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
Neredbojias wrote:
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.
Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 3 '08 #151
Ed Mullen wrote:
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?
Other stores could learn from your experience. I went into the Sears
tool department one time, looking for a rather specialized item. I
couldn't find it on the shelf, so I asked a sales person. Not hard,
because there was almost no one in the area. He looked around and
didn't find it, either - and said he would get someone to help me.

I waited around about 10 minutes and finally went looking for him. He
as at the register, checking someone else out - and didn't care about my
problem. I went to the office and complained to the store manager - who
basically said "tough".

So I went up to Home Depot. I found someone who was friendly and
helpful, and soon had my item.

Interestingly enough - while the Sears tool department was virtually
empty, the Home Depot one was absolutely packed.

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

Jul 3 '08 #152
Travis Newbury wrote:
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.
Travis, Mike is a well known troll in a.w.w. He doesn't even work on
websites. He just likes to cause trouble.

Most of the regulars in a.w.w. have him plonked. It's only when a new
person get in here (or someone cross-posts, like here) that he can get
his kick.

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

Jul 3 '08 #153
On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>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.

Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.
Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page, and
that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to make an
interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #154

Travis Newbury wrote:
>
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.
Why are you saying "That is where we differ" before reading my
answers to the above questions?
>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.
My field of expertise is electronics product design, not web design,
but I often face this same question. The answer in both cases is to
give the paying customer all of the facts and let him decide. ("All
the facts", of course, includes probability estimates for unknowns;
unless you have tested two versions of a product/website and gathered
statistics, predicting which will be more profitable is an educated
guess.)

I would also reject your assumption that there is a trade-off between
accessibility and profitability unless you presented evidence that
that particular claim is true. We know that, all other things being
equal, turning away some customers reduces profit. The burden would
be upon you to prove that those aspects of a web design that turn
away some potential customers result in more profit from those who
remain, and then to prove that there exists no design that has the
higher profit without turning away the customers.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Jul 3 '08 #155

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:g4*********@registered.motzarella.org...
Travis Newbury wrote:
>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.

Travis, Mike is a well known troll in a.w.w. He doesn't even work on
websites. He just likes to cause trouble.

Most of the regulars in a.w.w. have him plonked. It's only when a new
person get in here (or someone cross-posts, like here) that he can get his
kick.
If Jerry wasn't so paranoid, he might not assume that anyone disagreeing
with him must be me... FYI, I have no idea who 'dorayme' is. Sorry, Jerry -
you missed again!
Jul 3 '08 #156

Travis Newbury wrote:
>Presenting the content in a manner that is _most_ profitable for a
corporation does not rely on accessibility.
Evidence, please.

Jul 3 '08 #157
On Jul 2, 10:38*pm, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.netwrote:
The dominant supermarkets in my area are Kroger and Publix. *I avoid
going in a Kroger store like the plague.
Interesting. You I believe are on the west side of town (Marrietta?)
I am on the east (L-Ville) And I avoid Publix for the exact same
reason you avoid Kroger. All the Krogers on this side of town are
looking the same. I have seen about 2 or 3 different layouts
(depending if it is a "Super Kroger" or not...) As for the people.
They are all friendly and helpful. Now I must say 90% of my shopping
is done at the same Kroger and has been for the last 12 years so I
have actually watched the crew grow old...

Which is sad in a funny sort of way...
Jul 3 '08 #158
On Jul 2, 9:26*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
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.
Nor can anyone else in the group...
Jul 3 '08 #159
Neredbojias wrote:
On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>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.
Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.

Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page, and
that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to make an
interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.
Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.

If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.

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

Jul 3 '08 #160
On Jul 2, 10:10*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
body { max-width: 800px !important; margin-left: auto !important;
margin-right: auto !important; }
Yea, tell that to my mom. Or the millions of other people that
haven't a clue what a user style sheet is. You solution is for a very
select group of people. You have to know what a user stylesheet is,
AND you would have to know what to put in there if you did know they
existed.

So that is not a solution. At best, it is a very small band aid.

Jul 3 '08 #161
On Jul 2, 9:47*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
Goddam it, Travis, for not quoting the context!
Let me sum it up: Corporate websites are there to increase revenue
(not necessarily through direct sales). To a corporation, pleasing
ALL (see that word ALL) potential visitors is secondary to revenue.
Corporations spend millions every year to research what is the best
way for them to increase revenue and piss off the least number of
potential visitors. There is a balance between the two. Blindly
stating that fluid design is always the best way is just flat out
wrong, and a disservice to your client.

Go to ford.com Nice, not awesome, Flash site. Then turn off
javascript and the entire thing falls apart and is completely
useless. Do you think that Ford doesn't know this? Do you think that
Ford has not had thousands of people bitching and complaining? If
course they have. But obviously their research shows that more people
are pleased with the site than not pleased. If this were not true
(more people pleased than not pleased) you would see the site
change.

Interestingly enough, they are now taking a random customer survey
about the site both on the site and at the dealers, they are doing
their homework, and you may see the site change based on the results
of their research. But then again, you may not.

Jul 3 '08 #162
Neredbojias wrote:
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.
Was what I highlighted a typo on your part :-) ?

Jul 3 '08 #163
Ed Mullen wrote:
>
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.
Ditto on the Krogers! Aren't you just itching to shout "Ramming Speed!"
and clear that aisle with your cart?
>
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.
Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!
>
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?
And unlike brick 'n mortars where you may keep customers despite abysmal
access or accommodation because they are the "only store in town", the
web does not have such physical constraints, (at least not yet) and
there is always another site...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #164
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:10 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>body { max-width: 800px !important; margin-left: auto !important;
margin-right: auto !important; }

Yea, tell that to my mom. Or the millions of other people that
haven't a clue what a user style sheet is. You solution is for a very
select group of people. You have to know what a user stylesheet is,
AND you would have to know what to put in there if you did know they
existed.

So that is not a solution. At best, it is a very small band aid.
But is still IS a solution, where there is NONE for the reverse
scenario, therefore it is a fact that supports my point, and not your
opinion.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #165
On Jul 3, 9:11*am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!
well Jonathan, we are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT here...
Jul 3 '08 #166
On Jul 3, 9:16*am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
So that is not a solution. *At best, it is a very small band aid.
But is still IS a solution, where there is NONE for the reverse
scenario, therefore it is a fact that supports my point, and not your
opinion.
It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor has
a clue about their browser. I am not willing to make that
concession. I think the overwhelming majority of people surfing have
no idea what a user style sheet is, or what to put in it even if they
did know what it was. In this group, the overwhelming majority DOES
know about those things, and it would be a solution for them.
Jul 3 '08 #167
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:11 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!

well Jonathan, we are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT here...
As staff shambles about, vacuous stares, and pasty complexions...
corporate must have sucked the life out of them long ago like the cast
of Romeo feature...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #168
Scott Bryce wrote:
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.
Not necessarily, any more than images having "fixed widths" violate a
fluid layout. You can
>
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.
That was my whole point in introducing "optimum line length" into the
discussion(though I wasn't too careful in which reference I cited,
several others addressed Chris's valid questions regard other
variables). Chris is doing something I often do, taking things apart,
examining the pieces and possibly, though not necessarily, reassembling
them in a new way.

Unfortunately many who favor rigid or fluid design, don't always favor
non-rigid thinking. Hence the frequent discussion of "right" and
"wrong." There are no absolutes, as acknowledged, at least indirectly,
when saying things like "..gracefully break down."

Things like accessibility and preference are spices to the stew, but not
necessarily the ultimate goal of a design. Microsoft took a marketing
approach that didn't address the top 10-15% of users or the bottom
10-15% of users, but instead plowed straight down the middle 70-80% and
let the rest fall off the table (creating a market for people like us
who could feed nicely on those "crumbs"). You can say what you want
about Microsoft, their balance sheet seems to say they adopted a
successful strategy. I still remember when only an "elite few" could
use computers, there were no bells and whistles, only blinking cursors
and a complex "foreign language" only understood by the high priests of
programming.

So I agree with you when you say "The debate allows us to weigh the
various options and decide what we think is best.", but the bottom line
is we each decide what we think is best, there is no mathematical
formula, or someone would write a program that would put us all out of work.
Jul 3 '08 #169
William Gill wrote:
Not necessarily, any more than images having "fixed widths" violate a
fluid layout. You can
Sorry, someone came up behind me and I accidentally sent an unfinished
thought.

I was saying, you can place your text in a container that "optimizes
line length" (for whatever you decide is optimum), and still place that
in a fluid layout.
Jul 3 '08 #170
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
The lunatic fringe are beyond hope.
I used to think that. Then I discovered Harmony Hairspray!

<g>

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #171
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Jul 2, 7:37=A0pm, "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.
How about, pure, simple HTML, as it was originally designed and
intended? That's fluid. It was never intended as a replacement for
DTP.

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #172
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>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.
Pun intended?

LOL

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #173
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>So, what's your views on abortion...
Dead and buried.....

</gets coat>

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #174
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>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...
Indeed not.....Many an unfortunate incident when one has forgotten
that is also dissolvable .......

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #175
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>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.

Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.

Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page, and
that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to make an
interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.
Web page authors have lots of rights. They can also insist on only
writing the text of their page in Mala, but I should tentatively
suggest that English might have a wider potential audience?

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 3 '08 #176
On 03 Jul 2008, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>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.
Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.

Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page,
and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to
make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.

Web page authors have lots of rights. They can also insist on only
writing the text of their page in Mala, but I should tentatively
suggest that English might have a wider potential audience?
But if the page is meant for people in Malala..?

- Okay, a somewhat discordant reply to an inappropriate analogy.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #177
On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
Neredbojias wrote:
>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>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.

Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.

Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book
page, and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the
right to make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some
extent.

Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.

If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.
So no Web author can/should control what his site looks like? Okay...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #178
On 03 Jul 2008, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote:
Neredbojias wrote:
>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.

Was what I highlighted a typo on your part :-) ?
Yeah, I meant "1/2-width"...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #179
On 03 Jul 2008, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>>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...

Indeed not.....Many an unfortunate incident when one has forgotten
that is also dissolvable .......
:}

....But also many a fortunate incident!

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #180
On 03 Jul 2008, Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 3, 9:16*am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
So that is not a solution. *At best, it is a very small band aid.
But is still IS a solution, where there is NONE for the reverse
scenario, therefore it is a fact that supports my point, and not your
opinion.

It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor has
a clue about their browser. I am not willing to make that
concession.
And I am not willing to concede your premise. There are all kinds of things
in the world which the end-user was no clue about but still relies upon
heavily.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #181
On 03 Jul 2008, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>>So, what's your views on abortion...

Dead and buried.....

</gets coat>
I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 3 '08 #182
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:38 pm, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.netwrote:
>The dominant supermarkets in my area are Kroger and Publix. I avoid
going in a Kroger store like the plague.

Interesting. You I believe are on the west side of town (Marrietta?)
I am on the east (L-Ville) And I avoid Publix for the exact same
reason you avoid Kroger. All the Krogers on this side of town are
looking the same. I have seen about 2 or 3 different layouts
(depending if it is a "Super Kroger" or not...) As for the people.
They are all friendly and helpful. Now I must say 90% of my shopping
is done at the same Kroger and has been for the last 12 years so I
have actually watched the crew grow old...
Very interesting. Yes, I'm in Alpharetta.
>
Which is sad in a funny sort of way...
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that and I've been going into one Publix for ten
years. Geez, maybe it's just that *I* am getting older! ;-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Love is always bestowed as a gift - freely, willingly and without
expectation. We don't love to be loved; we love to love. - Leo Buscaglia
Jul 3 '08 #183
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:11 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!

well Jonathan, we are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT here...
I'll third that. I was in one once a long time ago and it was almost
frightening.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Jul 3 '08 #184
On 2008-07-03, Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:16*am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
So that is not a solution. *At best, it is a very small band aid.
But is still IS a solution, where there is NONE for the reverse
scenario, therefore it is a fact that supports my point, and not your
opinion.
It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor
has a clue about their browser. I am not willing to make that
concession. I think the overwhelming majority of people surfing have
no idea what a user style sheet is, or what to put in it even if
they did know what it was. In this group, the overwhelming majority
DOES know about those things, and it would be a solution for them.
It is irrelevant how many people know of the solution; it is still
a solution, and one that will become more widely used as people
become aware of it.

As Jonathan says, there is NO solution for the reverse. It is
therefore an inferior choice.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 3 '08 #185
On Jul 3, 1:36*pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor has
a clue about their browser. *I am not willing to make that
concession.
And I am not willing to concede your premise. *There are all kinds of things
in the world which the end-user was no clue about but still relies upon
heavily.
I wil conceed that there are many things that U sued does not know how
it works to be able to use it. Hell a toaster does that.

But can you give me an example where the the owner of a product needs
to know not only that the product has this "hidden" feature, but also
is required to learn a foreign language (special language) to make
that hidden feature work.
Jul 3 '08 #186
On Jul 3, 2:14*pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
* * It is irrelevant how many people know of the solution; it is still
* * a solution, and one that will become more widely used as people
* * become aware of it.
The solution is completely relevant to the real world. A solution no
one knows about, or knows how to implement is not a solution.

Maybe someday. But I work in today's world, not some day when users
figure it out.
.
Jul 3 '08 #187
On Jul 3, 12:56*pm, (Matt Probert) wrote:
How about, pure, simple HTML, as it was originally designed and
intended? That's fluid. It was never intended as a replacement for
DTP.
So what? People use things all the time for what they are not
intended for. Apollo 13 would never have made it back it we only used
things for what they were "originally" intended for. The web has
evolved and will continue to do so.

In 10 years we will be arguing about 3D holographic plugin in for the
google implant...
Jul 3 '08 #188
On Jul 3, 1:37*pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"
And you wold have won the best comeback award if there was a
competition between the two of you.
Jul 3 '08 #189

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!
While I was never a fan of Food Lion, I always thought Winn-Dixie worse.

I haven't been in one since I moved from Florida 15 years ago, though. I
don't suppose they've improved with age...?

--
Berg
Jul 3 '08 #190
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:14 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.comwrote:
> It is irrelevant how many people know of the solution; it is still
a solution, and one that will become more widely used as people
become aware of it.

The solution is completely relevant to the real world. A solution no
one knows about, or knows how to implement is not a solution.

Maybe someday. But I work in today's world, not some day when users
figure it out.
.
Hmmm Problem A with a solution that few know about is somehow less
desirable than Problem B that does not have a solution at all. Science
is not your strong suit may I guess?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #191
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:37 pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
>I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"

And you wold have won the best comeback award if there was a
competition between the two of you.
I was going to as if there was justification for some for a
"really-really-really late term" one? ;-)

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jul 3 '08 #192
Neredbojias wrote:
On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>Neredbojias wrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:

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.
>
Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
lot of other windows open at the same time.

Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book
page, and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the
right to make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some
extent.
Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.

If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.

So no Web author can/should control what his site looks like? Okay...
Nope, that's the nature of the web. They can RECOMMEND what it looks
like, but not CONTROL it.

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

Jul 3 '08 #193
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote in message:
ba**********************************...oglegroups.com,
On Jul 2, 9:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>Goddam it, Travis, for not quoting the context!

Let me sum it up: Corporate websites are there to increase revenue
(not necessarily through direct sales). To a corporation, pleasing
ALL (see that word ALL) potential visitors is secondary to revenue.
Corporations spend millions every year to research what is the best
way for them to increase revenue and piss off the least number of
potential visitors. There is a balance between the two. Blindly
stating that fluid design is always the best way is just flat out
wrong, and a disservice to your client.

Go to ford.com Nice, not awesome, Flash site. Then turn off
javascript and the entire thing falls apart and is completely
useless. Do you think that Ford doesn't know this? Do you think that
Ford has not had thousands of people bitching and complaining? If
course they have. But obviously their research shows that more people
are pleased with the site than not pleased. If this were not true
(more people pleased than not pleased) you would see the site
change.

Interestingly enough, they are now taking a random customer survey
about the site both on the site and at the dealers, they are doing
their homework, and you may see the site change based on the results
of their research. But then again, you may not.
A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.

--
Red
Jul 3 '08 #194
Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.
Why, because they coerced people to buy cars they couldn't afford or
didn't want? Or because they didn't foresee that oil that should be $30
per barrel would spike to $140? Or maybe it's because they sold the
patents for 200 mpg carburetors to the oil companies so many years ago.

It might be argued they are a prime example of catering too much to
customer desires.
Jul 3 '08 #195
On Jul 3, 3:55*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
Hmmm *Problem A with a solution that few know about is somehow less
desirable than Problem B that does not have a solution at all. Science
is not your strong suit may I guess?
You do not dispute that it is a select few that find it to be a
solution. But to the masses it is not a solution at all. And the
masses are what are important to corporations. Not the few that
frequent alt.html that might know how to implement user style sheets.

So, in the grand scheme of things, it is not a solution.
Jul 3 '08 #196
On Jul 3, 4:14*pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMT...@aww-faq.orgwrote:
A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.
I completely disagree! The fact that they do cater to customers is
proven by what they offer as their product. American's asked for
SUVs, and they got SUVs. The american automakers give the public
exaclty what they ask for. And present gas prices show the need to be
careful what you ask for.
Jul 3 '08 #197
On Jul 3, 4:47*pm, William Gill <nore...@example.comwrote:
>Or maybe it's because they sold the
patents for 200 mpg carburetors to the oil companies so many years ago.
And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right? http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
Jul 3 '08 #198
Travis Newbury wrote:
The american automakers give the public exactly what they ask for.
Which is why the Corolla is the best selling car in the world.
Jul 3 '08 #199
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:47 pm, William Gill <nore...@example.comwrote:
>Or maybe it's because they sold the
patents for 200 mpg carburetors to the oil companies so many years ago.

And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right? http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
Does this mean the one about the carburetor that uses tap water is also
an urban legend? Never mind, I don't want to know, and don't say
anything about the tooth fairy or Santa either. Just keep it real, and
talk about what's "best" in web design.
Jul 3 '08 #200

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