468,139 Members | 1,443 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,139 developers. It's quick & easy.

Browser survey

I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 28 '08 #1
246 5441
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote ...
I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.
There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.
Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll?

Do let ut have the 'final' results,

cheers.
--

Andrew
seo2seo.com
sick-site-syndrome.com

UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/
Jun 28 '08 #2
In our last episode, <49***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>, the
lovely and talented Chris F.A. Johnson broadcast on
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.
There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.
Your assistance is appreciated.
Gee, they all fit in Lynx, and you could keep on until you reached
70-something digit numbers.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/us****@larseighner.com
Countdown: 206 days to go.
Jun 28 '08 #3
In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.
63

Nice idea...

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Jun 28 '08 #4
On Jun 28, 1:37*am, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
* * * * *I have posted a quick survey at
104

But if you are trying to get a "reading" for the general populous,
then this group is hardly a good sample.
Jun 28 '08 #5
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:
In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

63

Nice idea...
78

--
Rob Waaijenberg
Jun 28 '08 #6
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrites:
There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.
Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?

There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jun 28 '08 #7
On Jun 28, 10:29*am, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:
Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?
Oh ye of such little faith. Maybe the survey will prove your point
that there is no "standard size" and that the browser window size is
so random that it is meaningless to try to code for it.
There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.
And if you participate in the survey I believe you may help to prove
that once and for all. Or are you afraid to participate because the
results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be
wrong?
Jun 28 '08 #8
On 28 Jun 2008, Rob Waaijenberg <ro************@hotmail.comwrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:
>In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

63

Nice idea...

78
Ditto. Hey, maybe it's an omen. Like we should go into business together:
Waaijenberg and Neredbojias Widgets, Inc. Kinda catchy.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jun 28 '08 #10
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrites:
Or are you afraid to participate because the
results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be
wrong?
This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go
take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right?

Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jun 28 '08 #11
On Jun 28, 12:12*pm, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:
This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go
take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right?
First, it's not my survey, second I really don't care what you do.
Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid.
I don't know you so I really can't make that call
Jun 28 '08 #12
On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrites:
> There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?
This is not measuring screen size or window size. It is measuring
the width of browser windows in ems. The screen or window size in
pixels is irrelevant, as is the user's font size.

While a good page may suffer somewhat when extreme sizes are used,
and should degrade gracefully when they are, pages may be
optimized for a certain range. The purpose of this survey is to
determine how wide this range should be.

In practice, I don;t think this information will make a
significant difference to the way my pages are coded.
There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.
Agreed; and I am dealing with it.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 28 '08 #13
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:29 am, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.orgwrote:
>Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?

Oh ye of such little faith. Maybe the survey will prove your point
that there is no "standard size" and that the browser window size is
so random that it is meaningless to try to code for it.
>There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.

And if you participate in the survey I believe you may help to prove
that once and for all. Or are you afraid to participate because the
results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be
wrong?

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

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

I'm not afraid to participate. It's just now worth my time. But you
are tacky and manipulative for even suggesting such a thing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 28 '08 #14
On 2008-06-28, Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote ...
> I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.
There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll?
Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any
widths.

This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see.

For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text. In
my typical window, the columns are narrower than I like. They are
still very readable, but I prefer to have more text. If I find
that most people will see even less than I do, I may rethink the
page; if the majority see more than I do, I'll leave it.
Do let ut have the 'final' results,
There is a running total at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.cgi>.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 28 '08 #15
On Jun 28, 3:03*pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll?
* * Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any
* * widths.
* * This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see.
* * For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text.
If you have 3 columns of text then it sounds like you need to be
looking at Flexible width sites rather than worrying about it.
Jun 28 '08 #16
On Jun 28, 2:53*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Not at all. *Such a survey is pointless. *Those who have been around for
a while have learned that. *Newbies need to be taught it over and over
again.

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

And before we start another boring thread, lets just agree we have
different opinions about what is "correct"
Jun 28 '08 #17
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:53 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been around for
a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it over and over
again.

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

Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.
And before we start another boring thread, lets just agree we have
different opinions about what is "correct"

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 28 '08 #18
On 2008-06-28, Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 3:03*pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll?
* * Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any
* * widths.
* * This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see.
* * For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text.

If you have 3 columns of text then it sounds like you need to be
looking at Flexible width sites rather than worrying about it.
Any page I design *is* flexible width (with the exception of the
survey page). That's not the point.

I want to know how what I see in my browser window compares with
what others see. If most people see less text than I do, I will
probably abandon my 3-column design. If, as I suspect, most see
more, then the design will work better for most people than it
does for me -- and for me it is readable, but not quite optimum.
For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 28 '08 #19
On Jun 28, 4:01*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. *Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. *Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.
Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...
Jun 28 '08 #20
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:01 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.

Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...
Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients
they are "professionals".

Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you
"professional". It just means you got paid.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 28 '08 #21
On Jun 28, 5:05*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients
they are "professionals".
Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you
"professional". *It just means you got paid.
Yea, suck doesn't it...
Jun 28 '08 #22
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:05 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients
they are "professionals".
Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you
"professional". It just means you got paid.

Yea, suck doesn't it...
Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. Fortunately,
professionals stand out. Much of that is the quality of their work.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 28 '08 #23
On Jun 28, 8:41*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
No, it doesn't. *It means they don't KNOW what they want. *
why of course...
But in the meantime, what I do care about is that you and the likes of
you give professionals a bad reputation.
Yea, that's me, just giving all you "professionals" a bad name....
Grow up and except the fact that not everyone want's what Jerry thinks
is best.

Jun 29 '08 #24
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 28, 8:41 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>No, it doesn't. It means they don't KNOW what they want.

why of course...
>But in the meantime, what I do care about is that you and the likes of
you give professionals a bad reputation.

Yea, that's me, just giving all you "professionals" a bad name....
Grow up and except the fact that not everyone want's what Jerry thinks
is best.
Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed
web designer.

ROFLMAO!

I'll tell you what. Let's take one of your customers. Let me give him
my designs for his site. Wanna see how long they stay with you?

Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my
customers. Wanna bet they stick with me?

I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you
aren't that stoopid.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #25
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Jun 28, 4:01=A0pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. =A0Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. =A0Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.

Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...
The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some
poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not
make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less
professional in their trade.

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jun 29 '08 #26
On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:
Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?
If it matters to readers (and it does), then it *should* matter to HTML
authors.

It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that
everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer.

But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target audience.

but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls,
carry on. I'll happily take bouncing visitros off your hands

;o)
--

Andrew
seo2seo.com
sick-site-syndrome.com

UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/
Jun 29 '08 #27
On Jun 29, 12:26*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed
web designer.
ROFLMAO!
Yea, I just suck.
I'll tell you what. *Let's take one of your customers. *Let me give him
my designs for his site. *Wanna see how long they stay with you?
Absolutely! Contact Chick-fil-a and tell then you have a great new
idea for their Bowl site. We are going to change the entire design to
an even more Flash based design in August. So this is a great time to
tell them that you have a better idea for their site. That gives you
a whole month to convert them. Please post the results of your
efforts.
Then we'll turn it around. *You can off your crap to one of my
customers. *Wanna bet they stick with me?
Give me a url of one of your customers
I know you won't take the bet, though. *You may be stoopid, but you
aren't that stoopid.
I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me
with a URL please.
Jun 29 '08 #28
On Jun 29, 12:26*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
I know you won't take the bet, though. *You may be stoopid, but you
aren't that stoopid.

Oh Jerry, could the URL you supply be of the same caliber as Chick-fil-
a? I don't do Mom and Pop sites.

Thanks
Jun 29 '08 #29
On Jun 29, 3:30*am, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...
The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some
poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not
make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less
professional in their trade.
Did you proof read that before you pressed send?
Jun 29 '08 #30
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:26 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed
web designer.
ROFLMAO!

Yea, I just suck.
>I'll tell you what. Let's take one of your customers. Let me give him
my designs for his site. Wanna see how long they stay with you?

Absolutely! Contact Chick-fil-a and tell then you have a great new
idea for their Bowl site. We are going to change the entire design to
an even more Flash based design in August. So this is a great time to
tell them that you have a better idea for their site. That gives you
a whole month to convert them. Please post the results of your
efforts.
ROFLMAO! No, you didn't do that site. What a liar.
>Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my
customers. Wanna bet they stick with me?

Give me a url of one of your customers
>I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you
aren't that stoopid.

I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me
with a URL please.
Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #31
Matt Probert wrote:
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Jun 28, 4:01=A0pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
width. =A0Both are equally correct based on the website.
Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. =A0Professionals design sites
which resize themselves.
Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs...

The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some
poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not
make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less
professional in their trade.

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
That's right, Matt. And did you look at the crap he supposedly created?

I KNOW he didn't have anything to do with that site.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #32

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

63

Nice idea...
I think it's an interesting idea, too. But I get only 39.

--
Berg
Jun 29 '08 #33

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu******************************@comcast.com. ..
Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer. So,
really well designed variable width page, there, then?
Jun 29 '08 #34
On Jun 28, 5:05*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. *Fortunately,
professionals stand out. *Much of that is the quality of their work.
Why so bitter, dude?
Jun 29 '08 #35
..oO(nully)
>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu******************************@comcast.com ...
>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer.
Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those
links. Maybe you should check your own system.

Micha
Jun 29 '08 #36

"Michael Fesser" <ne*****@gmx.dewrote in message
news:lj********************************@4ax.com...
.oO(nully)
>>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:Fu******************************@comcast.co m...
>>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer.

Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those
links. Maybe you should check your own system.
You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif
Jun 29 '08 #37
nully wrote:
You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif
I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something similar?
I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I did notice
that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which
looks similar to something that Link Alert would add.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
Jun 29 '08 #38
"Andrew Heenan" <fi**@will.comwrites:
On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:
>Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?

If it matters to readers (and it does), then it *should* matter to HTML
authors.

It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that
everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer.
So we agree, then. A designer to whom screen size matters - i.e. one
who makes assumptions about visitors screen size - is a poor designer.
But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target
audience.
An even more useful approach is to not to use any fixed-width at all.
but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls,
carry on.
Horizontal scrollbars are the result of designers who *do* think
screen size matters, and insist that their pages must be precisely X
pixels wide, regardless of whether that matches their users reality or
not.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jun 29 '08 #39

"Dylan Parry" <us****@dylanparry.comwrote in message
news:g4**********@dylanparry.com...
nully wrote:
>You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif

I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something similar?
I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I did notice
that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which
looks similar to something that Link Alert would add.
Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. But it nicely
demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every
pixel. Its hardly a unique setup I'm using, so surely one of these ultimate
professional designers should have built in sufficient redundancy to
accommodate such browser configurations...
Jun 29 '08 #40
On Jun 29, 8:16*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Sure. *www.fcc.gov. *Good luck.
Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are
almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has
their briowser full screen.

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

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

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

Jun 29 '08 #41
On 29 Jun 2008, "nully" <nu***@nully.nullywrote:
>
"Dylan Parry" <us****@dylanparry.comwrote in message
news:g4**********@dylanparry.com...
>nully wrote:
>>You were saying...
http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif

I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something
similar? I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I
did notice that there's an icon appearing near the link on your
screenshot, which looks similar to something that Link Alert would add.
Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. But it nicely
demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every
pixel. Its hardly a unique setup I'm using, so surely one of these
ultimate professional designers should have built in sufficient
redundancy to accommodate such browser configurations...
Actually, it's a bug in Firefox that causes it. I've run across this bug in
creating my own pages.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jun 29 '08 #42
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 29, 8:16 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are
almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has
their briowser full screen.
It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have. Yes,
it's transitional. That's because we had to work a lot of existing
stuff into the new design. And they weren't willing to spend the time
or the money to make it work strict.

And yes, the text lines are short - there's a LOT of information on that
main window. The short lines are synopses and pointers to other
important information. But then a real web designer would see that and
understand it.
Also, if I were to build this site, it would be a flexible width (but
with max-width so the text is not 150 characters wide) with no flash.
There is no need for Flash on this site. This site is little more
than a list of links.
Nope, it uses all available space. And this is just the current page.
Information on the page changes often - sometimes there's more,
sometimes there's less.
You see Jerry, even though I state it OVER AND OVER, you still are
either too blind, dumb, or ignorant to absorb the fact that I do not
think ALL sites need to be fixed width or contain Flash. This is an
example of one that doesn't need it.
And there's no need for flash on the main page of chick-fil-a, either -
or a page that's wider than most browser windows. But you're too
stoopid to see that, Travis.
You have shown your true colors there Jerry. You are quite the
professional...
Yes, my sites use flash APPROPRIATELY - not just because it's there. My
sites resize themselves to the current window size.

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

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

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #43
Sherman Pendley wrote:
"Andrew Heenan" <fi**@will.comwrites:
>On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?
If it matters to readers (and it does), then it *should* matter to HTML
authors.

It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that
everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer.

So we agree, then. A designer to whom screen size matters - i.e. one
who makes assumptions about visitors screen size - is a poor designer.
>But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target
audience.

An even more useful approach is to not to use any fixed-width at all.
>but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls,
carry on.

Horizontal scrollbars are the result of designers who *do* think
screen size matters, and insist that their pages must be precisely X
pixels wide, regardless of whether that matches their users reality or
not.

sherm--
Exactly, Sherm.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #44
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message:
fP******************************@comcast.com,
Travis Newbury wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2:53 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been
around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it
over and over again.

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

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

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

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

Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match.

--
Red
Jun 29 '08 #45
Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message:
fP******************************@comcast.com,
>Travis Newbury wrote:
>>On Jun 28, 2:53 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been
around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it
over and over again.

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

Hey, that's not fair to amateurs! Even I (with minimal web design
knowledge and skill) know better than to use fixed widths. Scroll bars
can be a minor annoyance on a typical desktop screen, but they really
suck when visiting a site on a mobile phone.
That's true, Red. Sorry, I didn't mean to be down on amateurs.
Some webmasters don't get it. Other webmasters don't want to get it. But
ultimately everyone is free to do what they want. Better that, than
having some self-appointed entity dictating how things have to be done.

Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match.
Yes, I just hate it when someone with such lousy skills calls himself a
"professional". He's a blight on professionals, everywhere.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #46
On Jun 29, 3:38*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Sure. *www.fcc.gov. *Good luck.
Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur.
It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have.
I don't believe you really have sites Jerry. I think you are nothing
more than a wannabe. And I knew I read that word "stoopid" before.
Old habits die hard eh?

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

Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.

Jun 29 '08 #47
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:38 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then
you truely are an amateur.
It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have.

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

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

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

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

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

Loser. And a stoopid one one, at that.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #48
On Jun 29, 5:58*pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...rceid=navclien...
Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.
Such searches
just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and
what I'm saying.
No, apparently the truth pisses you off.
Jun 29 '08 #49
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:58 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Je...rceid=navclien...
Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe.
Such searches
just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and
what I'm saying.

No, apparently the truth pisses you off.
ROFLMAO!

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

You're a loser. All around.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jun 29 '08 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by GTF | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by S.Marion | last post: by
reply views Thread by Kenzo Fong | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Nico Baumgarten | last post: by
16 posts views Thread by Java script Dude | last post: by
13 posts views Thread by Seth Grimes | last post: by
1 post views Thread by gcdp | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.