By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,395 Members | 1,882 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,395 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

What are the best css designs?

P: n/a
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.

So I'd ask. Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in
good measure because of their creative and useful css designs? I'm
aware of Zen Garden and a few others. So don't bother with those. And
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense. Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not
mediocre stuff.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
145 Replies


P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.


Can you define 'best'? What quality aspects are you looking for? How do
you measure those?

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.


Can you define 'best'? What quality aspects are you looking for? How do
you measure those?

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.
What's a "css package"?
So I'd ask. Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in
good measure because of their creative and useful css designs?
A good design is a good design regardless of the technology used to
create it. A site that uses html and css properly gains no design
advantages, it improves the structure and usability.
I'm
aware of Zen Garden and a few others. So don't bother with those. And
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense. Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not
mediocre stuff.


I sense that you are doubtful about css's capability to replace
presentational html without loss of design options. The designer
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.

Links I stole from brucie:

css tutorials and other fun 'n giggly css stuff:
http://www.css.nu/
http://www.mako4css.com/
http://www.richinstyle.com/
http://www.blazonry.com/css/
http://www.w3schools.com/css/
http://www.websitetips.com/css/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/
http://www.pageresource.com/dhtml/indexcss.htm
http://www.climbtothestars.org/coding/cssbasic/
http://www.htmlcenter.com/tutorials/index.cfm/css/
http://www.freewebmastertips.com/php...nt.php3?aid=48
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/web/wri...ylesheets.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/ian/books/xht...pt/css-4a.html
http://idm.internet.com/articles/200...utorial1a.html
http://www.greytower.net/en/archive/.../tsutsumi.html
http://www.westciv.com.au/style_mast.../css_tutorial/
http://webmonkey.com/authoring/style...tutorial1.html

layout examples:
http://www.glish.com/css/
http://www.csszengarden.com/
http://www.wannabegirl.org/css/
http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/
http://www.saila.com/usage/layouts/
http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/
http://nemesis1.f2o.org/templates.php
http://www.xs4all.nl/~apple77/columns/
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
http://www.htmler.org/tutorials/3/1.html
http://css.nu/articles/floating-boxes.html
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/
http://www.roguelibrarian.com/lj/index.html
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssLayouts
http://ecoculture.com/styleguide/r/rollovers.html
http://thenoodleincident.com/tutoria...son/index.html
http://www.webreference.com/authorin...yout/advanced/

some sites using css layouts:
http://www.inc.com/
http://www.wired.com/
http://www.opera.com/
http://www.kitty5.com/
http://www.cinnamon.nl/
http://msn.espn.go.com/
http://www.virtuelvis.com/
http://www.emptybottle.org/
http://www.fastcompany.com/
http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/

rounded corners:
http://www.albin.net/CSS/roundedCorners/
http://www.webweaver.org/dan/css/corners/
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customcorners/
http://www.guyfisher.com/builder/workshop/css/corners/

slants: http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/slantinfo.html
lists: http://www.alistapart.com/stories/taminglists/
pure css menus: http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/menus/demo.html
Fast rollovers: http://www.pixy.cz/blogg/clanky/cssnopreloadrollovers/

centering thingys
http://dorward.me.uk/www/centre/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/center.html
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/css/middle/

master compatibility charts:
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/index.html
http://macedition.com/cb/resources/a...sssupport.html
old:
http://www.immix.net/html/CSSGuide.htm
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...3/css-support/

hiding CSS from crappy browsers:
http://diveintomark.org/safari/csshacks/
http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/bonus/trick-hide.html
http://www.w3development.de/css/hide_css_from_browsers/

css checkers:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/csscheck/

cascading style sheets, level 1 specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
cascading style sheets, level 2 specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.
What's a "css package"?
So I'd ask. Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in
good measure because of their creative and useful css designs?
A good design is a good design regardless of the technology used to
create it. A site that uses html and css properly gains no design
advantages, it improves the structure and usability.
I'm
aware of Zen Garden and a few others. So don't bother with those. And
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense. Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not
mediocre stuff.


I sense that you are doubtful about css's capability to replace
presentational html without loss of design options. The designer
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.

Links I stole from brucie:

css tutorials and other fun 'n giggly css stuff:
http://www.css.nu/
http://www.mako4css.com/
http://www.richinstyle.com/
http://www.blazonry.com/css/
http://www.w3schools.com/css/
http://www.websitetips.com/css/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/
http://www.pageresource.com/dhtml/indexcss.htm
http://www.climbtothestars.org/coding/cssbasic/
http://www.htmlcenter.com/tutorials/index.cfm/css/
http://www.freewebmastertips.com/php...nt.php3?aid=48
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/web/wri...ylesheets.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/ian/books/xht...pt/css-4a.html
http://idm.internet.com/articles/200...utorial1a.html
http://www.greytower.net/en/archive/.../tsutsumi.html
http://www.westciv.com.au/style_mast.../css_tutorial/
http://webmonkey.com/authoring/style...tutorial1.html

layout examples:
http://www.glish.com/css/
http://www.csszengarden.com/
http://www.wannabegirl.org/css/
http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/
http://www.saila.com/usage/layouts/
http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/
http://nemesis1.f2o.org/templates.php
http://www.xs4all.nl/~apple77/columns/
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
http://www.htmler.org/tutorials/3/1.html
http://css.nu/articles/floating-boxes.html
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/
http://www.roguelibrarian.com/lj/index.html
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssLayouts
http://ecoculture.com/styleguide/r/rollovers.html
http://thenoodleincident.com/tutoria...son/index.html
http://www.webreference.com/authorin...yout/advanced/

some sites using css layouts:
http://www.inc.com/
http://www.wired.com/
http://www.opera.com/
http://www.kitty5.com/
http://www.cinnamon.nl/
http://msn.espn.go.com/
http://www.virtuelvis.com/
http://www.emptybottle.org/
http://www.fastcompany.com/
http://www.littleyellowdifferent.com/

rounded corners:
http://www.albin.net/CSS/roundedCorners/
http://www.webweaver.org/dan/css/corners/
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customcorners/
http://www.guyfisher.com/builder/workshop/css/corners/

slants: http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/slantinfo.html
lists: http://www.alistapart.com/stories/taminglists/
pure css menus: http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/menus/demo.html
Fast rollovers: http://www.pixy.cz/blogg/clanky/cssnopreloadrollovers/

centering thingys
http://dorward.me.uk/www/centre/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/center.html
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/www/css/middle/

master compatibility charts:
http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/index.html
http://macedition.com/cb/resources/a...sssupport.html
old:
http://www.immix.net/html/CSSGuide.htm
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...3/css-support/

hiding CSS from crappy browsers:
http://diveintomark.org/safari/csshacks/
http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/bonus/trick-hide.html
http://www.w3development.de/css/hide_css_from_browsers/

css checkers:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/csscheck/

cascading style sheets, level 1 specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
cascading style sheets, level 2 specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in good measure
because of their creative and useful css designs?
Well, most of the regulars here use css for presentation on their
projects. More than a few use css exclusively for presentation, and use
(x)html strict for markup. So you can always see what they're doing on
their sites.
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense.
For the most part, we're not graphic designers.
Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not mediocre
stuff.


Obviously, noone can have any idea what you consider mediocre. I'm
afraid you'll have to do the work of investigating pages and deciding
for yourself what merits imitation and what merits ignoring.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in good measure
because of their creative and useful css designs?
Well, most of the regulars here use css for presentation on their
projects. More than a few use css exclusively for presentation, and use
(x)html strict for markup. So you can always see what they're doing on
their sites.
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense.
For the most part, we're not graphic designers.
Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not mediocre
stuff.


Obviously, noone can have any idea what you consider mediocre. I'm
afraid you'll have to do the work of investigating pages and deciding
for yourself what merits imitation and what merits ignoring.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?
Links I stole from brucie:


I'll definitely look over 'brucie's websites and page links.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?
Links I stole from brucie:


I'll definitely look over 'brucie's websites and page links.

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.


I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


If you mean designers, then I'd say most don't know and/or care for
issues like structure, accessability and usability. They typically only
care about design. Accessability, structure and usability are typically
the domain of coders, coders in turn mostly don't know much about
design.

The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.


I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


If you mean designers, then I'd say most don't know and/or care for
issues like structure, accessability and usability. They typically only
care about design. Accessability, structure and usability are typically
the domain of coders, coders in turn mostly don't know much about
design.

The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:51:38 +0100, Spartanicus wrote:
The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.


Whereas the designer might reason that
aptitude for 'good design' is something
you either have, or lack.

They would probably be horrified at the
thought of trying to 'teach design' to
some ..code hack. ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:51:38 +0100, Spartanicus wrote:
The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.


Whereas the designer might reason that
aptitude for 'good design' is something
you either have, or lack.

They would probably be horrified at the
thought of trying to 'teach design' to
some ..code hack. ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


If you mean designers


I mean the Zen Garden stuff. They have the aural styles. The pages
degrade flawlessly. What problems do you find with:
issues like structure, accessability and usability.


Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
participation in these groups is very low (~0), so this is probably not
a good place to ask. Asking in a place where designers hang out isn't
likely to yield better results because designers rarely use html and css
properly.
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


If you mean designers


I mean the Zen Garden stuff. They have the aural styles. The pages
degrade flawlessly. What problems do you find with:
issues like structure, accessability and usability.


Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote:
The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.
Whereas the designer might reason that
aptitude for 'good design' is something
you either have, or lack.


I'd go along with that, but I don't see how that relates to my point
(which is that many designers attempt to combat the strengths of the web
by refusing to release control over things like fonts, window size
etc.).
They would probably be horrified at the
thought of trying to 'teach design' to
some ..code hack. ;-)


Who's suggesting that they should?

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Andrew Thompson <Se********@www.invalid> wrote:
The trick is to pair a designer and a coder. Training a designer to work
with the strengths of the medium (fluidity etc.) is the hard bit.
Whereas the designer might reason that
aptitude for 'good design' is something
you either have, or lack.


I'd go along with that, but I don't see how that relates to my point
(which is that many designers attempt to combat the strengths of the web
by refusing to release control over things like fonts, window size
etc.).
They would probably be horrified at the
thought of trying to 'teach design' to
some ..code hack. ;-)


Who's suggesting that they should?

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


CSS Zen Garden is an interesting example of what is possible with css,
just how fancy a visual design you can create with only CSS (attached to
html strict). Some principles of web accessibility are violated by that
site. For example, the "Wiggles" layout falls apart completely in
Mozilla 1.6/Win2k, and some of the content is only visible with
javascript. Other stylesheets use microfonts, which is the wrong way to
go on the web imho.

However, that's not really the point of the site. It was created to
allow anyone to create a stylesheet and show off. And it succeeds in
doing that.

I would not advocate using fonts for the main text of a document to be
anything other than 100% of the user's chosen or browser default font
size. I would never advocate relying on js for anything. But if a visual
designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not have
to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or flexibility, then
I'd say job well done.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


CSS Zen Garden is an interesting example of what is possible with css,
just how fancy a visual design you can create with only CSS (attached to
html strict). Some principles of web accessibility are violated by that
site. For example, the "Wiggles" layout falls apart completely in
Mozilla 1.6/Win2k, and some of the content is only visible with
javascript. Other stylesheets use microfonts, which is the wrong way to
go on the web imho.

However, that's not really the point of the site. It was created to
allow anyone to create a stylesheet and show off. And it succeeds in
doing that.

I would not advocate using fonts for the main text of a document to be
anything other than 100% of the user's chosen or browser default font
size. I would never advocate relying on js for anything. But if a visual
designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not have
to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or flexibility, then
I'd say job well done.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


One accessibility problem with many of the CSS Zen Garden designs is a
result of the (rather artificial) constraints of the project. Many of the
designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility when CSS is supported, but images
are not downloaded. But in production situations, one would use an image
with appropriate ALT text.

And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows, or different default font sizes. But what else is new?
That problem is hardly unique to the CSS Zen Garden.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance."
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?


One accessibility problem with many of the CSS Zen Garden designs is a
result of the (rather artificial) constraints of the project. Many of the
designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility when CSS is supported, but images
are not downloaded. But in production situations, one would use an image
with appropriate ALT text.

And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows, or different default font sizes. But what else is new?
That problem is hardly unique to the CSS Zen Garden.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance."
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:31:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.

So I'd ask. Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in
good measure because of their creative and useful css designs? I'm
aware of Zen Garden and a few others. So don't bother with those. And
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense. Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not
mediocre stuff.


I always take my inspiration from the Strange Banana. It produces simply
beautiful designs.

http://www.strangebanana.com/generator.aspx
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:31:29 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
Oddly enough, I found it difficult, using Google, to find a list of
best-of sites based on the quality of their css packages.

So I'd ask. Does anyone know of particularly good sites which are in
good measure because of their creative and useful css designs? I'm
aware of Zen Garden and a few others. So don't bother with those. And
I hope I don't get replies from people with a 'tin ear' and no design
sense. Good sites. Good pages. That's what I'm asking about - not
mediocre stuff.


I always take my inspiration from the Strange Banana. It produces simply
beautiful designs.

http://www.strangebanana.com/generator.aspx
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
designers rarely use html and css properly.

I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?
If you mean designers


I mean the Zen Garden stuff.


css Zen Garden showcases what I consider a css circus trick in an
attempt to captivate designers. Presumably they've done this because
designers typically don't care about the real benefits of correctly
coded sites.

What was it about css Zen Garden that inspired you?
They have the aural styles.
Where? There would be virtually no point since there is only 1 obscure
linux only UA that supports aural stylesheets (emacspeak).
The pages
degrade flawlessly. What problems do you find with:
issues like structure, accessability and usability.


The content is properly marked up, but the very purpose of css Zen
Garden demonstrates my point ("designers rarely use html and css
properly").

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px, it uses pt font sizing, no generic fall back
font is specified etc. Some other issues like using css background
images where normal images would be required are the result of the
circus trick nature of the site.

Coding is Coding, and Design is Design, and never the twain shall meet
;-)

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
designers rarely use html and css properly.

I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?
If you mean designers


I mean the Zen Garden stuff.


css Zen Garden showcases what I consider a css circus trick in an
attempt to captivate designers. Presumably they've done this because
designers typically don't care about the real benefits of correctly
coded sites.

What was it about css Zen Garden that inspired you?
They have the aural styles.
Where? There would be virtually no point since there is only 1 obscure
linux only UA that supports aural stylesheets (emacspeak).
The pages
degrade flawlessly. What problems do you find with:
issues like structure, accessability and usability.


The content is properly marked up, but the very purpose of css Zen
Garden demonstrates my point ("designers rarely use html and css
properly").

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px, it uses pt font sizing, no generic fall back
font is specified etc. Some other issues like using css background
images where normal images would be required are the result of the
circus trick nature of the site.

Coding is Coding, and Design is Design, and never the twain shall meet
;-)

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I mean the Zen Garden stuff.

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px
Not the csszengarden page. What's the URL you're talking about? And
what specifically happens?
it uses pt font sizing
Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Is that what you mean? You're not
being very clear.
no generic fall back font is specified
Such as "sans-serif", or something? I'd be surprized if it wasn't.
Again, what is the URL for this?
Some other issues like using css background
images where normal images would be required
What would be the problem, here, as you see it? I'm not sure I even
understand your complaint.
are the result of the circus trick nature of the site.


It generally has to do with the use of positioning. But this is built
in to style, and plays a large part in the documentation. It's not a
mistake, if that's what you're getting at.

Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or is
there someone who told you that you have to object to their efforts,
for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come up with
your own reasons, as yet? I can only guess, here, unless you want to
be more specific. And I wish you had been, the first time. _I_ always
try to be.


Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I mean the Zen Garden stuff.

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px
Not the csszengarden page. What's the URL you're talking about? And
what specifically happens?
it uses pt font sizing
Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Is that what you mean? You're not
being very clear.
no generic fall back font is specified
Such as "sans-serif", or something? I'd be surprized if it wasn't.
Again, what is the URL for this?
Some other issues like using css background
images where normal images would be required
What would be the problem, here, as you see it? I'm not sure I even
understand your complaint.
are the result of the circus trick nature of the site.


It generally has to do with the use of positioning. But this is built
in to style, and plays a large part in the documentation. It's not a
mistake, if that's what you're getting at.

Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or is
there someone who told you that you have to object to their efforts,
for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come up with
your own reasons, as yet? I can only guess, here, unless you want to
be more specific. And I wish you had been, the first time. _I_ always
try to be.


Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
I would not advocate using fonts for the main text of a document to be
anything other than 100% of the user's chosen or browser default font
size.
That's not a bad idea. Because all you see in the use of style sheets
in the so-called 'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to
read, and which can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site,
is break down the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900,
then another sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
Otherwise, you have the 'normal' style. Most people seem to use 1024
or greater. And width, not height, is really the problem area. I also
see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to the
styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ? :
I would never advocate relying on js for anything.
Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for. I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3,
including all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and
then using the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or
whatever, then the basic page is displayed as designed. I also filter
the styles by IE and NN. So an Opera user will see the NN 3 version,
and that's it. The NN 7 folks will get a different style sheet. NN 6 -
I would like to punish those who use NN 6 . . but I don't have the
ability.

designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not have
to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or flexibility, then
I'd say job well done.


What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
I would not advocate using fonts for the main text of a document to be
anything other than 100% of the user's chosen or browser default font
size.
That's not a bad idea. Because all you see in the use of style sheets
in the so-called 'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to
read, and which can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site,
is break down the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900,
then another sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
Otherwise, you have the 'normal' style. Most people seem to use 1024
or greater. And width, not height, is really the problem area. I also
see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to the
styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ? :
I would never advocate relying on js for anything.
Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for. I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3,
including all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and
then using the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or
whatever, then the basic page is displayed as designed. I also filter
the styles by IE and NN. So an Opera user will see the NN 3 version,
and that's it. The NN 7 folks will get a different style sheet. NN 6 -
I would like to punish those who use NN 6 . . but I don't have the
ability.

designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not have
to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or flexibility, then
I'd say job well done.


What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?

Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?

designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility
Because:
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?

What the example of this?
But in production situations, one would use an image
with appropriate ALT text.
What if it's just intended as part of the background?
And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows
You mean different widths, correct?
or different default font sizes.
Someone else complained that these were fixing the font size. Are you
saying that some don't?
That problem is hardly unique to the CSS Zen Garden.


Problems with the fonts?
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?

designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility
Because:
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?

What the example of this?
But in production situations, one would use an image
with appropriate ALT text.
What if it's just intended as part of the background?
And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows
You mean different widths, correct?
or different default font sizes.
Someone else complained that these were fixing the font size. Are you
saying that some don't?
That problem is hardly unique to the CSS Zen Garden.


Problems with the fonts?
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Zen Garden
the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum
window width of approx 1000px


Not the csszengarden page.


Yes, the css zen garden page. I see it, too. Among other problems
detailed elsewhere in this thread.
What's the URL you're talking about?
http://www.csszengarden.com/
And what specifically happens?
In Opera, some content covers others.
it uses pt font sizing


Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used.


Right. And another school says you should not use any fixed size where
you don't know don't the properties of the display medium. That's the
one you'll see expressed in ciwas. Quite often, too.
Is that what you mean? You're not being very clear.
He is being perfectly clear to those who've spent anytime in this group.
Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or
is there someone who told you that you have to object to their
efforts, for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come
up with your own reasons, as yet?


No disrespect meant here. But before starting a flame war, you might
familiarize yourself with the basics of good css design for computer
screen. Pt is meant for printing, and is inappropriate for screen. Px is
a fixed size, and users of MSIE/Win will be unable to resize it. Thus,
it, too, is inappriate.

As I mentioned in an earlier message, CSS Zen Garden is a nice "gee
whiz" site. But it is not a site to be emulated, at least not at the
details level. Its value lies elsewhere.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Zen Garden
the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum
window width of approx 1000px


Not the csszengarden page.


Yes, the css zen garden page. I see it, too. Among other problems
detailed elsewhere in this thread.
What's the URL you're talking about?
http://www.csszengarden.com/
And what specifically happens?
In Opera, some content covers others.
it uses pt font sizing


Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used.


Right. And another school says you should not use any fixed size where
you don't know don't the properties of the display medium. That's the
one you'll see expressed in ciwas. Quite often, too.
Is that what you mean? You're not being very clear.
He is being perfectly clear to those who've spent anytime in this group.
Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or
is there someone who told you that you have to object to their
efforts, for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come
up with your own reasons, as yet?


No disrespect meant here. But before starting a flame war, you might
familiarize yourself with the basics of good css design for computer
screen. Pt is meant for printing, and is inappropriate for screen. Px is
a fixed size, and users of MSIE/Win will be unable to resize it. Thus,
it, too, is inappriate.

As I mentioned in an earlier message, CSS Zen Garden is a nice "gee
whiz" site. But it is not a site to be emulated, at least not at the
details level. Its value lies elsewhere.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff
designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an
image in its place. This breaks accessibility
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.


Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?


CSS capable browser, image loading turned off. Try it some time,
especially if you're on dialup, as I am. Speeds things up nicely.
But in production situations, one would use an image with
appropriate ALT text.


What if it's just intended as part of the background?


Then it wouldn't be text, would it? Certainly it would not be a heading!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff
designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an
image in its place. This breaks accessibility
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.


Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?


CSS capable browser, image loading turned off. Try it some time,
especially if you're on dialup, as I am. Speeds things up nicely.
But in production situations, one would use an image with
appropriate ALT text.


What if it's just intended as part of the background?


Then it wouldn't be text, would it? Certainly it would not be a heading!

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
And what specifically happens? In Opera, some content covers others.
I exclude Opera, myself, and give it just the bare bones look, hoping
that won't crash it.

I thought the complaint had to do with IE, and to a much lesser extent
NN 7.
it uses pt font sizing

Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Right. And another school says you should not use any fixed size where
you don't know don't the properties of the display medium. That's the
one you'll see expressed in ciwas. Quite often, too.
Are there a lot of realworld style sheets doing this? What are some
URLs? And what potential problems does this cause?

Is that what you mean? You're not being very clear. He is being perfectly clear
I said he wasn't being clear.

Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or
is there someone who told you that you have to object to their
efforts, for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come
up with your own reasons, as yet?

No disrespect meant here. But before starting a flame war
When you face any school of thought, it's unavoidable, isn't it? Me, I
prefer to agree to disagree. But that's not good enough, for some.

screen. Pt is meant for printing, and is inappropriate for screen. Px is
a fixed size, and users of MSIE/Win will be unable to resize it. Thus,
it, too, is inappriate. As I mentioned in an earlier message, CSS Zen Garden is a nice "gee
whiz" site. But it is not a site to be emulated, at least not at the
details level. Its value lies elsewhere.


So what is that value? You say all this, but never explain. So I'm
forced to ask, or ignore this, altogether. What . . value, then?
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
And what specifically happens? In Opera, some content covers others.
I exclude Opera, myself, and give it just the bare bones look, hoping
that won't crash it.

I thought the complaint had to do with IE, and to a much lesser extent
NN 7.
it uses pt font sizing

Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Right. And another school says you should not use any fixed size where
you don't know don't the properties of the display medium. That's the
one you'll see expressed in ciwas. Quite often, too.
Are there a lot of realworld style sheets doing this? What are some
URLs? And what potential problems does this cause?

Is that what you mean? You're not being very clear. He is being perfectly clear
I said he wasn't being clear.

Do you _really_ have any substantive complaints with zen garden? Or
is there someone who told you that you have to object to their
efforts, for some reason or other - but you haven't been able to come
up with your own reasons, as yet?

No disrespect meant here. But before starting a flame war
When you face any school of thought, it's unavoidable, isn't it? Me, I
prefer to agree to disagree. But that's not good enough, for some.

screen. Pt is meant for printing, and is inappropriate for screen. Px is
a fixed size, and users of MSIE/Win will be unable to resize it. Thus,
it, too, is inappriate. As I mentioned in an earlier message, CSS Zen Garden is a nice "gee
whiz" site. But it is not a site to be emulated, at least not at the
details level. Its value lies elsewhere.


So what is that value? You say all this, but never explain. So I'm
forced to ask, or ignore this, altogether. What . . value, then?
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

all you see in the use of style sheets in the so-called
'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to read, and which
can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site, is break down
the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900, then another
sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
How do you determine the width of the browser? Your approach sounds
altogether too complicated. KISS.
Most people seem to use 1024 or greater.
Are you discussing resolution? Or the width of the browser window?
I also see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to
the styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ?
I suppose. I can't see the point in reinventing something that the
browser already has.
I would never advocate relying on js for anything.


Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for.


Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation.[1] But I don't *rely* on it. If .js is off, everything works
just fine, and the user is unaware.
I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3, including
all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and then using
the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or whatever,
then the basic page is displayed as designed.


That's the smart way to do things. Better is to hide styles from NN4 and
IE4, so pages don't crash and burn.
designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not
have to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or
flexibility, then I'd say job well done.


What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?


Eric Meyer does some nice things. Complex spiral demo is nice.

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edg...iral/demo.html

He seems to dig small fonts, too. I don't know why. But the visuals are
good, and the fonts at least resize easily.
[1] Thanks, Mr. Poley!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

all you see in the use of style sheets in the so-called
'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to read, and which
can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site, is break down
the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900, then another
sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
How do you determine the width of the browser? Your approach sounds
altogether too complicated. KISS.
Most people seem to use 1024 or greater.
Are you discussing resolution? Or the width of the browser window?
I also see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to
the styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ?
I suppose. I can't see the point in reinventing something that the
browser already has.
I would never advocate relying on js for anything.


Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for.


Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation.[1] But I don't *rely* on it. If .js is off, everything works
just fine, and the user is unaware.
I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3, including
all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and then using
the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or whatever,
then the basic page is displayed as designed.


That's the smart way to do things. Better is to hide styles from NN4 and
IE4, so pages don't crash and burn.
designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not
have to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or
flexibility, then I'd say job well done.


What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?


Eric Meyer does some nice things. Complex spiral demo is nice.

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edg...iral/demo.html

He seems to dig small fonts, too. I don't know why. But the visuals are
good, and the fonts at least resize easily.
[1] Thanks, Mr. Poley!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?

I wrote: designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility [because] when CSS is supported,
but images are not downloaded.
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?
I'm saying that both image loading and CSS are separate features, and can
be configured separately in browsers. Just because one is enabled doesn't
mean that the other one is. Sites shouldn't break when one feature is
enabled but another isn't.
What the example of this?
With both images and CSS enabled, go to <http://www.csszengarden.com/>.
Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page ("css Zen Garden"
and "The Beauty of CSS Design") are displayed as images of text. I hadn't
noticed that they were techinically background images, but that's how the
trick of replacing text with an image is implemented.

Now, turn off images (in Opera, hit G) and try again. Notice that the H1
and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.

Now, turn off CSS too (in Opera, hit Ctrl-G, unless you've reconfigured
author mode and user mode). Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top
of the page are back.

These aren't decorative images (for which alt="" would be appropriate), or
a background image (for which no ALT attribute is needed). These are the
two most important headings on the page.
And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows You mean different widths, correct?
Yes. For example, try <http://www.csszengarden.com/> in a browser window
that's 600px wide.
or different default font sizes.

Someone else complained that these were fixing the font size. Are you
saying that some don't?


IIRC, some of them left my font size alone. But many used inappropriate
units (px or pt). And some fell apart when my browser's minimum font size
setting overrode the author's microfonts.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff, for example. Do they just do
it all wrong, as it were?

I wrote: designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an image
in its place. This breaks accessibility [because] when CSS is supported,
but images are not downloaded.
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?
I'm saying that both image loading and CSS are separate features, and can
be configured separately in browsers. Just because one is enabled doesn't
mean that the other one is. Sites shouldn't break when one feature is
enabled but another isn't.
What the example of this?
With both images and CSS enabled, go to <http://www.csszengarden.com/>.
Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page ("css Zen Garden"
and "The Beauty of CSS Design") are displayed as images of text. I hadn't
noticed that they were techinically background images, but that's how the
trick of replacing text with an image is implemented.

Now, turn off images (in Opera, hit G) and try again. Notice that the H1
and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.

Now, turn off CSS too (in Opera, hit Ctrl-G, unless you've reconfigured
author mode and user mode). Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top
of the page are back.

These aren't decorative images (for which alt="" would be appropriate), or
a background image (for which no ALT attribute is needed). These are the
two most important headings on the page.
And many of the designs don't adapt very gracefully to different sizes of
browser windows You mean different widths, correct?
Yes. For example, try <http://www.csszengarden.com/> in a browser window
that's 600px wide.
or different default font sizes.

Someone else complained that these were fixing the font size. Are you
saying that some don't?


IIRC, some of them left my font size alone. But many used inappropriate
units (px or pt). And some fell apart when my browser's minimum font size
setting overrode the author's microfonts.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an
image in its place. This breaks accessibility
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?
CSS capable browser, image loading turned off.
But that's going to turn off the images, no matter what. What exactly
was the complaint? If you're images won't load because you don't wish
it, then that's no indication that something is broken.

But in production situations, one would use an image with
appropriate ALT text.

What if it's just intended as part of the background?

Then it wouldn't be text, would it?


Okay. You're saying that there's this block of text. And some style,
there, tries to hide the text by covering it with a . . . . Or are you
saying the text is set to no display, and the background . . .

Could you be more specific? What's the URL? What's the css? Can you
just copy the offending styles and show what they are?

Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: I was inspired by the Zen Garden stuff designs use CSS to hide a specific bit of text, and then display an
image in its place. This breaks accessibility
when CSS is supported, but images are not downloaded.
Are you saying that the background isn't loaded from the server? and
that if you reload the page, it won't work, or something?
CSS capable browser, image loading turned off.
But that's going to turn off the images, no matter what. What exactly
was the complaint? If you're images won't load because you don't wish
it, then that's no indication that something is broken.

But in production situations, one would use an image with
appropriate ALT text.

What if it's just intended as part of the background?

Then it wouldn't be text, would it?


Okay. You're saying that there's this block of text. And some style,
there, tries to hide the text by covering it with a . . . . Or are you
saying the text is set to no display, and the background . . .

Could you be more specific? What's the URL? What's the css? Can you
just copy the offending styles and show what they are?

Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
Regarding the CSS Zen Garden desins...
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: Not the csszengarden page. What's the URL you're talking about? And
what specifically happens?
Yes, the CSS Zen Garden page. Go to <http://www.csszengarden.com/> with a
browser window that's about 600px wide. The design forces horizontal
scrolling. From the width of the scrollbar elevator, I'd guess that 1000px
is about right.
Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Is that what you mean? You're not
being very clear.


Neither pt nor px should be used: http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02

I've addressed other issues elsewhere.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
Regarding the CSS Zen Garden desins...
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000px

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: Not the csszengarden page. What's the URL you're talking about? And
what specifically happens?
Yes, the CSS Zen Garden page. Go to <http://www.csszengarden.com/> with a
browser window that's about 600px wide. The design forces horizontal
scrolling. From the width of the scrollbar elevator, I'd guess that 1000px
is about right.
Apparently one school demands that "pt" be used for font size, and
another that "px" should be used. Is that what you mean? You're not
being very clear.


Neither pt nor px should be used: http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02

I've addressed other issues elsewhere.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
What _I_ did, for an upcoming site,
is break down the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900,
then another sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
Otherwise, you have the 'normal' style.
First, how do you think you can determine the client width?

Second, many of the people I know who use low resolutions do so because
they need everything to be larger. Using smaller fonts doesn't help them.

Third, authors should just leave the font size alone. As Todd Fahrner said
in "The Amazing Em Unit":

The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
I also
see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to the
styles.
Users who don't know how to use basic functions of their browsers will only
be confused when various pages imitate those functions in different ways.
I also filter
the styles by IE and NN. So an Opera user will see the NN 3 version,
and that's it.


At least all you're denying Opera users is your style. Some sites deny
their content/services to Opera users.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
What _I_ did, for an upcoming site,
is break down the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900,
then another sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
Otherwise, you have the 'normal' style.
First, how do you think you can determine the client width?

Second, many of the people I know who use low resolutions do so because
they need everything to be larger. Using smaller fonts doesn't help them.

Third, authors should just leave the font size alone. As Todd Fahrner said
in "The Amazing Em Unit":

The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
I also
see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to the
styles.
Users who don't know how to use basic functions of their browsers will only
be confused when various pages imitate those functions in different ways.
I also filter
the styles by IE and NN. So an Opera user will see the NN 3 version,
and that's it.


At least all you're denying Opera users is your style. Some sites deny
their content/services to Opera users.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
all you see in the use of style sheets in the so-called
'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to read, and which
can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site, is break down
the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900, then another
sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
How do you determine the width of the browser?
Javascript. If javascript is off, no harm done. But right now, these
are basically set up for IE 5+. Even NN 7, for now, is getting shunted
to the basic non-styled layout. But then most people use IE.
Your approach sounds altogether too complicated.
It's from the 'complication' of the box model. What appears a decent
margin in the 900+ screen resolutions that most use, tends to get a
bit wide at small widths. Plus, the smaller width could, possibly,
indicate a small screen resolution. I could check for that, directly.
But just checking client size is sufficient, I think. Having a second,
separate 'thin' style allows a lot of flexibility over any other
approach I can think of.
Most people seem to use 1024 or greater. Are you discussing resolution? Or the width of the browser window?
Screen res for the 1024+. And I check the window, client width, not
the screen res, directly. People can always resize windows. So, the
resize handler examines which style should be assigned.

I also see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to
the styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ? I suppose. I can't see the point in reinventing something that the
browser already has.
That's why various of these site incorporate a little graphic button
for fontsize increase and decrease. I could also provide that. But I
think having the multiple styles is sufficient. Plus, worse comes to
worse, there's the option of simply choosing - un-style, just the base
layout in IE 5+. I have that, as well.

I would never advocate relying on js for anything. Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for. Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation.[1] But I don't *rely* on it.
Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus? That's what it's
used for. I suppose pages won't break without these. And navigation
will still work without the 'hiermenus'. But they are important, in
probably the majority of sites. I just prefer the generated content
for dropboxes because the 'hiermenu' approach, whichever you use, is a
LOT of javascript if you want on set of routines to satisfy most all
browsers. On the other hand, you could have separate menu packages for
say, IE 5+, NN 7, and then one for all the rest? But it's particularly
for these cascading menus where you really get into the basic DOM and
metrics and event handling for what used to be called, DHTML.

I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3, including
all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and then using
the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or whatever,
then the basic page is displayed as designed. That's the smart way to do things. Better is to hide styles from NN4 and
IE4, so pages don't crash and burn.
I think so, and even as an option for IE 5+ and NN 7, should the
viewer prefer it, that way.

designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not
have to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or
flexibility, then I'd say job well done.

What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?

Eric Meyer does some nice things. Complex spiral demo is nice. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edg...iral/demo.html He seems to dig small fonts, too. I don't know why.
He just do.
But the visuals are good, and the fonts at least resize easily.
I've seen this, before. I didn't at all like the menu graphics. And
you can't change the text size, just the heading font size in IE.
Plus, the general look is kind of 'klunky'. But I've seen this,
before, just last week.

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


It's not a particularly good looking page. It looks like a '96 welcome
to the world of table design. I've still got a few pages, and a few
sites, like that, myself.

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

He complains about javascript - but doesn't know why. Then he moves on
to Outlook, and I fully agree with him. I wouldn't use Outlook. It's
dangerous. But it's not javascript that's the problem. 'Holes' are
elsewhere. Network level holes. Downloaded applets could do anything.
ActiveX can be pretty powerful. Javascript not so much so. And IE is
known for security bugs basically because everyone uses IE. If 90% of
the people used Opera, you wouldn't be talking about how safe Opera
is, right now.
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
all you see in the use of style sheets in the so-called
'professional' sites are fonts that are too small to read, and which
can't be resized. What _I_ did, for an upcoming site, is break down
the style by client width. If it fell below say, 900, then another
sheet is loaded with smaller fonts and whatever else.
How do you determine the width of the browser?
Javascript. If javascript is off, no harm done. But right now, these
are basically set up for IE 5+. Even NN 7, for now, is getting shunted
to the basic non-styled layout. But then most people use IE.
Your approach sounds altogether too complicated.
It's from the 'complication' of the box model. What appears a decent
margin in the 900+ screen resolutions that most use, tends to get a
bit wide at small widths. Plus, the smaller width could, possibly,
indicate a small screen resolution. I could check for that, directly.
But just checking client size is sufficient, I think. Having a second,
separate 'thin' style allows a lot of flexibility over any other
approach I can think of.
Most people seem to use 1024 or greater. Are you discussing resolution? Or the width of the browser window?
Screen res for the 1024+. And I check the window, client width, not
the screen res, directly. People can always resize windows. So, the
resize handler examines which style should be assigned.

I also see some sites using a font size button, that goes right to
the styles. But I supposed there's some javascript ? I suppose. I can't see the point in reinventing something that the
browser already has.
That's why various of these site incorporate a little graphic button
for fontsize increase and decrease. I could also provide that. But I
think having the multiple styles is sufficient. Plus, worse comes to
worse, there's the option of simply choosing - un-style, just the base
layout in IE 5+. I have that, as well.

I would never advocate relying on js for anything. Not even cookies? or cascading menus? That's what javascript is used
for. Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation.[1] But I don't *rely* on it.
Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus? That's what it's
used for. I suppose pages won't break without these. And navigation
will still work without the 'hiermenus'. But they are important, in
probably the majority of sites. I just prefer the generated content
for dropboxes because the 'hiermenu' approach, whichever you use, is a
LOT of javascript if you want on set of routines to satisfy most all
browsers. On the other hand, you could have separate menu packages for
say, IE 5+, NN 7, and then one for all the rest? But it's particularly
for these cascading menus where you really get into the basic DOM and
metrics and event handling for what used to be called, DHTML.

I like the idea of designing a no-frills version for NN 3, including
all the tag and containers for use with later styles, and then using
the styles to change things around. But if styles fail, or whatever,
then the basic page is displayed as designed. That's the smart way to do things. Better is to hide styles from NN4 and
IE4, so pages don't crash and burn.
I think so, and even as an option for IE 5+ and NN 7, should the
viewer prefer it, that way.

designer who saw that site were convinced that creativity does not
have to be sacrificed in order to achieve accessibility or
flexibility, then I'd say job well done.

What would be good example of this better design, in your opinion?
What would be some URLs?

Eric Meyer does some nice things. Complex spiral demo is nice. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edg...iral/demo.html He seems to dig small fonts, too. I don't know why.
He just do.
But the visuals are good, and the fonts at least resize easily.
I've seen this, before. I didn't at all like the menu graphics. And
you can't change the text size, just the heading font size in IE.
Plus, the general look is kind of 'klunky'. But I've seen this,
before, just last week.

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


It's not a particularly good looking page. It looks like a '96 welcome
to the world of table design. I've still got a few pages, and a few
sites, like that, myself.

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

He complains about javascript - but doesn't know why. Then he moves on
to Outlook, and I fully agree with him. I wouldn't use Outlook. It's
dangerous. But it's not javascript that's the problem. 'Holes' are
elsewhere. Network level holes. Downloaded applets could do anything.
ActiveX can be pretty powerful. Javascript not so much so. And IE is
known for security bugs basically because everyone uses IE. If 90% of
the people used Opera, you wouldn't be talking about how safe Opera
is, right now.
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
I thought the complaint had to do with IE, and to a much lesser
extent NN 7.


No, with all browsers as far as I can tell.
you should not use any fixed size where you don't know don't the
properties of the display medium.


Are there a lot of realworld style sheets doing this? What are some
URLs?


See the restaurant I recently did, url in sig.
And what potential problems does this cause?


Makes site potentially difficult to read for some users.
Is that what you mean? You're not being very clear.
He is being perfectly clear


I said he wasn't being clear.


I know what you said. If you had spent a bit of time in ciwas before
criticizing others, you'd have understood his point. Ho hum.
As I mentioned in an earlier message, CSS Zen Garden is a nice "gee
whiz" site. But it is not a site to be emulated, at least not at
the details level. Its value lies elsewhere.


So what is that value? You say all this, but never explain. So I'm
forced to ask, or ignore this, altogether. What . . value, then?


Since you actually quoted what I said the site's value was ("a nice 'gee
whiz' site") -- you could have found the other message that I alluded
to, as well -- it looks to me like you're trolling. Nice effort at that,
btw.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #50

145 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.