473,320 Members | 1,699 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

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
157 16204
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:00:43 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
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%?

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Alright, may it please the court:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/
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.
OK Mr. Statistics, how many web surfers turn away when they see a
Flash site? Give us a source and not just a personal opinion.
Why do you post here if you don't want to listen to the feedback you
get?


What have I said that makes you think that I don't want to listen? Is
that I am taking a view different from the mainstream in this NG? Is
that "not wanting to listen"?
Jul 20 '05 #51
Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:17:23 -0700, Dennis is reported to have
stated:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/


This report has been discussed here previously. The statistics are based
on 2000 participants - not a very large number considering the total number
of internet users - who are supposedly a "representative Internet sample".
I find that unlikely. I bet they all have perfect/near-perfect eyesight,
for starters.

And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not be,
they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the search
engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #52
Dennis wrote:
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/


rotfl
A real unbiased source that is!
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.


My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.
If they refuse to use it, that's not your problem.


It is if I want them to visit.

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

Jul 20 '05 #53
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. And steps can be taken to make it
also accessible.


Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]

If there aren't any such site in existence yet, how did you figure out
that you can come up with one or that even trying to do that with Flash
would be a great idea?
[1] The only thing that has even remotely nice features and uses Flash
is http://www.kartoo.com/. I think that the usability could be much
better but using Flash makes some sense in this case. (HTML version
could be much better though, so the comparision between the Flash and
HTML versions of that site isn't fair.)

--
Mikko

Jul 20 '05 #54
Mark Parnell wrote:
Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:17:23 -0700, Dennis is reported
to have stated:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/


This report has been discussed here previously. The statistics are
based on 2000 participants - not a very large number considering the
total number of internet users - who are supposedly a "representative
Internet sample". I find that unlikely. I bet they all have
perfect/near-perfect eyesight, for starters.

And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not
be, they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the
search engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed.
:-)


I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So statistics on
Flash availability may exaggerate its use.

I have only come across 2 sites in the last few months where this has been a
problem. In one case, I persuaded the site owner to add alternative links (it
used Flash buttons). The other case is ... Macromedia! I have to switch on
Flash to access the Dreamweaver extensions. It is the only case for a long
time where I have needed to use Flash.

I now tend to assume that Flash is used as a substitute for valuable content,
and treat the site accordingly. I may sometimes be wrong (eg. Macromedia), and
so miss something important. But there are millions of other sites out there,
and I can't evaluate each one thoroughly. So, like many people, I apply crude
measures - and that includes "Flash = bad news".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #55
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So statistics on
Flash availability may exaggerate its use.


Why do you run with it switched off?
Jul 20 '05 #56
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message > My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.

Really? Cuz I had to download this thing called a "browser" to view it. I
suppose I could've just used Notepad to view your site but it seems that a
"browser" enhances my ability to view your site.

Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less
knowledgable sources that would actually encourage poor design.

Jonathan
Jul 20 '05 #57
"Mikko Rantalainen" <mi**@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]


The charts on http://www.infosoftglobal.com/FusionCharts/Gallery.html can be
an effective way of displaying tabular or more complex information. I've
also seen a Flash-based application for reporting gate information for an
airport. And I like the navigation on Macromedia.com. I've also seem some
chat apps (like the one at teknision.com) that would be downright hideous in
HTML.

Your Jakob-ian response that because the technology is abused it shouldn't
be used is just as applicable to HTML.

Jonathan
Jul 20 '05 #58
Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So
statistics on Flash availability may exaggerate its use.


Why do you run with it switched off?


Because I want as much control as possible over movement & delays. (Until
recently, when I was being a "web user" rather than a "web developer", I used
{IE 6 + Free Surfer + Google Toolbar}. Free Surfer also enabled me the inhibit
animated GIFs. Now I'm using {IE 6 + Avant Browser + Google Toolbar}, and
can't do this).

I am normally seeking information presented in a sensible way, not
entertainment or special effects. For the latter, I watch "Matrix Reloaded"
(wow!) or whatever. I want things that stay still, and stay quiet. (I dislike
being in the same office as a moving screen-saver, or the same room as a TV
with the sound turned down).

Flash is used for various purposes, from Flash Buttons (is there a point to
these?), through showing information in a value-added way, to showing
information that could at least as well be shown without Flash (in which case
some sites offer the option), to just demonstrating the size of the
developer's ego (enough said). The genuine "value-added" case appears to exist
for specialised purposes, but for some reason I am not interested those
particular specialisms.

The Macromedia site is just about one of the few sites that demands Flash that
I can't walk away from. Grrrrggh!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #59
Jonathan Snook wrote:
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less


Is "badgering" the Word of the Week or something?
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #60


Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

[1] The only thing that has even remotely nice features and uses Flash
is http://www.kartoo.com/.


As with pretty much every other Flash site out there, the text size is
too small for me to read without putting my nose to the screen, and then
some of it is still unreadable. The HTML version uses microfonts, too,
but at least I can easily fix that in a couple keystrokes.

Can't say the same for the Flash version. Even with the Flash player's
zoom feature, I'd have to pan the content to see more than just a little
piece at a time. That's a really lousy way to have to view a site,
especially for a keyboard user. I'll take scrollbars any day. Well,
vertical scrollbars anyway. ;) Horizontal scrollbars suck, too, but not
as much as panning.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #61
Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off.

And he's not alone. I also have Flash, but normally, it is disabled.
And it'd take a lot to convince me to reenable it for some site.
Why do you run with it switched off?


Because it's only used for ads and silly gimmicks.

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

Jul 20 '05 #62
Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.

Really? Cuz I had to download this thing called a "browser" to view it.
Please reread my post. "No additional software required." One is
unlikely to arrive at a website without a browser. Requiring someone,
after they already have a browser, to download more software is
something I avoid.
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions


We are. Haven't you been reading?

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

Jul 20 '05 #63
In article Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Mikko Rantalainen" <mi**@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]
The charts on http://www.infosoftglobal.com/FusionCharts/Gallery.html can be
an effective way of displaying tabular or more complex information.


It seems to be application of vector graphic. That is propably one reason
to use flash. Until SVG is implemented. I don't think that it is actually
much use here, since I still get horizontal scrollbar, and I can zoom
image far better (even if not as nicely) with browsers build in function
that flashes. (or maybe my flash is stupid because it only zooms in huge
steps?)
I've also seen a Flash-based application for reporting gate information
for an airport.
No idea why it wouldn't be possible using HTML and server side
technology. Especially whithout URL to your example.
And I like the navigation on Macromedia.com.
Can you use all means possible to navigation there? With some browser
that has more than one way to navigate? Didn't visit it, I have done it
twice before, and both times I crashed my browser. With different major
versions of browser.
I've also seem some chat apps (like the one at teknision.com) that
would be downright hideous in HTML.


Yes, I get "loading" sign for ten seconds on broadband... Then it don't
fit my window, put I don't have any means to scroll horizontally. I can
move that small window around inside my window, but can't drag it out of
it, so I can't relly understand why it is usefull for it to move at all

And lots of slow animation everywhere, so I need to wait before act.

It is popular too, 7 users online, If I'm not mistaken.

It might be somewhat hard to do same with DHMTL, especially so that it
would degrade well, but I think it would be worth it. Since current
implementation is pretty much unusable.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #64
In article Barry Pearson wrote:

The Macromedia site is just about one of the few sites that demands Flash that
I can't walk away from. Grrrrggh!


Well, there is no must to use macromedia products or site, not even if
you are doing Flash, IIANM.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #65
Lauri Raittila wrote:
In article Barry Pearson wrote:

The Macromedia site is just about one of the few sites that demands
Flash that I can't walk away from. Grrrrggh!


Well, there is no must to use macromedia products or site, not even if
you are doing Flash, IIANM.


Agreed - I don't even need to develop web sites!

But I happen to use Dreamweaver 4, and use extensions to make life easier. And
I now have to use Flash to navigate round. It could be done easier without
Flash. (I think they've screwed up the navigation a bit. Sometimes I can't
work out how to get back exactly where I want to get to, and end up back at
the start and re-do a lot of the context).

Most Flash sites don't have the same level of value to me, or else they
provide an alternative. The ones that really care about their viewers provide
an alternative. But Macromedia is a special case. They don't want to give the
impression that there are sensible alternatives!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #66


Dennis wrote:

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.


So what are the relevant commands that tell you what the user's
preferred text size is?

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #67
In article Brian wrote:
Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off.

Me too.
And he's not alone. I also have Flash, but normally, it is disabled.
And it'd take a lot to convince me to reenable it for some site.
Why do you run with it switched off?


Because every time some flash thingy loads, and works, it is annoying.
Before I used to close window, when finding useless flash. Now I only do
if there is no suitable content.

I only enable Flash when I want to see funny animations of G. Bush the
dumber etc. And I hardly ever want to see those embedded to HTML, so I
don't think it is suitable for example of good use of flash, any media
file would be as good.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #68
In article Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message > My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.

Really? Cuz I had to download this thing called a "browser" to view it. I
suppose I could've just used Notepad to view your site but it seems that a
"browser" enhances my ability to view your site.
True. But I think one could actually read Brians page with Notepad
whitout much problem. (Last time I read his code he didn't have much
textual content)

Can't say that from Flash.
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less
knowledgable sources that would actually encourage poor design.


Well, we are trying. Both to scare them not to use worse than useless
crap, and to educate them, why this and that is useless crap and what to
do instead. It tends to be easier to scare than educate, as people will
rather be scared, than educated...

(Take one poster that asks question about <evil thing>. Tell him that it
don't work and he might be sued. He may notice. Tell him that it would be
better to do <better thing>, and he keeps asking: "but how do I do <evil
thing>" )

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #69
In article <hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
I now tend to assume that Flash is used as a substitute for valuable content,


Bingo!

Welcome to the Experienced Users club. Now you too can take your share of
abuse from the "but everyone has XYZ..." brigade.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Jul 20 '05 #70
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <4d********************************@4ax.com>:
OK Mr. Statistics, how many web surfers turn away when they see a
Flash site? Give us a source and not just a personal opinion.


He won't, and he can't. And neither can *you* - which is the entire
point. The web, statistically, isn't accurate, and there is no way
to improve upon it.

Let us take the "fact" that IE is the most popular browser there is. If
you run a site with alot of visitors, look at your server logs, and
notice that IE has 80% of the market, you'd be well advised to remember
that there is *no way* you can know whether or not those 80% are not
really Lynx with a faked UA string.

You can assume it as likely, but you cannot *know*.

How about the statement "Most people use 800x600", which is often
taken at face value ? Well, the method used to *determine* this is to
ask the UA using Javascript. This means that:

(a) A site need to install the Javascript,
(b) An UA need to visit that site,
(c) The UA need to have Javascript enabled.

Sites like thecounter.com claim that, in some months, as many as 13% run
without Javascript enabled. This leaves us with several interesting
variables for (a), (b) and (c) above:

- Are sites that install the counter script typical of websites ?
- Are visitors to these sites typical of users ?
- What about the 13% that might have Javascript turned on or off ?

Those 13% are also determined by way of Javascript, btw ... you SURE
you want to trust statistics gathered on use of various web technologies ?

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


What have I said that makes you think that I don't want to listen? Is
that I am taking a view different from the mainstream in this NG? Is
that "not wanting to listen"?


It has less to do with "mainstream" and more to do with the topic of
these newsgroups. Mainly we deal with technical, objective, issues.

You're basically saying that the Earth is flat after testing the theory
with your Captain Zoom's Elite Corps of Engineers Chronoscope. It's not
going to win a popularity contest amongs a bunch of astronomers, I can
tell'ya.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #71
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <1n********************************@4ax.com>:
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
You are wrong, yes. It isn't 98.6% - noone *know* how much it is.
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?


Because you are saying: "I want to use a technology which is not part of
the standard web tools. Anyone else should just adapt to me"

Consider this. If every TV broadcast were, suddenly, in HDTV format
and the TV companies told you that "Oh, but all you have to do is get
a new TV set!" you'd be pretty miffed.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but think about it.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #72
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Nick Kew wrote:
Welcome to the Experienced Users club. Now you too can take your share of
abuse from the "but everyone has XYZ..." brigade.


Quite. However, "everyone has it" can be as much a threat as a
promise. If it was only those who really wanted "it" that had "it",
(for quite a number of different values of "it"), then one could
incorporate "it" with merry abandon, knowing that only those who
wanted it would get it.

But when "it" has been forced down everyone's throat, despite a clear
proportion of users hating "it", one needs to take much more care in
how one uses "it". N'est-ce pas?
Jul 20 '05 #73
Barry Pearson wrote:
Mark Parnell wrote:
And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not
be, they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the
search engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed.
:-)


I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off.


This is such a useful tool for Firebird:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/exten...ck%20To%20View

almost as good as HTTP Live Headers
--
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
Jul 20 '05 #74
Isofarro wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

[snip]
I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off.


This is such a useful tool for Firebird:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/exten...ck%20To%20View

almost as good as HTTP Live Headers


Thank you! Very nice. Now installed in my Firebird 0.7.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #75
In article <ko********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:
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/


Well, now _there's_ an unbiased source.

Ja, you betcha.

--
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 #76
In article <bn************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-
sp**@gmx.net> wrote:
Jonathan Snook wrote:
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less


Is "badgering" the Word of the Week or something?


I think "badgering" means "telling people something that disagrees
with their preconceptions". :-)

--
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 #77
In article <4d********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:

Stan Brown had written:
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.
OK Mr. Statistics, how many web surfers turn away when they see a
Flash site? Give us a source and not just a personal opinion.


I don't have a number -- unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I
don't know.

But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

--
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 #78
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.


It's a relatively small sample of users and within a specific segment that
is knowledgable enough to disable the technology. It doesn't really tell me
anything. Just like all statistics! :)

Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/
Jul 20 '05 #79
Jonathan Snook wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.


It's a relatively small sample of users and within a specific segment
that is knowledgable enough to disable the technology. It doesn't
really tell me anything. Just like all statistics! :)


The key is that they don't like it, not that they know how to disable it.
Users who don't like Flash but can't disable it can often just go elsewhere,
as I typically did before I disabled it.

The point about the small sample is well made. Dennis is trying to solve
problems with his web sites. Success or failure depends on what he does to the
web sites, and how his target audience reacts to what he does. So Dennis'
challenge is to get the best advice he can, develop his web sites accordingly,
and hope that the target audience likes the result.

Debates here don't influence his target audience. They will accept or reject
his web sites completely oblivious to who has scored how many debating points
in Usenet! So he needs to judge whether his potential users like Flash - not
try to persuade people here to like Flash, or criticise them by implication.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #80


Barry Pearson wrote:

Dennis is trying to solve problems with his web sites.


That wasn't the impression I got. It sounded more like he got a notion
in his head that having all content visible on one screen would make
whatever that content was instantly more usable. Instead of identifying
any real issues (including what the content was or what the target
audience might be), he decided on a Flash solution without any further
thought.

He is more likely falling into the pit of fixing the wrong problem, but
since he hasn't provided any details about the site, it's hard to tell.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #81


Dennis wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:44:06 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:

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.


If you've ever had to use it on a regular basis, you might agree with me
that Flash's zoom feature leaves a lot to be desired. The user has no
control over the zoom factor or the size of the zoom area. What most
often happens is you end up with only small portion of the text that's
in a huge text size. You have to pan (not scroll) to see more. It is a
horrible way to use a site. Nobody would choose to use a site made this
way, unless they were masochists.
HTML can't do that.
With HTML, I have control over text size. I can make text whatever size
it needs to be for me to read it. Flash can't do that.
Keep an open mind, I'll be back with a URL before long....


My expectations are not any higher than they were before...

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #82
"Matthias Gutfeldt" <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bn************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de...
Jonathan Snook wrote:
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to
less
Is "badgering" the Word of the Week or something?


http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/21/

'Nuff said.
Jul 20 '05 #83
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message
Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who post questions
We are. Haven't you been reading?


Yes, yes I have. Here, lemme grab another post of yours in this thread:
That's swell. But since Flash has nothing to do with html, nor
stylesheets, why don't you bring your nifty "solution" elsewhere?


Ah, yes. Quite educational. Let's send the user off to a flash board to
continue his development of unfriendly, unusable sites.
Jul 20 '05 #84
Jonathan Snook wrote:
wouldn't it be better to try and educate the
people who post questions

Brian wrote: We are.
Please note the plural.
Haven't you been reading?
Yes, yes I have. Here, lemme grab another post of yours in this
thread:
That's swell. But since Flash has nothing to do with html, nor
stylesheets, why don't you bring your nifty "solution" elsewhere?


Fair enough. But others had already told Dennis why Flash was a bad
idea. He wasn't listening. And since he was convinced that Flash was
the way to go, and that HTML and CSS were not, then the thread was
off-topic.
Ah, yes. Quite educational. Let's send the user off to a flash
board to continue his development of unfriendly, unusable sites


Sorry, but I only go so far. If the other end isn't going to meet us
half-way, then (s)he's on his/her own. There's no point in arguing
for its own sake.

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

Jul 20 '05 #85
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SP***************@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
The point about the small sample is well made. Dennis is trying to solve
problems with his web sites. Success or failure depends on what he does to the web sites, and how his target audience reacts to what he does. So Dennis'
challenge is to get the best advice he can, develop his web sites accordingly, and hope that the target audience likes the result.


The problem with 99% of the sites that we as developers create really get no
accurate feedback as to what works and what doesn't. If you look at the
stats and see people leaving after viewing one page, is it because of the
flash or is it because they've figured out what's on your site and know that
it doesn't meet their needs?

Jonathan

Jul 20 '05 #86
Jonathan Snook wrote:

The problem with 99% of the sites that we as developers create really get no
accurate feedback as to what works and what doesn't. If you look at the
stats and see people leaving after viewing one page, is it because of the
flash or is it because they've figured out what's on your site and know that
it doesn't meet their needs?


Don't (ab)use Flash and the you can eliminate the first possibility.

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

Jul 20 '05 #87
Nick Kew wrote:
In article <hI******************@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>, one
of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
I now tend to assume that Flash is used as a substitute for valuable
content,


Bingo!

Welcome to the Experienced Users club. Now you too can take your
share of abuse from the "but everyone has XYZ..." brigade.


This isn't just about Flash, and it isn't just about the web, is it? I think
many of us link together the questions "is this material about information?"
and "is this artistic material?" Take a couple of extreme cases:

1. What is the ultimate in content-rich material? Perhaps the "paper",
especially the academic paper. It may be saying something that has never been
known before. It is sought by people who are hungry for such knowledge. And it
typically has the most raw presentation possible, stripped of artistic effects
& variation. This applies whether it is published on paper, shown as a slide
presentation, or published on the web.

2. If a gallery shows a painting or photograph of someone reading a newspaper,
do we treat the text in the newspaper seriously? Perhaps it has some ironical
references to the overall scene, but typically it is probably "filler". It has
the same status as the other components in the image, such as the carpet, the
person's hair, etc. (And do we try to click on the buttons or keys in an
on-line photograph of a computer or phone?)

I think I, and many others, tend to put material onto a single axis, something
like "information rich" to "artistic". I also think that I am guided about
where the author thinks material should be on that axis by how artistic it
appears, since that is the easiest to see. So if it is artistic, I don't even
expect it to be information rich.

I've just had another look at the CSS Zen Garden site. Surely firmly in the
category of artistic works. (I don't see them primarily as technically clever
uses of CSS. I might learn that much about CSS one day. But since I lack the
artistic talent needed, I will never do pages like that). As I look at one of
those artistic works, the text appears to be as irrelevant as the text in the
newspaper in the painting in "2" above. It is "filler", while I look at the
use of colour, balance, texture, selectivity, etc. To read the words, I went
back to the home page, which has less emphatic artistic vision - even though
the words are the same throughout!

It isn't as simple as this! Raw information can appear amateurish. I think a
key is that I need to be able to make 2 judgements:

- First: "does the author care enough about this page to present it
competently?" (This is related to: "does the author take the viewer
seriously?")

- Second: "does the author consider this to be information-rich or artistic?"

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #88
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:46:51 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
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.


While that is true, you must admit that most all the top websites opt
for an "800-wide non-horizontal flowing" format (typically aligned
left) and let any flowing happen vertically (and waste all the rest of
the horizontal space). Why is that?
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?


97%+ of web users have Flash installed and the rest can get it for
free with a single click. Anyone who knowingly doesn't have it is
just being honery. And for them, I'd say get PopUpCop.
http://www.popupcop.com/
When you come to an obnoxious flash advertisement, freeze it in its
tracks.

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #89
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:27:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:
Dennis wrote:

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.


So what are the relevant commands that tell you what the user's
preferred text size is?


Touche! Another one along the same line is that from Flash I can't
get to the user's system colors (as I can from JavaScript). But are
you familiar with the zoom feature in Flash? With it you can make
EVERYTHING larger, not just text. So images (which aren't affected by
the user's preferred text size) also get magnified for the user's
benefit. It seems like kind of a wash in my opinion.

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #90
Sometime around Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:17:39 -0800, Dennis is reported to have
stated:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:46:51 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
Not at all. The web is fluid by nature. If you don't specify fixed sizes,
then the page will flow automatically.
While that is true, you must admit that most all the top websites opt
for an "800-wide non-horizontal flowing" format (typically aligned
left) and let any flowing happen vertically (and waste all the rest of
the horizontal space). Why is that?


Yes, they do. So? As to why - who knows? Because they are too
narrow-minded, and stuck in the mid 90's? IMHO, much of the reason that
the large sites still have fixed-width, table-based layouts is simply
because of the time and effort that would be required to change it. That's
how sites were done in 1996, when many of these sites were done. Yes, many
of them may have changed the look of their sites since then, but not done a
complete redesign. We, however, have the opportunity to do things right
from the start.

The question you should be asking is not what do the major sites do, but
what is the best thing to do? The two are not necessarily the same. If
you have the ability to do something properly, why do it badly, just
because that's what everyone else does?
And what of the users that don't have Flash? You are ignoring them?


97%+ of web users have Flash installed


Macromedia's figures, which are dubious at best. And what of search
engines? They don't have Flash installed. How are your potential visitors
going to find you in the first place?
and the rest can get it for free with a single click.
Not necessarily. What if they are at work, and the system administrator
does not allow them to download and install any software for security
reasons? What if they are blind, so use a speech browser? What if they
are on a slow connection, so cannot afford the time or money to download
Flash (or the animations once Flash is installed, for that matter).
Anyone who knowingly doesn't have it is
just being honery. And for them, I'd say get PopUpCop.


If I knew what honery meant, I might be offended. :-)

Why pay money for a program that stops _some_ flash ads, when I can
uninstall Flash for free and miss them all? I have seen very few
legitimate uses for Flash, and many mis-uses, so see no reason to have it
installed. If that means I miss out on your site, fine. I'll just go to
the next one, that actually allows me to access the content.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #91
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:08:33 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com>
wrote:


With HTML, I have control over text size. I can make text whatever size
it needs to be for me to read it. Flash can't do that.


You can put your own font buttons on your flash movie and change the
font size that way. Admitedly, it would be slicker if the user's
existing browser settings would do that automatically. But just out
of curiosity, what do you do about graphics?

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #92
Dennis wrote:

97%+ of web users have Flash installed
Yeah, that's according to Macromedia, right?
and the rest can get it for
free with a single click. Anyone who knowingly doesn't have it
"knowingly doesn't have it?" What, is it a crime?
is just being honery.


Here you've stumped me. I checked my dictionary, even checked 3
online references. No "honery." Did you mean ornery?

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

Jul 20 '05 #93
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:23:01 +0300, Mikko Rantalainen <mi**@st.jyu.fi>
wrote:
Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]

If there aren't any such site in existence yet, how did you figure out
that you can come up with one or that even trying to do that with Flash
would be a great idea?
I've used Flash for several years now to author a math book I'm
making. I'm doing the graphics in Flash. I just like it better than
other vector drawing programs. I've written a program in Visual
Foxpro that takes the Flash output (wmf's) into Corel Draw and
programatically puts the pages together using OLE Automation. (yeah,
it's quite a soup) Well, I started to make a "web application" that
performed like a windows app, and that's when I found out what Flash
can do in a browser. Flash was the only way I could "take over" the
user's screen from corner to corner the way an application does. I
can't give you websites that use Flash in the way I'm describing, so I
guess I'm talking about something new. But the capabilities of the
program are there.

[1] The only thing that has even remotely nice features and uses Flash
is http://www.kartoo.com/. I think that the usability could be much
better but using Flash makes some sense in this case. (HTML version
could be much better though, so the comparision between the Flash and
HTML versions of that site isn't fair.)


Thanks for that katroo link. It sure looks great --about using it, I
don't know, I'll have to dig into it. At first glance, the art does
seem gratuituous but I'll have to dig into it to be fair.

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #94
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:26:13 GMT, ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe)
wrote:
Dennis <theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> exclaimed in <1n********************************@4ax.com>:
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
You are wrong, yes. It isn't 98.6% - noone *know* how much it is.


Laura Gutman in Inside Dreamweaver (New Riders, 2002) says,"Macromedia
claims that 98.6% of browsers have the Flash plugin, which is a
phenomenal number." I saw 97% indicated at MM's website.

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?


Because you are saying: "I want to use a technology which is not part of
the standard web tools. Anyone else should just adapt to me"


Not part of the standard web tools? Any thing that's got 97-98.6%
market penetration is pretty "standard".
Consider this. If every TV broadcast were, suddenly, in HDTV format
and the TV companies told you that "Oh, but all you have to do is get
a new TV set!" you'd be pretty miffed.


Not if a new HDTV was free of charge.

Dennis
Jul 20 '05 #95
Sometime around Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:52:49 -0800, Dennis is reported to have
stated:
Consider this. If every TV broadcast were, suddenly, in HDTV format
and the TV companies told you that "Oh, but all you have to do is get
a new TV set!" you'd be pretty miffed.


Not if a new HDTV was free of charge.


But I have no way of getting it home. Or it won't fit in my loungeroom.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #96
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:29:34 -0800, Dennis wrote:
But are
you familiar with the zoom feature in Flash? With it you can make
EVERYTHING larger, not just text. So images (which aren't affected by
the user's preferred text size) also get magnified for the user's
benefit. It seems like kind of a wash in my opinion.


Actually, it's very easy to design your site to scale images along with the
text based on the users preferred text size. You just specify your image
sizes in em's instead of pixels. I believe Eric Meyer had an article about
this that I read somewhere. Of course this technique isn't as precise as
pixels.
Jul 20 '05 #97
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:01:54 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:17:23 -0700, Dennis is reported to have
stated:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/
This report has been discussed here previously. The statistics are based
on 2000 participants - not a very large number considering the total number
of internet users - who are supposedly a "representative Internet sample".


Oh come on.
And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not be,
they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the search
engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed. :-)


Google reads <a href> links in a swf (flash) file but it doesn't index
the general text that appears. You're right, that's a HUGE downside.
In fact, I have to make my home page in HTML so google can see it.
After that, I can branch out to the flash pages. In the meantime,
Google and the other robots out there ought to increase their
vocabulary and start reading those swf files!

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #98
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:00:01 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
In article <4d********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@removeForSpam_mindspring.com> wrote:

Stan Brown had written:
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.
OK Mr. Statistics, how many web surfers turn away when they see a
Flash site? Give us a source and not just a personal opinion.


I don't have a number -- unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I
don't know.
But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.

I did provide a number. Now maybe Macromedia cooked it a little, but
with a figure as high as 97%, even if they cooked it a lot, it would
still be a very high percentage of users. My remark was to the point
that I suspect that users of this NG --affecionados of the web-- are
not typical of your average user. In my experience watching high
school age people surf the web, they LOVE the flash sites --even if
for all the "wrong reasons". My point is, I don't think most people
tun away from a flash site just becuase it's flash --unless you have
evidence to the contrary.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."


One could say that to anybody about anything. Ergo, it doesn't mean a
lot dude.

Dennis

Jul 20 '05 #99
Sometime around Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:26:47 -0800, Dennis is reported to have
stated:

I did provide a number. Now maybe Macromedia cooked it a little, but
with a figure as high as 97%, even if they cooked it a lot, it would
still be a very high percentage of users.


But still less than 100%.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #100

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

14
by: Carl Gilbert | last post by:
Hi I am currently writing a site that utilises tables. I have one page that links to a second page. The only problem is that when I link to the second page, the table loads up with a...
10
by: John | last post by:
I have a table with two rows. On the first row is a text box and in the second row is an image. I have set the table cellpadding to 0 and cellspacing to 0. The table is leaving extra spaces in the...
1
by: ajay | last post by:
I have following code for a slide menu but i twiked it to work for a single level menu. Open it in a Browser to get a clear picture. I have 2 Qs 1) How to make first entry as non-link. i.e i...
1
by: andrewkooi | last post by:
Greetings, I have 16 links for my horizontal menu navigation as you can see in my website www.singakad.com and at present, I am using a table and javascript for this menu. Is it possible for...
11
by: Norman L. DeForest | last post by:
Am I misunderstanding the CSS specifications or is Firefox (version 1.0.6) (and Opera) doing the wrong thing? It appears that Firefox 1.0.6 includes the border in width calculations for tables...
3
by: Chifo | last post by:
hello. i have a problem with a populate html table with data from table here it's the problem two querys retrieving data from table, one of querys show me a colletion of data from 6:00 am to...
5
by: outstretchedarm | last post by:
I'm extremely new to javascript and to programming in general. I am trying to create an interactive table. I have already created the table with constants, in the key of C (it is for music). ...
2
by: nino9stars | last post by:
Hello, I have just started messing with absolute positioning on webpages, and it definitely let's you do some creative things. Well, after much searching and help, I got the images I was using...
1
by: MissMarie | last post by:
I've been playing around with DIV tables in myspace to better learn how to rewrite my own code for my business site without having to pay someone to design it. I've tried embedding a slideshow into...
1
by: azura | last post by:
how can i get this textfield auto detect?? because i try not to using view name button... i want when i enterd this matric no., the student name will appear automatically when i insert the matric...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.