469,341 Members | 6,582 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,341 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 5580
On Jul 2, 9:38*am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
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.
Your idea is great. But (isn't there always a big BUTT?) a very small
handful of people know how to set up a user style sheet, or would know
what to put there even if they did know it existed. It is also
meaningless to people that don't care either way. (Which, I believe
is the overwhelming majority of the people who use browsers. Meaning,
other than this group, I have never heard anyone ever say "Man, I wish
that site was flexible width....".)

I don't believe the opinions of this group reflect the general public.
(this does not mean I think the opinions of this group are wrong). I
just don't think people care really. Most, like myself, will just
accommodate based on the page we are currently on.
Jul 2 '08 #101
dorayme wrote:
I am talking about the relation between a site that has no fixed max
width but does have fixed max widths for some elements within. At no
stage have you made this important distinction.
Thank you for the clarification.
Jul 2 '08 #102
dorayme wrote:
I beg you Scott! Don't! This man is a complete idiot and unworthy of
your tolerance and patience and good manners.
When he behaves himself, he has a lot to contribute. I don't see any
reason to stoop to the level he stoops to when he gets on one of his rants.

Actually, you may have already made the "wasted space" argument clear to
me in another post where you demonstrated fluid, yet still constrained
design.

You allowed the "images" on that page to be fluid. Had you constrained
the width of the page, a reader with a wide browser window would have to
scroll more than necessary due to the unused portion of the browser window.

OK, I understand "wasted space" in that context.

My own business web site has a page that is probably a better example of
"wasted space." I have tried to find a way to make it more fluid, but
with no success. When I designed the page, I knew I was breaking design
rules, but couldn't find a way make the content work within the rules.

Maybe I'll post a link and let the fluid design ALWAYS folks show me how
it aught to be done. I could learn from that.

What Jerry doesn't understand is that I'm not saying that fluid designs
are bad. Or that fixed width designs are better. What I'm saying is that
given the unusual nature of the medium, there is no one size fits all
answer to the question. Fluid designs may be better the greater majority
of the time (in spite of my personal preferences), but there will be
situations where that rule should be broken. Fluid designs don't solve
every problem, even if they do solve most problems most of the time.
And, yes, I do recognize that the lack of one size fits all answers is
the very reason why fluid designs are generally better than fixed
designs.
Jul 2 '08 #103
Sherman Pendley wrote:
So create a user stylesheet with a max-width.
<snip>

Fluid designs don't presume to offer a "correct" answer. They can be
as fluid or as fixed as the user wants.
This is a great solution for people who have enough tech savvy to do
this sort of thing, but the reality is that the average Joe web user
doesn't know how.
Jul 2 '08 #104
Travis Newbury wrote:
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.
Except that we should design for the reader, not the owner.

And yes (I hope I have made this clear by now) I understand that that is
an argument in favor of fluid designs.
Jul 2 '08 #105
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And I'm not going to waste my time repeating what others have already
said. You're not worth it.

OK. You win.
Jul 2 '08 #106

Scott Bryce wrote:
>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/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.
I believe that you have me confused with someone else.
I never made the argument you attribute to me.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #107

William Gill wrote:
>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."
Hmmm. Commodore 64 and TRS-80
users have a *lot* of experience
with 40 characters vs. 80
characters, and I don't know of a
single one who prefers 40
characters.

BTW, do the <35 character lines in
this post seem a bit short to you?
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #108

Scott Bryce wrote:
>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.
You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows. Minimize them or cover them up with another open browser
window under the working browser window. That way you have the
same "cover all" behavior without having your working browser set
way too wide.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #109

Scott Bryce wrote:
>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.
You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows. Minimize them or cover them up with another open browser
window under the working browser window. That way you have the
same "cover all" behavior without having your working browser set
way too wide.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #110
Guy Macon wrote:
BTW, do the <35 character lines in this post seem a bit short to you?
There is a difference between 35ems and 35 characters. Most characters
are narrower than 1em. 35ems is somewhere around 55 characters, which is
pretty close to the 10 to 14 words on a line that I find easier to read.
Jul 2 '08 #111
On Jul 2, 11:13*am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
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.
Except that we should design for the reader, not the owner.
If it benefits the owner, then it has already benefited the reader
else, the site owner would not benefit. (So my statement agrees with
you)
And yes (I hope I have made this clear by now) I understand that that is
an argument in favor of fluid design.
I agree with you. There is no mutual exclusion for fluid and fixed
width. Both can (and are) be enjoyed on the web. Some here feel
anything NOT fluid is wrong. I tend to disagree with that.

Jul 2 '08 #112
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:38 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>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.

Your idea is great. But (isn't there always a big BUTT?) a very small
handful of people know how to set up a user style sheet, or would know
what to put there even if they did know it existed. It is also
meaningless to people that don't care either way. (Which, I believe
is the overwhelming majority of the people who use browsers. Meaning,
other than this group, I have never heard anyone ever say "Man, I wish
that site was flexible width....".)
Funny, I know why you don't hear "Man, I wish that site did not
disappear off the right of my screen" Because they are people who barely
know how to email. Maintaining public computers at a rural county
library and observing real newbies to "the information superhighway" can
be quite revealing! Although I find Jacobson a bit over the top, I have
witness the bewilderment generated by a 'target="_blank"'. Fixed-layout
sites are typically also fixed-font sites. So no I do not believe it is
a reciprocal argument. It is much easier for flexible-layout sites to
accommodate visitors that prefer static fixed-layouts then fixed-layout
sites to accommodate visitors that prefer flexible-layouts.

Of course just because a site has a flexible-layout doesn't make it
good. There are better approaches to flexible-layouts then others, but
flexible-layouts in general are easier for the visitors to adjust to
their liking, where fixed-layouts are designer-centric.
>
I don't believe the opinions of this group reflect the general public.
(this does not mean I think the opinions of this group are wrong). I
just don't think people care really. Most, like myself, will just
accommodate based on the page we are currently on.
No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #113
Travis Newbury wrote:
If it benefits the owner, then it has already benefited the reader
else, the site owner would not benefit. (So my statement agrees with
you)
Actually, I see it the other way around. Design for the reader, and the
owner benefits. Sometimes the owner feels that he will benefit from
things that are of no practical use to the reader.
Jul 2 '08 #114
On Jul 2, 12:08*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.
Oh well, we disagree. I do not believe most people browsing will
leave and never return because they have to change the size of their
browser, or change the font size.
Jul 2 '08 #115
On Jul 2, 11:38*am, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows. *
Is it my desk top? How about I decide what works best for me?
Jul 2 '08 #116
On Jul 2, 11:03*am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
What Jerry doesn't understand is that I'm not saying that fluid designs
are bad. Or that fixed width designs are better. What I'm saying is that
given the unusual nature of the medium, there is no one size fits all
answer to the question.
Man dorayme, is this guy preaching from the Book of Travis or what?
(or I from the book of Bryce...)
Jul 2 '08 #117

Travis Newbury wrote:
>
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.
My sentiments exactly!

The difference is you prefer a wide default, and I don't. Now if the
site used a fluid design with a reasonable max-width (in ems), then we
might both find that same site to be just peachy.

There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(

--
Berg
Jul 2 '08 #118
On 02 Jul 2008, Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 2, 12:08*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.

Oh well, we disagree. I do not believe most people browsing will
leave and never return because they have to change the size of their
browser, or change the font size.
Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites where I
absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's happened, no, I don't go
back if there is any viable alternative at all. Okay, so I'm not "most
people", but I'll bet there are plenty of gentlemen who react the same.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 2 '08 #119
Neredbojias wrote:
Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites
where I absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's
happened, no, I don't go back if there is any viable alternative at
all. Okay, so I'm not "most people", but I'll bet there are plenty
of gentlemen who react the same.
My vision is not what it is when I was younger. Sometimes I will lean
back in my chair, away from my monitor, which requires me to increase
the font size on a site. As long as the site does not break when the
font is resized, I see no reason to leave.
Jul 2 '08 #120
On 02 Jul 2008, Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 2, 11:13*am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
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.
Except that we should design for the reader, not the owner.

If it benefits the owner, then it has already benefited the reader
else, the site owner would not benefit. (So my statement agrees with
you)
>And yes (I hope I have made this clear by now) I understand that that is
an argument in favor of fluid design.

I agree with you. There is no mutual exclusion for fluid and fixed
width. Both can (and are) be enjoyed on the web. Some here feel
anything NOT fluid is wrong. I tend to disagree with that.
I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen resolution
doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But within 1280 px, a
(for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so _can be_ fine. (Well,
maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez monitors.) The fact that users
can't view the site sans horz scrollbar with a half-width browser doesn't
hold much water with me. What if the page has a 500px image or something?

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 2 '08 #121
The difference is you prefer a wide default, and I don't. Now if the
site used a fluid design with a reasonable max-width (in ems), then we
might both find that same site to be just peachy.

There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(
They're controlling exactly where their advertising appears in relation
to the (free) content they're offering their traffic.

They're ensuring article links are placed exactly where they deem most
likely to encourage click-through an additional readership (and
additional ad revenue).

They have broken functionality for javascript-disabled viewers because
they're more than willing to hinder the experience for a minute portion
of their audience for the benefit of the vast majority.

They don't care about any individual's preferences.

They're doing exactly what they *should* be doing for a commercial
website - trying to maximize revenue. It's doubtful they've created the
flawless layout, but it's safe to say they've experimented with layouts
and reached the conclusion their fixed format is far better than
relinquishing all control of these essential visual cues.

In many, many cases (most often commercial sites) a fixed layout is
going to be the correct choice. In other cases fluid might be right.
In commercial sites probably a decision best made by marketing
departments who understand it's all about revenue and/or lead generation
rather than the coder who naively touts a circa-1999 "It's all about the
visitor's experience!" mantra.
Jul 2 '08 #122
Neredbojias wrote:
I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen resolution
doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But within 1280 px, a
(for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so _can be_ fine. (Well,
maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez monitors.) The fact that users
can't view the site sans horz scrollbar with a half-width browser doesn't
hold much water with me. What if the page has a 500px image or something?
An image is an image (modern web browsers do have a fit-image to browser
window feature), but it sure is a pain when researching and you have a
600-odd pixel browser window with a 600-odd pixel word processor window
adjacent and you cannot read the dang website copy because the site is a
fixed 800 pixels! A real-world possible scenario for folks who use the
the web from more than "reality TV" or computers from more than playing
games...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #123
On Jul 2, 1:44*pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(
You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.
Jul 2 '08 #124
On 2008-07-02, Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 1:44*pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
>There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(

You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.
Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
hope.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 2 '08 #125

Travis Newbury wrote:
>Some here feel anything NOT fluid is wrong.
I tend to disagree with that.
I find that some people (not necessarily you) make unwarranted
assumptions when I discuss fluid design. I most emphatically do
*not* think that anything not fluid is wrong. My opinion is that
anything that requires a particular browser window size, font size,
etc. to be easily readable is wrong. My philosophy is that a
professional webmaster should be free to use whatever techniques
he chooses, but that he should also test his work on a tiny cell
phone browser, a very high resolution display, a text-only browser
such as lynx, and an aural browser, navigating by sound alone with
the monitor turned off. If his non-fluid design works well in all
of those situations, I like it. If a fluid design does not work
well in all of those environments, I don't like it. Fluid design
is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 2 '08 #126
On Jul 2, 4:54*pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/wrote:
My philosophy is that a
professional webmaster should be free to use whatever techniques
he chooses, but that he should also test his work on a tiny cell
phone browser, a very high resolution display, a text-only browser
such as lynx, and an aural browser, navigating by sound alone with
the monitor turned off.
This is hypothetical, but what if you had a client that had a
successful, but not so accessible website, and you change it so it
does everything on your list, and it becomes less successful?

In your opinion, would it be better to leave it more accessible, but
less profitable for your client, or would you advice the company to
revert back to their less accessible, but more profitable format?

That is where we differ. I believe a good webmaster uses what ever
technologies he needs to make the website profitable (Assuming the
goal of the site is increasing revenue). This means that if it is
more profitable for a company to use XYZ technology, then it is you
duty as a webmaster to use it. No matter what XYZ is.

Different design philosophies. Neither more right or wrong than the
other. Just different.
Jul 2 '08 #127
On Jul 2, 4:47*pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
* * Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
* * everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
* * will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
* * hope.
What can I say, we have different opinions.
Jul 2 '08 #128
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <xp6dnZFu_JZ1SPfVnZ2dnUVZ
_j******@comcast.com>, Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:11:41, Scott Bryce
<sb****@scottbryce.composted:
>
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.
You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris, and
sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm- also batprogs.htm.
Jul 2 '08 #129
On Jul 2, 4:25*pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.ukwrote:
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.

You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris, and
sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.
Good suggestion. Or I could do exactly what I am doing now.
Jul 2 '08 #130
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris,
and sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.
Why would I want to? I alt-tab between windows. The fewer I have open,
thee easier is is to move around.
Jul 2 '08 #131
Travis Newbury wrote:
This is hypothetical, but what if you had a client that had a
successful, but not so accessible website, and you change it so it
does everything on your list, and it becomes less successful?
<snip>

That is where we differ. I believe a good webmaster uses what ever
technologies he needs to make the website profitable
The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.
Jul 2 '08 #132
In article <Du******************************@comcast.com>,
Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote:
dorayme wrote:
Actually, you may have already made the "wasted space" argument clear to
me in another post where you demonstrated fluid, yet still constrained
design.

You allowed the "images" on that page to be fluid. Had you constrained
the width of the page, a reader with a wide browser window would have to
scroll more than necessary due to the unused portion of the browser window.

OK, I understand "wasted space" in that context.
I hope you mean by this also the subtler thing that there is in fact
'wasted' space at the URL I gave you, namely the *sides* - after there
is an optimum distribution of the thumbnails to achieve the centring of
the mass.

This is not *necessarily* an optimum distribution to conserve space. It
may so happen that a more higledy pigledy arrangement would conserve
even more space. The idea of optimum like percentage, needs a reference
point. And the the reference point is not simply "the browser width
without reference to anything else at all". There are *some* aesthetic
considerations too.

In other words, there are constraints in achieving fluid aims. There are
limitations and it is not an all or nothing affair.

What the "two sides" do often in these disputes is ride roughshod over
all the distinctions that need to be made and seize various phrases out
of context and bang drums.

Everyone worth talking to would agree, when it comes down to it that
nothing in this matter is an all or nothing affair. But this agreement
gets you absolutely nowhere at all in understanding the least damn
thing.
My own business web site has a page that is probably a better example of
"wasted space." I have tried to find a way to make it more fluid, but
with no success. When I designed the page, I knew I was breaking design
rules, but couldn't find a way make the content work within the rules.

Maybe I'll post a link and let the fluid design ALWAYS folks show me how
it aught to be done. I could learn from that.

What Jerry doesn't understand is
is exactly what a blunt mallet fails to understand (from my memory)

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #133
In article
<94**********************************@r66g2000hsg. googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 2, 11:03*am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
What Jerry doesn't understand is that I'm not saying that fluid designs
are bad. Or that fixed width designs are better. What I'm saying is that
given the unusual nature of the medium, there is no one size fits all
answer to the question.

Man dorayme, is this guy preaching from the Book of Travis or what?
(or I from the book of Bryce...)
It *is* the great temptation: Preaching impossible to dispute
generalities.

For obvious reasons: it is easy to do, it does not require research, you
have a stranglehold on all your opponents who attempt an assault on your
statements because they don't really think you are saying something so
general or unassailable.

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #134
In article <e9***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-07-02, Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 1:44*pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(
You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.

Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
hope.
I agree.

--
dorayme
Jul 2 '08 #135
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:47 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
> Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
hope.

What can I say, we have different opinions.
Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 2 '08 #136
On Jul 2, 6:46*pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.comwrote:
That is where we differ. *I believe a good webmaster uses what ever
technologies he needs to make the website profitable
The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.
Presenting the content in a manner that is _most_ profitable for a
corporation does not rely on accessibility.
Jul 3 '08 #137
On Jul 2, 7:37*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
What can I say, we have different opinions.
Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"
Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.
Jul 3 '08 #138
On Jul 2, 7:20*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
It *is* the great temptation: Preaching impossible to dispute
generalities.
You say this all the time (or something similar) please explain how I
preach the impossible to dispute generalities.
Jul 3 '08 #139
In article
<ab**********************************@m45g2000hsb. googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 2, 7:37*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
What can I say, we have different opinions.
Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.
You cannot gather evidence for something you have not defined properly.
Like arguing for or against the existence of God - quite irresolvable
because no one has a properly meaningful idea about what the hell they
are talking about.

--
dorayme
Jul 3 '08 #140
Scott Bryce wrote:
The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.
Wrong. Accessibility and conversion ratios are totally different
metrics with only a minor correlation. If you can bump up your
conversion rate 6% by inconveniencing 3% of your audience - you do it.
In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.
That's not even close to accurate.

As an example: no sector spends more on brick-and-mortar shopping
experience than grocery stores. So what are their common approaches to
make a more "shoppable" experience?

They routinely move items on shelfs to new areas to force the consumer
to seek out these items - thereby forcing them to see more (and newer)
items in the process.

They stick the essentials most consumers purchase (meat, dairy, bread,
etc) in the furthest corners of the stores to force the customers to
move around the most.

They purposefully complicate their promotions to make price comparisons
more difficult ("Buy 2, get one free", "Four for $15.49", etc).

The most expensive/ highest margin items are at eye level, irregardless
of consumer's preference. Low yielding items are relegated around the
floorboards.

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?
Jul 3 '08 #141
In article
<d1**********************************@34g2000hsf.g ooglegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 2, 7:20*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
It *is* the great temptation: Preaching impossible to dispute
generalities.

You say this all the time (or something similar) please explain how I
preach the impossible to dispute generalities.
I said that? It makes no sense? I suspect dorayme was rushed and made a
typo... I know it went on to say:

"For obvious reasons: it is easy to do, it does not require research,
you have a stranglehold on all your opponents who attempt an assault on
your statements because they don't really think you are saying something
so general or unassailable."

From this I gather that what dorayme might have meant to say in answer
to your earlier "Man dorayme, is this guy preaching from the Book of
Travis or what?" was:

It is the great temptation. To profess views that are either vague or
motherhoody or both that no one can really dispute them profitably.

--
dorayme
Jul 3 '08 #142
Steve wrote:
Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?
I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
different with groceries than it is with clothes.
Jul 3 '08 #143
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:37 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>>What can I say, we have different opinions.
Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.
I gave you one earlier...

"It is much easier for flexible-layout sites to accommodate visitors
that prefer static fixed-layouts then fixed-layout sites to accommodate
visitors that prefer flexible-layouts."

Fact not opinion.

Fixed-layoutists can either reduce there browser width to the 800px
width that they so dearly love, of if need for the browser to cover that
desktop is irresistible then employ a user stylesheet

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

Flexible-layoutists do not have such options, they are either forced to
change the browser width or horizontal scroll which is unquestionably
not ergonomic for reading digital print.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #144
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:37:49 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.com>
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.
103 Opera on a 22" screen I win I win I win I win !

However, I worry about designing a web page on this screen.
Maybe I need a survey. It sounds like 72 would be a good
page width ???

Mason C

Jul 3 '08 #145
Steve wrote:
Scott Bryce wrote:
>The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

Wrong. Accessibility and conversion ratios are totally different
metrics with only a minor correlation. If you can bump up your
conversion rate 6% by inconveniencing 3% of your audience - you do it.
>In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.

That's not even close to accurate.

As an example: no sector spends more on brick-and-mortar shopping
experience than grocery stores. So what are their common approaches to
make a more "shoppable" experience?

They routinely move items on shelfs to new areas to force the consumer
to seek out these items - thereby forcing them to see more (and newer)
items in the process.

They stick the essentials most consumers purchase (meat, dairy, bread,
etc) in the furthest corners of the stores to force the customers to
move around the most.

They purposefully complicate their promotions to make price comparisons
more difficult ("Buy 2, get one free", "Four for $15.49", etc).

The most expensive/ highest margin items are at eye level, irregardless
of consumer's preference. Low yielding items are relegated around the
floorboards.

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?
Not shoppable, accessible, which both web and brick and mortar share.
Brick and mortars fail without, or with poor accessibility. Bad
locations with a poor road, poor visibility, not enough parking (look
what happened to Main Street). How successfully will your brick and
mortar be if the entrance to it is two flights of stairs from the rear
alley?

Now the blockages in the aisles, jumbled product placement and all only
are "delay tactics" to keep you in the store once you have gained
access. Marketing has found the longer they can keep you there the more
you are likely to buy, but you had to have easy access to get you there
in the first place.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #146
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Steve wrote:
>Scott Bryce wrote:
>>The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

Wrong. Accessibility and conversion ratios are totally different
metrics with only a minor correlation. If you can bump up your
conversion rate 6% by inconveniencing 3% of your audience - you do it.
>>In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.

That's not even close to accurate.

As an example: no sector spends more on brick-and-mortar shopping
experience than grocery stores. So what are their common approaches
to make a more "shoppable" experience?

They routinely move items on shelfs to new areas to force the consumer
to seek out these items - thereby forcing them to see more (and newer)
items in the process.

They stick the essentials most consumers purchase (meat, dairy, bread,
etc) in the furthest corners of the stores to force the customers to
move around the most.

They purposefully complicate their promotions to make price
comparisons more difficult ("Buy 2, get one free", "Four for $15.49",
etc).

The most expensive/ highest margin items are at eye level,
irregardless of consumer's preference. Low yielding items are
relegated around the floorboards.

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

Not shoppable, accessible, which both web and brick and mortar share.
Brick and mortars fail without, or with poor accessibility. Bad
locations with a poor road, poor visibility, not enough parking (look
what happened to Main Street). How successfully will your brick and
mortar be if the entrance to it is two flights of stairs from the rear
alley?

Now the blockages in the aisles, jumbled product placement and all only
are "delay tactics" to keep you in the store once you have gained
access. Marketing has found the longer they can keep you there the more
you are likely to buy, but you had to have easy access to get you there
in the first place.

The dominant supermarkets in my area are Kroger and Publix. I avoid
going in a Kroger store like the plague. Reason one is the crowding,
the annoying movable displays, etc. Reason two is the people who are
/not/ customer oriented. Reason three is that the store layouts are
just plain annoying to me.

I go to Publix because their stores are always laid out in one of about
three formats no matter where I am and I feel comfortable there. Plus,
the people are trained to be nice and helpful. The checkers stand out
in front of the lines and ask if you're ready to check out, then direct
you into their empty line. They forbid tipping but they always ask if
you need help out to your car with your purchase. They smile. They
remember you. They (oh-my-God!) actually seem like they are enjoying
their job!!! And, frankly, the store and its environs are always
cleaner than Kroger stores.

So, yes, I understand the marketing. I was a marketing manager for many
years. I also understand that some of the "best" researched marketing
plans do the most to alienate customers. And that the most successful
ones are those where the vendor has actually asked the customer what
they want that will keep them coming back. Duh?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Where do forest rangers go to get away from it all?
Jul 3 '08 #147
On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote:
Neredbojias wrote:
>Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites
where I absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's
happened, no, I don't go back if there is any viable alternative at
all. Okay, so I'm not "most people", but I'll bet there are plenty
of gentlemen who react the same.

My vision is not what it is when I was younger. Sometimes I will lean
back in my chair, away from my monitor, which requires me to increase
the font size on a site. As long as the site does not break when the
font is resized, I see no reason to leave.
Yes. Some fixed-widths sites _will_ break, though, but some won't. I saw a
really good one 'bout 6 months ago but dinklescoofer if I can remember what
the url was.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #148
On 02 Jul 2008, "Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
Neredbojias wrote:
>I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen
resolution doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But
within 1280 px, a (for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so
_can be_ fine. (Well, maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez
monitors.) The fact that users can't view the site sans horz scrollbar
with a half-width browser doesn't hold much water with me. What if the
page has a 500px image or something?

An image is an image (modern web browsers do have a fit-image to browser
window feature), but it sure is a pain when researching and you have a
600-odd pixel browser window with a 600-odd pixel word processor window
adjacent and you cannot read the dang website copy because the site is a
fixed 800 pixels! A real-world possible scenario for folks who use the
the web from more than "reality TV" or computers from more than playing
games...
Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't believe
a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a half-width environment,
either.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #149
On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote:
Steve wrote:
>Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
different with groceries than it is with clothes.
Sometimes, but don't forget about edible underwear...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #150

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 haryvincent176 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Marylou17 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.