How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
************************************************** *******************
Signed,
SoloCDM
Jul 20 '05
179  44203 
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bk************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"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...
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.
I'm sorry, I thought the quote was " They found no reliable differences
among the methods in search time, accuracy of finding information, or in
search efficiency (number of clicks, use of the Back button, etc.). However,
their users reliably believed that the "Fluid" layout was best suited for
reading and that it allowed them to find key information more easily. In
addition, users reliably preferred the "Fluid" method. "
Hey, you can alienate visitors all you want. I'm gonna go for "User
Preference" for the win, Alex.
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.
Nobody said not to keep lower resolutions in mind. In fact, the entire point
of this argument is "resolution-independence" - not designing for any given
resolution.
Since users prefer higher resolutions, why wouldn't you allow those that
have *chosen* higher settings to exploit the benefits of them?
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."
Nice way to misquote and put your own spin on things. Here's a direct
quote:
" What can we conclude when users are reading prose text from monitors?
Users tend to read faster if the line lengths are longer (up to 10 inches).
If the line lengths are too short (2.5 inches or less) it may impede rapid
reading. Finally, users tend to prefer lines that are moderately long (4 to
5 inches). "
In other words, the whole "Flexible layout makes lines that are too long" is
BS. (Until you get into massive monitors like 1400 or 1600)
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."
I giess I have to repeat myself.
To paraphrase: Since users prefer higher resolutions (and in this case
larger monitors), why wouldn't you allow those that have *chosen* higher
settings to exploit the benefits of them?
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
Alan J. Flavell wrote: 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.
No, that never works. Try the soft pillows.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Stan Brown wrote: In article <iLu9b.469934$uu5.81924@sccrnsc04> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:Alan J. Flavell wrote:
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.
No, that never works. Try the soft pillows.
And make sure you get all the stuffing up one end, Cardinal Biggles.
I'm sorry, I can't do that...I use only liquid stuffing in a flexible
chair
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
"SoloCDM" <de******@aculink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F**************@aculink.net... How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
Wow, what a discussion for a small and simple question. I am impressed.
Put your content into a <div> or a <table> and define it's width. Learn HTML
and CSS, they are great things to use.
And read the whole discussion, there are lots of interesting arguments.
Text-only browsers and PDAs are a fact as the importance of design is.
Actually it is the same discussion that appears in web authoring related
groups again and again, it is an important discussion as web development is
always about making compromises between design and technology. The more you
learn about technology and accessibility the better you can decide where to
make the compromises.
Unfortunately some developers think that all designers are idiots and stuck
in a paper-oriented philosophy. Of course anybody who comes from desktop
publishing must make his/her way to learn about the special aspects of the
web which are far more than design and are constantly developing and
changing. But some of the developers tend to forget that design is an
integral part of every product, and utter their point of view in a
respectless way.
I visit the newsgroups to learn, and it is far more easy to accept an
argument from somebody who has a minimum of respect for me, my work and my
question, than from somebody who wants to tell me that what I want to do is
bad.
--
Markus
Markus Ernst wrote:
I visit the newsgroups to learn, and it is far more easy to accept an
argument from somebody who has a minimum of respect for me, my work and my
question, than from somebody who wants to tell me that what I want to do is
bad.
why?
personally I don't use web authoring newsgroups to massage my ego...what's
so hard about coping with suggestions that one's approach to a problem is
misconceived?...if I knew everything I wouldn't be asking questions
if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
learn?
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
On Tue, Sep 16, Markus Ernst inscribed on the eternal scroll: "SoloCDM" <de******@aculink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F**************@aculink.net... How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
Put your content into a <div> or a <table> and define it's width.
It's...[1]
And in what practical sense would this width be "fixed"?
Perhaps you'd care to explain to the audience the theoretical and
practical properties of the various sizing units available in CSS, and
show how to use them to produce a result which is "fixed" across each
and every display situation? Then explain what its benefits would be
(if it could be done), relative to the flexible approach regularly
advocated here.
Learn HTML and CSS, they are great things to use.
Good idea. Don't miss the full meaning of that word "Cascading" in
CSS.
Unfortunately some developers think that all designers are idiots
and stuck in a paper-oriented philosophy.
Oh no, there's some really good web designers, and we've been
privileged to see some of their work. But there's still plenty of
folk who evidently think they're doing straight DTP, and believe they
can still achieve something by trying to sabotage some the best
features of the WWW (flexibility, accessibility) in the intention of
achieving their rigid, fragile, DTP design, guaranteed to shatter into
fragments if the reader doesn't conform to the predetermined
requirements.
verdammtnochmal.
[1] news:alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe
--
Procrastination gives you something to look forward
to putting off tomorrow. -spotted on ahbou
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.
Eric Jarvis <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
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?
Unfortunately we're not allowed to do that to spammers. Though we'd all
like to. :-\
/me passes you the thumbscrews . . .
--
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.
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.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:28:42 +0200,
Matthias Gutfeldt <wo***@gmx.at> wrote:
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.
Let's not get into a religious debate (heaven forbid). ;-) But while
there are different versions of HTML, "HTML 4.01" is a W3C defined
thing, likewise for CSS2. I was being rather precise in my wording.
--
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.
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message
news:bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bk************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"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...
>
>
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.
I'm sorry, I thought the quote was " They found no reliable differences
among the methods in search time, accuracy of finding information, or in
search efficiency (number of clicks, use of the Back button, etc.).
However, their users reliably believed that the "Fluid" layout was best suited for
reading and that it allowed them to find key information more easily. In
addition, users reliably preferred the "Fluid" method. "
Hey, you can alienate visitors all you want. I'm gonna go for "User
Preference" for the win, Alex.
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.
Nobody said not to keep lower resolutions in mind. In fact, the entire
point of this argument is "resolution-independence" - not designing for any
given resolution.
Since users prefer higher resolutions, why wouldn't you allow those that
have *chosen* higher settings to exploit the benefits of them?
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."
Nice way to misquote and put your own spin on things.
You know, I'm copying and pasting verbatim, and then you keep accusing me of
misquoting. Doesn't really entice me to value your judgment highly.
In article <MP************************@news.odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote: HTML pages save paper, thus save trees.
Do they? I just heard a report on the news a few days ago that paper
usage, specifically office paper, has doubled since the mid-1980s.
Maybe it's people printing out all those Web pages? :-)
Must be the RIAA subpoenas.
--
Kris kr*******@xs4all.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bk************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in
message news:bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
You know, I'm copying and pasting verbatim, and then you keep accusing me
of misquoting.
Bullshit.
Doesn't really entice me to value your judgment highly.
Here's a newsflash for you - I don't care one bit what you think of my
judgment. You're not my boss, father, brother, friend, or significant
other. You're an poster on a newsgroup.
The regular posters of CIWAH have posted more than enough information to
refute your assinine comments. If you choose to continue your position, it
is only because you're not man enough to admit that you're wrong.
Let's summarize -
1. The web is not paper and therefore web pages are not bound by the
constraints of a physical media
2. People can access the web with a variety of devices. The various devices
can have an array of physical sizes, resolutions, user-agents, and
combinations thereof.
3. Studies show that users prefer flexible width layouts (though admittedly,
there is no reading performance difference on flexible vs. fixed)
4. Further, studies show that "flexible layouts create lines of text that
are too long" is a myth. Studies show that reading performance is NOT
hampered by long lines of text.
5. In fact, long lines of text on a flexible layout can facilitate scanning.
Simply put, a flexible layout on a high resolution monitor means that more
of the text is visible on screen without having to scroll.
6. Though I did not reference any, studies do show that overall task
performance is greatly enhanced by placing as much of the most important
text on the page as possible without needing to scroll.
7. You cannot predict the user's browser window size. You can detect their
screen resolution settings, but that doesn't do you any good, because you
cannot assume that their window is maximized.
8. Even if you use the oft-advised 760px fixed width, you're striking out.
When someone with a maximized window on a 1024 monitor comes to your site,
you're wasting more than 200 (20%+) of their monitor. It only gets worse
from there. I have a 1400 wide monitor. Do you know how *l-a-m-e* a 760
wide site looks on my screen?
9. Using a flexible width means you're empowering the user. Let's make one
thing clear - the web is about the user, not about the idiot webmaster.
Using flexible layout will empower the visitor and keep them in control of
their browser experience.
So, exactly what was your argument again?
Did you want to go over your false analogy to print media again, or did you
think of something else?
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message news:<bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>... "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.
I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.
"Peter Stokes" <pe*********@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:10**************************@posting.google.c om... "EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in
message news:<bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>... "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.
I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
respondent knows best
They often do around here.
and the questioner has no right to explore doing
things the way they want to.
They have a right to do anything they want to do with their website.
And, as respondents to their questions, we have the right to say whatever we
want in response.
This includes telling them their idea is not the best idea.
If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
out for themselves.
Or, they can avoid learning the hard way by heeding the advice they get
here.
As others have said: Nobody gets paid to post here. Any response, however
negative in tone, that addresses an OPs concern should be appreciated.
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
"Eric Jarvis" <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MP************************@News.CIS.DFN.DE... Markus Ernst wrote:
if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
learn?
I don't think that is what he is saying. At least, I would spin it a
different way. There is a way to inform people of misconceived approaches to
web development that would come across in a more helpful way. The approach
that most of the common posters in here take is one of disgust. Sure, you've
seen the same "stupid" questions over and over again but there are users
that are coming to this group not only to help learn about web development
in general but may also be new to using newsgroups and don't understand FAQs
and etiquette. Kindly point these people in the right direction and
everybody would be much happier. Much better than kicking them in the
kneecaps to stop them from going in the wrong direction. :)
Jonathan pe*********@operamail.com (Peter Stokes) exclaimed in <10**************************@posting.google.com >: things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
Not likely. Most have failed to discover that there is something called
"a user" out there after spending several years "working" with the web.
out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.
Where did you find a requirement carved in stone for Usenet discussion
group readers to *answer* a question, much less answer it non-dictatorial ?
WYSIWYG - What you see IS what you get, and you ain't gettin' no
helpdesk. If what you get isn't what you want, try elsewhere or apply
your killfile. It's *your choice* - you can't find anything more democratic
than that.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Peter Stokes wrote:
I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.
Which dictatorial response was that? References please. Otherwise,
we might just have to dismiss you as someone who tosses around empty
accusations with a caustic tone that is unwarranted.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
"Eric Jarvis" <we*@ericjarvis.co.uk> might have written: if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
learn?
"Jonathan Snook" <go***************@snook.ca> wrote:
I don't think that is what he is saying. At least, I would spin it a
different way. There is a way to inform people of misconceived approaches to
web development that would come across in a more helpful way. The approach
that most of the common posters in here take is one of disgust. Sure, you've
seen the same "stupid" questions over and over again but there are users
that are coming to this group not only to help learn about web development
in general but may also be new to using newsgroups and don't understand FAQs
and etiquette. Kindly point these people in the right direction and
everybody would be much happier. Much better than kicking them in the
kneecaps to stop them from going in the wrong direction. :)
I see a different spin on what generally happens around here, and other
newsgroups:
1. Someone asks about doing something daft.
2. It's pointed out that it's daft. Usually quite briefly, initially
(it usually takes a while before anything gets heated). Often with
links to reference material. There really isn't an easy way to nicely
say that someone's doing a dumb thing, and people really aren't going to
write a 20k diplomatic answer.
3. The next respondent is probably another party who starts an affray.
4. The original poster vehemently defends their position (often with
daft reasons), but doesn't say, "oh, I never thought of that" (about the
first lot of advice not to do something daft).
5. The thread changes direction to a new, and even longer, one
discussing what should or should not have been said, saying it wasn't
helpful, and the original HTML issue has disappeared from the
discussion.
Many of the "fixing the wrong solution" issues tend to be basic common
sense, nothing to do with HTML. If people would think about what
they're trying to do, before even considering technical issues, they'd
be in a better position, in the first place.
--
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 <10**************************@posting.google.com > in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, Peter Stokes
<pe*********@operamail.com> wrote: I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.
Precisely: he asked for _help_.
When someone wants to do something wrong, answering the precise
question they asked is not helping them. Telling them _why_ it's
wrong and what they should do instead _is_ helping them.
--
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/
"Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote in message
news:tn********************************@4ax.com... 5. The thread changes direction to a new, and even longer, one
discussing what should or should not have been said, saying it wasn't
helpful, and the original HTML issue has disappeared from the
discussion.
Ah, yes. Much like this thread. ;-)
Jonathan Snook wrote: "Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote in message
news:tn********************************@4ax.com... 5. The thread changes direction to a new, and even longer, one
discussing what should or should not have been said, saying it wasn't
helpful, and the original HTML issue has disappeared from the
discussion.
Ah, yes. Much like this thread. ;-)
But that's the joy of Usenet. One of them anyway. :-D
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead of a
percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why? Simple,
its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have. it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive, for the standard that is spreading
widely it will not fit. My advice? do whatever you want, it is finally, your
page.
Regards
"SoloCDM" <de******@aculink.net> wrote in message
news:3F**************@aculink.net... How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
************************************************** *******************
Signed,
SoloCDM
Miguel Trujillo wrote: If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead of a
percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why? Simple,
its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have.
Fixed-width designs have nothing to do with standards, but with
usability. If your page is for your own use, you can do whatever you
like. If you have other visitors, then your responsibility is to them,
not your own pleasure.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
"Miguel Trujillo" <mt********@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YF*******************@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net... If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead of
a percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why? Simple,
its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have.
You mean the W3C, not wwc3, right? of course.
Can you reference the W3C spec that calls for tables for layout?
it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive,
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
EightNineThree wrote: "Miguel Trujillo" wrote: it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive,
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
What if I throw in some free bonus advertisements to fill
your 280px wide borders? ;-)
--
Els
Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.
"Els" <el*********@PLEASEtiscali.nl.invalid> wrote in message
news:bk**********@reader1.tiscali.nl... EightNineThree wrote:
"Miguel Trujillo" wrote:
it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive,
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
What if I throw in some free bonus advertisements to fill
your 280px wide borders? ;-)
Only if they flash incessantly!
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
Els wrote: EightNineThree wrote:
"Miguel Trujillo" wrote:
it doesn't matter if some people can find it very attractive
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
What if I throw in some free bonus advertisements to fill
your 280px wide borders? ;-)
But don't answer yet! Our hypertext links will require javascript.
Just watch that functionality disappear like magic! That's not all:
we'll also use tiny fonts and pink text on a white background. You'll
hardly notice it's there. Still not convinced? For a limited time
only, we'll also include a gratuitous Flash animation. That's a 720
pixel fixed table, limted-use links, the flash animation, tiny text,
and absolutely free bonus advertisements, all from one uri. Visit
today! :-)
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
"kchayka" <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote in message
news:3f********@news.sihope.com... Miguel Trujillo wrote:
If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead
of a percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why?
Simple, its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have.
Fixed-width designs have nothing to do with standards, but with
usability. If your page is for your own use, you can do whatever you
like. If you have other visitors, then your responsibility is to them,
not your own pleasure.
That's right, but you have to think what kind of customers do you try to
reach, regular people with ie and netscape or people with different. There
will be in a couple of years another wave of larger screens, thats good, I
don't think a page is great for different monitors with fixed width, I agree
with that, but I dont think the page will look good in every monitor with
percentage widht either... I prefer different buttons and pictures...
Again, you are right, if you design a page you have the responsibility of
providing a usable page for...
" As of Feb. 21, 2001, the worldwide usage share of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer was 87.71%, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket, up from 86.08%
on June 18, 2000. " http://siliconvalley.internet.com/ne...hp/3531_597681
"by Geoff Gasior - 12:43 pm, July 29, 2003 Internet Explorer has raked in a
95.4% share of the browser market, 66.3% of which is the latest IE 6.0." http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5441
What does that trend say to you?
I don't pretend to make a huge discussion out of this, I don't care about
this topic, someone asked something and did not received the answer for the
questions "just dont do it"s thats all, I answered the way I could do it...
cheesy or not.... that's the way I do it, period.
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message
news:bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Miguel Trujillo" <mt********@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YF*******************@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net... If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead
of a percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why?
Simple, its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have.
You mean the W3C, not wwc3, right? of course.
Yes, Sorry
Can you reference the W3C spec that calls for tables for layout?
No, I don't.
it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive,
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
I don't think many people out there have one like yours, I love to have it,
and ''m jealous for it, but if that's the customers a site they will
definitely have to choose percentages or different pages with a screen
resolution detection script.
I'm not an expert, you know that, it's absolutely obvious, I'm totally
ignorant in ehem W3C, but if you check the question, the one originated this
trend, the guy was asking how to do something.
=========================================
"How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
************************************************** *******************
Signed,
SoloCDM"
==========================================
He didn't asked your advice about doing it or not, and all the answers were
about "you should or not do it"
--
Karl Core
Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.
I know my designs are not the best you can see out there, but only for that
reason I'm here, to learn. Someone asked something, I wanted to help,
period.
I will definitely include all this in my, "don't do it" list.
I'm learning, yes, I think at some point you all were where I'm right now
and learned enough to make pretty good websites... That's what I'm here for,
and I take the "over funny statements" as a welcome newbie, I can deal with
them ;)
Third time I write this, the guy asked how to do something, He did not
received the answer tos hsi questions... I did.
Sorry for saying to that guy what he was asking...
"Brian" <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
news:40pab.504090$Ho3.85074@sccrnsc03... Els wrote: EightNineThree wrote:
"Miguel Trujillo" wrote:
it doesn't matter if some people can find it very attractive
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide
monitor.
What if I throw in some free bonus advertisements to fill
your 280px wide borders? ;-)
But don't answer yet! Our hypertext links will require javascript.
Just watch that functionality disappear like magic! That's not all:
we'll also use tiny fonts and pink text on a white background. You'll
hardly notice it's there. Still not convinced? For a limited time
only, we'll also include a gratuitous Flash animation. That's a 720
pixel fixed table, limted-use links, the flash animation, tiny text,
and absolutely free bonus advertisements, all from one uri. Visit
today! :-)
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
You are right, now this is learning. (I mean it)
"Isofarro" <sp*******@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7o***********@sidious.isolani.co.uk... Miguel Trujillo wrote:
If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead
of a percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why?
Simple,
An increase in the font-size reduces the number of words per line, which
reduces the comfortable readability of the text. Yeah, quite simple.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
"EightNineThree" <ei************@REMOVEeightninethree.com> wrote in message
news:bk**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Miguel Trujillo" <mt********@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YF*******************@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net... If you have tables for your layout, just put a value of pixels instead
of a percentaje.... and thats it... I recommend something like 720 pixels.
In this place, most of the people will recommend against it. Why?
Simple, its likely out of the standard the wwc3 wants to have.
You mean the W3C, not wwc3, right? of course.
Can you reference the W3C spec that calls for tables for layout?
it doesn't matter if
some people can find it very attractive,
Yeah, a 720 pixel fixed table looks great on my 1400 pixel wide monitor.
If you have it set to 1400 pixels because you have a 25-inch monitor, then
it should look approximately as good as it does on a 15-inch monitor at 800
pixels. If you have a 15-inch monitor and you have it set to 1400 pixels,
presumably it's because you, like me, prefer to have a bigger picture view
of your documents and have sufficiently good eyesight that you *can* read
pages at a smaller size. Otherwise, what am I overlooking? The only thing I
can think of is that you're trying to prove something by using a higher
resolution, and then complaining that the providers of web content aren't
meeting your needs. You can solve the problem so easily by switching to a
lower resolution.
I'm thinking about when they came out with tiny televisions, even wrist
televisions. Did gadget enthusiasts start pestering the TV production
companies to start staging their programming in such a way that it would
look clear on tiny screens? Were their entreaties to stop filming scenes
with too much motion? Was there an outcry to film everything in close-ups?
Suppose that before closed-captioning by broadcasters had been implemented,
someone came up with a device that could be installed inside the television
that would enable the dialog to be converted correctly and in real time to
closed-captions Except, suppose that these devices had a vocabulary limited
to a fixed set of 10,000 words, and could only interpret speech within a
narrow range of accents. Would there be any expectation that all scripts
would henceforth be built solely from that set of words? Would the hearing
impaired have demanded that the characters on Seinfeld, All in the Family,
The Jeffersons, and Grace Under Fire all begin speaking like middle-class
white people from Seattle?
Imagine another assistive device could be built into televisions that would
be able to generate speech describing the action on the screen for the
visually impaired. The only problem: it requires dots and lines to be drawn
on the actors in the same way as is now done to produce computer animation
from live action, and certain color combinations would make it hard for the
device to discern the action. So would those of us who are fully sighted
have the prospect of seeing all the actors marked up this way, and the scene
marred by unusual color schemes?
Miguel Trujillo wrote:
That's right, but you have to think what kind of customers do you try to
reach, regular people with ie and netscape or people with different.
The only way to consider people using different browsers, different
resolutions, different monitors, different technologies, is to design
flexibly. Then you can reach *all* customers who want visit the site.
Fixed with design goes against this principle.
There will be in a couple of years another wave of larger screens
Design flexibly now, and you have covered not only today's
browsers/resolutions/etc., but tomorrow's as well. What could be
better? :)
" As of Feb. 21, 2001, the worldwide usage share of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer was 87.71%, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket, up from 86.08%
on June 18, 2000. "
Stats like this are unreliable as a measure of browser usage.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Miguel Trujillo wrote:
but if that's the customers a site they will
definitely have to choose percentages or different pages
Only if the site is authored badly. A well authored page will work on
every screen, every resolution. That's the way html works "out of the
box," so to speak. Only by breaking that functionality do pages stop
working in different settings.
with a screen resolution detection script.
And how would one write such a script? So that it works reliably,
that is.
I'm not an expert, you know that, it's absolutely obvious,
Then please don't post silliness like "screen resolution detection
script." Such a thing is impossible, trying to write one would be a
fruitless effort, and is entirely unneccessary.
He didn't asked your advice about doing it or not, and all the answers were
about "you should or not do it"
This is not a personal helpdesk. Not for me, not for you, not for the
op. He asked how to fix the width. We told him it was not a good
idea. If someone doesn't like discussing html authoring on the www,
then don't post in ciwah.
I know my designs are not the best you can see out there, but only for that
reason I'm here, to learn. Someone asked something, I wanted to help,
period.
But you didn't. The advice he got from those who told him not to do
it is the best advice he could have received.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Please don't top-post.
Miguel Trujillo wrote:
Third time I write this, the guy asked how to do something, He did not
received the answer tos hsi questions...
Asked and answered.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Miguel Trujillo wrote: That's right, but you have to think what kind of customers do you try to
reach,
Presumably they're the ones who are interested in whatever product it
is that you're trying to sell, whatever information it is that you're
offering, whatever topic it is that your video is about, etc. etc.
Do you have the remotest reason to believe that any of those are
correlated with whether they have a big or a small screen, whether
they have good eyesight, whether they're on an ocean-going yacht
browsing over a satellite link, whatever?
regular people with ie
Not forgetting that MacIE is a different product than WinIE...
and netscape
Netscape is or was a company. NN4 is a totally and completely
different product from NN7.
or people with different.
Different what? They all have web browsers (or what pass for web
browsers in some kind of liberal sense), capable of browsing
properly-made web pages. They all offer you the opportunity of
displaying your content on whatever they currently happen to be using.
You can use that opportunity or not, it's your choice.
There will be in a couple of years another wave of larger screens,
Yes, and smaller ones too. The trend is to greater diversity, so cope
with it.
[...swath of claimed-accurate-to-three-figures statistics elided...]
What does that trend say to you?
It says you don't understand statistics...
cheers
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:40 -0400,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: I'm thinking about when they came out with tiny televisions, even wrist
televisions. Did gadget enthusiasts start pestering the TV production
companies to start staging their programming in such a way that it would
look clear on tiny screens? Were their entreaties to stop filming scenes
with too much motion? Was there an outcry to film everything in close-ups?
Now you're talking about my industry. For a very very long time, we've
known, full well, that people view things in a variety of conditions
(small or large screens, from near or far, through snowy reception, on
wildly over-scanning or edge-to-edge scanning screens, etc.).
The technical crew, who have a very large say in television operations
know about these things, implement policies, and train operational
staff, to avoid doing dumb things.
On-screen text generally does't use stupidly small or huge fonts,
doesn't use difficult colour combinations, are bound within a safe or
essential title area. It's known that rapid motion doesn't work on a
medium-scan-rate system like television, and things are filmed
accordingly. Very wide angle shots aren't used much, unfortunately, as
the resolution isn't there to show the details, giving television the
nickname of tunnel-vision.
You've picked a very poor analogy to defend poor authoring styles.
Technical TV standards are quite rigidly enforced, by government
regulations; and operational standards are quite well maintained by
people who actually know what they're doing.
--
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.
"Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote in message
news:i6********************************@4ax.com... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:40 -0400,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm thinking about when they came out with tiny televisions, even wrist
televisions. Did gadget enthusiasts start pestering the TV production
companies to start staging their programming in such a way that it would
look clear on tiny screens? Were their entreaties to stop filming scenes
with too much motion? Was there an outcry to film everything in
close-ups?
Now you're talking about my industry. For a very very long time, we've
known, full well, that people view things in a variety of conditions
(small or large screens, from near or far, through snowy reception, on
wildly over-scanning or edge-to-edge scanning screens, etc.).
The technical crew, who have a very large say in television operations
know about these things, implement policies, and train operational
staff, to avoid doing dumb things.
On-screen text generally does't use stupidly small or huge fonts,
doesn't use difficult colour combinations, are bound within a safe or
essential title area.
Where in my discussion did I mention anything about text being broadcast for
television?
It's known that rapid motion doesn't work on a
medium-scan-rate system like television, and things are filmed
accordingly. Very wide angle shots aren't used much, unfortunately, as
the resolution isn't there to show the details, giving television the
nickname of tunnel-vision.
You are addressing the question of how TV technique differs from motion
picture technique that preceded it, rather than what I was talking about.
You've picked a very poor analogy to defend poor authoring styles.
Begging the question isn't helpful. I'm pursuing the question of *whether*
it's poor style to keep doing what works just fine on one's target device,
without regard to the advent of other devices that *would* work all right
with the same broadcast *if* you produced it in a different manner.
Technical TV standards are quite rigidly enforced, by government
regulations; and operational standards are quite well maintained by
people who actually know what they're doing.
I'm astonished to learn from you that the government exercises control over
any of the characteristics of TV filming/taping that I described. Please
give me the title and section numbers of any laws or regulations that govern
the use of panning and close-ups, the accents used by the people being
filmed/taped, the complexity of their vocabulary, or the marking of dots and
lines on their persons.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:40 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote: If you have it set to 1400 pixels because you have a 25-inch monitor,
then it should look approximately as good as it does on a 15-inch
monitor at 800 pixels. If you have a 15-inch monitor and you have it set
to 1400 pixels, presumably it's because you, like me, prefer to have a
bigger picture view of your documents and have sufficiently good
eyesight that you *can* read pages at a smaller size. Otherwise, what am
I overlooking? The only thing I
Or you might have a 15-inch monitor set to 1400 pixels with the DPI set
correctly, so that the text looks the same size it would on a 15-inch
monitor set to 640x480, but with better definition. However, because of
your pointless decision to attempt to fix the width of the web page, I
only get a couple of words per line, making your page difficult to read
and ugly to look at.
can think of is that you're trying to prove something by using a higher
resolution, and then complaining that the providers of web content
aren't meeting your needs. You can solve the problem so easily by
switching to a lower resolution.
And getting a poorer quality display. I don't think that's a very good
'solution', and besides it's a pseudo-problem, as you've yet to give any
good reason to attempt to fix the width of a web page.
--
"Don't want to be your tiger,
'cos tigers play too rough.' http://huh.p5.org.uk/
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote: I'm thinking about when they came out with tiny televisions, even wrist
televisions. Did gadget enthusiasts start pestering the TV production
companies to start staging their programming in such a way that it would
look clear on tiny screens? Were their entreaties to stop filming scenes
with too much motion? Was there an outcry to film everything in
close-ups?
"Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote
Now you're talking about my industry. For a very very long time, we've
known, full well, that people view things in a variety of conditions
(small or large screens, from near or far, through snowy reception, on
wildly over-scanning or edge-to-edge scanning screens, etc.).
The technical crew, who have a very large say in television operations
know about these things, implement policies, and train operational
staff, to avoid doing dumb things.
On-screen text generally does't use stupidly small or huge fonts,
doesn't use difficult colour combinations, are bound within a safe or
essential title area.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
Where in my discussion did I mention anything about text being broadcast for
television?
You brought in an inappropriate analogy, taking things way off-topic
(with all the other things you introduced), you get to read stuff that
other people write about. Don't expect that they're going to say
exactly what you want them to say.
I discussed how professional TV is broadcast according to specifications
which make it possible for everybody to see the show without needing a
special TV for different programs. I mentioned a few areas where those
who know what they're doing, do things in a sensible way. Technical
specifications being mandated by authority, and practicalities being
understood and upheld by those who create for the medium. I
particularly mentioned text, and some other situations, as just some
examples of difficult situations with common solutions, as you'd
particularly mentioned tiny screens.
You don't need to bring in analogies to debate the topics at hand, they
can be discussed directly on themselves. e.g. We don't need some
dissimilar situation to discuss the problems of non-fluid design, we can
see how that breaks, directly.
You've picked a very poor analogy to defend poor authoring styles.
Begging the question isn't helpful. I'm pursuing the question of *whether*
it's poor style to keep doing what works just fine on one's target device,
without regard to the advent of other devices that *would* work all right
with the same broadcast *if* you produced it in a different manner.
That question has already been answered, many times. You've had ample
time to learn the answer. If you think the answer is going to change,
just because you keep arguing, then think again. Don't complain about
the responses that you get, when you've sent a conversation off on a
tangent.
--
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.
"I V" <iv*****@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@gmx.co.uk... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:40 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
If you have it set to 1400 pixels because you have a 25-inch monitor,
then it should look approximately as good as it does on a 15-inch
monitor at 800 pixels. If you have a 15-inch monitor and you have it set
to 1400 pixels, presumably it's because you, like me, prefer to have a
bigger picture view of your documents and have sufficiently good
eyesight that you *can* read pages at a smaller size. Otherwise, what am
I overlooking? The only thing I
Or you might have a 15-inch monitor set to 1400 pixels with the DPI set
correctly, so that the text looks the same size it would on a 15-inch
monitor set to 640x480, but with better definition. However, because of
your pointless decision to attempt to fix the width of the web page, I
only get a couple of words per line, making your page difficult to read
and ugly to look at.
can think of is that you're trying to prove something by using a higher
resolution, and then complaining that the providers of web content
aren't meeting your needs. You can solve the problem so easily by
switching to a lower resolution.
And getting a poorer quality display. I don't think that's a very good
'solution', and besides it's a pseudo-problem, as you've yet to give any
good reason to attempt to fix the width of a web page.
--
"Don't want to be your tiger,
'cos tigers play too rough.'
http://huh.p5.org.uk/
"I V" <iv*****@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@gmx.co.uk... On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:04:40 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
If you have it set to 1400 pixels because you have a 25-inch monitor,
then it should look approximately as good as it does on a 15-inch
monitor at 800 pixels. If you have a 15-inch monitor and you have it set
to 1400 pixels, presumably it's because you, like me, prefer to have a
bigger picture view of your documents and have sufficiently good
eyesight that you *can* read pages at a smaller size. Otherwise, what am
I overlooking? The only thing I
Or you might have a 15-inch monitor set to 1400 pixels with the DPI set
correctly, so that the text looks the same size it would on a 15-inch
monitor set to 640x480, but with better definition. However, because of
your pointless decision to attempt to fix the width of the web page, I
only get a couple of words per line, making your page difficult to read
and ugly to look at.
Whatever I do, it's going to look ugly for somebody. Best to design, then,
for the greatest common denominator.
can think of is that you're trying to prove something by using a higher
resolution, and then complaining that the providers of web content
aren't meeting your needs. You can solve the problem so easily by
switching to a lower resolution.
And getting a poorer quality display. I don't think that's a very good
'solution', and besides it's a pseudo-problem, as you've yet to give any
good reason to attempt to fix the width of a web page.
Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they still
have even the smallest role to play.
Harlan Messinger wrote: "I V" <iv*****@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@gmx.co.uk...
you've yet to give any
good reason to attempt to fix the width of a web page.
Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they still
have even the smallest role to play.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Please post an example that supports your
claims, preferably, a site that you've developed. If we see how a fixed
design makes it somehow better, you might even convince some of us that
it's true.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in <bk************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they still
have even the smallest role to play.
I think you could benefit from studying some of that "decades of study
and research" yourself. In particular, study how traditional design, be
it print or otherwise, work *with* the medium. Not against it. Try looking
at the theories of why Futhark and Ogham are angular scripts.
It's almost unfair to claim that poorly skilled web "dezygners" attempt to
create designs best suited for printed media. Those who DO design for
print, industry, etc., have more often than not ceased to make the mistakes
far too many web designers do daily.
Is it really impossible to accept that many design concepts that work
very well on, say, a finely printed legal document or the full-sized version
of The Times function as badly on [insert device for accessing web] as it
would when designing a coat-of-arms or a tartan ?
Why so impossible ?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
"Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote in message
news:91********************************@4ax.com... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm thinking about when they came out with tiny televisions, even
wrist televisions. Did gadget enthusiasts start pestering the TV production
companies to start staging their programming in such a way that it
would look clear on tiny screens? Were their entreaties to stop filming
scenes with too much motion? Was there an outcry to film everything in
close-ups?
"Tim" <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote
Now you're talking about my industry. For a very very long time, we've
known, full well, that people view things in a variety of conditions
(small or large screens, from near or far, through snowy reception, on
wildly over-scanning or edge-to-edge scanning screens, etc.).
The technical crew, who have a very large say in television operations
know about these things, implement policies, and train operational
staff, to avoid doing dumb things.
On-screen text generally does't use stupidly small or huge fonts,
doesn't use difficult colour combinations, are bound within a safe or
essential title area.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
Where in my discussion did I mention anything about text being broadcast
for television?
You brought in an inappropriate analogy, taking things way off-topic
You haven't shown why the analogy is inappropriate, and I disagree with you.
(with all the other things you introduced), you get to read stuff that
other people write about. Don't expect that they're going to say
exactly what you want them to say.
I discussed how professional TV is broadcast according to specifications
which make it possible for everybody to see the show without needing a
special TV for different programs. I mentioned a few areas where those
who know what they're doing, do things in a sensible way. Technical
specifications being mandated by authority, and practicalities being
understood and upheld by those who create for the medium. I
particularly mentioned text, and some other situations, as just some
examples of difficult situations with common solutions, as you'd
particularly mentioned tiny screens.
You don't need to bring in analogies to debate the topics at hand, they
can be discussed directly on themselves. e.g. We don't need some
dissimilar situation to discuss the problems of non-fluid design, we can
see how that breaks, directly.
I don't *need* to bring analogies in? Analogies are useful for discussing
anything--with people who grasp the point of an analogy.
You've picked a very poor analogy to defend poor authoring styles. Begging the question isn't helpful. I'm pursuing the question of
*whether* it's poor style to keep doing what works just fine on one's target
device, without regard to the advent of other devices that *would* work all
right with the same broadcast *if* you produced it in a different manner.
That question has already been answered, many times. You've had ample
time to learn the answer. If you think the answer is going to change,
just because you keep arguing, then think again.
I gave the analogy to show why you're all not convincing me. Instead of
addressing my analogy, either recognizing it's applicability or showing me
why it's a poor one, you're shunning it without giving any substantive
reason why, and giving me a stream of non-sequiturs. Your arguments seems to
have degenerated into, in some cases, "Because we say so. Once we have so
decreed, we are not receptive to arguments on the other side." And, in other
cases, "Here are our reasons. Since we have good reasons, it's not possible
for there to be good reasons on the other side of the argument."
Don't complain about
the responses that you get, when you've sent a conversation off on a
tangent.
I'll keep in mind that to you, analogy = tangent, and that you are therefore
not receptive to them. It makes me wonder, though, what forms of argument
you do comprehend. I have to say that this objection of yours is novel to
me. I've come across many people who felt, whether rightly or wrongly, that
a particular analogy was invalid, but I've never come across someone who
thought that analogies were invalid by their very nature.
"kchayka" <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote in message
news:3f********@news.sihope.com... Harlan Messinger wrote:
"I V" <iv*****@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@gmx.co.uk...
you've yet to give any
good reason to attempt to fix the width of a web page.
Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they
still have even the smallest role to play.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Which is what I've been telling all of you.
Please post an example that supports your
claims, preferably, a site that you've developed. If we see how a fixed
design makes it somehow better, you might even convince some of us that
it's true.
I don't need to give you a site that *I've* designed. Take any three-column
layout where the left-hand column contains navigation links, the right-hand
column contains short bits of auxiliary information, and the main content is
in the center. Do I want to leave it up to the user's agent to decide which
of the three columns gets expanded or contracted at the expense of the
others? Do I want the nav column to wind up 6 inches wide while the content
column is reduced to half an inch? What if I used fixed-width graphics in
the right-hand column? If that column gets much wider, it'll have ridiculous
looking gaps in it.
Examples: http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/
I don't claim this is an attractive page design, but it illustrates what I
mean about three-column layout. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Here's a reasonably attractive page design. Not much leeway for
variable-width columns, though. I wouldn't trust a browser in a million
years to make the right decisions.
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:pR*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in
<bk************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they
still have even the smallest role to play.
I think you could benefit from studying some of that "decades of study
and research" yourself. In particular, study how traditional design, be
it print or otherwise, work *with* the medium. Not against it. Try
looking at the theories of why Futhark and Ogham are angular scripts.
It's almost unfair to claim that poorly skilled web "dezygners" attempt
to create designs best suited for printed media. Those who DO design for
print, industry, etc., have more often than not ceased to make the
mistakes far too many web designers do daily.
Is it really impossible to accept that many design concepts that work
very well on, say, a finely printed legal document or the full-sized
version of The Times function as badly on [insert device for accessing web] as
it would when designing a coat-of-arms or a tartan ?
Why so impossible ?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:pR*******************@newsc.telia.net... "Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> exclaimed in
<bk************@id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>: Well, yeah, I have, but a bunch of people who think that good design
concepts that were arrived at through decades of study and research are
suddenly invalid don't want to acknowledge the possibility that they
still have even the smallest role to play.
I think you could benefit from studying some of that "decades of study
and research" yourself. In particular, study how traditional design, be
it print or otherwise, work *with* the medium.
But what is visually appealing doesn't suddenly disappear with each new
medium, requiring everyone to start from scratch.
Note that I haven't said anywhere that *everything* that was done on paper
can or should be transferred unmodified to the web. I realize full well that
the Wall Street Journal's six-column design, with one web page corresponding
to one printed page and the jumps working the same way, wouldn't work. Also,
obviously, printed matter doesn't come with navigation links, so
incorporating them into presentations is entirely new.
Not against it. Try looking
at the theories of why Futhark and Ogham are angular scripts.
I have trouble believing that Futhark and Ogham were the result of decades
of--or any--study!
It's almost unfair to claim that poorly skilled web "dezygners" attempt
to create designs best suited for printed media. Those who DO design for
print, industry, etc., have more often than not ceased to make the
mistakes far too many web designers do daily.
Is it really impossible to accept that many design concepts that work
very well on, say, a finely printed legal document or the full-sized
version of The Times function as badly on [insert device for accessing web] as
it would when designing a coat-of-arms or a tartan ?
Why so impossible ?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905 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: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
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: 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: 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: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
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,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
