By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,868 Members | 1,991 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,868 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Lock the page-width

P: n/a
Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?

Kind regards,
Sune Alexandersen

www.suneworld.com
Skype: sunepune
MSN: su************@suneworld.com
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
25 Replies


P: n/a
In article Sune A wrote:
Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.


Hm. Why. Usually people need CSS to make other peoples websites adjust
dynamically. Fixing width is bad idea. Givin it maximum width is little
better.

Anyway, you can use max-width to set maximum with of page. But it is much
better to set max-width based by parts of page, rather than whole. And it
is usually most sensible for text lines that come too long.

For example
p,li {max-width:30em;}
--
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 #2

P: n/a
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:13:48 +0100, Sune A wrote:
Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.


I, along with most others I would bet would prefer a resizeable content
area.

Your site looks pretty good to me, other than the nav bar extending down
past the bottom on the right. A strategically placed clear:right will fix
that though.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
> I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?


You'll probably get people telling you it is 'a bad thing' to do this
but it is your call and it is easily achieved. You can simply set a
'width' on the body in css, or better still surround your page with a
div and set a width on that (the reason I say that is because I seem
to remember seeing it said that older versions of IE don't honour the
width on the body).

A compromise approach is to set a 'min-width' instead of the width so
that it will only reduce so far but can be enlarged. However IE
doesn't support this (though there is a JavaScript fudge about to
emulate it).
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
In article Graham J wrote:
A compromise approach is to set a 'min-width' instead of the width so
that it will only reduce so far but can be enlarged. However IE
doesn't support this (though there is a JavaScript fudge about to
emulate it).


Nooooooooooo. Min width is practically always very big mistake if page
would not be broken whitout it (like when you have columns that are too
narrow because they are based on percentage.) It is not problem to if the
page fits smaller window. Everybody using smaller window knows that. All
you could get by setting min-width is horizontal scrolbar whitout any
reason. That is not good aproach.

--
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 #5

P: n/a
> Nooooooooooo.

Yes, actually. It would be very appropriate for the OP as the page
stands. You might not approve of the page design but that is the
author's choice.
Min width is practically always very big mistake if page
would not be broken whitout it (like when you have columns that are too narrow because they are based on percentage.) It is not problem to if the page fits smaller window. Everybody using smaller window knows that. All you could get by setting min-width is horizontal scrolbar whitout any reason. That is not good aproach.


Yes but the "if" in "if page would not be broken" is a very big "if"
indeed. If there is a point at which the page breaks, becomes
unreadable or unusable, or justs looks plain stupid, then preventing
that point being reached is a very good approach indeed.

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
In article <Pr*********************@news000.worldonline.dk> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Sune A
<sune@NO_SPAM4MEsuneworld.com> wrote:
Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?


Not only are you trying to do a bad thing, you're asking in the
wrong way.

See "What is the accepted way to share a message across multiple
newsgroups?" at <http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html>.

--
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 #7

P: n/a
In article Graham J wrote:
Nooooooooooo.
Yes, actually. It would be very appropriate for the OP as the page
stands. You might not approve of the page design but that is the
author's choice.


Really? I ignore stupid sizes by default so this has not real relevance
for my surfing. But if I wouldn't, I really would hate min-width used for
such.

OP's design is very good indeed, and I can use it in any size window I
wan't as long as it is bigger than image or size of float.

I see some bug in effect on Opera now when I disable my userstyle: image
with align=left makes words appear in wrong place. Easily fixed by using
full CSS, and adding float:left; (I wonder why it is still in Opera
7.22(pr), I added my userstyle img,table,...[align="left"] {float:left}
half year ago to counter that bug.)
Yes but the "if" in "if page would not be broken" is a very big "if"
indeed. If there is a point at which the page breaks, becomes
unreadable or unusable, or justs looks plain stupid, then preventing
that point being reached is a very good approach indeed.


Yes. But there is any width of window in which the page question would
break, exept when float will cause horizontal scrollbar, but that would
be fixed with max-width, not min-width.

--
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 #8

P: n/a
Graham J wrote:
The OP wrote:
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page,
so that it won't adjust dynamically.
You'll probably get people telling you it is 'a bad thing'


I don't know what the single quotes mean.
but it is your call and it is easily achieved.


Please don't taunt the newbies with bogus information. There is no
way in the context of the www to "lock the width of the page," given
user stylesheets, browsers that ignore css, etc.

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

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
I don't know what the single quotes mean.
They are quotation marks used to quote an actual phrase that is
commonly seen. In common UK English single quotes can be interchanged
with double quotes and are often preferred for printed text. They
could have been left out of the sentence and it would still have read
fine but it would not have drawn attention to the particular phrase as
I required.
Please don't taunt the newbies with bogus information. There is no
way in the context of the www to "lock the width of the page," given
user stylesheets, browsers that ignore css, etc.


I do not consider it bogus information, it was an appropriate answer
to the question pitched at the appropriate level.

Sure users can override thing with user stylesheets or have browsers
that ignore css but they are the exception to the rule and there is a
very large potential audience out there that will not do any such
thing nor use such browsers.

In any case the requirement was to 'lock the width of the page' with
the important word being lock. If I lock my front door it doesn't
mean people can't enter my house. They may have their own key, go
through an open back door, go through a window, break in, etc. It
doesn't change the fact that I locked the door.

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
> OP's design is very good indeed, and I can use it in any size window
I
wan't as long as it is bigger than image or size of float.


I guess it depends how you like to see pages displayed when the window
size is too small to display them without breaking them or otherwise
making them look too messy or unusable. If you first encounter a page
with a sufficiently big window and then reduce the size of the window
and it breaks then I agree it is no big deal. You recognise the
problem for what it is and resize the window again. It is what
happens when you encounter a page for the first time on too small a
window that seems to be where we may differ, and especially when it is
as a result of casual browsing rather than going to a site knowing
that there is something there for you.

If I understand you correctly it seems that your preference, and one
you consider many others have, is just to let them break (or
whatever), instantly recognise them as broken only because of the
window size, and just resize the window to fix them.

My preference is different and I consider it one that many others will
have. If I encounter a broken page (again using the term broken
loosely) then my first reaction is to recoil from it and move on
elsewhere. Resizing the window is only a secondary reaction and
depends on how badly the page is messed up and how I came to be on the
page. However if I encounter a relatively intact page and the browser
has displayed a horizontal scrollbars my instant reaction is that I
just need to resize the window to make the most of the page.
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
"Sune A" <sune@NO_SPAM4MEsuneworld.com> wrote:
I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com


I have another question to your page: Why are you using the link syntax
index.php?pagename=webexplorer.php ?

I am asking because I want to let a PHP script create my navigation bar
on each page and I am not sure whether I should use your method (where
index.php reads the contents of webexplorer.php, adds the common page
elements like navigation and spits it out, I suppose).

Could you give me a hint why you are using this method instead of
including PHP function calls in every of your content pages? What are
the advantages? And: How do you let your web server parse
webexplorer.php, e.g. inside index.php?

Thank you.

--
Andreas
To reply via e-mail, please remove the fruit and the ".invalid" top
level domain from my address.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Graham J wrote:
There is no way in the context of the www to "lock the width of
the page," given user stylesheets, browsers that ignore css, etc.
Sure users can override thing with user stylesheets or have
browsers that ignore css but they are the exception to the rule and
there is a very large potential audience out there that will not do
any such thing nor use such browsers.


Leaving some segment of the audience that will.
In any case the requirement was to 'lock the width of the page'
with the important word being lock. If I lock my front door it
doesn't mean people can't enter my house. They may have their own
key, go through an open back door, go through a window, break in,
etc. It doesn't change the fact that I locked the door.


Strange analogy. Here's my take on it:

I hire security specialists who install a lock on one door, but leave
another wide open. If they promise that my house is secure from
intruders, I would have to conclude that they are either lying to me
or grossly incompetant.

If someone tells me I can "lock the width of the page" on the www,
clearly they don't understand much about the www. How does an author
lock the width of the page in a user's Lynx browser window?

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

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
> > Sure users can override thing with user stylesheets or have
browsers that ignore css but they are the exception to the rule and there is a very large potential audience out there that will not do any such thing nor use such browsers.
Leaving some segment of the audience that will.


Yes that is true. It just becomes of question of whether that segment
of the audience are seen as a factor. It is up to an author to decide
whether to do something that he/she considers will benefit what he/she
considers to be the majority of the potential audience and that will
do no harm to the rest of the audience, or not to do it at all because
of the minority. An author may even decide to exclude a potential
audience completely.

It is for an author to make the choice. Some of the audience may be
critical of that choice but it is for an author to decide.
I hire security specialists who install a lock on one door, but leave another wide open. If they promise that my house is secure from
intruders, I would have to conclude that they are either lying to me
or grossly incompetant.
Yes of course, but you have in fact supported my point. *If* they
promise that your house is secure then they are lying or incompetent.
If they just say they've locked the one door they are right.
If someone tells me I can "lock the width of the page" on the www,
clearly they don't understand much about the www. How does an author lock the width of the page in a user's Lynx browser window?


We clearly have a different way of interpreting questions. If you are
asked if you can "lock the width of the page" on the www it would
appear you consider the answer to be a flat no because it is not
possible for 100% of the potential audience.

If I am asked if I can "lock the width of the page" I first decide
what the question is. If it is something like "can I lock the width
of the page for 100% of the potential audience such that they can
never override it" then the answer is no. If I consider it is more
like "I have this web page which changes width with the window size,
but I'd really like a typical user with a reasonably up to date
graphical browser who doesn't do anything with the configuration to
negate it to always see it at a fixed width" then the answer is yes.

Personally I consider my interpretation of such a question is just as
valid as yours. Others can make their own mind up.

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
In article <bo*************@ID-203032.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Graham J" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

:If I consider it is more
:like "I have this web page which changes width with the window size,
:but I'd really like a typical user with a reasonably up to date
:graphical browser who doesn't do anything with the configuration to
:negate it to always see it at a fixed width" then the answer is yes.

I do this all the time, set fixed widths for my divs so that the text
doesn't wrap if the user makes the window smaller than the width. What
on earth could be the problem with this?

I haven't been in this ng ever before, came looking for some pointers,
it seems dominated by some bizarre cult of the
lowest-common-denominator. I use separate stylesheets for older
browsers, don't use flash, validate for strict xhtml, but I don't really
care about lynx or braille browsers or the colour-blind, or some idiot
using Netscape 3 (which has a dns bug anyway, so it shouldn't ever be
used).

I'm a film editor in real life, and I don't use a Moviola or cut 16mm
film anymore either. (I know: they still cut film on the big-boy movies;
I'm not in that crowd).
--
Looks like more of Texas to me.
.... Arizona, where the nights are warm and the roads are straight.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Warren Oates <Wa****@InHell.Com> wrote:

I do this all the time, set fixed widths for my divs so that the text
doesn't wrap if the user makes the window smaller than the width. What
on earth could be the problem with this?
If the user has a narrow browser window, maybe they're keeping an eye
on several apps at once, then your fixed width divs will cause them to
have to scroll back and forth to read every line of your text which is
a right pain.

If the user
needs a
larger than
normal font
size due to
their
eyesight
then your
fixed width
divs will
lead to
very short
choppy lines
which are a
right pain
to read
I haven't been in this ng ever before, came looking for some pointers,
it seems dominated by some bizarre cult of the
lowest-common-denominator.
That's a strawman.

This group is populated by people who know a lot about stylesheets.
This includes knowing a lot about how to use them in such a way that
doesn't cause problems for user.

The web unlike film or print or radio, can adapt itself to every
user's whims. Unless the author thinks he knows better and tries to
force something, in which case the user still has the final say as
they can apply a user stylesheet, switch of whichever feature the
author is abusing, or just leave the site and take their business
elsewhere.
I use separate stylesheets for older browsers,
That's a good thing. You are using the various CSS bugs to hide styles
from older browser rather than some form of browser sniffing code,
aren't you?
don't use flash, validate for strict xhtml, but I don't really
care about lynx or braille browsers
Google will see you page in much the same way that a Lynx or braille
user will. Do you care about Google?
or the colour-blind,
Colour blindness affects some 15% of the male population IIRC. That's
a large portion of your audience to not care about.
or some idiot
using Netscape 3 (which has a dns bug anyway, so it shouldn't ever be
used).


Netscape 3 is much better than Netscape 4 at dealing with CSS
presentation - it ignores all of it as opposed to getting most of it
wrong. A site with all the presentation done in CSS would be perfectly
usable, if rather plain looking, in Netscape 3.

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 #16

P: n/a
Warren Oates wrote:

I haven't been in this ng ever before,
....so you decided to come in and start insulting us? Gee, thanks.
it seems dominated by some bizarre cult of the
lowest-common-denominator.


This link has already been offered in this thread, but you apparently
missed it. Here it is again, just for you.

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html

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

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
In article Graham J wrote:
OP's design is very good indeed, and I can use it in any size window I
wan't as long as it is bigger than image or size of float.


I guess it depends how you like to see pages displayed when the window
size is too small to display them without breaking them or otherwise
making them look too messy or unusable. If you first encounter a page
with a sufficiently big window and then reduce the size of the window
and it breaks then I agree it is no big deal. You recognise the
problem for what it is and resize the window again. It is what
happens when you encounter a page for the first time on too small a
window that seems to be where we may differ, and especially when it is
as a result of casual browsing rather than going to a site knowing
that there is something there for you.


Well, there is about 75% of sites that are too big on my default width
window. I can cure about 75% of them using userstyle.
If I understand you correctly it seems that your preference, and one
you consider many others have, is just to let them break (or
whatever), instantly recognise them as broken only because of the
window size, and just resize the window to fix them.
No, I don't wan't them to break. But this particular page doesn't break
on any width. If it would break, then min-width would be useful.
My preference is different and I consider it one that many others will
have. If I encounter a broken page (again using the term broken
loosely) then my first reaction is to recoil from it and move on
elsewhere.
Same here. How often you use small window, in which most of pages would
fit nicely, if they were designed differently?
Resizing the window is only a secondary reaction and
depends on how badly the page is messed up and how I came to be on the
page.
Resizing window is quite possibly impossible.
However if I encounter a relatively intact page and the browser
has displayed a horizontal scrollbars my instant reaction is that I
just need to resize the window to make the most of the page.


But if you can't resize window? And as I have said too many times
already, this page won't break if it is in small width. It looks bit
different, but it is more usable than one with horizontal scrolling on
some randomly choosen size - you don't know which would be best, and
setting min-width, you may cause situation where one must scroll
horizontally to read _each_ line. Nobody reads it then, unless they can

--
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 #18

P: n/a
In article Graham J wrote:
Please don't taunt the newbies with bogus information. There is no
way in the context of the www to "lock the width of the page," given
user stylesheets, browsers that ignore css, etc.
I do not consider it bogus information, it was an appropriate answer
to the question pitched at the appropriate level.


Well, if it was not bogus, could you please tell in what situation it
would be good to set min-width, and exact length and unit for that min-
width that wouldn't broke more situations that it helps?
Sure users can override thing with user stylesheets or have browsers
that ignore css but they are the exception to the rule and there is a
very large potential audience out there that will not do any such
thing nor use such browsers.
Exactly. That is reason you shouldn't use anything like min-width, as not
everybody knows how to override it. And width is about as bad.
In any case the requirement was to 'lock the width of the page' with
the important word being lock. If I lock my front door it doesn't
mean people can't enter my house. They may have their own key, go
through an open back door, go through a window, break in, etc. It
doesn't change the fact that I locked the door.


You are not even trying to lock size. If you would, you wouldn't use min-
width, but width. There is no reason to use min-width, unless something
is overflowing or overlaying otherwise. In this case, such don't happen.
--
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 #19

P: n/a
In article <Xvssb.132868$9E1.664007@attbi_s52>,
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

:This link has already been offered in this thread, but you apparently
:missed it. Here it is again, just for you.
:
:http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html

Yah, that's like quoting the Bible to an atheist. My pages work on all
browsers that support CSS and xhtml.

At any rate, the page is more important than its code. As long as
browsers continue to operate in quirks mode, your purism is puerile.
--
Looks like more of Texas to me.
.... Arizona, where the nights are warm and the roads are straight.
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
In article <ps********************************@4ax.com>,
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

:
:If the user has a narrow browser window, maybe they're keeping an eye
:on several apps at once, then your fixed width divs will cause them to
:have to scroll back and forth to read every line of your text which is
:a right pain.

Well, I assume the the user has come to my site to get information or
entertainment or a freebie, and that he's going to take the time to deal
with my site, and then move on.

:If the user
:needs a
:larger than
:normal font
:size due to
:their
:eyesight
:then your
:fixed width
:divs will
:lead to
:very short
:choppy lines
:which are a
:right pain
:to read

Dustin, Dustin, haven't you heard of "design?"

I know a lot about stylesheets too.

Anyway, there's nothing for me here, I design web pages, not liturgy. I
use whatever's available to make them work the best on all possible
browsers, without cant or conniption. That incudes JS if necessary, PHP
if it's available, and c if I have time.

Google sees my pages just fine. See y'all 'round the campus.
--
Looks like more of Texas to me.
.... Arizona, where the nights are warm and the roads are straight.
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
*Warren Oates* <Wa****@InHell.Com>:

My pages work on all browsers that support CSS and xhtml.


That's just a small minority of them, though.

--
Before you borrow money from a friend, decide which you need more.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
> > I do not consider it bogus information, it was an appropriate
answer
to the question pitched at the appropriate level.
Well, if it was not bogus, could you please tell in what situation

it would be good to set min-width, and exact length and unit for that min- width that wouldn't broke more situations that it helps?
The comment about bogus information referred to my suggestion that the
answer to the question put by the OP was to use the width. I pointed
out that it would not be considered a good idea by all and that it
would be explained why (as it has been). So I answered the question
the OP asked (I don't believe anyone else did) and also pointed out
there were pitfalls. What on earth is bogus about that?

I then further suggested, that is to say in addition to answering the
question about "locking" the page width, that min-width could be a
compromise position between having a fixed width and a fully floating
one that would at least allow enlargement. I made no claims that it
was itself without drawbacks, I merely offered it as something else
the OP might like to consider.

As for when it is good to set min-width, well it is good to set it
when a minimum width is desired for a page and using it achieves that
aim conveniently. End of story. If an author wants a page to display
at a minimum width then it is his choice. You may think it is an
inappropriate choice, though it is good to understand the nature of a
site and the target audience is first, but at the end of the day if
that is what the author wants then it is good.
Exactly. That is reason you shouldn't use anything like min-width, as not everybody knows how to override it. And width is about as bad.
Yes but you miss the basic point, there may be very many people who
may not have any desire to override it. If they aren't happy about
the situation they can just move on. It is up to a page author to
decide if this is a problem. It may be that 100% of the target
audience for a site are perfectly happy with a minimum width. Indeed
they may be extremely pleased there is one. They may even complain if
there isn't one. The author has to decide what he wants to do.

The only bad things about using min-width and width is doing so
without understanding the advantages and disadvantages of them in
different situations and being able to relate them to the job in hand.
You are not even trying to lock size. If you would, you wouldn't use min- width, but width. There is no reason to use min-width, unless something is overflowing or overlaying otherwise. In this case, such don't

happen.

I never suggested using min-width to lock the size, I suggested width.

You missed out the other reason for using min-width, and that is the
purely cosmetic one. If an author feels his page does not look as
good as he wishes once it gets too narrow then he is perfectly
entitled to set a minimum width on it. You might not consider it
would be necessary or a good idea but an author may consider
otherwise. The OP is the one to make that subjective judgement in the
particular case in question.

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
> Well, there is about 75% of sites that are too big on my default
width
window. I can cure about 75% of them using userstyle.
I tend to only find problems with something like 1-2%, or perhaps 5%
if I am using Opera (though that isn't something I do too often) and
I've never found one I've really cared about enough to want to cure.
No, I don't wan't them to break. But this particular page doesn't break on any width. If it would break, then min-width would be useful.
Well I guess it rather depends on how you use the term broken. I felt
it did reach a point where it doesn't quite cut the mustard, though
admittedly that is at quite a small width.

I merely suggested min-width as something to consider as an
alternative to fixing the width as that is what the OP asked about.
Leaving well alone and doing neither would tend to be my preference
for the page, but if the OP wants to fix the width, or use min-width
(or max-width or anything else he might want to do come to that) then
that is fine by me.
But if you can't resize window? And as I have said too many times
already, this page won't break if it is in small width. It looks bit
different, but it is more usable than one with horizontal scrolling on some randomly choosen size - you don't know which would be best, and
setting min-width, you may cause situation where one must scroll
horizontally to read _each_ line. Nobody reads it then, unless they

can

Yes you are right, you might cause that situation. However there is
also the possibility the situation might not arise and that surely has
to be given weight too. Just because it might happen it doesn't mean
that it has to be considered an unacceptable situation. If a page
author decides that a certain course of action will be beneficial or
have neutral effect for, say, 95% of his audience then he may consider
that this outweighs any inconvenience to the other 5%. On the other
hand he might prefer to try and cater for as near 100% of his audience
as best he can and perhaps lose some cosmetic appeal in his eyes. My
whole point is that there isn't any real right or wrong, or should or
shouldn't about it.

Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
In article Graham J wrote:
Well, there is about 75% of sites that are too big on my default width
window. I can cure about 75% of them using userstyle.


I tend to only find problems with something like 1-2%, or perhaps 5%
if I am using Opera (though that isn't something I do too often) and
I've never found one I've really cared about enough to want to cure.


No wonder you think min-width solves some problems.
No, I don't wan't them to break. But this particular page doesn't

break
on any width. If it would break, then min-width would be useful.


Well I guess it rather depends on how you use the term broken. I felt
it did reach a point where it doesn't quite cut the mustard, though
admittedly that is at quite a small width.


Would min-width have helped in that window width? I think answer is no.
I merely suggested min-width as something to consider as an
alternative to fixing the width as that is what the OP asked about.
Leaving well alone and doing neither would tend to be my preference
for the page,
So you never though it would do any good. Good to know. I actually
thought you thought you had some reason to consider min-width.
But if you can't resize window? And as I have said too many times
already, this page won't break if it is in small width. It looks bit
different, but it is more usable than one with horizontal scrolling

on
some randomly choosen size - you don't know which would be best, and
setting min-width, you may cause situation where one must scroll
horizontally to read _each_ line. Nobody reads it then, unless they

can

Yes you are right, you might cause that situation. However there is
also the possibility the situation might not arise and that surely has
to be given weight too.


But just having possibility of not breaking something means absolutely
nothing, if there is no gain.
Just because it might happen it doesn't mean
that it has to be considered an unacceptable situation.
Would you read it if you had to scroll text to other side after each half
line? That is about worst possible thing to do. When I see that, I kill
everything that prevents wrapping if that is possible, causing often very
ugly pages. But I never ever read more than two lines of such text.

I think it is actually one of the worst case of accessibility for
'normal' people.
If a page
author decides that a certain course of action will be beneficial or
have neutral effect for, say, 95% of his audience then he may consider
that this outweighs any inconvenience to the other 5%.
Only if he gets some better experience to those 95%. By definition here
he don't, if you use min-width, as min-with breaks page only and always
when it is working.
On the other
hand he might prefer to try and cater for as near 100% of his audience
as best he can and perhaps lose some cosmetic appeal in his eyes.
What cosmetic appeal you can lose by not using min-width? You lose most
anyway when you force horizontal scrollbar, as big part of style is not
visible.
My whole point is that there isn't any real right or wrong, or should or
shouldn't about it.


I disagree on min-width here and most other cases, as I fail to see what
good it can do in this case on any situation. (I disagree it generally
too, but that has nothing to do with this case.)

--
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 #25

P: n/a
[yes, missed point on bogus issue, but Brian was right, there is no way
to lock width, and my browser configuration is proof.]

In article Graham J wrote:
Yes but you miss the basic point, there may be very many people who
may not have any desire to override it. If they aren't happy about
the situation they can just move on. It is up to a page author to
decide if this is a problem.
You missed point. Min-width will either causes problem for viewer, or
does nothing. There is no option that it would make page look better,
unless you think page with lines longer than window look nicer, which I
don't believe anyone does.
You missed out the other reason for using min-width, and that is the
purely cosmetic one.
Well, there is only cosmetic effect on users that use so small window
that they can't read page if min-width affects, so I wonder who thinks it
is useful.
If an author feels his page does not look as
good as he wishes once it gets too narrow then he is perfectly
entitled to set a minimum width on it.
Of course there is few laws prohibiting that on some cases, but they
might not apply to OP.
You might not consider it
would be necessary or a good idea but an author may consider
otherwise.
I can't see advantage on it. More importantly, you can't see any
advantage in it (I asked twice and didn't got answer, and you said you
prefer not having width so I suppose this is safe assumption), which is
why I wonder why you proposed it, whitout even saying you don't consider
it good.
The OP is the one to make that subjective judgement in the
particular case in question.


Of course. But exactly that reason it is necessary to prove some things
wrong, if they are wrong, so OP can make his decision based on best
advice. (not best answer)

--
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 #26

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.