How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
************************************************** *******************
Signed,
SoloCDM
Jul 20 '05
179  44206 
kchayka schrieb: Ah, but that's the whole point! You don't seem to be engineering
specifically for the web.
Could you give us the URLs to a couple of the sites you engineered
specifically for the web? Thanks!
Matthias
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in <bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: First, you assume that people SEE.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
assumption.
</sarcasm>
The print industry have had no other option. You do.
See how absurd your characterization of my position is? I suppose all
graphic design principles should have been ignored all these years,
If that is the way you wish to perceive it.
Third, you assume that people run 800x600.
I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my targeting
that market.
You "know" that a "sufficiently large" audience runs 800x600 and that the
same audience run their browser fullscreen. Would you like to tell us
*how* you know ? Did you ask ?
If you say "browser statistics", then I'm afraid you might live to get
the full force of an analysis of the inherent shortcomings of browser
statistics.
Yes, you may know that your N thousand intranet users all run IE on
Windows and 800x600 (OR Netscape 4 on Solaris at 1190x900 something;
the principle apply equally). Or rather: you may know that they did
this when the person installing the thing went away. I know of no
platform that can hinder a person from resizing the browser window ...
When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are you
going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to English
speakers?
That is still a faulty assumption, Harlan. I know what language I write
in, but I can never know what language it will be read it. Doesn't that
sound silly even to you ?
Strawman argument. When you write it, you have control over what you
write.
When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's you
who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving me any
say in the matter.
You always have control over what you write. What you do NOT control is
what happens to it once it arrives where the user is. That is why it
is such a good idea to make sure it can adapt, and survive.
http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
which with some imagination applies also to fixed widths.
> thinking, "Gosh, I wish they would use yellow backgrounds instead of pink
You know what they have been thinking ?
LOL. Come down to earth.
Certainly. Did you read the article ?
It was a struggle, I assure you. Scarcely a day went by lest I wished I
could reduce The Times to a format that fit me, and didn't require me to
have the arms of a chimpanzee to open it. The bills for broken noses
from fellow passengers grew to untenable amounts.
<grin> But I don't think a 2-inch by 55-inch column would have been the
answer. Or, worse yet, a newspaper published each day on adding machine
rolls.
You're so right. What *was* the answer was a type of packaging (HTML)
that allows the content to adapt the way it is presented to me. Why
should I adapt to the display specifics of the designer, I ask of you ?
Personally I think we are *seriously* miscommunicating here. You can't
possibly think say - in 2003 - that your table SHALL display at xxx pixels
come hell or high water.
No, I know it *won't* display at 200 pixels, but I'm not going to forgo a
presentation that will be useful for people at 800 pixels. Would you *like*
the information in a format that's useful at 200 pixels? If the group of
Nope. I'd like the information in a format that will *adapt* itself to
what I am using. If I want to see the information at 800 pixels wide,
I'll adjust my settings to fit.
Sorry. I don't want you to decide that 800 is optimal.
I'm not *opposed* to flexibility. But in practice it often creates a mess.
And I'm not paid to create a mess.
That's probably true. But you're back to the assumptions: if someone
resizes her browser window to 1500 pixels wide, then perhaps they actually
feel comfortable with it ?
"Looking real bad" is your interpretation. Sorry, but there it is. For
someone else a 1500 pixel wide browser window might just look gooood.[*]
This isn't a piece of paper. The physical characteristics are different;
glaringly different. Yes, that was a pun.
Eyesight is still eyesight. Text is still text. The basic concepts of
positive and negative space, white space, color relationships, and so forth
Most of these concepts exist but have different content on the web. Just
something as simple as the difference between reflected and emitted light
should throw a spanner into the "We allready know, we've printed papers"
mechanism.
Black text on white paper. That's about as basic as it gets - and it works
very, very well on paper. I like black on white. But I don't use it on
the web - have you seen what happens to a monitor with a low refresh-rate
and a large square of white ?
You don't *have* that problem on paper. You can claim you don't have it
on the web, either, but that would be silly.
We - aka the human race - knew a hell of a lot about farrying. It wasn't
applied much to the rubber-tire industry, y'know.
haven't changed. And the person who *is* reading a page at 800 pixels does
not find the experience any less beneficial just because it wouldn't *also*
work well at 200.
The person reading it at 800 pixels wide does so because that person find
800 comfortable. That's his choice - not yours, not mine. When you fix
widths to 800, you decide for him. You don't ask him. You don't leave it
up to him. You simply decide it.
I won't and can't refuse you to do so. But I wish you'd think about it.
[*]
I wouldn't go near that person myself. But then again, some people actually
*like* watching dubbed ST:TOS on RTL+ ... there is no accounting for taste.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:59:30 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:WO*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in<bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: >> Which is why you create a logical document independent of thephysical >> device.
>
> If I expect that 5 million people will see my page at 800 x 600, and Ifeel > that 5 million pairs of eyes makes it worth my while to design a displayfor
That is a huge expectation - and quite a mouthful of assumptions to
boot.
First, you assume that people SEE.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
assumption.
</sarcasm>
How many times must we point out that the print industry is how it is
because of inherent limitations of the print media? Limitations which
are not present on the web?
See how absurd your characterization of my position is? I suppose all
graphic design principles should have been ignored all these years,
regardless of their benefits in respect of the sighted audience, in favor of
only every producing linear text that a Kurzweil machine could read. Of
course not. That doesn't mean the print industry "assumed" every person
SEES.
Graphic design principles have evolved over many years. Web design
principles have evolved and will continue to do so. The web used to
look a lot like newspapers. Then it looked a lot like magazines. More
recently it has also started to take on some of the characteristics of
TV. Interestingly, TV in many areas is now starting to take on some of
the characteristics of the web (and I don't just mean those abhorrent
commercials where the camera pans around on a web page). Everything
evolves: we keep what works and we change what doesn't. Why do you want
the web to keep on looking like a magazine when there are better ways to
exploit what we have collectively learned?
Second, you assume that people see graphics.
Ditto.
Lots of people with perfectly good vision have images turned off in
their web browser for quite valid reasons. I'm sure you're not
interested in selling things to these people, but I am.
When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are you
going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to English
speakers?
As someone else pointed out, HTML is a language that every web browser
understands, by definition. You don't have to rewrite anything to get a
new web browser to understand it.
Well,darn it, I have no way to know what language is spoken by any person
using a given device, and there is no universal language, so I might as well
just not trying to reach anyone.
The point is that you're not even trying to reach everyone who
understands English. You are taking huge chunks of the market and
completely ignoring them, for no reason at all.
It's been said again and again that the easiest way to write a web page
is also the most widely usable way. You will say that these web pages
are ugly or not effective. To which we reply that this is just because
you're doing it wrong.
> Should I not write presentations in English because a German-speakingperson > may come across it and then get ticked off because I didn't take himinto > consideration?
When you write your presentations in English, you should not insult
German-speakers, because one might use a translation service to convert
it into German and then by justifiably ticked off. In other words,
although you are writing in English, you don't know what might happen to
it afterwards.
When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's you
who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving me any
say in the matter.
Although you are writing for IE and Netscape, you don't know what
browser might display it afterwards. Are there enough words the same
between my last two sentences to draw the parallel? Write good, clean
semantic HTML and then make it look nice using CSS, and anyone,
anywhere, using any browser will be able to make use of it. Even
Germans using a translation service, and even people using handhelds.
<grin> But I don't think a 2-inch by 55-inch column would have been the
answer. Or, worse yet, a newspaper published each day on adding machine
rolls.
For some people, I'm sure those formats would be perfect. With the web,
those people can now very easily put the information into the form they
prefer. Except for when you insist that your way of doing things is the
One True Way.
Forgive me, but did you read what I wrote ? I'm certain your information
is useful, as opposed to the 80% of crap that exist on the Web today.
That does not change the fact that you have *no idea* what information your
*users* will find useful, in what context, or on what device.
If I had no idea, then it wouldn't have occurred to me to provide it to
anyone.
The point that was being made was that you have no idea what information
a given user will find useful. Of course, some will find it useful, and
some won't. Some will be using a handheld and some won't. Those are
two orthogonal categories, and expecting them to line up perfectly is a
fool's game.
Right. I don't agree with your premise that the only legitimate audience for
information providers to target is *everyone*, at the expense of every other
consideration.
But in most (granted, not all) situations, you can target everyone
without impacting negatively on anything else.
The problem with flexibility is that a layout with its width defined as 95%
of the screen's width can wind up looking really bad if someone resizes his
browser to 400 or 1500 pixels wide, and I have no control over that because
I have little say over how each browser distributes space that's left over
after accounting for fixed-width page elements (graphics, for example).
Ah, herein lies the problem. With CSS, you actually do have tremendous
say over how browsers distribute space that's left over. You just
haven't figured it out yet. If you don't believe me, post some real
pages (not made-up pages which rely on ridiculously wide tables or
images) here (or, better, in ciwas) and the friendly folk will help come
up with designs that achieve everything you were shooting for, but also
work well in other environments that you weren't originally targetting.
I'm not *opposed* to flexibility. But in practice it often creates a mess.
And I'm not paid to create a mess.
I consider a page that doesn't degrade gracefully to be a mess. But
that's me. YMMV.
--
Greg Schmidt (gr***@trawna.com)
Trawna Publications ( http://www.trawna.com/)
On Thu, Sep 11, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll: No, I don't believe in changing from what works just because it's not new
and cool.
Some would tell us that it wasn't really new when TimBL invented it:
it was putting together ideas from different sources.
It has to be to my advantage.
Fine, then you'd better just carry on benefitting from that advantage,
while we misguided souls are messing around with our reader-orientated
flexible design principles, right?
Bye now.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bj************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:WO*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in <bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>:> Which is why you create a logical document independent of the physical> device.
If I expect that 5 million people will see my page at 800 x 600, and I feel that 5 million pairs of eyes makes it worth my while to design a
display for
That is a huge expectation - and quite a mouthful of assumptions to
boot.
First, you assume that people SEE.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
assumption.
</sarcasm>
Why do you continue to make these moronic comparisons with print media?
Computer screens are not made of paper!
Paper is paper is paper.
A computer screen can come in such a wide range of sizes and be set to so
many different resolutions - and therefore combinations of size and
resolutions - that there is NO comparison between a computer screen and
paper.
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bj************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@lxplus068.c ern.ch... On Wed, Sep 10, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:
Have you seen print ads from the 1920s? TV ads from the 1950s?
Have you seen web pages from the late 1990's? And folks are still
designing that HTML3.2(spit) presentational crud, despite the good
money being on something significantly better, the ideas for which had
been there from the start, but had been smokescreened by the quasi-DTP
crowd until relatively recently.
The design industry has learned much about adding impact to
presentations since then. A decision to *give up* techniques that
are proven impact-producers because *some* people may be using a
viewer on which those techniques don't function so well is not
lightly made.
Whoever said that _you_ (and anyone else who can use them) have to
give them up?
Umm--the person to whom I was originally responding, who said that fixed
widths *shouldn't* be used.
Educate yourself. http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/oct022.htm http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr002.htm http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/may002.htm http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov022.htm http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/feb002.htm
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
On Thu, Sep 11, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[for what it's worth, which isn't very much, I realise that I _had_
meant to respond to this point...] "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@lxplus068.c ern.ch... On Wed, Sep 10, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:
The design industry has learned much about adding impact to
presentations since then. A decision to *give up* techniques that
are proven impact-producers because *some* people may be using a
viewer on which those techniques don't function so well is not
lightly made.
Whoever said that _you_ (and anyone else who can use them) have to
give them up?
Umm--the person to whom I was originally responding, who said that fixed
widths *shouldn't* be used.
My apologies. I thought you were talking about "giving up" techniques
that are proven impact-producers.
It hadn't occured to me that you were talking precisely about "giving
up" fixed-size web designs - because basically in the WWW context you
don't really have fixed-size in the first place. Which you've made
clear in your arguments to us, though you don't seem to have taken it
on board yourself, in terms of aiming at some presumed subset of WWW
users who you assume to be receptive to your rigid designs.
bye
Matthias Gutfeldt wrote: kchayka schrieb: Ah, but that's the whole point! You don't seem to be engineering
specifically for the web.
Could you give us the URLs to a couple of the sites you engineered
specifically for the web? Thanks!
Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.
I, as a user, have had more than my fill of crappy sites that were
engineered as web versions of paper, many of which have had serious
usability and/or accessibility problems.
FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique, but if you find any
functional problems with it, I'd certainly want to know about them.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
kchayka wrote: Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
kchayka schrieb:
Ah, but that's the whole point! You don't seem to be engineering
specifically for the web.
Could you give us the URLs to a couple of the sites you engineered
specifically for the web? Thanks!
Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.
Oh, but it is. There's quite often a huge gap between theory and practice.
FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
Matthias
Matthias Gutfeldt wrote: FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at
the moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
<feed>
Actually, it'd probably look something like
<http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
hand to test with, though -- got one?
</feed>
You're almost as persistent as andkonDOTcom was.
"Owen Jacobson" <oj**************@mx-deus.net> wrote in news:ALe8b.6546
$f**********@news20.bellglobal.com: <feed>
Actually, it'd probably look something like
<http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
hand to test with, though -- got one?
</feed>
I get a content-type error.. did you mean a WAP phone?
Owen Jacobson wrote: You're almost as persistent as andkonDOTcom was.
Nice try, Owen. Thanks for playing.
Matthias
Owen Jacobson wrote: Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at
the moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
<feed>
Actually, it'd probably look something like
<http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
hand to test with, though -- got one?
</feed>
Actually, it wouldn't, as Kchayka didn't have her text at
fixed width lines ;-)
On a PDA it would look quite nice though: http://home.tiscali.nl/~elizabeth/test/kchayka-pda.jpg
--
Els
Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.
On Fri, Sep 12, Matthias Gutfeldt inscribed on the eternal scroll: Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
Maybe I'd commend the fact that the site had not offered pointless
obstructions to my access, despite that browsing platform being
relatively unsuitable for the specific purpose, and make a note to
revisit when I'm in a position to enjoy the site.
Whereas, if it had told me that it was "optimised for IE4 or better on
a 600x800 display blah blah blah", then there's quite a likelihood
that I'd have left straight away and not gone back.
Incidentally, where _are_ all these mythical surfers who never, ever,
change any of their OS, display, or browser settings, but yet are
browsing in fullscreen mode? Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but
I've never yet seen one of the popular browsers freshly installed that
doesn't come up in a window.
Matthias Gutfeldt wrote: kchayka wrote: Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
kchayka schrieb:
Ah, but that's the whole point! You don't seem to be engineering
specifically for the web.
Could you give us the URLs to a couple of the sites you engineered
specifically for the web? Thanks!
Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.
Oh, but it is. There's quite often a huge gap between theory and practice.
Then point out the gaps. Questioning his websites seems little more than an
ad-hominem attack. FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
A prospective buyer would probably read about the artist and then use
something with a better display to view the pictures when convenient. An
artists website is a _very_ special situation, it doesn't generalise.
--
Jim Dabell
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:32:09 +0200, Matthias Gutfeldt <wo***@gmx.at>
wrote:
<URL: http://tb.c-net.us/ > Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
I don't know about monochrome cell-phone, as most people who use web
on their phones have colour displays, and the site works very well on
my mobile phone, the pictures look good. Unfortunately my browser and
my screenshot proggy eat too much memory to both be open at once, or
I'd show screenshots. It looks good though, no problems seeing the
images, and I'd definately be interested in seeing them on a real
machine later.
Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:yu*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in
<bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: First, you assume that people SEE.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
assumption.
</sarcasm>
The print industry have had no other option. You do.
See how absurd your characterization of my position is? I suppose all
graphic design principles should have been ignored all these years,
If that is the way you wish to perceive it.
Third, you assume that people run 800x600.
I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my
targeting that market.
You "know" that a "sufficiently large" audience runs 800x600 and that
the same audience run their browser fullscreen. Would you like to tell us
*how* you know ? Did you ask ?
I guess because I'm not in my own little ivory tower composed of the Latest
and Greatest in everything. In actual reality, millions and millions of
people sit at computer screens daily and use the major industry browsers on
computer monitors. This is obvious and I have no further interest in arguing
this point with anyone who imagines that the situation is otherwise.
If you say "browser statistics", then I'm afraid you might live to get
the full force of an analysis of the inherent shortcomings of browser
statistics.
Yes, you may know that your N thousand intranet users all run IE on
Windows and 800x600 (OR Netscape 4 on Solaris at 1190x900 something;
the principle apply equally).
Do you think a fixed-width 800x600 browser window can't be used on a
1190x900 screen? At no point have I implied that I think most people are
using *exactly* 800x600 resolution. I believe that rather few people use
*less* these days, and for everyone else using a computer monitor, 800x600
is the least common denominator. I never said I expect that people are
maximizing their browsers to use them.
Or rather: you may know that they did
this when the person installing the thing went away. I know of no
platform that can hinder a person from resizing the browser window ...
When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are
you going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to
English speakers?
That is still a faulty assumption, Harlan. I know what language I write
in, but I can never know what language it will be read it. Doesn't that
sound silly even to you ?
I don't understand your point.
Strawman argument. When you write it, you have control over what you write.
When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's
you who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving me
any say in the matter.
You always have control over what you write. What you do NOT control is
what happens to it once it arrives where the user is. That is why it
is such a good idea to make sure it can adapt, and survive.
If it looks like a mess, because the receiving device has no intelligent
idea of how to arrange it, then it hasn't adapted and survived.
If I have to discard excellent presentation techniques altogether, because
some people want to see the information on devices where those techniques
don't work, then it hasn't adapted and survived. It's been gutted and
weakened.
Apparently the only worthwhile criterion for some people is the size of the
audience who can use the presentation at all, not the effectiveness of the
presentation.
http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
which with some imagination applies also to fixed widths.
> thinking, "Gosh, I wish they would use yellow backgrounds instead of pink
You know what they have been thinking ?
LOL. Come down to earth.
Certainly. Did you read the article ?
Yes. And the analogy is poor, I believe, because people have always known
their TV comes with a volume knob, and it requires no sophistication to use.
People know what loud and soft are. Changing the volume doesn't alter the
arrangement of the presentation.
Many people are application-illiterate, and have no idea how to fine-tune
their software or even whether it can be altered. They are also not
typography experts. They don't know what pitch or pixels are, or the uses of
proportional versus monotype. They don't know how many different canonical
sizes text comes in on a web page (<H1> through <H6>, <P>, <sub> and
<super>). I have no numbers, but I'm curious what percent of the
browser-using population really adjusts these settings. And for all those
who don't, the defaults are awful. Using relative type sizes on IE causes a
crappy appearance in Netscape and vice versa. And when people change these
settings, it does alter the arrangement of the presentation, sometimes in
genuinely bad ways.
So beneath the surface I don't see the volume knob as an adequate analogy.
It was a struggle, I assure you. Scarcely a day went by lest I wished
I could reduce The Times to a format that fit me, and didn't require me
to have the arms of a chimpanzee to open it. The bills for broken noses from fellow passengers grew to untenable amounts.
<grin> But I don't think a 2-inch by 55-inch column would have been the
answer. Or, worse yet, a newspaper published each day on adding machine
rolls.
You're so right. What *was* the answer was a type of packaging (HTML)
that allows the content to adapt the way it is presented to me. Why
should I adapt to the display specifics of the designer, I ask of you ?
Fine, don't. Use your PDA for all web access. Also, while you're at it, get
yourself a pair of glasses that kill your peripheral vision, or create a
fisheye effect, and then ask that streets and signage be redesigned to
accommodate you. And get yourself a pair of aural devices that cut off
frequencies below high C and ask everyone to speak in a different pitch to
accommodate you.
Personally I think we are *seriously* miscommunicating here. You
can't possibly think say - in 2003 - that your table SHALL display at xxx
pixels come hell or high water.
No, I know it *won't* display at 200 pixels, but I'm not going to forgo
a presentation that will be useful for people at 800 pixels. Would you
*like* the information in a format that's useful at 200 pixels? If the group of
Nope. I'd like the information in a format that will *adapt* itself to
what I am using. If I want to see the information at 800 pixels wide,
I'll adjust my settings to fit.
Sorry. I don't want you to decide that 800 is optimal.
LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiveness" in design,
do you?
[snip the rest--really pointless to go on]
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:59:26 -0400,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: Consider magazine articles. They have side bars, pull quotes, various kinds
of graphics to supplement the main story. These are extremely effective way
of presenting information. Writing for browsers on computer monitors, I can
use these techniques.
These are extremely annoying ways to read magazines, and even more
annoying ways to read things on a computer screen. It's like trying to
read a magazine through a keyhole. Even on a large screen, you have to
scroll up and down to read columnar displays, and you can't read an
article in a linear fashion, you end up having to read bits of spread
around, or are just distracted by the repeating of parts of the article
strewn around the page.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
On Fri, Sep 12, Tim inscribed on the eternal scroll: These are extremely annoying ways to read magazines, and even more
annoying ways to read things on a computer screen. It's like trying to
read a magazine through a keyhole. Even on a large screen, you have to
scroll up and down to read columnar displays, and you can't read an
article in a linear fashion, you end up having to read bits of spread
around, or are just distracted by the repeating of parts of the article
strewn around the page.
So you're experiencing those "proven impact-producers" that the design
industry has developed over the years, which the hon. Usenaut was
telling us about. Seems the plan is really working. SCNR.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in <bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>:
This Many people are application-illiterate, and have no idea how to fine-tune
their software or even whether it can be altered. They are also not
typography experts. They don't know what pitch or pixels are, or the uses of
proportional versus monotype. They don't know how many different canonical
this
sizes text comes in on a web page (<H1> through <H6>, <P>, <sub> and
<super>). I have no numbers, but I'm curious what percent of the
browser-using population really adjusts these settings. And for all those
who don't, the defaults are awful. Using relative type sizes on IE causes a
and this
Fine, don't. Use your PDA for all web access. Also, while you're at it, get
yourself a pair of glasses that kill your peripheral vision, or create a
fisheye effect, and then ask that streets and signage be redesigned to
accommodate you. And get yourself a pair of aural devices that cut off
frequencies below high C and ask everyone to speak in a different pitch to
accommodate you.
lead me to conclude that you don't know, don't want to learn, and quite
likely are incapable of doing so.
Continuing this debate would be pointless. The lightbulb will not be
changed unless it really wants to.
LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiveness" in design,
do you?
No, I obviously don't. HAND.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
kchayka wrote: FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Judging from the comments here, you apparently nailed it. I am going
to refer an artist whose photography site I fixed (mostly at the
markup level) to your site to give an idea of other artist sites.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Harlan Messinger wrote:
LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiveness" in design,
do you?
the first thing required for effective design is that it is appropriate to
the medium
think on't
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Brian wrote: kchayka wrote: FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Judging from the comments here, you apparently nailed it. I am going
to refer an artist whose photography site I fixed (mostly at the
markup level) to your site to give an idea of other artist sites.
Groovy! :-)
Hey Harlan, I don't suppose you are listening to any of this...
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
Els wrote: <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
On a PDA it would look quite nice though:
http://home.tiscali.nl/~elizabeth/test/kchayka-pda.jpg
It came out pretty much the way I expected it to.
Thanks for confirming it!
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
Matthias Gutfeldt wrote: kchayka wrote:
Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.
Oh, but it is. There's quite often a huge gap between theory and practice.
I'm not convinced it's true in this case, but even if it were, does it
discount the fact that fixed designs generally suck from a user
standpoint? Too much form, not enough function. I don't see how this
is a good thing from any standpoint, except maybe the designer's. Egos
are fragile things I suppose. <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it.
Thanks. I rather like it, too. :) Ted hasn't seen it yet, but I think
he'll like it as well.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
"Owen Jacobson" <oj**************@mx-deus.net> wrote in message news:<AL********************@news20.bellglobal.com >... Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at
the moment, but you should get the idea.
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
images, though.
<feed>
Actually, it'd probably look something like
<http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
hand to test with, though -- got one?
</feed>
You're almost as persistent as andkonDOTcom was.
My persistence was due to the fact that many people couldnt articulate
what they wanted to say in a logical and non-flaming manner. Also,
some were hypocrites. They preached validation, structure, etc but
failed to demonstrate that on their own sites.
I think you'll be very happy to hear that I am trying to make a
completely new tutorial. First part will be only structure (html). The
second will be CSS. Hopefully, this one will get better reviews :-)
In article <bj************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: If I'm presenting data in a twelve-column-wide table, either you have a use
for that information or you don't. If you don't, it has nothing to do with
the layout, and I don't expect to include you in the audience. If you do,
well, here's your two-dimensional table with twelve columns. Either scroll
or don't use the table. If your PDA will display the columns one after
another, chained together vertically, so be it, but while you can get the
needed information from it, the visual impact of two dimensions will be
lost. I'm *certainly* not going to design the table so it appears in that
format by default.
If I'm presenting a map of the US that show all county boundaries, and each
county is color-coded to show some piece of pertinent information, then
either scroll, or don't use my page, because the map ain't gonna be usable
at 2 inches wide.
A table or an image is the content, not the layout. If it is, then
you're doing something wrong. The dimensions of either a table or image
are (semi-)fixed, because that is the nature of them. Twelve columns
will not fit into a tiny screen, but is that a justification to forget
about layout completely, or to forget about using tables and images that
may be viewed on screens of X x Y size?
--
Kris kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
In article <3f********@news.sihope.com>,
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote: <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique, but if you find any
functional problems with it, I'd certainly want to know about them.
"Contact" produces a 404.
--
Kris kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Isofarro wrote: kchayka wrote:
<URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
Wow. Now that is a website that convinces me there's something inside worth
reading. Very impressive, very clean, and very modern looking. Fantastic
work.
<blush> thank yee, kind sir. The design was actually inspired by
another site, but that one was a fixed design using layout tables. I
was shooting for better usability.
Further in - to the Gallery - another wow. Of course, a gallery is 'merely'
a list of images. And also the website feel complements the amazing
artwork.
One of my specific goals was to *not* have the design detract from the
art. I guess I did OK. :) BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique
Tough!
I won't complain. :-)
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
pj
"Peter Stokes" <pe*********@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:10**************************@posting.google.c om... I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
I find it fascinating that those who cry about such responses are the ones
with vehement apologetics for design practices that are patently *not* user
friendly.
Often, people do need to be told that their idea is ultimately a bad one.
What good does it do to show someone how to do something (i.e. "how do I
hide my source?") when it is a poor idea to begin with?
While I can see where some responses (including my own, sometimes) may be
unhelpful, in that the response is typically "Don't do that", it is far
better than showing them some hackish workaround that is more or less
uneffective and alienating to visitors.
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
On Sun, Sep 14, Peter Stokes inscribed on the eternal scroll: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place,
Do you? From the way that you're talking, it would seem you have no
intention of learning anything from the observation. Am I wrong?
It's not a matter of "should't be doing it": the fact is it cannot be
done. But the harder one tries, the worse the consequences. For
which the only remedy is to recognise reality, and adapt to it.
but none of the self-proclaimed experts
What kind of nonsense is this? I challenge you to produce a posting
here in which anyone has claimed the title of "expert".
acknowedge her/his right to do whatever s/he damned well likes
If they want to do that, then they should get right on with it. If
they ask for our counsel, then they should not be surprised to get it.
in building a web page and actually offers some help.
Help is what they were given. Anything else would be short measure.
bye. pe*********@operamail.com (Peter Stokes) exclaimed in <10**************************@posting.google.com >: place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
(1) Noone has proclaimed themselves experts, and
(2) We're not paid to help out.
As a consequence of (2), we speak our mind and if that isn't good 'nuff
for you, there's always somewhere else.
Where did the assumption come from that when asking questions in ciwah, an
answer should be quickly forthcoming on how to solve the "problem" ?
This is a discussion forum on the topic of HTML, not anyones personal
helpdesk. Keep it in mind or kindly keep out of the debate. The OP has
gotten alot for his money, IMHO.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Peter Stokes wrote: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
isn't it a fascinating insight that you found it worth your while to make
such a pointless post
I have the right to give what advice I choose in Usenet posts...I do not
receive a salary for it, I have no responsibilities to uphold any
particular point of view...and I am not ANYBODY'S free tech support
HTH
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
[Quotes rewrapped]
Harlan Messinger wrote: "Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:WO*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in <bj************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: >> Which is why you create a logical document independent of the
>> physical device.
>
> If I expect that 5 million people will see my page at 800 x 600, and I
> feel that 5 million pairs of eyes makes it worth my while to design a
> display for
That is a huge expectation - and quite a mouthful of assumptions to
boot.
First, you assume that people SEE.
<sarcasm>
Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
assumption.
</sarcasm>
The Web isn't print. It's an inherently more accessible medium than print,
and was made to be that way quite on purpose.
See how absurd your characterization of my position is?
What's absurd, is assuming that someone will be using a desktop PC with a
graphical browser when many more means of accessing Web documents exist.
I suppose all graphic design principles should have been ignored all these
years, regardless of their benefits in respect of the sighted audience, in
favor of only every producing linear text that a Kurzweil machine could
read. Of course not. That doesn't mean the print industry "assumed" every
person SEES.
You completely miss the point.
Second, you assume that people see graphics.
Ditto.
Third, you assume that people run 800x600.
I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my targeting
that market.
Why limit yourself to 800x600? (I run 1024x768 but my browser window is a
bit smaller than it would be maximized on 640x480.) It is quite possible to
make sites that work well in *every* resolution. this is the concept that
you fail to grasp.
When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are
you going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to
English speakers?
Non sequitur. Fourth, you assume that people run their browser in 800x600
Or more. I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my
targeting that market.
A site which locks itself into an 800 pixel wide space in a 3072x2304 window
is just as annoying as one which spills over outside of a 640x480 (or
narrower) window. Strawman argument. When you write it, you have control over what you
write.
When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's
you who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving
me any say in the matter.
The World Wide Web is bigger than just IE and Netscape Navigator. In fact, People "in the trade" have spent exactly 13 years trying
to figure out what works *on the web*. So far they have more or less
all failed.
This isn't a piece of paper. The physical characteristics are
different; glaringly different. Yes, that was a pun.
Eyesight is still eyesight. Text is still text.
The Web is not, and will never be, just "fancy paperless DTP for desktop PC
screens". To assume this is all the Web is, is a patently erroneous
assumption and an eventual self-generated downfall. The Web is not radio,
TV, or print, in fact the difference is so fundamental because HTML
documents on the Web can be rendered visually on screen, visually on paper,
and aurally, with stylesheets specific to each of these.
Eyesight does not matter for the accessibility of Web documents, because the
user can always ask for larger fonts or even an aural rendering (which may
require changing browsers). As further evidence of just how far off the
mark your reference is, Googlebot, Gulliver, and Scooter are all blind.
Understanding this is the key to being enlightened.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
EightNineThree <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote: While I can see where some responses (including my own, sometimes) may be unhelpful, in that the response is typically "Don't do that", it is far better than showing them some hackish workaround that is more or less uneffective and alienating to visitors.
Not to mention that some of us care about the well-being of the web,
but who cares about the environment anyways?
Alexander
--
___________________ ______________________ _____________________________
| | http://shelter.nu/ | alex at shelter . nu | http://shelter.nu/xsiteable/
___________________|______________________|_______ ______________________
Peter Stokes schrieb:
I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Matthias
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message
news:bj**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bj************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@mail.cern.ch> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@lxplus068.c ern.ch... On Wed, Sep 10, Harlan Messinger inscribed on the eternal scroll:
> Have you seen print ads from the 1920s? TV ads from the 1950s?
Have you seen web pages from the late 1990's? And folks are still
designing that HTML3.2(spit) presentational crud, despite the good
money being on something significantly better, the ideas for which had
been there from the start, but had been smokescreened by the quasi-DTP
crowd until relatively recently.
> The design industry has learned much about adding impact to
> presentations since then. A decision to *give up* techniques that
> are proven impact-producers because *some* people may be using a
> viewer on which those techniques don't function so well is not
> lightly made.
Whoever said that _you_ (and anyone else who can use them) have to
give them up?
Umm--the person to whom I was originally responding, who said that fixed
widths *shouldn't* be used.
Educate yourself.
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/oct022.htm
"The users indicated that "the 'Fluid' layout was best suited for reading
and that it allowed them to find key information more easily." Notice that
this does not say that users enjoyed the fluid sites more. Notice that it
does not suggest they will buy more from fluid sites. It is nice that the
users recommend the fluid design as best for reading and search. But as we
know, users often make mistakes in their design recommendations and here
they have done it again."
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/apr002.htm
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/may002.htm
This study concludes that higher resolution is better. Most of my
correspondents here are scolding me for not designing with
*lower*-resolution screens in mind.
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov022.htm
"If you are creating a site for the general public to read news the
objective is satisfaction. We don't really care how long it takes to read
the news. We just want people to enjoy it."
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/feb002.htm
"They had people perform tasks using monitors that were 15 inches, 17
inches, 19 inches and 21 inches (measured diagonally). Users that performed
search activities using Microsoft's Word and Excel, and also browsed the
Web, took less time to complete the tasks when using the 21 inch monitor.
The test subjects preferred using the 19 inch monitor."
So I guess they wouldn't have preferred 3-inch monitors. I don't see how
this disagrees with what *I* was saying.
In article <10**************************@posting.google.com > in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, Peter Stokes
<pe*********@operamail.com> wrote: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
When you're facing the wrong direction, it is _not_ progress to move
forward. Progress begins with realizing that you're going the wrong
way, turning around, and starting to go the right way.
You (or whoever it was) wanted to do a silly thing. You should
hardly complain that we tried to talk you (or whoever) out of it. Or
do you _really_ think it is in your best interest to spend time
arranging the deck chairs instead of steering away from that
iceberg?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Peter Stokes schrieb: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowledge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:53:42 +0200,
Matthias Gutfeldt <wo***@gmx.at> wrote:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
And that was their mistake - they should have.
The information is all out there; the right ways to do things are
published, so are the caveats. Expect both of them to be pointed out,
expect to get a reaction about doing something wrong. Expect to hear
about it from complete strangers when you air your views in public.
The difference between this and the Spanish Inquisition (apart from
torture and death), is that the proper published way to write HTML is
fact: There is no option for someone to have an alternative way to do
HTML 4.01, CSS 2, etc.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
On 14 Sep 2003 10:57:20 -0700, pe*********@operamail.com (Peter Stokes) wrote: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowledge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
You have been given help:
You've been informed that what you're doing isn't right, or is a bad
idea.
You've been informed to stop doing something wrong, and how to do it
right.
You've the perfect right to make a fool of yourself, you've the right to
be ignored, and so on.
As a general comment, perhaps the notion that someone hasn't helped you
to do something damn foolish is telling, in itself?
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
In article <op**************@news.songnetworks.no>,
Alexander Johannesen <al**@shelter.nu> wrote: While I can see where some responses (including my own, sometimes) may be
unhelpful, in that the response is typically "Don't do that", it is far
better than showing them some hackish workaround that is more or less
uneffective and alienating to visitors.
Not to mention that some of us care about the well-being of the web,
but who cares about the environment anyways?
HTML pages save paper, thus save trees.
--
Kris kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
In article <10**************************@posting.google.com >, pe*********@operamail.com (Peter Stokes) wrote: I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.
Probably because this ain't a helpdesk. And who cares for what you like.
--
Kris kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
Tim wrote:
The difference between this and the Spanish Inquisition (apart from
torture and death), is that the proper published way to write HTML is
fact: There is no option for someone to have an alternative way to do
HTML 4.01, CSS 2, etc.
what do you mean "apart from torture and death"?...have I been doing this
wrong, and what should I do with the spammer currently on the rack?
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Tim schrieb: The difference between this and the Spanish Inquisition (apart from
torture and death), is that the proper published way to write HTML is
fact: There is no option for someone to have an alternative way to do
HTML 4.01, CSS 2, etc.
Not a convincing argument. The Malleus Maleficarum was considered fact
for a couple hundred years. And there are quite a few HTML versions to
choose from, many not published by the W3C.
Matthias
On Mon, Sep 15, Eric Jarvis inscribed on the eternal scroll: what do you mean "apart from torture and death"?...have I been doing this
wrong, and what should I do with the spammer currently on the rack?
You could threaten them with the Comfy Chair. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: SoloCDM |
last post by:
Is there some kind of Javascript that will keep the web page at a
fixed width?
*********************************************************************
Signed,
SoloCDM
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
| |
