Arghh - why is this SPAN placed elsewhere in NS7?

[Mercury Mercurius]

Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
<span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
in Internet Explorer?

Here's the page in question:
http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm
Thank you,
-M

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around 3 Dec 2003 19:57:58 -0800, Mercury Mercurius is reported to
have stated:

I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
<span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer

http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm

Looks the same in IE and Mozilla (NS6+ is based on Mozilla) here.

Unless you are talking about NS4, in which case I would suggest you forget
even trying. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Eric Bohlman]

me*********@yahoo.com (Mercury Mercurius) wrote in
news:3f*************************@posting.google.co m:

Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
<span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
in Internet Explorer?

Here's the page in question:
http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm

Actually in IE6, K-Meleon 0.8 (Mozilla-based), and Opera 7.22 the
description is completely missing. That's not surprising, because you set
your "caption" div to relative positioning with "bottom: 140px". Since the
caption is the first thing on your page that isn't absolutely positioned,
its initial position in the layout flow is at the top left corner of the
viewport, and then the relative positioning moves its bottom up 140 pixels
from there, putting it completely off the screen.

Changing its style to "position:absolute; right: 0; top: 140px;" put it in
a reasonable place.

Don't set the body font size to 90%, and don't set the anchor font size to
80% (remember that percentages are based on computed sizes, so that makes
anchors 72% of the size they'd have had if you hadn't fiddled with the
sizes). Don't make Verdana the default font (which is probably what
tempted you to reduce the size; Verdana is "big for its size" and text that
looks the right size in Verdana will look too small in almost any other
font).

[True Gamer]

Your problem is probably just that you were using positioning. I
suggest making a separate page for Netscape that looks right on that
browser and use a common browser-detection script to get the browsers on
the proper page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Mercurius wrote:

Please help - I'm at my wits' end....
I'm getting two different placements of some content wrapped in a
<span> tag in Netscape and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer
how the page looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be
just to the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this
same text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get Netscape to
display this text along side of the painting -- while not wrecking it
in Internet Explorer?

Here's the page in question:
http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm
Thank you,
-M

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named True Gamer:

[top posting corrected]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Mercurius wrote:

Please help - I'm at my wits' end.... I'm getting two different
placements of some content wrapped in a <span> tag in Netscape
and Internet Explorer (big surprise!). I prefer how the page
looks in IE (the text describing the painting should be just to
the right side of the painting). However, in Netscape, this same
text is mysteriously relegated to the bottom of the page. What
correction / adjustment do I need to make in order to get
Netscape to display this text along side of the painting -- while
not wrecking it in Internet Explorer?

Here's the page in question:
http://www.sarahpollock.com/surrender.htm Thank you, -M

Your problem is probably just that you were using positioning. I
suggest making a separate page for Netscape that looks right on
that browser and use a common browser-detection script to get the
browsers on the proper page.

Oh, heavens no! Browser sniffing is absurd, and usually doesn't work
anyway.

All it takes is some proper CSS and positioning. See:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html

I added full URLs to your images so I wouldn't have to copy them to my
server, and I trimmed out a bunch of unnecessary stuff.

When you add style to an element, you put it in the stylesheet, not as
a "style" after the "id". I also removed your "smaller than default"
font sizes and removed Verdana. That font is toooo big, which is why
you thought you had to make them smaller. Google for hundreds of
threads on this very subject.

Looks just about the same in IE6, Firebird 0.7 (Moz), and Opera 7.2.

Is Sarah related to Jason?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html

Sorry, I forgot to snip out the invalid "border=0" on line 100.

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than
the above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...surrender.html

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than the
above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say this?
Where is the world wide law on this subject?
Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law on
this subject.

Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed in
lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one _could_
choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[brucie]

in post <news:bq*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>
Barbara de Zoete said:

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than the
above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say this?
Where is the world wide law on this subject?

and another thing... why do people author HTML4+ or XHTML if HTML2 is
all they need?

and while i'm at it can someone explain this sentence on the back of a
redhat9 distro:

"the interface to this CD-ROM is written in HTML4.0 and therefore needs
a version 4 web browser to view it"

WTF!

--
brucie
05/December/2003 05:17:41 pm kilo

[Eric Bohlman]

Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bq*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:

I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say
this? Where is the world wide law on this subject?
Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law
on this subject.
Most of us who say things like that are using "should" the way it's used in
technical documents like RFCs and W3C recommendations, where it means "you
can be compliant without doing this, but doing this is so beneficial that
you ought to have a really, really good reason if you choose not to."

For example, using strict versions of HTML forces you to gather up all your
presentational instructions and put them in one place rather than
scattering them throughout your documents. That makes a site much more
maintainable and, though for some reason this isn't mentioned enough as it
ought to be, also encourages stylistic experimentation by making it *very*
easy to make small-scale, or even large-scale, tweaks to the appearance of
a whole site. And that often leads to better design, to sites that look
great rather than merely good. If the presentational instructions are
spread all throughout your site, such experimentation becomes too effortful
and error prone, and therefore seldom gets done.

Did you know that if you keep all your presentational instructions in an
external CSS stylesheet, you can fine-tune the appearance of a thousand-
page site by editing *one* file?
Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed
in lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one
_could_ choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.

The technical meaning of "should" implies that when one makes such choices,
one ought to make them in an *informed* manner rather than just because
"that's the way I learned it."

[Barbara de Zoete]

Eric Bohlman schreef:

Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bq*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:

I keep reading this, 'you _should_ use strict'. Where does it say
this? Where is the world wide law on this subject?
Just like one _should_ *not* use Verdana. Again, like there is a law
on this subject.
Most of us who say things like that are using "should" the way it's used in
technical documents like RFCs and W3C recommendations, where it means "you
can be compliant without doing this, but doing this is so beneficial that
you ought to have a really, really good reason if you choose not to."

Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
tricks and art in any way I like.

However, keeping in mind my potential visitors and therefore trying to
present content in a way that it can be easily accessed by anyone,
regardless of what browser etcetera, as long as they have a live
connection to the web.
Did you know that if you keep all your presentational instructions in an
external CSS stylesheet, you can fine-tune the appearance of a thousand-
page site by editing *one* file?

Yes, I did know this, thank you. I found out about CSS like five months
ago and got really excited by the idea of fully separating mark-up and
style. The advantages are so immense, it was an overwhelming insight.
This is how I started out, building my site.
Later on I came across some pragmatic trouble behind this strategy. For
example, I keep an on-line diary and find it easy (as in quickly
applicable, almost as if nature kicks in) to use <b> and <i> for
example. Old habit and it's not like I'm doing anything explicitly wrong
with this.

But, still learning. I have some inline styles that I no longer like.
Spread out over pages and therefore not so easy to change. So I want to
take a few hours and pull them out of the pages and put them in my
stylesheets, where they _should_ have been :-D in the first place.

Fair enough, the pro's and con's on both subjects have been discussed
in lenght, but it is still a choice one _could_ make. Just like one
_could_ choose to ignore this and do it in any other way.

The technical meaning of "should" implies that when one makes such choices,
one ought to make them in an *informed* manner rather than just because
"that's the way I learned it."

Hèhè. Seems the techniques I use are some comfortable combination of both.
--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Eric Bohlman]

Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bq*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:

Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
tricks and art in any way I like.

That's a reasonable way to look at the human-to-human aspects of the
Internet, at least if you don't carry it too far (e.g. some people think
that "Internet anarchy" means they should be able to use the Internet to
run scams, but I assume you aren't talking about that sort of stuff), but
it doesn't work for the computer-to-computer or human-to-computer aspects.
The reason is that computers are rigid and inflexible; they're simply
machines for following rules. Computers don't share humans' ability to
listen to or read something and figure out what the person *meant* to say
rather than what he or she actually *said*.

Therefore, when you're writing material that's intended to be "understood"
by a computer (e.g. the markup, as opposed to the content, of a Web site),
you really have no choice but to follow some rather strict rules when
writing it. If you choose not to follow them, your material simply gets
ignored. Actually, if you stop to think about it, every field of creative
endeavor has certain rules that are essentially fixed, and one expresses
ones creativity by working *within* those rules rather than ignoring them.
The problem with an art form where literally everything is possible is that
nothing winds up being meaningful.

If you treat the Web as just another medium with rules of its own that need
to be observed, you have plenty of opportunity for creativity. If you
treat it as something that works the way you wished it did rather than the
way it actually does, then your creations will fall apart and nobody will
get to appreciate them.

[Barbara de Zoete]

I'm trying to find common ground here.

Eric Bohlman schreef:

Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bq*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de:

Fair enough. I seem to have a problem with the word 'should'. I regard
the internet as a, pretty much, anarchy, in which I get to perform my
tricks and art in any way I like.
The reason is that computers are rigid and inflexible; they're simply
machines for following rules. Computers don't share humans' ability to
listen to or read something and figure out what the person *meant* to say
rather than what he or she actually *said*.

Therefore, when you're writing material that's intended to be "understood"
by a computer (e.g. the markup, as opposed to the content, of a Web site),
you really have no choice but to follow some rather strict rules when
writing it.

Agreed. I understand fully that technical specs must be followd to get
pages rendered in an understandable way.
Which technical specs, rules, is up to the author, I presume. My idea
about 'anarchy' is also with regard to this aspect. Browsers (I mean the
few I know; IE6, NS7, OP7, Moz1.4, Firebird0.6) have some tolerancy
towards deliberate use of inline styles and presentational stuff as <b>
and <u>, where the large part of a document can still rely on an
external style sheet.
It really doesn't seem to bother the browser very much if one mixes
external styles and inline styles. Neither does it bother the user, as
far as I know.
If you choose not to follow them, your material simply gets
ignored.
This is interesting. As far as I can see (by looking at the source of
documents others than myself have published on the internet) there are
not many authors that really go all the way to comply to technical
specs. So many errors, faulty structures etcetera _do_ however get
presented by my browser / computer to me in a way I as a human can
understand.
I have no idea how many pages out there compy with technical specs, but
I think it can not be that big a percentage. Still, most of those pages
do not get ignored. They are found and indexed by search engines and
thus found by me if looking for a subject.

Why do you think material gets ignored if strickt rules are not followd?
If you treat the Web as just another medium with rules of its own that need
to be observed, you have plenty of opportunity for creativity. If you
treat it as something that works the way you wished it did rather than the
way it actually does, then your creations will fall apart and nobody will
get to appreciate them.

I get the idea we largely agree on this subject. Still, I do think it is
up to me to decide which technical specs I use to achieve my goals
(that's the part of anarchy I meant). If I (well thought through) *want*
to use Verdana or inline styles or presentational mark-up, I think I
will just do that.

In doing so, I have now a (modest) site that does not fall apart, as far
as I know[1]. I must be doing something right :-)

[1] Newer browsers as mentioned before, Windows-machines; also Lynx
renders my pages acceptably well; the Knoppix-browser (forgot its name)
seems to have a problem with the page title, that I not yet have been
able to correct.

BTW: about the problem of the Verdana font-size, if set to a smaller
size than 1em, it renders fine in IE(over 90% of my visitors use IE as
their browser) and if someone uses a screen browser *other* than IE, I
tend to think "S/he knows how to set font-size to a comfortable size". I
like the way it looks, better than other fonts I know. That is the
*only* reason I still want to use it.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Barbara de Zoete:

I have no idea how many pages out there compy with technical specs,
but I think it can not be that big a percentage.

Several months ago, a fellow published his doctoral thesis, on exactly
this subject. For awhile, the ~6MB .pdf document was available. His
programmatic scanning of millions of web pages (I've forgotten the
actual number) found an answer.

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.

Generally, this means that most of the rest would render in "quirks"
mode, and be at the mercy of the browser's decision, not the author's.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty:

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages. Generally, this means that most of the rest would render in "quirks"
mode, and be at the mercy of the browser's decision, not the author's.

Quirks mode has exactly nothing to do with pages being valid or not.

Browsers choose between standard mode and quirks mode depending
on the doctype declared. If the page is valid or not makes no
difference. If you put up an page with a doctype stating e.g.
XHTML 1.0 Strict, you will get standards mode even if the page is
full of errors.

You can e.g. write a page that generally follows HTML 2, adding
fantasy elements like "spacer", and make hundreds of coding mistakes.
If you then smack an HTML 4.01 Strict doctype on top of that,
you'll get standards rendering mode.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

[Stephen Poley]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:22:49 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:

BTW: about the problem of the Verdana font-size, if set to a smaller
size than 1em, it renders fine in IE(over 90% of my visitors use IE as
their browser) and if someone uses a screen browser *other* than IE, I
tend to think "S/he knows how to set font-size to a comfortable size".
Well yes, but the point is that having done so, they shouldn't have to
re-adjust the size for every site individually. (OK, given the state the
Web is in at present, one often has to anyway, but one shouldn't have to
really). And if they don't have Verdana on their system, displaying at
85% gives them smaller text than they would like.

This isn't a really big issue of course, compared to a lot of the
problems on the Web, but on the whole it would be better not to use
Verdana.
I like the way it looks, better than other fonts I know.

That's your prerogative of course. I find it rather unattractive myself.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Barbara de Zoete]

Stephen Poley schreef:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:22:49 +0100, Barbara de Zoete
<b_********@hotmail.com> wrote:

BTW: about the problem of the Verdana font-size, if set to a smaller
size than 1em, it renders fine in IE(over 90% of my visitors use IE as
their browser) and if someone uses a screen browser *other* than IE, I
tend to think "S/he knows how to set font-size to a comfortable size".
Well yes, but the point is that having done so, they shouldn't have to
re-adjust the size for every site individually. (OK, given the state the
Web is in at present, one often has to anyway, but one shouldn't have to
really).

I know. (Ohoh. Starting this discussion again. Maybe not such a good
idea). And I still serve them a page with wich they have to.
And if they don't have Verdana on their system, displaying at
85% gives them smaller text than they would like.
My pages have a 'liquid design', so one [Ctrl]+[+] or equivalent will
do. If they don't want to, they will just leave. I just hope my content
will invite them to hit [Ctrl]+[+].
This isn't a really big issue of course, compared to a lot of the
problems on the Web, but on the whole it would be better not to use
Verdana.

I decided differently. Based on the large majority of my visitors using
IE as their browser.

I like the way it looks, better than other fonts I know.

That's your prerogative of course. I find it rather unattractive myself.

Well, that's cool. Taste. I'm pretty sure we wont be able to convince
eachother either of our tastes is better. Lets not discuss about taste,
but rather stick to technique. It's hard enough to agree on that ;-)

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Barbara de Zoete]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

Quoth the raven named Barbara de Zoete:

I have no idea how many pages out there compy with technical specs,
but I think it can not be that big a percentage.
Several months ago, a fellow published his doctoral thesis, on exactly
this subject. For awhile, the ~6MB .pdf document was available. His
programmatic scanning of millions of web pages (I've forgotten the
actual number) found an answer.

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.

Ouch, this is much less than I expected. Makes me wonder, why bother
about validation?
Generally, this means that most of the rest would render in "quirks"
mode, and be at the mercy of the browser's decision, not the author's.

Ehrm? Quirks mode because of mistakes? I thought Quirks mode or Standard
compliance mode had to do with the doctype declaration in the top of the
document. Making mistakes is very much still possible, even if the
doctype declaration is correct and puts a page in 'Standard'.

But, yes, if one makes a mistake, there is no way to predict how the
various browsers will handle the part where the mistake is made. Much
less how future versions of browsers will handle it. The author is not
really in control.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Christoph Paeper]

*Barbara de Zoete* <b_********@hotmail.com>:

I just hope my content will invite them to hit [Ctrl]+[+].

[...]

I decided differently. Based on the large majority of my visitors using
IE as their browser.

Hmm, could there be a connection?
F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

--
Useless Fact #14:
There are 102,981,500 ways to combine six of the 8-studed LEGO bricks of one
color.
Since 1949, the LEGO company, based in Denmark, has produced more than
200,000,000,000 of the plastic elements that make up the Lego System.

[Eric Bohlman]

Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in news:bqs61n$25pn5r$1@ID-
52872.news.uni-berlin.de:

Ehrm? Quirks mode because of mistakes? I thought Quirks mode or Standard
compliance mode had to do with the doctype declaration in the top of the
document. Making mistakes is very much still possible, even if the
doctype declaration is correct and puts a page in 'Standard'.

"Quirks mode" means that a browser emulates the bugs found in earlier
generations of browsers in order to properly render pages that were
designed by people who didn't known better and took advantage of those
bugs. It's a "legacy compatibility" mode, kind of necessitated by the fact
that the people who *write* web pages are, for the most part, distinct from
the people who *read* them, which means that it would be rather pointless
and counterproductive for a browser to just give up on a buggy page and
give the user an error message, because the user wouldn't (except in the
exceptional case that he were also a developer) be able to do anything
about it.

It all really comes down to "Postel's Law": "Be liberal in what you accept
and conservative in what you send out." A browser should try to properly
render a page that wasn't written according to the standards. An author
should try to create pages that *are* written according to the standards,
rather than relying on browsers to clean up after them.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Barbara de Zoete:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.

Ouch, this is much less than I expected. Makes me wonder, why bother
about validation?

Wouldn't you like to be included in the Select Few? <g>

And I apologize for using the word quirks, rather than saying, more
accurately, that pages with mistakes cause browsers to guess at how to
render them.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Tilman Hesse]

(Barbara de Zoete in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

Several months ago, a fellow published his doctoral thesis, on exactly
this subject. For awhile, the ~6MB .pdf document was available. His
programmatic scanning of millions of web pages (I've forgotten the
actual number) found an answer.

0.7% met the W3C guidelines as validated pages.

Ouch, this is much less than I expected.

I think it's quite much, considering how many crap exists out there.
Google has indexed about 3 billions pages. 0.7% percent of that is
everything but little.

Tilman
--
Der statistische Tote ist dir eal. Der stochastische Tote bist du selber.

[Christopher J. White]

>>>>> "barbara" == Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes:

someone> And if they don't have Verdana on their system, displaying at
someone> 85% gives them smaller text than they would like.

barbara> My pages have a 'liquid design', so one [Ctrl]+[+] or equivalent will
barbara> do. If they don't want to, they will just leave. I just hope my
barbara> content will invite them to hit [Ctrl]+[+].

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size, even folks that are significant web
users. It's one of those features that you will never know
exists unless someone points it out to you or you happen
to stumble on it looking for something else.

....cj

--
------------------------
-- Christopher J. White
--
-- chris @ (---)
-- grierwhite . com
------------------------

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Christopher J. White wrote:

>> "barbara" == Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com> writes:

someone> And if they don't have Verdana on their system, displaying at
someone> 85% gives them smaller text than they would like.

barbara> My pages have a 'liquid design', so one [Ctrl]+[+] or equivalent will
barbara> do. If they don't want to, they will just leave. I just hope my
barbara> content will invite them to hit [Ctrl]+[+].

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size,

I've heard that said a lot. Sad, really. Bit like not being able to
find the TV volume control...
even folks that are significant web users.

If that's true, then surely the safest thing to do, as an author, is
not to interfere with the font size (at least of normal paragraph
text) at all? The vendor has surely researched their customer base
and decided on an installation default that's usable for the widest
practical range of their customers (haven't they?). The fact that the
text might be perceived as over-large by the average young web
designer with above-average visual acuity, viewing an above-average
display specification, is pretty-much irrelevant to that, no?

I hope we can at least credit the web designers with the ability
to adjust their own browsers. I'd rather they didn't try to outvote
me in the adjustment of mine!

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Alan J. Flavell:

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size,

I've heard that said a lot. Sad, really. Bit like not being able to
find the TV volume control...

Perhaps a comparison with a cinema is better. People don't expect to be
able to adjust the volume when they're in a cinema theater. So they
don't even look for a volume control there.

Similarily they don't expect to find a font size control in a web
browsers, because they probably compare it to reading a newspaper (that
most surely does not have a font size control).

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

[Christoph Paeper]

*Bertilo Wennergren* <be******@gmx.net>:

Alan J. Flavell:

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size,

Bit like not being able to find the TV volume control...

Perhaps a comparison with a cinema is better.

No. A PC is much closer to a TV set than a cinema, or were you writing that
posting with tens of people sitting next to you staring at the same screen?
Similarily they don't expect to find a font size control in a web
browsers, because they probably compare it to reading a newspaper

In the better days every browser (with a GUI) had one or two text zoom
buttons shown by default. For some reason you have to enable it explicitely
in IE now. In Firebird I didn''t even find such a button to. I wonder what
makes "Go to Homepage" more important than text zoom---does anyone use
/that/ one at all?
Even Acrobat/Adobe Viewer has zoom functions, although the content it shows
comes much closer to the newspaper analogy than HTML pages.

--
"Try to learn something about everything and everything about something."
Thomas H. Huxley

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Christoph Paeper:

*Bertilo Wennergren* <be******@gmx.net>:

Alan J. Flavell:

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size, Bit like not being able to find the TV volume control...

Perhaps a comparison with a cinema is better. No. A PC is much closer to a TV set than a cinema, or were you writing that
posting with tens of people sitting next to you staring at the same screen?
I meant that a comparison with a cinema might shed some light on why
looking for a font-size control doesn't even enter many peoples minds.

In a cinema you don't look for a volume control, because no one expects
there to be any such thing. It doesn't even enter their minds that there
could be such a thing.

In the same way many users don't even consider the possibility of a
font-size control on a web page. They don't compare it to the volume
control of a TV. They don't compare a web page to a TV, and they don't
compare font size to volume.

They compare a web page to a page in a news paper, or to the page in a
book. Such things don't have any such controls.

People are long since accustomed to TV sets having volume controls. That
idea is established since the time radios became common. The TV
inherited those expectations.

Web browsers have not inherited any expectations to find font size
controls, since most people have never even heard of the idea of a font
size control, not in a web page, not in a book, not in a news paper, not
anywhere at all.
Similarily they don't expect to find a font size control in a web
browsers, because they probably compare it to reading a newspaper

In the better days every browser (with a GUI) had one or two text zoom
buttons shown by default.

I don't htink a visible button would help much. There are lots of funny
buttons all over the place. Most people just ignore them. (They would
ignore the mouse as well, if someone hadn't actually taught them what it
is and how to use it. And the keyboard...)

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

[Jim Ley]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:40:43 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

I've heard that said a lot. Sad, really. Bit like not being able to
find the TV volume control...

Considering how easy it is on IE - just lean on a button and try and
scroll the window, I think most people do, even when it scares them.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Brian]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Christopher J. White wrote:

From my experience, *very* few people even know that you can
adjust the font size,

I've heard that said a lot. Sad, really. Bit like not being able to
find the TV volume control...

In fairness to the alleged masses who don't know, the font size
control is often in a menu, with dozens of other options, and not
a dial (or buttons, more appropriately) on the visible browser chrome.
On televisions -- at least, on old telvisions -- the volume control
would be hard to miss.

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

[Mercury Mercurius]

Hello Beauregard,
Thank you for your recent assistance on the my inquiry to this group.
Could you please remove the materials from your web site at this time?
(http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html) Since the
mock-up is quite similar to my current homepage, I would prefer that
it not remain online at your website's URL...
Thank you very much.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message news:<Kf********************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> ...

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html

Sorry, I forgot to snip out the invalid "border=0" on line 100.

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than
the above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...surrender.html

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mercury Mercurius:

Hello Beauregard,
Thank you for your recent assistance on the my inquiry to this group.
Could you please remove the materials from your web site at this time?
(http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html) Since the
mock-up is quite similar to my current homepage, I would prefer that
it not remain online at your website's URL...
Ok, it's gone. Actually, I had forgotten about it. I see your current
site, but it is done with tables for layout. Were you not able to make
the CSS divs work?

Unless I missed a post, I don't think you ever replied to the below...
Thank you very much.
You're welcome, and good luck with the site.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message news:<Kf********************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> ...

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/surrender.html

Sorry, I forgot to snip out the invalid "border=0" on line 100.

Notice I changed the DOCTYPE to 4.01 Strict. It validates other than
the above. If you're writing new documents, you should use Strict.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...surrender.html

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.