469,326 Members | 1,351 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 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
246 5576
On 2008-06-29, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Travis Newbury wrote:
....
>>
I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me
with a URL please.

Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.
That's not a site I'd brag about:

The words "Federal Communications Commission" are in an
image and are too small for me to read.

Table-based layout.

The search entry bar spills out of its container.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 29 '08 #51

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:92***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM...
On 2008-06-29, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>Travis Newbury wrote:
...
>>>
I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me
with a URL please.

Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck.

That's not a site I'd brag about:

The words "Federal Communications Commission" are in an
image and are too small for me to read.

Table-based layout.

The search entry bar spills out of its container.
Shhhhh!!!! Mustn't criticize Jerry! He'll have to point out that you must be
a loser! I wouldn't call it a 'site' anyhow - its just a freakin great list
of links...
Jun 29 '08 #52
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.
140

--
Wayne
www.glenmeadows.us
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. [Thomas
Jefferson]
Jun 30 '08 #53
On 2008-06-30, wayne wrote:
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.
140
Thanks.

There's no need to reply here. The results are 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 30 '08 #54
"Rob Waaijenberg" <ro************@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:48***********************@news.xs4all.nl...
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
79

Nah nah nah nah nah!

+mrcakey

Jun 30 '08 #55
..oO(nully)
>"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.
May I suggest a better browser like Opera?
>But it nicely
demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every
pixel.
Wrong again. Using every pixel is not bad. Every flexible layout does
that. If the browser window is 789 pixels wide, you can use 789 pixels.
The point is to properly scale if you increase the font size, and the
given page does that. The markup is ugly and 80's style, but it works
better than most "modern" sites with totally braindead div-soup.
>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...
You can't blame a site maintainer for your own buggy software. With such
an attitude every website would be bad, because it can easily be broken
with a user stylesheet. Too bad the author didn't built in sufficient
redundancy to accomodate my 30px font size ...

The given site works in an acceptable range, even with a font size
increased multiple times. It's your very own setup that breaks it.

Micha
Jun 30 '08 #56
AGT
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:55:14 +0200, Michael Fesser wrote:
.oO(nully)
>>"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.
May I suggest a better browser like Opera?
I do use Opera but 9.5 core dumps with wrong phase of the moon... : <
Had to go back to 9.2 something. Good luck with that!
Think I got 38 ems on a 1280x1024 screen : >
Jul 1 '08 #57
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.
Chris,

I may be late, but 78

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

http://webusability.com/article_line_length_12_2002.htm
Jul 1 '08 #58

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

http://webusability.com/article_line_length_12_2002.htm
I didn't bother reading it - too much horizontal scrolling necessary.
If this is their idea of optimal, I'll stick with fluid designs.

--
Berg
Jul 1 '08 #59
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.
I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.
Jul 2 '08 #60
Bergamot wrote:
William Gill wrote:
>You might also be interested in factoring in some of the articles
regarding "optimal line length" such as:

http://webusability.com/article_line_length_12_2002.htm

I didn't bother reading it - too much horizontal scrolling necessary.
If this is their idea of optimal, I'll stick with fluid designs.
I didn't mean to imply this was the be all and end all on "optimal
line length", I just grabbed it as one example of some other factors you
may want to consider. There are numerous articles on the subject. I
think it reasonable to assume that lines that are either too long or too
short, are counterproductive, but I'm equally sure what qualifies as
"just right" is subject to much debate. As Chris said, he may rethink
his three column preference, and knowing he is capable of thinking, I
suggested something else to add to the mix. Besides, even if there was
an optimal line length formula, would it take into account all the
reasons people require different font sizes, or would it assume
something called "normal?"
Jul 2 '08 #61
dorayme wrote:
Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.
And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

At least this sort of thing should make you a soft core proponent?
Yes. You might call me a soft-core proponent of fluid designs. I
personally don't like them, but I understand the arguments in favor of
them. But what I REALLY don't like is fixed width designs created by
people who don't know why they are evil. I lean back in my chair, put my
feet up on the desk, and press control+ so I can read the text from WAY
back here.... and the site falls apart.
In other words, the subject of line length is not necessarily much to
do with fluidity.
My personal opinion is that the medium is such that there is no correct
answer to the question of fluid designs vs fixed width designs. There
are just too many factors that determine how a site will be viewed by
the user. So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
ones you are going to break (and hopefully the site won't). And yes, I
understand that the to many factors argument is really an argument in
favor of fluid designs. I'm not arguing against them. I am only arguing
that the rule is not as hard and fast as people who argue for them think.
Jul 2 '08 #62
On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:
dorayme wrote:
>Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.

And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
Then why do you have your browser window that wide?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 2 '08 #63
William Gill wrote:
I think it reasonable to assume that lines that are either too long
or too short, are counterproductive, but I'm equally sure what
qualifies as "just right" is subject to much debate.
It is also subject to the end-user's environment. I subscribe to the 10
to 14 words on a line rule. A fluid design breaks that rule unless the
user resizes his window. A fixed width design breaks that rule if the
user resizes the font.

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

That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be debate. If there are no
answers, there are no guidelines. The debate allows us to weigh the
various options and decide what we think is best. Without the debate,
more people will make wrong choices, having too little information to
make better choices.
Jul 2 '08 #64

Scott Bryce wrote:
>
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.
Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #65
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:
>And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?
Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
window maximized.

If I have a reason to need to see more than one window at a time, I will
resize my browser window. And I will concede that fluid designs usually
work best when I do.
Jul 2 '08 #66
Guy Macon wrote:
Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how long
his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user wants short
lines he can reduce the width of his browser window. Liquid design
gives the user control of the line width. This is a Good Thing.
I understand your argument, but you don't understand that you are
arguing against yourself. (Which is why i don't think there are any
correct answers in this medium.)

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

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

You can't win.
Jul 2 '08 #67
Guy Macon wrote:
Scott Bryce wrote:
>Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.
I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.

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

Guy,

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

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

Jul 2 '08 #68
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
>
Scott Bryce wrote:
>>
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

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

Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.
I try to strike the happy medium. I designed my site for 100% width on a
1024px wide viewer port. It's completely fluid for viewer ports less than
1024, but fixed for larger (max-width:1024px;). This gives me 6-inch wide
lines of text.

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

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.
http://www.breastthermography.info
Jul 2 '08 #69
Scott Bryce wrote:
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:
>>And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?

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

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

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

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #70
On 2008-07-02, Ed Jay wrote:
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
>>
Scott Bryce wrote:
>>>
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>>Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.

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

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

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

max-width: 1024px;
width:expression(document.body.clientWidth 1024? "1024px": "100%" );
(for IE).
That may still be too wide for easy reading if the viewer has a
very small font size, or too narrow if a very large size.

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

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 2 '08 #71
On 2008-07-02, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Scott Bryce wrote:
>Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:
And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Then why do you have your browser window that wide?

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

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

So you prefer?

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

I prefer:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Or:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Or:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 2 '08 #72
Ed Jay wrote:
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
>Scott Bryce wrote:
>>Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Which study? That page surveys a number of studies.
I was referring to more than one study that showed that when reading
text on-screen, most readers preferred shorter lines. That is why I
prefer fixed width designs. Yes, I understand the arguments against
them. Yes, I understand the drawbacks of using them.
Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how
long his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.

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

max-width: 1024px;
width:expression(document.body.clientWidth 1024? "1024px": "100%" );
(for IE).
Which means your pages are wasting a lot of space on my 21" monitor... :-)

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

Jul 2 '08 #73
Scott Bryce wrote:
If a site has a fluid design, you argue, the user has the option of
resizing his browser window to view the site however he wants to. (And I
have done that from time to time, though I find it annoying that I have
to.) But if the site has a fixed width design, you don't see why you
should have to resize your browser window to read the site.
If you have a high resolution big monitor what you would have your
browser maximized? If you link it maximized then maybe you would prefer
a larger default font size? Larger size on larger view port will give
you fewer words per line. Else with a fixed site on larger view port you
may have few words per line but also a whole lot of nothing around it!
>
OK. I don't see why I should have to resize my browser window to read
fluid sites.
Make is a sensible ratio and have some other window on the desktop to do
something else. It is like the difference of having and executive desk
with your work laid out verses one of those school-days
chair-'n-paddleboard desk with barely room for a book!
>
You can't win.
Sure you can...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #74
In article <9M******************************@comcast.com>,
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote:
dorayme wrote:
Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.

And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
I have had poor success in getting across a certain important
distinction. And I see from your answer that I have failed to trigger it
again! <g>

I would have known you were aware of my point had you said something
like:

"All (many) of the fluid sites I go to are hopeless because the lines of
text are too long and this is clearly the fault of the designers in
allowing this to happen. The fluidity of the page is not compromised by
having the text limited in width. But the designers of these sites are
less than competent and simply have not realised that the page can be
usefully wide (eg. pics can spread out horizontally to convenient effect
(easing need to scroll down) without also having to make text so lengthy
across. To be fair to some designers, I am using IE 6 and they might
have made max-width provisions to limit lines of text; but alas IE6 is
blind to max-width.

That sort of speech would have given me more confidence. I would only
then have needed to add that a really competent fluid designer would
know how to make provisions for the still popular MS browser. There are
javascript solutions and other simple design solutions (yes, using CSS
mIE6 understands via conditional statements)
>
At least this sort of thing should make you a soft core proponent?

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

My personal opinion is that the medium is such that there is no correct
answer to the question of fluid designs vs fixed width designs.
You see, here again, it is as if you are not on to the distinction
between fluid page and fluid line length, you being quick to change the
subject to something quite general after my remark about specifics.

You seem to me quite capable of appreciating the distinction I am
making. Perhaps you are seeming not to acknowledge it for special
reasons? I am happy to make you a page that illustrates the distinction
if it escapes you or anyone else.

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #75
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On 2008-07-02, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>Scott Bryce wrote:
>>Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On 2008-07-02, Scott Bryce wrote:
And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size
my browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across
my 24 inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
Then why do you have your browser window that wide?
Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
window maximized.

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

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


I prefer:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Actually what I prefer is
+----------------------------------------+
| +---------------+ +------------+ |
| |+-------------+| |Another App | |
| |<- 35ems ->|| | | |
| |+-------------+| +------------+ |
| +---------------+ +------------+ |
| +------------+ |Another App | |
| |Another App | +------------+ |
| +------------+ |
+----------------------------------------+

>
Or:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Or:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Well the CSS3 columns would be useful, but with MS's inability to make a
browser support 10-year-old version 2.1... well?
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #76
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
So you prefer?

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

Actually, I do. And I realize that it is a personal preference, and my
personal preferences don't determine what the best practices are.

I don't buy the wasted screen space argument. If it is my decision to
keep my browser window maximized, I know that this is how I will see
fixed width sites. The unused screen space doesn't cost me anything. In
fact, it makes it easier for me to read the content than to have it
spread across the entire screen.

And no matter how strong the arguments are in favor of fluid designs
(and, yes, I do recognize that they are strong arguments) the reality is
that most sites on the web are fixed width, so most browser windows will
already be open to more than 800 pixels wide.
Jul 2 '08 #77
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Which means your pages are wasting a lot of space on my 21"
monitor... :-)
I have never understood that argument. What is "wasted" about the space?
My monitor is bigger than yours, and I don't consider the space "wasted."

If I follow the usenet convention of wrapping posts to 72 characters, am
I "wasting" space? If I have little to say on a web page, am I "wasting"
the space at the bottom of your screen?
Jul 2 '08 #78
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
I prefer:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Or:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Or:

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |<- 35ems ->| |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Interestingly, I settled on 35ems as a target width for content also,
based on what I gleaned from several of the essays on "optimal line length."
Jul 2 '08 #79
Scott Bryce wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

I don't buy the wasted screen space argument. If it is my decision to
keep my browser window maximized, I know that this is how I will see
fixed width sites.
No, sometimes you see them like this:

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

...which is even more irritating, eh?

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Jul 2 '08 #80
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
If you have a high resolution big monitor why you would have your
browser maximized?
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it is a personal preference. I
work better when I only have to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me.

Another reason I keep my browser window maximized is that I like to see
as much as possible in the window at once, which, I realize, is an
argument in favor of fluid designs.

Make it a sensible ratio and have some other window on the desktop to
do something else. It is like the difference of having and executive
desk with your work laid out verses one of those school-days
chair-'n-paddleboard desk with barely room for a book!
I like the executive desk so I can move the things I am not working on
out of the way. They are only an alt-tab away if I need them.
Jul 2 '08 #81
Scott Bryce wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>Which means your pages are wasting a lot of space on my 21" monitor...
:-)

I have never understood that argument. What is "wasted" about the space?
My monitor is bigger than yours, and I don't consider the space "wasted."

If I follow the usenet convention of wrapping posts to 72 characters, am
I "wasting" space? If I have little to say on a web page, am I "wasting"
the space at the bottom of your screen?
You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to learn.

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

Jul 2 '08 #82
dorayme wrote:
I have had poor success in getting across a certain important
distinction. And I see from your answer that I have failed to trigger
it again! <g>
Perhaps. Maybe I am missing something.
I would have known you were aware of my point had you said something
like:

"All (many) of the fluid sites I go to are hopeless because the lines
of text are too long and this is clearly the fault of the designers
in allowing this to happen.
I wouldn't say that, because I don't believe that. I find it annoying,
but I don't fault the designer. I fault the medium.

The fluidity of the page is not compromised by having the text
limited in width. But the designers of these sites are less than
competent and simply have not realised that the page can be usefully
wide (eg. pics can spread out horizontally to convenient effect
(easing need to scroll down) without also having to make text so
lengthy across. To be fair to some designers,
If this is what you believe, then perhaps we both feel the same way
about design. I'm beginning to think that you don't necessarily make a
distinction between fixed width and fluid designs. That perhaps you mean
something different by "fluid." I have seen designs that don't recognize
that you cannot determine the height of the text on the viewer's
browser, but depend on fixed height divs, etc. Or use absolute
positioning for images or paragraphs, not realizing that text won't
necessarily wrap the same way the designer saw it on HIS screen. Is this
what you are talking about?
You seem to me quite capable of appreciating the distinction I am
making. Perhaps you are seeming not to acknowledge it for special
reasons? I am happy to make you a page that illustrates the
distinction if it escapes you or anyone else.
I seem to be missing something. If it isn't too much trouble...

Whenever the subject of fluid design is discussed here it seem to be
distinguished from sites that are a fixed number of pixels in width. Are
you talking about something different?
Jul 2 '08 #83
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And if you are designing the site, your arguments about fixed width
designs will always take over.
That is a straw man, Jerry. I have never said in this thread that fixed
width designs are better.
Jul 2 '08 #84
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Scott Bryce wrote:
>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>+----------------------------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| | page content | |
| +--------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
I don't buy the wasted screen space argument. If it is my decision to
keep my browser window maximized, I know that this is how I will see
fixed width sites.

No, sometimes you see them like this:

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

..which is even more irritating, eh?
I don't find either one irritating, though I prefer the first.

Jul 2 '08 #85
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
learn.

I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?

A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better answer.

I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing matches.
When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to contribute.
Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument. Help me out here.
Jul 2 '08 #86
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote in message:
17******************************@comcast.com,
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
learn.


I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?

A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better
answer.
I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing
matches. When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to
contribute. Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument.
Help me out here.
To each his own. One man's wasted space is another man's uncluttered
display.

I finally bought a monitor big enough so that I am comfortable with
multiple windows displaying at the same time and being useful in that
mode, but sometimes I just want to focus on one window without the other
distractions.
--
Red
Jul 2 '08 #87
In article <17******************************@comcast.com>,
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
learn.


I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?

A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better answer.

I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing matches.
When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to contribute.
Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument. Help me out here.
I beg you Scott! Don't! This man is a complete idiot and unworthy of
your tolerance and patience and good manners.

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #88
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrites:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>So you prefer?

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


Actually, I do. And I realize that it is a personal preference, and my
personal preferences don't determine what the best practices are.
That's why flexible is better! It allows you to have your own
preferences, but without precluding the same for anyone else. Just
create a user stylesheet with an !important attribute, like this:

body {
max-width: 60em !important;
}

And there you go. You get a site that doesn't expand to fit your
full-screen window, and because it's a user stylesheet, it only
affects your own browser. I still get pages that adjust to whatever
size my window happens to be.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 2 '08 #89
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrites:
And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
So create a user stylesheet with a max-width.
My personal opinion is that the medium is such that there is no correct
answer to the question of fluid designs vs fixed width designs.
Fluid designs don't presume to offer a "correct" answer. They can be
as fluid or as fixed as the user wants.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Jul 2 '08 #90
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrites:
dorayme wrote:
>Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.

And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
Surely a proponent of fluid design would also be a proponent
of CSS's max-width for text? (And want to knock IE
implementers on the head)

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2008-04-26)
Jul 2 '08 #91
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrites:
dorayme wrote:
Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
use scrollbars or widen the window.
And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.

Surely a proponent of fluid design would also be a proponent
of CSS's max-width for text? (And want to knock IE
implementers on the head)
Or simply a proponent of simple appropriate width in relevant text
holding elements within the design.

Em widthing of modest extent for text holding elements is usually best -
but not always essential or indeed desirable. All on its own, em
widthing has a desirable built in flexibility.

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #92
On Jul 1, 8:47*pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
ones you are going to break (and hopefully the site won't).
I would slightly change that to:

So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
ones you are going to break for the benefit of the site owner.
Jul 2 '08 #93
On Jul 1, 10:02*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
If I have a reason to need to see more than one window at a time, I will
resize my browser window. And I will concede that fluid designs usually
work best when I do.
So you prefer?
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| * * * * * * * * * +--------------+ * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * | page content | * * * * ** * * * * * |
| * * * * * * * * * +--------------+ * * * * ** * * * * * |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Exactly, that is what I prefer too. For just about the same
reasons.
Jul 2 '08 #94
On Jul 1, 10:17*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
Make is a sensible ratio and have some other window on the desktop to do
something else. It is like the difference of having and executive desk
with your work laid out verses one of those school-days
chair-'n-paddleboard desk with barely room for a book!
No, it is a preference on how someone likes to work. I have 2 huge
monitors. Each will hold a single application full screen. Doesn't
matter what the application is, browser, photoshop, premier, what
ever. The only exceptions are the calculator and notepad. I enjoy
working like this. Many people do. Not everyone wants 3 or 5, o 12
windows open on their desk top. When I open the browser, it is full
screen. I just like it that way. And because of this, I like fixed
width sites. Creating a user style sheet with max width fixes some
flexible sites for me, and breaks other sites I like, so it is not a
solution.

There are millions of us that work like this. I imagine they prefer
fixed width for the same reasons I do. There are millions that don't
work like this, I guess they prefer flexible like you do. Either way,
neither of us will ever have every site look exactly the way we like
it.
Jul 2 '08 #95
On Jul 1, 9:07*pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
With a liquid design, if the user
wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.
Why would I want to change the size of the window of my browser to a
size I do not prefer so I enjoy your site, when I will have to change
it again (to my prefered size) when I go to a different site.
Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
is a Good Thing.
I don't find it to be a good thing. It makes more work for me.
Jul 2 '08 #96
Scott Bryce wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>And if you are designing the site, your arguments about fixed width
designs will always take over.

That is a straw man, Jerry. I have never said in this thread that fixed
width designs are better.
Horse Hockey.

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

Jul 2 '08 #97
Scott Bryce wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
learn.


I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?

A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better answer.

I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing matches.
When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to contribute.
Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument. Help me out here.
People have tried to answer your question. Rather than trying to learn,
all you are doing is arguing. And even your arguments are getting inane
and trite - because you can't come up with anything worthwhile.

And I'm not going to waste my time repeating what others have already
said. You're not worth it.

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

Jul 2 '08 #98
Scott Bryce wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>So you prefer?

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


Actually, I do. And I realize that it is a personal preference, and my
personal preferences don't determine what the best practices are.
Then create a user stylesheet for yourself and be done with it.

body {
width: 800px !important;
margin-left: auto !important;
margin-right: auto !important;
}

If the layout is liquid then you will get what *you* prefer and *I* get
what *I* prefer, a win-win. But if the *deziner* is stuck on fixed
width: 800px layouts and *I* want a browser window at 600px and then *I*
am stuck with a scrollbar! Web great virtue of the web over paper is
that if done properly can accommodate anybody.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #99
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
I'm not sure I have a "normal browser window", but at this moment the
answer is 71. However, I vary the window several times a day, depending
on what I'm reading. If I want a really wide window I can reach 250 (by
spreading it across two monitors) but I don't often want to do that.
--
athel

Jul 2 '08 #100

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 CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.