468,135 Members | 1,400 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,135 developers. It's quick & easy.

How to detect table width or height?

Is there some way --using, say, DOM or javascript-- to detect the
current pixel width and/or height of a relatively sized table or of
one of its columns or rows. I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions and this
would sure be great information to have.

Thanks ....
Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #1
157 15362


Dennis wrote:
Is there some way --using, say, DOM or javascript-- to detect the
current pixel width and/or height of a relatively sized table or of
one of its columns or rows. I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions and this
would sure be great information to have.


With IE4+, Netscape 6+, Opera 7 you can read
element.offsetWidth
element.offsetHeight
of any element in the page. So try
var element;
if (document.all)
element = document.all['elementId'];
else if (document.getElementById)
element = document.getElementById('elementId');
if (element) {
// read element.offsetWidth/element.offsetHeight here
}
As your question and the answer is not about HTML but JavaScript I have
crossposted to comp.lang.javascript and set follow-up to it.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #2

"Dennis" <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vv********************************@4ax.com...
Is there some way --using, say, DOM or javascript-- to detect the
current pixel width and/or height of a relatively sized table or of
one of its columns or rows. I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions and this
would sure be great information to have.


Why resort to BS javascript trickery when you can just use a flexible
layout?
--
Karl Core

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche

eightninethree AT eightninethree.com
Jul 20 '05 #3
In article <vv********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:
I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions


Oh god, here we go again.

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #4
Stan Brown wrote:
In article <vv********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:
I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions


Oh god, here we go again.


Not me. I'm steering clear of this one. :) (Note to op: use Google
to search for recent threads on resolution, browser window, and design.)

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #5
I have a long list to put up, and I want as much of it as possible to
be viewable to the user without scrolling. So the wider the user's
window, the more columns I can put up. Now, if there was a setting
that would collapse a table's column at a given width, I could work
with it that way too, but I'd still need javascript to find out how
many columns had been collapsed (eg, had 0 width) --so I'm sort of
back where I started.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:15:44 -0400, "EightNineThree" <uc*@ftc.gov>
wrote:
Why resort to BS javascript trickery when you can just use a flexible
layout?


Jul 20 '05 #6
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote in
news:op********************************@4ax.com:
I have a long list to put up, and I want as much of it as possible to
be viewable to the user without scrolling. So the wider the user's
window, the more columns I can put up. Now, if there was a setting
that would collapse a table's column at a given width, I could work
with it that way too, but I'd still need javascript to find out how
many columns had been collapsed (eg, had 0 width) --so I'm sort of
back where I started.


I think we've got an "XY problem" here. An XY problem occurs when there's
confusion between ends and means. Your first problem states your goal in
general terms: you want the user to be able to see as much of your list as
possible without scrolling. That sounds, in the absence of more specific
information about your application, like a reasonable goal. Your next
sentence gets a little more specific: you want to display the list in
columns, with the number of columns increasing with browsing window size.
That's starting to move from ends to means, but it still sounds like a
fairly reasonable implementation. So your "X" is that you want to display
a list as multiple columns, with the number of columns varying according to
window width.

However, you've now jumped from that requirement to the notion that you
need a table to do it, and that you need to dynamically resize the table
with scripting in order to do it. That's your "Y" (a specific
implementation), but it's not necessarily the only means of achieving your
end. There may be some "Z" that would do a better job. A lot of people
here, through their own sometimes bitter experience, realize that the
particular "Y" you've picked tends to be difficult and unreliable in
practice.

The solution is to tell us about your "X" in more detail. There's a very
good chance that if you do, one or more people here will recognize that
they've already solved the problem in some way that doesn't resemble your
"Y" at all and they'll show you how.
Jul 20 '05 #7
Sure, I'm for anything that works. I got into the table idea because
I've read that detecting the user's overall browser window dimensions
(speaking of X,Y ...) can't be reliably done --or at least efficiently
done without a ton of code. And that was my initital "Y" approach.
My objective here is to have the number of columns increase so as to
accomodate the user's browser width. Actually, given the importance
of reading text, you would think HTML would have a "multi-column wrap"
feature, but apparently it doesn't.

Dennis

On 11 Oct 2003 18:23:53 GMT, Eric Bohlman <eb******@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote in
news:op********************************@4ax.com :
I have a long list to put up, and I want as much of it as possible to
be viewable to the user without scrolling. So the wider the user's
window, the more columns I can put up. Now, if there was a setting
that would collapse a table's column at a given width, I could work
with it that way too, but I'd still need javascript to find out how
many columns had been collapsed (eg, had 0 width) --so I'm sort of
back where I started.


I think we've got an "XY problem" here. An XY problem occurs when there's
confusion between ends and means. Your first problem states your goal in
general terms: you want the user to be able to see as much of your list as
possible without scrolling. That sounds, in the absence of more specific
information about your application, like a reasonable goal. Your next
sentence gets a little more specific: you want to display the list in
columns, with the number of columns increasing with browsing window size.
That's starting to move from ends to means, but it still sounds like a
fairly reasonable implementation. So your "X" is that you want to display
a list as multiple columns, with the number of columns varying according to
window width.

However, you've now jumped from that requirement to the notion that you
need a table to do it, and that you need to dynamically resize the table
with scripting in order to do it. That's your "Y" (a specific
implementation), but it's not necessarily the only means of achieving your
end. There may be some "Z" that would do a better job. A lot of people
here, through their own sometimes bitter experience, realize that the
particular "Y" you've picked tends to be difficult and unreliable in
practice.

The solution is to tell us about your "X" in more detail. There's a very
good chance that if you do, one or more people here will recognize that
they've already solved the problem in some way that doesn't resemble your
"Y" at all and they'll show you how.


Jul 20 '05 #8
Dennis wrote:

Please don't top-post.
...
My objective here is to have the number of columns increase so as to
accomodate the user's browser width.


set a width to the elements in question and employ CSS: float

--
William Tasso
Jul 20 '05 #9
Brian wrote:
[snip]
Not me. I'm steering clear of this one. :) (Note to op: use Google
to search for recent threads on resolution, browser window, and
design.)


Ensure that your read the following, which didn't get an answer from Brian. It
asks how a person should decide what size to make pixel-oriented content such
as images & photographs:
http://groups.google.com/gr********************************@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net
http://tinyurl.com/qkqe

Have a look at one of Brian's own pages:
http://people.umass.edu/btrembla/jardin/garden.html
http://tinyurl.com/qkqt

If you view that page, and contract the window on your browser, you will find
that, at about 864 viewport pixels, a horizontal scroll-bar appears. Brian's
page is really designed for quite large screen sizes. That is partly because
of Brian's CSS. Switch off the CSS, and the horizontal scroll-bars don't
appear until the viewport width is down to about 688 pixels.

The basic reason is simple - the photograph on that page is 661 x 391 pixels.
There is nothing wrong with that! There are very few people with 640 x 480
screens, so why bother to cater for them? Nearly half of web users have 800 x
600 screens, so it is a good idea to cater for them. I cannot fault Brian's
decision to base his image size on the screen sizes of the vast majority of
web users. IF that is how he arrived at the particular size! (I hope he didn't
simply make a random decision).

My own view is that, having made the decision to have a photograph size that
fits onto the common screen size, it is wrong to cause further problems by
requiring even larger screen sizes. I wouldn't have CSS that did that. With my
own photograph pages, using photographs that are 700 pixels wide, there are no
horizontal scroll-bars at 800 pixels. But - Brian is allowed to choose
otherwise - his valid choice.

I recently did a brief survey of the widths of web sites. See:
http://groups.google.com/gr***********************************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net
http://tinyurl.com/qks7

Right across the world, major web sites have been (and presumably are still
being) designed on the assumption that the available screen width is up to 800
pixels. There appears to be an implicit assumption that media-type="screen"
means "800 pixels", even among people have who never heard of media types.

Those 800-pixel-wide web site are of all types. Tableless & tables. With &
without CSS. Old & new. Structured with hn, etc, and not. Strict,
Transitional, or no DOCTYPES. HTML or XHTML. The paradigm is "screens are up
to 800 pixels wide".

What are the implications for how we should write HTML & CSS?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #10
Barry Pearson wrote:
Brian wrote:

Ensure that your read the following, which didn't get an answer from Brian.
Was I under some obligation? Why didn't anyone tell me?
It asks how a person should decide what size to make
pixel-oriented content such as images & photographs:
http://groups.google.com/gr********************************@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.ne
http://tinyurl.com/qkqe
Oh, one more thing: how much will you pay me when I provide the answer
you feel you deserve?
Have a look at one of Brian's own pages:
http://people.umass.edu/btrembla/jardin/garden.html
http://tinyurl.com/qkqt

If you view that page, and contract the window on your
browser, you will find that, at about 864 viewport pixels,
a horizontal scroll-bar appears.
This is a flaw in the redesign of my site, in which I moved the
navigation from the top to the left of the window, causing a
horizontal scroll bar with that big picture. I'd like to thank you
for pointing it out, but I get the impression that it's intended to
denigrate my work.
I cannot fault Brian's decision to base his image size on
the screen sizes of the vast majority of web users. IF
that is how he arrived at the particular size!
It isn't. I don't cater to any screen size.
(I hope he didn't simply make a random decision).


You could just ask me, of course. You didn't, but in case the
suspense is killing you, here's how I arrived at my decision: I made
the photo as small as I could, both by cropping and shrinking, while
maintaining the composition of the photo and keeping the detail.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go rethink the css on my site.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #11
Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

Ensure that your read the following, which didn't get an answer from
Brian.


Was I under some obligation? Why didn't anyone tell me?


Lost your way Brian?

You've been seconded to the help desk - remember? Just down the hall,
second on the left.

---------------->

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #12
William Tasso wrote:

You've been seconded to the help desk


I don't quite get that. I've been "seconded?" What does "second"
mean when used as a verb?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #13
In post <Ky3ib.540729$Oz4.446392@rwcrnsc54>
Brian said...
You've been seconded to the help desk
I don't quite get that. I've been "seconded?" What does "second"
mean when used as a verb?


its one after being firsted and one before being thirded

--
brucie.
12/October/2003 01:11:26 pm
Jul 20 '05 #14
In article <Ky3ib.540729$Oz4.446392@rwcrnsc54> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
William Tasso wrote:

You've been seconded to the help desk


I don't quite get that. I've been "seconded?" What does "second"
mean when used as a verb?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second&db=*
and look at the fourth meaning under tr[ansitive]v[erb]

The acCENT is on the second sylLABle, at least in the past
participle. I've never heard the verb used in the present tense.

The noun form is "seCONDment":
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...econdment&db=*

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #15
Stan Brown wrote:
In article <Ky3ib.540729$Oz4.446392@rwcrnsc54> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Brian wrote:
What does "second" mean when used as a verb?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=second&db=*
and look at the fourth meaning under tr[ansitive]v[erb]


Come to think of it, I do know second as a verb, but only the 3rd
meaning, as it pertains to voting. That 4th definition is new to me.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #16
William Tasso wrote:
Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
Ensure that your read the following, which didn't
get an answer from Brian.
Was I under some obligation? Why didn't anyone tell me?


Lost your way Brian?


Apparently!
You've been seconded to the help desk - remember?
Oh dear, no, that short-term memory is not what it should be. (after
a little vocabulary help, I get the joke!)
Just down the hall, second on the left.


[hurries to take post behind help desk]

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #17
Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]
Have a look at one of Brian's own pages:
http://people.umass.edu/btrembla/jardin/garden.html
http://tinyurl.com/qkqt

If you view that page, and contract the window on your
browser, you will find that, at about 864 viewport pixels,
a horizontal scroll-bar appears.


This is a flaw in the redesign of my site, in which I moved the
navigation from the top to the left of the window, causing a
horizontal scroll bar with that big picture. I'd like to thank you
for pointing it out, but I get the impression that it's intended to
denigrate my work.


I've said elsewhere that I like your web sites. I've said the photograph size
is OK. On my screen your web site looks fine.

If there is an implied criticism, it is that the page above (and perhaps
others?) will have a horizontal scroll bar on nearly half of the screens using
the web. The question is, does that matter to you? If you are going to rethink
the CSS on the site, why? After all, you say below you don't cater to any
screen size.

If you had decided (as I do) to cater for people with screens of 800 x 600
(hence maximum viewports a little less than that), you might have ensured that
the web site worked on such screens from the start and tested it on them.
Doesn't it make sense to do so?

Changing the CSS won't stop the horizontal scrolling at 640 x 480 because of
the size of the photograph. It will stop it at 800 x 600. It will make no
difference at 1024 x 768. So changing the CSS sounds as though you want to
cater for the 800 x 600 population. There would be nothing wrong with that!
But you appear to be denying this.
I cannot fault Brian's decision to base his image size on
the screen sizes of the vast majority of web users. IF
that is how he arrived at the particular size!


It isn't. I don't cater to any screen size.
(I hope he didn't simply make a random decision).


You could just ask me, of course. You didn't, but in case the
suspense is killing you, here's how I arrived at my decision: I made
the photo as small as I could, both by cropping and shrinking, while
maintaining the composition of the photo and keeping the detail.


Your choice, of course, but I suspect relatively few other people use that
particular algorithm. Why as small as you can? What value has that to your
viewers? If you had a very simple photograph with little detail, would it be
tiny? If you had massive detail, would it be (say) 1024 x 768, and perhaps
several 100 KB even compressed?

Julie Tremblay clearly doesn't use that algorithm. Her photographs fit into a
400 x 400 pixel box, and often fill it (square). It doesn't matter whether
they are "soft" or "detailed". My guess is that some of her photographs would
look great printed yards across, so the web-size certainly doesn't keep the
detail. I assume she chose that size for some reason, then fitted the
photographs into it, whatever it did to the detail.

Even from 35mm, I lose a lot of detail reducing photographs to 700 x 500
pixels (see below). So I had to use some other reason than "detail" to choose
the size. Obviously screen-size of typical viewers was the most important
criterion. Download time was the second.

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...95_26_11_1.htm

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...a1_03_25_1.htm
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go rethink the css on my site.


--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #18
Barry Pearson wrote:

If you had decided (as I do) to cater for people with screens of
800 x 600 (hence maximum viewports a little less than that), you
might have ensured that the web site worked on such screens from
the start and tested it on them. Doesn't it make sense to do so?
No. I do not cater to one resolution. I try to cater to any
resolution. In this case, I failed. I have since changed the css to
make it a little better, but I probably need to make more substantial
changes.
Changing the CSS won't stop the horizontal scrolling at 640 x 480
because of the size of the photograph. It will stop it at 800 x
600. It will make no difference at 1024 x 768.
Are you talking resolution or window size?
So changing the CSS sounds as though you want to cater for the 800
x 600 population.
No. I want to stop making it difficult for those with a smaller
viewport, to the extent that that is possible.
There would be nothing wrong with that!
I can think of no reason to cater to one size window size at the
expense of others.
here's how I arrived at my decision: I made the photo as small as
I could, both by cropping and shrinking, while maintaining the
composition of the photo and keeping the detail.


Why as small as you can?


To make it as accessible as I can.
What value has that to your viewers?
On dialup? Quite a bit, I'd imagine. It sure matters to me when I'm
on dialup.
If you had a very simple photograph with little detail, would it be
tiny?
"tiny" is relative. It would be smaller than the picture of the
entire garden. But heck, why talk of the hypothetical? Look at the
other garden photos. Some are smaller because I was able to crop and
resize them more.
If you had massive detail, would it be (say) 1024 x 768,
That's a resolution, right? Well, I suppose, by coincidence, I might
come up with a photo that is exactly 1024px x 768px.
and perhaps several 100 KB even compressed?
If the content required it, perhaps.
Julie Tremblay clearly doesn't use that algorithm.
How would you know?
Her photographs fit into a 400 x 400 pixel box, and often fill it
(square).
550 x 500, with a border to provide a little visual spacing.
It doesn't matter whether they are "soft" or "detailed". My guess
is that some of her photographs would look great printed yards
across, so the web-size certainly doesn't keep the detail.
Well, not yards, but certainly much larger than you'll see on her
site. According to a page on her site, the largest prints are 30
inches x 30 inches (approximately 80cm x 80cm, I believe).
I assume she chose that size for some reason, then fitted the
photographs into it, whatever it did to the detail.
The size she chose allows a reasonable representation of her photos
while remaining accessible on most computer screens. I doubt that any
handheld device user would be able to easily view the full-sized
photos, but I suppose they could look at the thumbnails. This, of
course, is a restriction imposed by the content.
Even from 35mm, I lose a lot of detail reducing photographs to 700
x 500 pixels (see below).


I don't know much about photography. I know that Julie Tremblay uses
a format larger than 35mm. It might be 3 inches x 5 inches, but I
cannot be sure. I suppose that means that she loses even more detail
than you do, right?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #19
Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

If you had decided (as I do) to cater for people with screens of
800 x 600 (hence maximum viewports a little less than that), you
might have ensured that the web site worked on such screens from
the start and tested it on them. Doesn't it make sense to do so?


No. I do not cater to one resolution. I try to cater to any
resolution. In this case, I failed. I have since changed the css to
make it a little better, but I probably need to make more substantial
changes.


With images, you can't satisfactorily cater for any resolution. You eventually
have to make some hard decisions.
Changing the CSS won't stop the horizontal scrolling at 640 x 480
because of the size of the photograph. It will stop it at 800 x
600. It will make no difference at 1024 x 768.


Are you talking resolution or window size?


I tested your site using viewport size (because that is what Firebird tells
me). But the maximum viewport size is typically just a bit less than the
screen size. So I design my photographic site to work with a viewport a little
less than 800 x 600. For example, the photographs may be up to 500 x 500 or
700 x 700 or 700 x 500, depending on the site and the button used.
So changing the CSS sounds as though you want to cater for the 800
x 600 population.


No. I want to stop making it difficult for those with a smaller
viewport, to the extent that that is possible.
There would be nothing wrong with that!


I can think of no reason to cater to one size window size at the
expense of others.


Who is talking about "at the expense of others"? You can design to ensure that
your pages CAN be displayed on a particular viewport size without necessarily
making it worse for the rest (Except for image sizes, which do tend to favour
some at the expense of others). It makes a lot of sense to design yourpages so
that they will display well at 800 x 600.
here's how I arrived at my decision: I made the photo as small as
I could, both by cropping and shrinking, while maintaining the
composition of the photo and keeping the detail.


Why as small as you can?


To make it as accessible as I can.


But a small photograph on a screen displaying very many pixels per inch (eg.
well over 150) will actually not be very good. (Unless the user can cater for
the problem, for example in the way that Opera can show images as well as text
larger). I don't assume that the user has such a browser, so I try to make my
photographs a suitable size even without such a browser.
What value has that to your viewers?


On dialup? Quite a bit, I'd imagine. It sure matters to me when I'm
on dialup.
If you had a very simple photograph with little detail, would it be
tiny?


"tiny" is relative. It would be smaller than the picture of the
entire garden. But heck, why talk of the hypothetical? Look at the
other garden photos. Some are smaller because I was able to crop and
resize them more.
If you had massive detail, would it be (say) 1024 x 768,


That's a resolution, right? Well, I suppose, by coincidence, I might
come up with a photo that is exactly 1024px x 768px.


Not good! I hope you would take advice before do that.
and perhaps several 100 KB even compressed?


If the content required it, perhaps.
Julie Tremblay clearly doesn't use that algorithm.


How would you know?
Her photographs fit into a 400 x 400 pixel box, and often fill it
(square).


550 x 500, with a border to provide a little visual spacing.


I mean - all of her JPEGs are either 400 pixels wide or 400 pixels high or
both.
It doesn't matter whether they are "soft" or "detailed". My guess
is that some of her photographs would look great printed yards
across, so the web-size certainly doesn't keep the detail.


Well, not yards, but certainly much larger than you'll see on her
site. According to a page on her site, the largest prints are 30
inches x 30 inches (approximately 80cm x 80cm, I believe).


The key is her "The photographs presented on this website are digital
representations of prints from 35mm, 120, and 4x5 negatives". I can easily
print at 19" x 13" from 35mm (and have several 20" x 16" Cibachromes on my
walls). So I can confidently say that some of her photographs would look great
printed yards across.
I assume she chose that size for some reason, then fitted the
photographs into it, whatever it did to the detail.


The size she chose allows a reasonable representation of her photos
while remaining accessible on most computer screens. I doubt that any
handheld device user would be able to easily view the full-sized
photos, but I suppose they could look at the thumbnails. This, of
course, is a restriction imposed by the content.


In other words, she took into account the screen sizes of "most computers"!
But I already knew that! She is a photographer - and that is what
photographers have to do. (I personally believe she should have made them
larger, because on some screens they will be little more than 2" across. But
it is her choice).
Even from 35mm, I lose a lot of detail reducing photographs to 700
x 500 pixels (see below).


I don't know much about photography. I know that Julie Tremblay uses
a format larger than 35mm. It might be 3 inches x 5 inches, but I
cannot be sure. I suppose that means that she loses even more detail
than you do, right?


Vastly more. See above. She chooses her sizes on grounds other than "keeping
the detail".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #20
[a little editing goes a long way when posting replies on usenet]

Barry Pearson wrote:

With images, you can't satisfactorily cater for any resolution. You eventually
have to make some hard decisions.
**Still** refusing to distinguish between content and presentation, I see.
You can design to ensure that
your pages CAN be displayed on a particular viewport size without necessarily
making it worse for the rest
In the context of css, the easiest, most reliable way to design is for
any resolution, any screen size. Textual content will adapt. Images
will not. That is the nature of the beast. I don't design my photos
to fit in a window size. I make the photo first, then make it
available on the www.
It makes a lot of sense to design yourpages so
that they will display well at 800 x 600.


My pages *do* display well on a screen that is 800px wide. If they
don't, then please explain what you see as a problem.

If you want to pick one window size and design for it, then do so
already. Why are you badgering me to do the same? I won't do it.
Would you like me to tell you that I do cater to one screen size, even
though I don't? Would that make you happy?
If you had massive detail, would it be (say) 1024 x 768,


That's a resolution, right? Well, I suppose, by coincidence, I might
come up with a photo that is exactly 1024px x 768px.


Not good! I hope you would take advice before do that.


Are you for real? *You* proposed that hypothetical, not me. Please
stop arguing for its own sake.
The size she chose allows a reasonable representation of her photos
while remaining accessible on most computer screens.


In other words, she took into account the screen sizes of "most computers"!


Right, Barry. Now try to follow this: "most computer screens" means
that the photos are too large for a handheld device, but not too large
for a computer screen, **whatever** the window size, **whatever** the
resolution. The stylesheet for media="screen" does not cater to an
800 x 600 size by using e.g., body {width: 790px}. To do so would be
folly.

As such, her site is viewable on a wide array of computer screen
configurations.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #21
Brian wrote:
[a little editing goes a long way when posting replies on usenet]
I have edited every response I've made to what you have said!
Barry Pearson wrote:

With images, you can't satisfactorily cater for any resolution. You
eventually have to make some hard decisions.
**Still** refusing to distinguish between content and presentation, I
see.


I am simply stating a fact. People developing inherently visual material,
especially pixel-oriented material, design it with the target screen sizes in
mind, if they have any sense.

If you or anyone here can pose an alternative, please do. There are vast
numbers of photographers and others who need an answer. But we know what the
current answer is - we design for target screen-occupancy, because we have to.

The decision about the size of the material in pixels CANNOT be ducked. Should
this JPEG be 400 x 400 pixels? 600 x 400? 700 x 500? 1024 x 768?

Those decisions make a massive difference to the value of the web site,
including whether or not scrolling is needed to see the image, the download
time, whether you have to look hard to see an image occupying 10% of your
screen, etc.

[snip] In the context of css, the easiest, most reliable way to design is for
any resolution, any screen size. Textual content will adapt. Images
will not. That is the nature of the beast. I don't design my photos
to fit in a window size. I make the photo first, then make it
available on the www.

[snip]

When you prepare your photographs for the web, you SHOULD do it for a
particular window size. Oh ... I forgot. You have said you are not a
photographer. Enough said!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #22
Sometime around Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:45:26 +0100, Barry Pearson is reported
to have stated:
But the maximum viewport size is typically just a bit less than the screen size.


Assuming, of course, that the user has their browser window maximised.
Which many don't.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #23
Barry Pearson wrote:

I am simply stating a fact. People developing inherently visual material,
especially pixel-oriented material, design it with the target screen sizes in
mind, if they have any sense.
Insult number 2. But I have plenty of sense, thank you. I do not
design for a screen size. How could I? There are too many possibilities.
If you or anyone here can pose an alternative, please do.
Asked and answered.
The decision about the size of the material in pixels CANNOT be ducked. Should
this JPEG be 400 x 400 pixels? 600 x 400? 700 x 500? 1024 x 768?
Why does that last hypothetical size match a resolution? You're not
confusing the two, are you?
When you prepare your photographs for the web, you SHOULD do it for a
particular window size.
Why? Is there something wrong with my sites?
Oh ... I forgot. You have said you are not a photographer. Enough said!


I guess that's another insult. Whatever. HAND.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #24
Mark Parnell wrote:
Sometime around Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:45:26 +0100, Barry Pearson is
reported to have stated:
But the maximum viewport size is typically just a bit less than the
screen size.


Assuming, of course, that the user has their browser window maximised.
Which many don't.


I said "the maximum viewport". That is independent of whether the window is
maximised. On an 800 x 600 screen, the maximum viewport size is just less than
that - even if the browser isn't running!

The point about this discussion is so simple that I'm surprised that there is
debate. Someone developing pixel-oriented material, JPEG, GIF, PNG, etc, has
to decide how many pixels to have in the image. Perhaps sometimes there is
actually no choice. (For example, someone showing a screen-capture may well
accept exactly the size dictated by the material as put onto the screen before
capture). But typically there IS a choice. A photographer has a choice about
whether to make a photograph 400 x 300, or 600 x 450, or 800 x 600, or 4000 x
3000, etc. Someone creating a chart from Excel, or a graph, or a diagram from
a modelling tool, also has to make a decison. (I have done all of these at one
time or another).

So, how should the decision be made? Without considering the screen sizes
available to view such images, and for photographs the network speeds, there
is no reference point. Any of the above sizes could be valid. This isn't like
leaving text sizes to the browser-default, where the author can simply avoid
making the decision. The image-developer HAS to make a decision, which then
gets frozen into the content.

Below, there is some pixel-oriented material where I have had to make such a
decision. It is arguable whether I made the right decision in each case. That
can probably really only be judged by the viewer, who might say "on my screen
that image requires horizontal scrolling", or "on my screen that image only
occupies 10% of the screen and is insignificant", or "that photograph takes
half a minute to download on my connection and I would prefer a smaller
version".

No amount of denial in these NGs will alter the basic fact. The developer HAS
to make the decision, and that decision should have a rational basis in order
to be satisfactory to the viewers.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...98/9091506.htm

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...se_study_1.htm

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...e_children.htm

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...95_09_10_3.htm

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #25
Brian wrote:
[snip]

Until you see the need for a rational basis for making decisions about what
size to make pixel-oriented material, I see no point in continuing this
discussion. You appear to be denying the existence of a problem that
photographers and others developing such material, all over the world, know is
a very real problem.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #26
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
The point about this discussion is so simple that I'm surprised that there is
debate.
Maybe the point isn't as simple as you think.
Someone developing pixel-oriented material, JPEG, GIF, PNG, etc, has
to decide how many pixels to have in the image
That is true.
So, how should the decision be made? Without considering the screen sizes
available to view such images, and for photographs the network speeds, there
is no reference point.
Wrong. The reference point is the image itself - the image must be
large enough for all the detail the creator wants to convey to be
apprarant. This must be balanced against the download time for the
user. the creator must decide upon a compromise between download time
and detail. Placing window size above either of those is going to lead
to problems.
Below, there is some pixel-oriented material where I have had to make such a
decision. It is arguable whether I made the right decision in each case. That
can probably really only be judged by the viewer, who might say "on my screen
that image requires horizontal scrolling", or "on my screen that image only
occupies 10% of the screen and is insignificant", or "that photograph takes
half a minute to download on my connection and I would prefer a smaller
version".

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...98/9091506.htm
Yuck. Was this made in Word? I thought you used Photoshop?
The image should be redone, as it is it needs to be larger in order to
be clearer (detail) and at 7kb can afford to be so (download time).

But what window size was a 434 x 299 image designed for?
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...se_study_1.htm
If redrawn to be clearer these images could be smaller in both
physical and filesize terms and at the same time clearer to read.

Again, what window size were these images designed for?
The squeeze the text alongside them into a too narrow column at
800x600
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...e_children.htm
As the graph is only ther to show the trend rather the precise numbers
involved, (if it is there to show the precise numbers then it has
failed,) I would make it smaller and tidier (anti-aliased fonts,
clearer x-axis labels, etc) and float it alongside the text.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...95_09_10_3.htm
At 74kb with quite poor resolution this fails on both the detail and
download time criteria.

From a photographic point of view I don't like the composition. Having
three main points in a line, but facing right, left, right just
doesn't work. In fact an enlargement of just the girl in red would
probably be what I'd take from this shot. I'd go for a larger image of
that portion of the picture, but try to keep the file size smaller
than it is at the moment.

Of the four examples given the last two were designed for 800x600
windows but the others don't seem to have been designed for any window
size. Are you sure you meant to post these particular URIs in support
of yoru argument?
No amount of denial in these NGs will alter the basic fact. The developer HAS
to make the decision, and that decision should have a rational basis in order
to be satisfactory to the viewers.


No one is denying that. They are denying that window size is a
predominant factor in that decision making process.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #27
Steve Pugh wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
The point about this discussion is so simple that I'm surprised that
there is debate.
Maybe the point isn't as simple as you think.
Someone developing pixel-oriented material, JPEG, GIF, PNG, etc, has
to decide how many pixels to have in the image


That is true.
So, how should the decision be made? Without considering the screen
sizes available to view such images, and for photographs the network
speeds, there is no reference point.


Wrong. The reference point is the image itself - the image must be
large enough for all the detail the creator wants to convey to be
apprarant. This must be balanced against the download time for the
user. the creator must decide upon a compromise between download time
and detail. Placing window size above either of those is going to lead
to problems.


The amount of detail that is apparent depends on the viewing characteristics
of the user. For example, how many pixels per inch on their screen. Is their
monitor calibrated? Are they viewing in subdued lighting? With my target
photograph audience, they will often have pretty good monitors. For the child
support site, they often won't.

Any decision leads to problems. It is a matter of deciding what should take
priority. You say "download time". And that is ...? Once again, it s a matter
of trying to work out what my target audience uses. As it happens, some of the
most important people in my target audience have fast networks and top-end
screens.
Below, there is some pixel-oriented material where I have had to make
such a decision. It is arguable whether I made the right decision in
each case. That can probably really only be judged by the viewer, who
might say "on my screen that image requires horizontal scrolling", or
"on my screen that image only occupies 10% of the screen and is
insignificant", or "that photograph takes half a minute to download
on my connection and I would prefer a smaller version".

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...cmselect/cmsoc sec/798/9091506.htm
Yuck. Was this made in Word? I thought you used Photoshop?
The image should be redone, as it is it needs to be larger in order to
be clearer (detail) and at 7kb can afford to be so (download time).
(I use Powerpoint for diagrams). Indeed. That is what I thought when I did the
original (523 x 359 pixels, 8.6 KB), at:

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...se_study_1.htm

But Hansard decided I had got it wrong for their readers, so they reduced the
size to 434 x 299. Evidently I didn't study their requirements well enough. (I
don't know of any other coloured diagrams in Hansard, so I had nothing to go
on).

[snip]http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...c/wftc_case_st udy_1.htm
If redrawn to be clearer these images could be smaller in both
physical and filesize terms and at the same time clearer to read.
I have a 1400 x 1050 117 ppi screen on my old laptop, and these images are
really too small for it. I know of people with much greater numbers of pixels
per inch who see them even smaller. I think bigger, not smaller, is the way to
go in future. But, of course, that is because you and I are viewing on
different physical screens with different characteristics.

This simply illustrates the dilemma faced by people who develop pixel-oriented
material. Material that I used to develop for VGA screens now looks wrong on
the majority of screens. But what choice did I have then? Hardly to ignore the
problem. No - I had to take into account the screen size at the time. In 5
years time I may examine typical network speeds and screens sizes and rework
some of the images, or at least develop new material to the new size.
Again, what window size were these images designed for?
The squeeze the text alongside them into a too narrow column at
800x600
I used 800 x 600 when I was deciding on the size. I developed to a theme,
which meant accepting that some images were wider than others. (Rather than
resizing images and text to fit a narrow width). In the end, I feel they work
on 800 x 600, and don't squeeze the text too much. The sort of compromise that
people developing pixel-oriented images keep having to face. (They still work,
although far less well, on a 640 x 480 screen. But I chose to accept the
problems at 640 x 480 in order to get a bigger image on 800 x 600, often on a
poor quality screen).

[snip]http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...95_09_10_3.htm


At 74kb with quite poor resolution this fails on both the detail and
download time criteria.


I allow myself up to about 100KB for a 700 pixel wide photograph. It is, once
again, a compromise. (On that web site I put photographs there with 2 sizes,
and the smaller size is about 38KB). On broadband it downloads plenty fast
enough.

What does with "poor resolution" mean? Should it have more pixels? Isn't it
sharp enough at the current number of pixels? (Can you see the diagonal wire
grid on the gate behind the girl in black? Can you see a glimmering of hair
surrounding the head of the girl in red?

The pre-web version is 5302 x 2470 pixels, about 35 megabytes. Whatever I do,
detail will get lost. Since I can't satisfy everyone, I try to satisfy the
characteristics of my target audience, as far as I can find out. That, of
course, involves talking to them, and asking them on NGs. "Marketing" - it
hasn't gone away.

[snip] Of the four examples given the last two were designed for 800x600
windows but the others don't seem to have been designed for any window
size. Are you sure you meant to post these particular URIs in support
of yoru argument?


Yes. They illustrate the dilemma faced by developers of pixel-oriented
material. The first one shows how important it is to understand the audience -
Hansard reduced my image because I didn't study their requirements. I believe
all of them work (in their original form) on 800 x 600 screens.
No amount of denial in these NGs will alter the basic fact. The
developer HAS to make the decision, and that decision should have a
rational basis in order to be satisfactory to the viewers.


No one is denying that. They are denying that window size is a
predominant factor in that decision making process.


For pixel-oriented material, the screen characteristics are among the most
important factors. Available number of pixels, and the display in pixels per
inch, all have an impact.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #28
Barry Pearson wrote:

Until you see the need for a rational basis for making decisions about what
size to make pixel-oriented material,
I already told you how I decided. You chose to argue that I couldn't
be right.
I see no point in continuing this discussion.


Bye.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #29
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:10:57 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
Brian wrote:
[a little editing goes a long way when posting replies on usenet]


I have edited every response I've made to what you have said!
Barry Pearson wrote:

With images, you can't satisfactorily cater for any resolution. You
eventually have to make some hard decisions.


**Still** refusing to distinguish between content and presentation, I
see.


I am simply stating a fact. People developing inherently visual material,
especially pixel-oriented material, design it with the target screen sizes in
mind, if they have any sense.

If you or anyone here can pose an alternative, please do. There are vast
numbers of photographers and others who need an answer. But we know what the
current answer is - we design for target screen-occupancy, because we have to.

The decision about the size of the material in pixels CANNOT be ducked. Should
this JPEG be 400 x 400 pixels? 600 x 400? 700 x 500? 1024 x 768?

Those decisions make a massive difference to the value of the web site,
including whether or not scrolling is needed to see the image, the download
time, whether you have to look hard to see an image occupying 10% of your
screen, etc.

[snip]
In the context of css, the easiest, most reliable way to design is for
any resolution, any screen size. Textual content will adapt. Images
will not. That is the nature of the beast. I don't design my photos
to fit in a window size. I make the photo first, then make it
available on the www.

[snip]

When you prepare your photographs for the web, you SHOULD do it for a
particular window size. Oh ... I forgot. You have said you are not a
photographer. Enough said!


I hope you'll allow me a little extra leeway here since I'm going off
the newsgroup subject area (CSS and HTML), but my remarks are germane
to the issue. The problem of getting multiple columns of text in the
viewport (that prompted me to start this thread) has led me to decide
on using Flash as my main medium. I think Flash will do what CSS is
too immature to yet do. Now, when CSS "catches up", it will surpass
Flash because of its huge potential in separating content from
presentation. It will make a snap out of all the tedious coding I'm
now doing in Flash ActionScript. But to speak to your photo
resolution dilemma, right now today, if you were to use Flash, you'd
know at every moment the height and width of the viewer's browser
window. So you could either just download the image that best fits
their screen or let the Flash player scale whatever size image you
use. Either way, you fill up the screen --if that's what you want--
from a Palm to the widest Apple. I'm not knocking CSS (completely)
here, but I am telling it to get a move on!

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #30
Dennis wrote:

The problem of getting multiple columns of text in the
viewport (that prompted me to start this thread) has led me to decide
on using Flash as my main medium.
You're kidding, right?
I think Flash will do what CSS is
too immature to yet do.
Hmm. Maybe you're actually serious.
Now, when CSS "catches up", it will surpass Flash
They are not competing technologies.
if you were to use Flash, you'd
know at every moment the height and width of the viewer's browser
window. So you could either just download the image that best fits
their screen or let the Flash player scale whatever size image you
use.


Yep, you are serious. Well, that's a swell "solution." A site
presented in Flash is my cue to hit the back button. I suppose I
ought to thank Macromedia for saving me the trouble of messing with
the site any more than that. I see that "get the plug-in" window, and
it's alt-left arrow, and onto something worth my time.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #31
Dennis wrote:

The problem of getting multiple columns of text in the
viewport (that prompted me to start this thread) has led me to decide
on using Flash as my main medium.


You have decided that this look you envision is more important than
usability and accessibility? Just what we need, another unusable Flash
site. <heavy sigh>

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Jul 20 '05 #32
In article <62********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:
The problem of getting multiple columns of text in the
viewport (that prompted me to start this thread) has led me to decide
on using Flash as my main medium. I think Flash will do what CSS is
too immature to yet do.


It will, for people who have Flash installed and turned on.

Many people don't have it installed; many who do have it installed
have turned it off because so much Flash is just annoying time-
wasting "kewl" visual effect.

So your choice by using Flash is for complete success or complete
failure, as opposed to 100% success or partial success if you don't
use Flash.

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #33
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:24:48 GMT, Brian
<us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Dennis wrote:

The problem of getting multiple columns of text in the
viewport (that prompted me to start this thread) has led me to decide
on using Flash as my main medium.


You're kidding, right?
I think Flash will do what CSS is
too immature to yet do.


Hmm. Maybe you're actually serious.
Now, when CSS "catches up", it will surpass Flash


They are not competing technologies.
if you were to use Flash, you'd
know at every moment the height and width of the viewer's browser
window. So you could either just download the image that best fits
their screen or let the Flash player scale whatever size image you
use.


Yep, you are serious. Well, that's a swell "solution." A site
presented in Flash is my cue to hit the back button. I suppose I
ought to thank Macromedia for saving me the trouble of messing with
the site any more than that. I see that "get the plug-in" window, and
it's alt-left arrow, and onto something worth my time.


Look at your words carefully. Your only criticism of Flash is that
you don't like it and avoid it. That's hardly a "criticism", or maybe
you are just venting your feelings. Sorry I upset you.
Jul 20 '05 #34
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:26:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
You have decided that this look you envision is more important than
usability and accessibility?
No. I am doing it in Flash precisely for usability. A page is more
usable if the user can see at a glance where everything is and not
have to scroll around to find it. And steps can be taken to make it
also accessible.
Just what we need, another unusable Flash
site. <heavy sigh>


This reminds me of Emerson's comment, "Foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds." Take out the question-begging word
"foolish" and it loses its force. Take out "unusable" from your
comment and it too loses its force.

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #35
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:26 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It will, for people who have Flash installed and turned on.

Many people don't have it installed; many who do have it installed
have turned it off because so much Flash is just annoying time-
wasting "kewl" visual effect.

So your choice by using Flash is for complete success or complete
failure, as opposed to 100% success or partial success if you don't
use Flash.


Something like 97% of web surfers out there do. And those few who
don't can easily get it. End of problem.

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #36

"Dennis" <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:si********************************@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:26:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
You have decided that this look you envision is more important than
usability and accessibility?


No. I am doing it in Flash precisely for usability. A page is more
usable if the user can see at a glance where everything is and not
have to scroll around to find it. And steps can be taken to make it
also accessible.


You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what usability is.

--
Karl Core

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche

eightninethree AT eightninethree.com
Jul 20 '05 #37
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <si********************************@4ax.com>:
No. I am doing it in Flash precisely for usability. A page is more
usable if the user can see at a glance where everything is and not
have to scroll around to find it. And steps can be taken to make it


You are right; a page is more usable if the user can see at a glance
where everything is and not have to scroll around it.

Your mistake is making the assumption that you are able to ensure that
this is the case.

Your job is making sure the document itself can adapt to the users
situation. Assuming you know anything at all regarding said situation
is arrogant and a pointless waste of time.

Naturally, the choice of what to do is up to you.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #38
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <52********************************@4ax.com>:
Something like 97% of web surfers out there do. And those few who
don't can easily get it. End of problem.


Flash is not available for all users or all UAs. Depending on it is
not useful.

Of course, with the arrogance your posting shows, "useful" wouldn't
be your first priority.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #39
Dennis wrote:

Something like 97% of web surfers out there do.
Source, please. Or did you just make this up?
And those few who don't can easily get it.
If it's available, they can consider getting it. Whether they
actually go to the trouble of downloading and installing software for
your content is another matter.
End of problem.


Keep deluding yourself.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #40
Dennis wrote:

Well, that's a swell "solution." A site presented in Flash is my
cue to hit the back button.
Look at your words carefully. Your only criticism of Flash is that
you don't like it and avoid it.


What's to like? It's used only for ads and gratuitous "kewl" effects.
That's hardly a "criticism", or maybe you are just venting your
feelings. Sorry I upset you.


No sweat off my nose. Keep up the cluelessness.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #41
Dennis wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:26:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
You have decided that this look you envision is more important than
usability and accessibility?
No. I am doing it in Flash precisely for usability. A page is more
usable if the user can see at a glance where everything is and not
have to scroll around to find it.


You are mistaken if you think Flash is the answer. You cannot predict
what the user's preferred window size, text size, or any other
environmental variable may be. The very nature of Flash encourages
inaccessible, inflexible layouts. The user's preference settings are
not part of the equation, thus Flash cannot adapt to the user's settings.

This means that you will create a site that only "works" in a very
narrow band of screen resolution, window size and text size. The rest
of us will be out of luck. If your goal is usability, then your best
bet is a liquid layout that adjusts well to different window and text
sizes. This Flash cannot do, at least I have never seen it done.
And steps can be taken to make it also accessible.


Whatever you do on this front will be inadequate, since Flash's
accessibility features on the authoring side are inadequate.
Accessibility features in the Flash player are pretty much non-existent,
so we users are at your mercy.
Just what we need, another unusable Flash site. <heavy sigh>


Take out "unusable" from your comment and it too loses its force.


I have yet to find a Flash site that is usable for me. I am not very
optimistic that whatever you come up with will be any different.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

Jul 20 '05 #42
In article <52********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:26 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
So your choice by using Flash is for complete success or complete
failure, as opposed to 100% success or partial success if you don't
use Flash.


Something like 97% of web surfers out there do. And those few who
don't can easily get it. End of problem.


97%, huh? Why did you make up that particular number? Why didn't you
say 95%? or 99.2% or 67.1%?

But what will _really_ happen is that people will go to your site,
see that it depends on Flash, and go elsewhere, unless you offer
content that they want and can't get anywhere else, which seems
unlikely.

Why do you post here if you don't want to listen to the feedback you
get?

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #43
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:29:01 -0400, "EightNineThree" <uc*@ftc.gov>
wrote:

You obviously don't have the slightest clue about what usability is.


Obviously.

Jul 20 '05 #44
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:02:52 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote:
You are right; a page is more usable if the user can see at a glance
where everything is and not have to scroll around it.

Your mistake is making the assumption that you are able to ensure that
this is the case.
No authoring environment (flash, CSS, DHTML, straight HTML) can fit
more onto the screen than the screen can hold, so you can't blame me
for not ensuring that. But with Flash, I have complete control in
filling up the window that the user gives me. There are 2 relevant
Flash ActionScript commands, stage.width and stage.height. These tell
you within a pixel how big the user's window is. If the window is big
enough to hold the content, I can put the content wherever I choose to
make it easiest to see. If the content is too great for the window, I
can either put multiple "pages" in or put in good old fashioned scroll
bars --horizontal or vertical as I choose. It's like CSS on steroids.
Your job is making sure the document itself can adapt to the users
situation. Assuming you know anything at all regarding said situation
is arrogant and a pointless waste of time.


I agree! I don't assume to know the user's situation (eg. window
size) is, but I can program Flash for WHATEVER it might be. That's my
whole point. Without Flash (or a more mature CSS) I have to aim at the
middle of the bell curve (what, 800 by 600?) and let automatic
scrolling and huge empty borders do the rest. It's very ironic
because I attempting to accomplish in a more thoroughgoing way
precisely what you are saying that I am ignoring.

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #45
Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:37:52 -0700, Dennis is reported to have
stated:
Without Flash (or a more mature CSS) I have to aim at the
middle of the bell curve (what, 800 by 600?) and let automatic
scrolling and huge empty borders do the rest.
Not at all. The web is fluid by nature. If you don't specify fixed sizes,
then the page will flow automatically.
It's very ironic
because I attempting to accomplish in a more thoroughgoing way
precisely what you are saying that I am ignoring.


And what of the users that don't have Flash? You are ignoring them?

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #46
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:44:06 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
You are mistaken if you think Flash is the answer. You cannot predict
what the user's preferred window size, text size, or any other
environmental variable may be. The very nature of Flash encourages
inaccessible, inflexible layouts. The user's preference settings are
not part of the equation, thus Flash cannot adapt to the user's settings.

This means that you will create a site that only "works" in a very
narrow band of screen resolution, window size and text size. The rest
of us will be out of luck. If your goal is usability, then your best
bet is a liquid layout that adjusts well to different window and text
sizes. This Flash cannot do, at least I have never seen it done.
Now I think I see the problem. You and others at this NG have seen so
much bad Flash out there that you have a misunderstandings about the
program itself. For instance, did you know that you can stretch the
Flash "object" to fill up the entire browser window? And the objects
in it won't themselves have to stretch. At any moment you have access
to the exact pixel dimensions of the user's window. You program Flash
to respond accordingly (if you're a good programmer and care about
what people of all browser sizes and shapes see). Alas, most Flash
uses are obnoxious ads (I use PopUp Cop!) or fixed size movies that
are centered in the browser window. It doesn't have to be that at
all.
And steps can be taken to make it also accessible.
Whatever you do on this front will be inadequate, since Flash's
accessibility features on the authoring side are inadequate.
Accessibility features in the Flash player are pretty much non-existent,
so we users are at your mercy.


There are plusses and minuses on that and I think it comes out a
wash. For example, did you know that you can zoom in on a Flash
movie? I mean way close, and scroll through words 5 inches high.
HTML can't do that. As far as screen readers go, only one I know of
can read Flash movies now, but if someone has to use a screen reader
we're talking 100% text now and it wouldn't be hard to provide an
alternate link for that.
I have yet to find a Flash site that is usable for me. I am not very
optimistic that whatever you come up with will be any different.


Keep an open mind, I'll be back with a URL before long....

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #47
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:11:22 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote:
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <52********************************@4ax.com>:
Something like 97% of web surfers out there do. And those few who
don't can easily get it. End of problem.


Flash is not available for all users or all UAs. Depending on it is
not useful.

Of course, with the arrogance your posting shows, "useful" wouldn't
be your first priority.


I was wrong, it's 98.6%. And if that isn't enough, those other 1.4%
are not locked out in any way. All they have to do is click on a link
that says "get Flash." But I would be very appreciative if you could
elaborate on my "arrogance." I really don't understand the hostility
I have generated in this NG. How am I being arrogant?

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #48
Dennis wrote:

But with Flash, I have complete control in
filling up the window that the user gives me.


That's swell. But since Flash has nothing to do with html, nor
stylesheets, why don't you bring your nifty "solution" elsewhere?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #49
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:51:20 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:
Dennis wrote:

Something like 97% of web surfers out there do.
Source, please. Or did you just make this up?


Here ya go,
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/
And those few who don't can easily get it.
If it's available, they can consider getting it. Whether they
actually go to the trouble of downloading and installing software for
your content is another matter.


Well all you can do is make something available to people. If they
refuse to use it, that's not your problem. The Flash player is free
and easy to get and install.
End of problem.


Keep deluding yourself.


How am I deluding myself?
Jul 20 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by andrewkooi | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Norman L. DeForest | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by outstretchedarm | last post: by
1 post views Thread by azura | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by didacticone | last post: by
1 post views Thread by gcdp | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.