on them, who cares"? Or
do you have another "really working" three columns div layout to
suggest? If the first, then no comments of course, if the last then
I'm anxious to see one.

Nov 17 '07 #5
VK meinte:
>>Only table layout eliminates this danger.
Er, what again?

Again (as it's very important for commercial developers): only table
layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by all
visitors using graphics UAs. If one wants to be stable paid for his
solutions, table layout is the only option.
Jeez... Utter crap. Randy Webb was right with his assessment of yours on
clj.

Gregor
--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Nov 17 '07 #6
VK wrote:

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td width="15%">Menu</td>
<td width="70%">Main</td>
<td width="15%">Blank/Splash</td>
</tr>
</table>

Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
- or stop cheating people, please.

Note: sorry exuses of the kind "different solutions require different
approaches" are dismissed in advance: I do not put any such
restriction in my sample, so please avoid them in yours.
except that:

<ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>

<div class="content">
....
</div>

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 17 '07 #7
VK
On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
<ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>

<div class="content">
...
</div>

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.
Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)

From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,
what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully
selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?
What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)
Nov 17 '07 #8
In article
<8c**********************************@w73g2000hsf. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is. Using tables for layout is one thing, But using them
without an eye out for the simplest fluidity criteria is bad,
surely? So, without mentioning anything else, can you trust the
judgement of those who made up this list?

Please make your challenge as clear as possible. Your "only table
layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by
all visitors using graphics UAs" is simply wrong. If you turn off
the stylesheet of a semantically well made html page, there are
no modern graphical browsers which will not display the page and
bar anyone from its content. So you are meaning something else.
Please spell it out well, it is an interesting claim but you need
to describe what it is much better.

--
dorayme
Nov 17 '07 #9
VK wrote:
>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td width="15%">Menu</td>
<td width="70%">Main</td>
<td width="15%">Blank/Splash</td>
</tr>
</table>

Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
- or stop cheating people, please.
<div style="width:15%;float:left;">Menu</div>
<div style="width:70%;float:left;">Main</div>
<div style="width:15%;float:left;">Blank/Splash</div>

--
Gus
Nov 18 '07 #10
VK wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
><ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>

<div class="content">
...
</div>

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)
You need to open your mind a bit. You're stuck in a one-track thought
process.
From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,
Extensibility is hardly "too far...to bother about".
what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.
You've been provided several examples by myself and others. Open your
eyes (and your mind)!
P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully
Reads like your own self description there.
selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?
Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Just sayin'...
What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)
--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Nov 18 '07 #11
VK
On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.netwrote:
Why do you think it is so?

Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?
Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song
are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.
Nov 18 '07 #12
VK wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.netwrote:
>>Why do you think it is so?
Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.
Twelve years of experience and evolution dictates otherwise.
An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song
As I do not meet the above criteria, it is (as you say) irrelevant.
are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.
Again, you make suppositions based on limited old-school thinking.
Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.
You continue to display your narrow-mindedness. A well-built site
doesn't need "special blocks of code on pages for visitors with vision
and hearing impairments". A well-built site will cater to the regular
visitor AND those with accessibility concerns.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Nov 18 '07 #13
In article
<8d**********************************@d50g2000hsf. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is.

I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page".
Surely you are aware of this, it is plain commonsense and does
not have to be written down somewhere in some rule book. If a
webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise to
require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary. Full stop.
What is unnecessary or of no help to anyone is bad whether it be
written or not.

--
dorayme
Nov 18 '07 #14
In article
<8d**********************************@d50g2000hsf. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
Please make your challenge as clear as possible.

I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.
What does this mean, sorry?

So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

--
dorayme
Nov 18 '07 #15
VK
On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
I guess my challenge would be
to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.

What does this mean, sorry?
It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.

Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.
So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.

What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.
"New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
free download.

"Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"

"Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
officially discontinued by the producer.

IE sample:
New browser - IE7
Old browser - IE6
Very old browser - IE5.5

FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x

You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
very old browsers".
Nov 18 '07 #16
On 17 nov, 05:39, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 17, 6:54 am, eholz1 <ewh...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello Styleists!
I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
List Apart.
URL:http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
using Firefox, all is well -
the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!
When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
gone!

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
From CSS for #left column: margin-left: -100%;

Seehttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/
Bug #39
Exactly. I was going to post on this but you were faster than me.
The second thing you never should use is negative margin value unless
you are Ok with part of your content disappearing for 80%-95% of your
visitors (IE users). btw on the demo for bug #39 under IE 6 SP1 we are
having the same peekaboo effect ("X" is not on the page) - despite the
bug is claimed only for IE7.
I am going to update this very shortly. VK, your remark is noted and
appreciated.

Regards, Gérard
Nov 18 '07 #17
VK
On Nov 18, 11:05 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.
I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?

Nov 18 '07 #18
In article
<11**********************************@n20g2000hsh. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
I guess my challenge would be
to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.
What does this mean, sorry?

It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.
Are you saying you found it easy to write with a pen in your
mouth? <g>

If you are saying it is challenging to write good html and css,
yes it is. If you are saying it is easy to write good tables
html, how come it is so badly done all the time? Perhaps the
things that are difficult to achieve are more worthwhile.
Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.
It depends on what you mean by "context independent and reliable
way". What context? A blind person with a screen reader? No? OK,
a person with a pda or mobile phone? No? A person with a 17"
screen with at least 800px across spare and Windows, Linux or
Mac.

And what are you including in the output of the table?
Differently coloured equi-length columns? This one is harder to
do, especially when trying to satisfy IE, without table layout.
But why would you want to able to duplicate everything that a
table layout can achieve? Perhaps some things are not so worth
achieving.

--
dorayme
Nov 18 '07 #19
In article
<6a**********************************@d61g2000hsa. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 18, 11:05 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.

I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?
The first on the list.

--
dorayme
Nov 18 '07 #20
VK wrote:
On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>I guess my challenge would be
to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.
What does this mean, sorry?

It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.

Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.
>>So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

"New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
free download.

"Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"

"Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
officially discontinued by the producer.

IE sample:
New browser - IE7
Old browser - IE6
Very old browser - IE5.5

FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x

You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
very old browsers".
If this be your criteria, then, solutions have already been presented.
Several times over, in fact. You simply don't want to accept them.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Nov 19 '07 #21
VK wrote:
On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>I guess my challenge would be
to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.
What does this mean, sorry?

It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.
Challenging or overwhelming, (for you)? I am sorry but I don't think the
analogy is quite correct. It is more like updating practices, why should
I go to a mechanic that only works with carburetors when all modern cars
nowadays are fuel-injected with computerized fuel controls? As with any
"trade" you have to keep up with the technology. I'd worry about the
surgeon who is still working with ether, bone-saw and sulfur-powder!
>
Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
Then you don't know what you are doing... Dividitus and classitus is
just as bad as nested tables and pages riddled with FONT elements.
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me.
You don't. Any anyway if you do need a UA fix it's for IE.
But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.
>>So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.
As long as the page will ALWAYS be three columns...
>
"New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
free download.

"Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"

"Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
officially discontinued by the producer.

IE sample:
New browser - IE7
should be "New browser[ sort'a ]"

Old browser - IE6
Some folks have no choice, I was a very happy camper on Win2K.
Very old browser - IE5.5
No one has reason to use this and stats will show they don't <1%
>
FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x
Browser updates why would anyone use this, FF2.x works even on Win98! I
guess a few folks with OS8 or 9 But look at your Safari stats these Mac
folks are going to be to somewhere near the Netscape4.x and IE3 crowd!
>
You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
very old browsers".
With CSS your page should still be legible without any stylesheet! So
these ancient browser should be able to view the page, not in your
glorious styling, but still viewable.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 19 '07 #22
VK
If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.
I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?

The first on the list.
In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

I do not see any horizontal scroll bar neither in Firefox nor in IE6.
What browser and what monitor are you using?
Nov 20 '07 #23
In article
<93**********************************@d61g2000hsa. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.
I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?
The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

I do not see any horizontal scroll bar neither in Firefox nor in IE6.
What browser and what monitor are you using?
I guess you are replying to something I said. You using a browser
and google for newsgroup? You do not quote context.

Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide. What material in
the page justifies it? It is no use saying that the author has
desingned it so, the question is why. How can something as
annoying as this be put at the *top* of a good web design
ranking? Does it mean nothing to these rankers that people have
smaller screens, that even people with bigger screens like to
view not at fullscreen? Is the cost for viewing at less than
1000px wide going to be scrollbars? Why is there *this* cost for
the *actual* material on this site?

--
dorayme
Nov 20 '07 #24
VK
On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.
Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger and because
the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout rather
than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
visitor. It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO. We
may discuss this im more details at
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design because this question is OT
to the original subject (table layout VS div layout) and truthfully is
out of competence of ciwas. I am not saying that there are not
adequate specialists in here, but tools to get the desired design and
the choice of the design itself are quite different topics, and for
each topic - the most appropriate NG, this is the rule of the
Usenet ;-)
I guess you are replying to something I said.
You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
You do not quote context.
It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed. In
the previous message I quoted:

-------------------------------
If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.
I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?
The first on the list.
In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com
-------------------------------

The amount of information and >>>/>>/marks are right enough to get
onto the subject for any outside reader, even if he/she did not follow
the whole thread. IMHO
Nov 20 '07 #25
In article
<33**********************************@i29g2000prf. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.

Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger
Given my question, this is a surprising thing to say. I was
asking how a page that simply does not have the material in it to
justify scrollbars coming on at just under 1000px could be ranked
first in a list of good web design. The context, I remind you is
you cited (right here on this usenet group) this ranking page as
an authority and I am pointing to something that shakes the
confidence in this.
and because
the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout
If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths. If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath? Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)
rather
than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
visitor.
See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?
It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.
I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?
I guess you are replying to something I said.
You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
You do not quote context.

It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed.
But that is what I was mildly hinting at, that you were not
following best practice. Do you know, for example, that some
newsreaders are just online readers and they do not store the
thread. Sometimes threads can be seen by various not wholly
convenient methods, including of course, going to Google Groups.

--
dorayme
Nov 20 '07 #26
VK
On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths.
No, it is a common mistake to think and especially to make a page
layout where forming blocks either "collapse" into some bag pack or
"extends" to the density of stars on the night sky at the bad weather:
all following the available size.
A too crowded design is irritating to eyes, so the same for a design
where your eyes have to navigate across huge empty areas from one
block to another. If asked what is the worst from two I would be
really hesitating what to say. There is some min-width you don't want
to go below in any case: user has to either scroll, or to extend the
browser window, or to buy a descent monitor, or to go to hell
whatsoever ("Webpunks are not welcome!", remember ;-) Same there is
some max-width you don't want to exceed.
If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath?
Why asking me? Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.
Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)
See atop ;-)
See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?
640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?
It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?
For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others. Of course can be and should
be a number of dorayme, Dick and Stanley who dislike it. But this is
also what is paid to H&H by the company - and H&H prices are not low
at all - this is the guarantee that this last category of visitors
will be safe to disregard, both by possible income loss criterion and
by legal responsibility criterion.
Nov 20 '07 #27
Kevin Scholl wrote:
Ideas and concepts. You know, the things on which innovation and
technological thrive.
Meant to say "technological advancement" there...

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Nov 20 '07 #28
In article
<b0**********************************@e23g2000prf. googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <sc**********@yahoo.comwrote:
On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths.

No, ...
No?

You were saying that it is designed for the majority of people
who view at more than 800. Lets say 1280 (you claim this is the
author's model, ok.). At 1280 it "breathes" to use your term. So
why the "no"? If it is viewed at less than 900, it develops
scroll bars and you start not being able to view it as a whole.
There is no breathing that is relevant here any more. It is a
potential breathing, not an actual breathing, it is a breathing
that cannot be actually appreciated. Having to scroll with
material that will easily compress rather spoils the enjoyment of
this breathing.
>
If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath?

Why asking me?
You were the one that made the claim that it has this "breathing"
quality. I was the one who accepted this concept but could not
(after looking) see it usefully operating at 800.
Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.
Why would blocks "collapse on each other" at 900 or 800 or 700
unless there was incompetence on the part of the designer? Why
would there not be a min width of a reasonable kind, and just
under 1000 is hardly reasonable for the material in hand here.

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

I really cannot see you getting my meaning. What have these
quantum sizes got to do with the issue? Many people size their
browsers to their convenience at any one time in between all
these sizes. At least many Mac users do that. Perhaps there is a
tendency for Windows users to view everything at full screen and
use the minimizing bar under to manage more than one task at a
time. But many people have more than one thing or program open on
the same window. In this first ranked site, it has this bad fault
that it plays nuisance when below 1000 (we are not talking pda or
mobile phones or people with ancient tiny monitors here, we are
talking modern user convenience).
Before you jump to reminding me how there was some sort of poll
of users to so rank this site, I know nothing about how the
candidates were chosen in the first place. If the votes were
collected from folk who could see a fair variety of sites, the
results might have been very different. If the sites that somehow
came to the attention of the voters did not include well designed
sites of the highest quality, then you are being seriously
misled. Big companies that are important to people are obviously
going to come to the attention of the voters in any multiple
choice question they form for themselves. That is not the only
criterion to conduct a fair test of quality of sites. Many many
big companies have rotten sites and the best among a bad bunch is
nothing to be bragging about.
>
It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.
I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?

For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others.
We can go into all this but it still does not answer the question
we are focussing on. Were the voters presented with a site that
had many of the advantages of it and less of the disadvantages?

--
dorayme
Nov 20 '07 #29
dorayme wrote:
>640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

I really cannot see you getting my meaning. What have these
quantum sizes got to do with the issue? Many people size their
browsers to their convenience at any one time in between all
these sizes. At least many Mac users do that. Perhaps there is a
tendency for Windows users to view everything at full screen and
use the minimizing bar under to manage more than one task at a
time. But many people have more than one thing or program open on
the same window. In this first ranked site, it has this bad fault
that it plays nuisance when below 1000 (we are not talking pda or
mobile phones or people with ancient tiny monitors here, we are
talking modern user convenience).
Or the fact that there are users which use Sidebars (Firefox & NS9),
Explorer Bars (IE), Panels (Opera), etc.

--
Gus
Nov 21 '07 #30

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by steve | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by gregmercer | last post: by
23 posts views Thread by ivan | last post: by
1 post views Thread by XIAOLAOHU | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.