What are the best css designs?

[Mark Johnson]

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.

[Brian]

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/

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

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 . . . .
[just in case you're for real, I'll respond one more time]
Or are you saying the text is set to no display, and the background
Right, the text is set to not display. I haven't looked at the css, but
I think this is done with visibility: none, actually. Then a background
image is placed in the page to convey the information. But a background
image is suboptimal when an image in the html -- or better yet, the text
itself, unhidden -- is available.

If someone has css on, but images off, then they lose the information.
Could you be more specific?
That's all you get from me. HTH.
What's the URL?
You must be trolling. The url is for the same css zen site we've been
discussing.
What's the css? Can you
just copy the offending styles and show what they are?

Of course not. Go to the site and view source. Sheesh.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

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 . . . .
[just in case you're for real, I'll respond one more time]
Or are you saying the text is set to no display, and the background
Right, the text is set to not display. I haven't looked at the css, but
I think this is done with visibility: none, actually. Then a background
image is placed in the page to convey the information. But a background
image is suboptimal when an image in the html -- or better yet, the text
itself, unhidden -- is available.

If someone has css on, but images off, then they lose the information.
Could you be more specific?
That's all you get from me. HTH.
What's the URL?
You must be trolling. The url is for the same css zen site we've been
discussing.
What's the css? Can you
just copy the offending styles and show what they are?

Of course not. Go to the site and view source. Sheesh.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote: 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. But I don't *rely* on it.
Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus?

Like *I* said, I don't rely on it for anything. That would necessarily
include cookies and cascading menus, neither of which I have ever used,
because I've never had need for them.
That's what it's used for.
That's 2 of the things, among many, that javascript is used for.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

That wasn't an example of good visual design. That was a reference to
javascript form validation. My idea for that was lifted straight from S.
Poley's site; I was giving him credit.
It's not a particularly good looking page.
In ciwa*, we're (mostly) better coders than artists.
It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote: 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. But I don't *rely* on it.
Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus?

Like *I* said, I don't rely on it for anything. That would necessarily
include cookies and cascading menus, neither of which I have ever used,
because I've never had need for them.
That's what it's used for.
That's 2 of the things, among many, that javascript is used for.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

That wasn't an example of good visual design. That was a reference to
javascript form validation. My idea for that was lifted straight from S.
Poley's site; I was giving him credit.
It's not a particularly good looking page.
In ciwa*, we're (mostly) better coders than artists.
It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

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.
I see.
Now, turn off images (in Opera
You have to pay to get Opera, don't you? IE and NN are free.
Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.
They probably should just run a user-agent check against Opera, and
exclude that from style sheets, entirely. That might just be good
practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something.

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.
In Opera. It's looks fine in IE. And most everyone uses IE.

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.
Yes, you could resize it, in any screen resolution, to be only 600
wide. I'm not sure that styles that work on the full screen
resolutions that most people use (1024+), and maximized windows,
always translate well to 'thin' windows. I have an 'thin' window
alternative style sheets for each style I present. I definitely
noticed this problem, too, if not with this particular zen garden
site.

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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

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.
I see.
Now, turn off images (in Opera
You have to pay to get Opera, don't you? IE and NN are free.
Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.
They probably should just run a user-agent check against Opera, and
exclude that from style sheets, entirely. That might just be good
practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something.

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.
In Opera. It's looks fine in IE. And most everyone uses IE.

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.
Yes, you could resize it, in any screen resolution, to be only 600
wide. I'm not sure that styles that work on the full screen
resolutions that most people use (1024+), and maximized windows,
always translate well to 'thin' windows. I have an 'thin' window
alternative style sheets for each style I present. I definitely
noticed this problem, too, if not with this particular zen garden
site.

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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

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.
Not with IE 5+ or NN 7. I have those, along with a few others.

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.
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Okay. That's not quite the way I'd go. But then I also want to steer
clear of the 'professional' site design of two dozens flash banners, a
couple of applets, three popup windows on entry AND exit, and all the
rest - oh, yeah, the 1pt fonts.

And what potential problems does this cause?

Makes site potentially difficult to read for some users.
What if you have a lot of information, and interrelated info, to
present? A 'billiards hall', or family restaurant isn't quite the same
as a general interest site with new essays and articles every day or
so. Some people put up with 'professional site design' because they
want that content. And they don't care HOW ugly it looks. And I would
hope to alleviate that frustration, just a bit.

Since you actually quoted what I said the site's value was ("a nice 'gee
whiz' site")

But how does that make it "valuable"? What's the value in being a
cheap, 'gee whiz' site?

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

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.
Not with IE 5+ or NN 7. I have those, along with a few others.

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.
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Okay. That's not quite the way I'd go. But then I also want to steer
clear of the 'professional' site design of two dozens flash banners, a
couple of applets, three popup windows on entry AND exit, and all the
rest - oh, yeah, the 1pt fonts.

And what potential problems does this cause?

Makes site potentially difficult to read for some users.
What if you have a lot of information, and interrelated info, to
present? A 'billiards hall', or family restaurant isn't quite the same
as a general interest site with new essays and articles every day or
so. Some people put up with 'professional site design' because they
want that content. And they don't care HOW ugly it looks. And I would
hope to alleviate that frustration, just a bit.

Since you actually quoted what I said the site's value was ("a nice 'gee
whiz' site")

But how does that make it "valuable"? What's the value in being a
cheap, 'gee whiz' site?

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Regarding the CSS Zen Garden desins...
Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000pxMark 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.
Okay. Nobody else said that. The dreaded horizontal bar. Nobody likes
the horizontal scroll. _That_ might be one of the rules of design,
with which I agree.

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

That's probably why both are included in the W3C spec? Do you consider
any of this 'aFAQ' to be controversial, in any way? Do you think that
others might?

And more importantly, if they do - would you stay true to your school,
or go meet n greet?

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Regarding the CSS Zen Garden desins...
Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Alas the site's default style unnecessarily requires a minimum window
width of approx 1000pxMark 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.
Okay. Nobody else said that. The dreaded horizontal bar. Nobody likes
the horizontal scroll. _That_ might be one of the rules of design,
with which I agree.

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

That's probably why both are included in the W3C spec? Do you consider
any of this 'aFAQ' to be controversial, in any way? Do you think that
others might?

And more importantly, if they do - would you stay true to your school,
or go meet n greet?

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: That's all you get from me. HTH.

It's only Usenet, after all. Post. Don't post. But how will anyone
ever learn?

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: That's all you get from me. HTH.

It's only Usenet, after all. Post. Don't post. But how will anyone
ever learn?

[Darin McGrew]

Regarding http://www.csszengarden.com/ with images off and CSS on,
I wrote:

Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

They probably should just run a user-agent check against Opera, and
exclude that from style sheets, entirely. That might just be good
practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something.

The problem has nothing to do with Opera, per se. The problem I described
manifests itself in any browser (even MSIE) that has been configured not to
display images, but to honor CSS.
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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

Get over the anti-Opera crusade already. Even MSIE can be configured to
ignore document fonts. Designs that break when the browser ignores or
overrides the document's font sizes are flawed.
--
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

[Darin McGrew]

Regarding http://www.csszengarden.com/ with images off and CSS on,
I wrote:

Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.
Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

They probably should just run a user-agent check against Opera, and
exclude that from style sheets, entirely. That might just be good
practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something.

The problem has nothing to do with Opera, per se. The problem I described
manifests itself in any browser (even MSIE) that has been configured not to
display images, but to honor CSS.
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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

Get over the anti-Opera crusade already. Even MSIE can be configured to
ignore document fonts. Designs that break when the browser ignores or
overrides the document's font sizes are flawed.
--
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

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian wrote: Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation. But I don't *rely* on it.

Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus?

Like *I* said, I don't rely on it for anything.
Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about them?

That's what it's used for. That's 2 of the things, among many, that javascript is used for.
Mainly what it's used for. Cookies, and 'hiermenus'. Oh yes - popups.

I tend to use it for other things. I don't like ad popups. I don't
like 'hiermenus', necessarily, because they have to be so involved,
and so complicated (really). But I did play around with them for a
long time. And they are SOP on the 'professionally designed websites'.

In ciwa*, we're (mostly) better coders than artists. It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

I've still got pages like that. In fact, I'm trying to convert one, in
particular, just now, to the exciting world of style sheets. I had
originally designed the page in about '96 or '97. Some of the other
stuff is new, or db generated. But this one page is a "tables for
tabular data" page. And it looks a bit ugly, in my opinion, as site
designer, artist and coder.

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian wrote: Javascript is used for all sorts of things. I use it for form
validation. But I don't *rely* on it.

Like I said, not even for cookies, cascading menus?

Like *I* said, I don't rely on it for anything.
Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about them?

That's what it's used for. That's 2 of the things, among many, that javascript is used for.
Mainly what it's used for. Cookies, and 'hiermenus'. Oh yes - popups.

I tend to use it for other things. I don't like ad popups. I don't
like 'hiermenus', necessarily, because they have to be so involved,
and so complicated (really). But I did play around with them for a
long time. And they are SOP on the 'professionally designed websites'.

In ciwa*, we're (mostly) better coders than artists. It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

I've still got pages like that. In fact, I'm trying to convert one, in
particular, just now, to the exciting world of style sheets. I had
originally designed the page in about '96 or '97. Some of the other
stuff is new, or db generated. But this one page is a "tables for
tabular data" page. And it looks a bit ugly, in my opinion, as site
designer, artist and coder.

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

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?
Using javascript.
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.
They look big in tiny resolutions. That's the point. Not so much so on
wider displays. But yes, since I check client width, and not screen
resolution, you might quarrel that a 'thin' window style makes the
text too small.

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
Or because they couldn't more carefully specify the font name and
size, on screen.
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. 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.
They are only confused when they try the browser font resize, and it
does nothing. That's the confusing part.

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.

Just the style sheets. I hope Opera doesn't crash on a '92
gubment-form style of heading and paragraph tags. But then again, no
one uses Opera. Almost everyone uses IE. That can always change. Just
the nature of devices can change that, if you move from a desktop or
notebook IE to some small screen device using another Microsoft
variant, or something else, altogether. You know, Bill Gates has been
talking about the demise of the desktop machines for a few years, now.
And these are the very machines that run his software. It's a little
difficult to see - now - with entry-level P4 desktop boxes with a
80-120G HD and 512-1M DC R/W running under $500 or so with a 400W
'silent' supply.

But . . things change.

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

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?
Using javascript.
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.
They look big in tiny resolutions. That's the point. Not so much so on
wider displays. But yes, since I check client width, and not screen
resolution, you might quarrel that a 'thin' window style makes the
text too small.

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
Or because they couldn't more carefully specify the font name and
size, on screen.
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. 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.
They are only confused when they try the browser font resize, and it
does nothing. That's the confusing part.

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.

Just the style sheets. I hope Opera doesn't crash on a '92
gubment-form style of heading and paragraph tags. But then again, no
one uses Opera. Almost everyone uses IE. That can always change. Just
the nature of devices can change that, if you move from a desktop or
notebook IE to some small screen device using another Microsoft
variant, or something else, altogether. You know, Bill Gates has been
talking about the demise of the desktop machines for a few years, now.
And these are the very machines that run his software. It's a little
difficult to see - now - with entry-level P4 desktop boxes with a
80-120G HD and 512-1M DC R/W running under $500 or so with a 400W
'silent' supply.

But . . things change.

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Regarding http://www.csszengarden.com/ with images off and CSS on,

Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.

practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something. The problem has nothing to do with Opera, per se. The problem I described
manifests itself in any browser (even MSIE) that has been configured not to
display images, but to honor CSS.
Okay. People generally don't do that. But that may be a fair
complaint. Don't bust the content - cause you're complaining about
content - if the load images is switched off, even in IE, for some
weird reason.

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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

Get over the anti-Opera crusade already.
It just seems that Opera is playing by a completely different set of
rules. And since nobody uses it, why cater to that audience? Just
present the basic layout, and that's it. It's the same content. So I
don't know what you're complaint would be. It just wouldn't look as
slick, or as interesting. But maybe that's specifically what you find
unimportant? So it works out.

ignore document fonts. Designs that break when the browser ignores or
overrides the document's font sizes are flawed.

So if you use a giant font size, and all the table-based
"professionally designed websites" choke on it, then the problem is
with the "professionally designed websites", right? What are the
limits, here? What are reasonable expectations? And that's what anyone
bases their design on. You have to be reasonable. You have to put
things in perspective - balance contending notions.

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Regarding http://www.csszengarden.com/ with images off and CSS on,

Notice that the H1 and H2 headings at the top of the page are missing.

practice, generally. See if Opera can handle a Mosaic 1.0 layout, or
something. The problem has nothing to do with Opera, per se. The problem I described
manifests itself in any browser (even MSIE) that has been configured not to
display images, but to honor CSS.
Okay. People generally don't do that. But that may be a fair
complaint. Don't bust the content - cause you're complaining about
content - if the load images is switched off, even in IE, for some
weird reason.

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.

Opera, again? I think people should not present Opera viewers with any
style sheets. And I think that would solve the problem, for the .1 of
1 percent of viewers that use Opera.

Get over the anti-Opera crusade already.
It just seems that Opera is playing by a completely different set of
rules. And since nobody uses it, why cater to that audience? Just
present the basic layout, and that's it. It's the same content. So I
don't know what you're complaint would be. It just wouldn't look as
slick, or as interesting. But maybe that's specifically what you find
unimportant? So it works out.

ignore document fonts. Designs that break when the browser ignores or
overrides the document's font sizes are flawed.

So if you use a giant font size, and all the table-based
"professionally designed websites" choke on it, then the problem is
with the "professionally designed websites", right? What are the
limits, here? What are reasonable expectations? And that's what anyone
bases their design on. You have to be reasonable. You have to put
things in perspective - balance contending notions.

[Darin McGrew]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

It just seems that Opera is playing by a completely different set of
rules.
What "completely different set of rules"?

The W3C specs, which Opera supports better than MSIE does?

Or the idea that the user, not the author, should be in control of the
browser?

I wrote:

Designs that break when the browser ignores or overrides the document's
font sizes are flawed.

So if you use a giant font size, and all the table-based
"professionally designed websites" choke on it, then the problem is
with the "professionally designed websites", right?

The problem isn't with table-based designs or CSS-based designs. Either
technology can be used to create brittle designs that break when the
author's assumptions about the reader's browsing environment don't hold.
And often, it doesn't take much--just an enforced minimum font size on a
high-res display, or on a normal display for a user with slightly less than
20/20 vision.
--
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

[Spartanicus]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

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.

You've nicely proven my point that coders and designers don't understand
each other :)

--
Spartanicus

[Mark Johnson]

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

It just seems that Opera is playing by a completely different set of
rules. What "completely different set of rules"? The W3C specs, which Opera supports better than MSIE does?
But it breaks on style sheets. It encourages one to not send it any
style info. Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you? IE and NN are
free.
Or the idea that the user
The viewer?
not the author
The designer and coder.
should be in control of the browser?
It can't be any other way. It's client-side.

Designs that break when the browser ignores or overrides the document's
font sizes are flawed.

So if you use a giant font size, and all the table-based
"professionally designed websites" choke on it, then the problem is
with the "professionally designed websites", right?

The problem isn't with table-based designs or CSS-based designs.
It's with table-based designs, and CSS designs.
technology can be used to create brittle designs that break when the
author's assumptions about the reader's browsing environment don't hold.
Or technology can fail to accomodate 'thin' windows. I mean, let's be
specific.
And often, it doesn't take much--just an enforced minimum font size on a
high-res display, or on a normal display for a user with slightly less than
20/20 vision.

Actually, I've already said that I agree. You're talking,
specifically, about using the 'Accessibility' tab in IE's 'tools' to
ignore specified font size or face. And that's reasonable! And I think
it should be part of one's test. I have no problem with that -
specifically.

But that's why you need to be specific.

[Mark Johnson]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

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.

You've nicely proven my point that coders and designers don't understand
each other :)

I would say that artists and engineers don't always. But there must be
exceptions to the rule. You find people designing and testing digital
cameras, say, who take pictures of their cluttered desk or an oddly
framed bit of grass near the rosebush. But you can also find techies
who know about the art of photography, as well. There's all sorts of
people.

[Spartanicus]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

The W3C specs, which Opera supports better than MSIE does?
But it breaks on style sheets.

Show us an example and we'll prove you wrong. Opera has the best css
support bar none.
Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you?
Nope, many use it in the ad sponsored mode.
IE and NN are free.

IE certainly isn't, you pay for it when you buy the OS that it's part
of.

--
Spartanicus

[Johannes Koch]

Mark Johnson wrote:

[Opera]

But it breaks on style sheets.
Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning, ...
Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you?

No. You only have to pay, if you don't want to see the ad bar.
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

[Mark Johnson]

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

But it breaks on style sheets. Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning
What would be some specific examples?

Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you?

No. You only have to pay, if you don't want to see the ad bar.

So they have some sort of spyware, or just nuisance ware? I don't
believe M$ or NN/AOL force banners into their browsers or title bars,
or wherever.

Here's a page, rather, that suggests, to me, fairly decent - if
somewhat dated - design. The Kerry website. Johnkerry.com. Use your
own style sheet. Killer giant fonts. Tiny little override fonts. Save
for the various sidebar text, which bunches up, it generally holds
together. Then again, it's not that dependent on styles, but much more
the old table-based and sliced-image rollever design. I think it's
really the extensive use of tables that holds it together.

[Mark Johnson]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you? Nope, many use it in the ad sponsored mode. IE and NN are free.

IE certainly isn't, you pay for it when you buy the OS that it's part
of.

You buy the OS. IE you download for free. Same for NN. But then again,
most everyone uses IE 5.5+.

As for websites, I was looking at the johnkerry.com site, with its
old-school reliance on tables and image-sliced rollover graphics. So
the tables lock things in place, even if you override font size to get
the text to bunch up in the boxes. On the other hand, since most
people use 1024+ resolution, most people see a page that takes up only
half to a third of their screen, which might be annoying.

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Mark Johnson wrote:

since most people use 1024+ resolution, most people see
a page that takes up only half to a third of their screen,
which might be annoying.

Depends on how you define "most". According to
<http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm#res> it's ~60% with
1024 and higher.
Matthias

[Steve Pugh]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

But it breaks on style sheets.

Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning

What would be some specific examples?

child selector:
div > p {color: red;}

attribute selector:
input[type="text"] {width: 20em;}

fixed positioining:
div#headline {position: fixed; top: 0; left: 0;}

None of the above work in IE. They all work in Opera.

There are lots more examples. There are very few (maybe none?)
examples of standard CSS that work in IE but not in Opera.

You claim that Opera "breaks on style sheets" but you haven't given
any examples. Can you?

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/>

[Spartanicus]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

IE and NN are free.

IE certainly isn't, you pay for it when you buy the OS that it's part
of.

You buy the OS. IE you download for free.

Sure, just as you buy a car, the engine is included for free.
Same for NN.
Nescape/Mozilla is another story entirely.
But then again, most everyone uses IE 5.5+.
Irrelevant, browser centric coding no matter what the developer's
preference is dumb.
As for websites, I was looking at the johnkerry.com site, with its
old-school reliance on tables and image-sliced rollover graphics. So
the tables lock things in place, even if you override font size to get
the text to bunch up in the boxes. On the other hand, since most
people use 1024+ resolution

You really don't have a clue, desktop size is irrelevant, window width
varies wildly amongst people who are using the same desktop size.

Btw, I missed the url that supported your claim that Opera can't handle
css.

--
Spartanicus

[Spartanicus]

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

[Opera]

But it breaks on style sheets.

Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning, ...

Generated content
Css tables
Min/max width
Inline tables
CSS counters
Run-in headers
Outline
Empty-cells
:hover psuedo class on anything but anchors
@import with specified media

And that's just a sample of the css properties and values supported by
Opera that IE doesn't support, don't get us started on IEs css bugs and
it's http spec violations, png and html problems.

--
Spartanicus

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you?

No. You only have to pay, if you don't want to see the ad bar.

So they have some sort of spyware, or just nuisance ware? I don't
believe M$ or NN/AOL force banners into their browsers or title
bars, or wherever.

MS and AOL are huge companies with billion dollar budgets and can
afford to give away a browser. Opera is a small, browser-only, company
with just a handful of employees. Yes, the free version has a banner
ad in the upper right toolbar. So what?

If you know nothing about Opera (the browser or the company) why do
you bash it?

Why not download it and see how good it is? Choose the non-Java
version; it's only 3.2 MB.
http://opera.com/download/

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote: Javascript is used for all sorts of things. But I don't *rely* on it. not even for cookies, cascading menus?

I don't rely on it for anything.

Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about them?

That's irrelevant. Javascript is not available to all users. Unless you
want to exclude those users, you cannot rely on javascript for anything.
That doens't mean you can't *use* javascript, for cookies, rollovers,
whatever. But you cannot rely on them.

Note, though, that many things that web designers use js for are better
done with other technologies, because the solution is more robust, or
uses less code, or is simpler, or is better not done in the first place.

rollovers: better done with css than js, more likely to work AFAIK, and
lighter page weight

popups: in general, better not done at all

cookies: used far more often than is necessary; many sites could do
without them entirely; but if you *do* need them, it's best not to
require js, since not all users have or want to enable it

drop-down menus (often called dhtml): mostly, I see these implemented
very badly; but if done correctly, it is arguably something for js; some
would argue that the concept is a bad one, and likely to confuse some users

[re: Stephen Poley's Web Matters site]

It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

I've still got pages like that. In fact, I'm trying to convert one,

You ignored my point. You said that Steven Poley's site was a 96-era
table-design affair. Are you still making that claim? I cannot find
layout tables on his site.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson 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.
Not with IE 5+ or NN 7. I have those, along with a few others.

Why are you arguing about this?

Opera 7.23/Win2k, content overlaps
MSIE 5.5/Win2k, horizontal scroll bar
Mozilla 1.6/Win2k, content hidden, inaccessible [1]

All due to an inflexible layout. But I doubt that any of this is
important to CSS Zen Garden. The site is meant to show the possibilities
more than what people should actually do. Or, if it is meant to show
people what they should do, then I reccommend that you only use that
site for inspiration.
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Okay. That's not quite the way I'd go. But then I also want to steer
clear of the 'professional' site design of two dozens flash banners,
a couple of applets, three popup windows on entry AND exit, and all
the rest - oh, yeah, the 1pt fonts.

That's nice, but since T.S. McHugh's website uses no flash, no applets,
no popups, and no 1pt fonts, I am forced to wonder what your motivation
is in associating them with my site. I don't think you have anything
meaningful to contribute, so instead you slander others' work. I might
be offended, except that you've already shown how much of a clue you
have by slagging Opera's css abilities, among other silly comments.
("a nice 'gee whiz' site")

But how does that make it "valuable"? What's the value in being a
cheap, 'gee whiz' site?

To show designers what's possible in visual presentation of html strict.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson 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.

Not with IE 5+ or NN 7. I have those, along with a few others.

Why are you arguing about this? Opera 7.23/Win2k, content overlaps
Right. I have no reason to doubt the Opera breaks on this, and other
things.
MSIE 5.5/Win2k, horizontal scroll bar
Someone pointed that out. And I specifically agree with problem of the
horizontal scroll, as something to be avoided.
Mozilla 1.6/Win2k, content hidden, inaccessible [1]
Do you mean NN 7?
All due to an inflexible layout.
But it looks fine in IE. And most everyone uses IE.
But I doubt that any of this is
important to CSS Zen Garden. The site is meant to show the possibilities
more than what people should actually do. Or, if it is meant to show
people what they should do, then I reccommend that you only use that
site for inspiration.
I did. There were a few things I thought were sort of crude, or didn't
like. But the general idea of rearranging the content in different
'looks' was very appealing. And I took it the next step.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/ Okay. That's not quite the way I'd go. But then I also want to steer
clear of the 'professional' site design of two dozens flash banners,
a couple of applets, three popup windows on entry AND exit, and all
the rest - oh, yeah, the 1pt fonts. That's nice, but since T.S. McHugh's website uses no flash, no applets
I didn't say it did. I thought it looked a bit primitive. But that's
not what I meant by "professionally designed". I don't consider the
latter to be a good thing.
no popups, and no 1pt fonts, I am forced to wonder what your motivation
is in associating them with my site.
I didn't. That's _your_ site? Let me be clear. That's not the way I'd
go. But I'd ALSO . . in addition to that . . would steer clear of
other sites, those paid and 'professionally designed' which suffer in
even more ways than I suggested.
I don't think you have anything
meaningful to contribute, so instead you slander others' work.
I didn't particularly care for the layout at the URL, above. But,
again, I don't put that in the category of what I refer to as
"professionally designed", which again I don't consider to be a good
thing.
be offended
Or you might just be very eager to take offense, at anything. I know
people like that.
except that you've already shown how much of a clue you
have by slagging Opera's css abilities
I just read the comments, here. I don't even have Opera. You have to
buy it, don't you? IE and NN are free. So is Lynx, the DOS browser,
right? I have no plans to check against Opera. Back in the days of
Opera 3, I had a copy and used to test against that. But it broke on
everything. And I figured - what the hey?
("a nice 'gee whiz' site")

But how does that make it "valuable"? What's the value in being a
cheap, 'gee whiz' site?

To show designers what's possible in visual presentation of html strict.

But haven't you complained that such is dangerous and misleading for
all the problems it encourages? Weren't you just complaining about zen
garden, above, and previously?

[Mark Johnson]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
Brian wrote: Javascript is used for all sorts of things. But I don't *rely* on it. not even for cookies, cascading menus? I don't rely on it for anything.

Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about them?

That's irrelevant.
No, it's not. No man is an island. And the best sites set the bar for
what is best. And even those which are "professionally designed" have
some aspects worth emulating. You have to study what others have done.
You can't just blurt out - that's irrelevant, like you just don't
care.
Javascript is not available to all users. Unless you
want to exclude those users, you cannot rely on javascript for anything.
Then they are excluded. But I thought we'd agreed that site
navigation, if that's the issue, should continue to work just fine
without javascript, or at least by another path. The javascript
solutions might be easier on the viewer. But someone should still be
able to get around without it.
That doens't mean you can't *use* javascript, for cookies, rollovers,
whatever. But you cannot rely on them.
That's fair enough. A rule meant to be broken when the need arises,
perhaps.
Note, though, that many things that web designers use js for are better
done with other technologies, because the solution is more robust, or
uses less code, or is simpler, or is better not done in the first place.
Such as:
rollovers: better done with css than js, more likely to work AFAIK, and
lighter page weight
I like the idea of css rollovers, and now use them. But it requires
using the dreaded background image.
popups: in general, better not done at all
I absolutely and categorically agree. But it's a big 'net' out there.
And many don't. What I'd like to see is some integrity from IE in
disallowing popups by throwing a single 'accessibility' switch, or
whatever.
cookies: used far more often than is necessary; many sites could do
without them entirely; but if you *do* need them, it's best not to
require js, since not all users have or want to enable it
And what would you use, instead?
drop-down menus (often called dhtml): mostly, I see these implemented
very badly; but if done correctly, it is arguably something for js; some
would argue that the concept is a bad one, and likely to confuse some users
It really doesn't confuse anyone. But the code is inevitably rather
long. It could lead to overhead problems, even as 512-1M R/W become
the norm. I suggested that if one wants the 'hiermenus', whoever
designed it, that perhaps the browsers could be identified and subsets
of the one-size-fits all loaded as appropriate.
[re: Stephen Poley's Web Matters site] It looks like a '96 welcome to the world of table design.

It only uses tables for tabular data AFAIK.

I've still got pages like that. In fact, I'm trying to convert one,

You ignored my point. You said that Steven Poley's site was a 96-era
table-design affair. Are you still making that claim?

That was the site with the background over the background, which might
be a problem without image loading? with all sorts of tables, below?

[Mark Johnson]

Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

since most people use 1024+ resolution, most people see
a page that takes up only half to a third of their screen,
which might be annoying.

Depends on how you define "most". According to
<http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm#res> it's ~60% with
1024 and higher.

I don't know. They want to claim IE is coming out of the mid-90s to
the mid-80s in percentage of use. I find that difficult to believe.
It's encouraging news. But I'm not sure I believe them As for the
width, well, I guess one can believe who they will. I suspect the
1024+ is far higher than they want to admit. The thing used to be that
web notebooks were limited to lower resolutions. But that hasn't been
true for a year, or two, at least. And notebook viewers now generally
use 1024, and greater, screen resolutions.

The issue on this tends even more to be client size, rather than
screen resolution. What happens to the margins, the layout, when the
columns start to get 'crunched'? Might a slightly different style
sheet alleviate some problems if brought in under some arbitrary
width, say like 900. That's what I do. The javascript resize handler
checks for this client width cutoff. And it turns on one or the other
alternative for a particular style, depending. Without javascript, the
styles don't load, at all, and one views the basic layout scheme,
which I try to make reasonably interesting, as well.

[Darin McGrew]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

I just read the comments, here. I don't even have Opera. You have to
buy it, don't you? IE and NN are free. So is Lynx, the DOS browser,
right?
Once again, you don't have to buy Opera. You can use the free adware
version. If you're using it just for testing (e.g., alongside a Gecko-based
browser, to avoid being misled by MSIE bugs), then the free adware version
should be fine.

And MSIE isn't free if you have to buy the OS it requires.

And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port, IIRC).
I have no plans to check against Opera. Back in the days of
Opera 3, I had a copy and used to test against that. But it broke on
everything. And I figured - what the hey?

Opera 3? Wow... that was quite a while ago, back when NN4 was new... back
when the CSS support of MSIE 4 was such a huge improvement over the CSS
support of MSIE 3...

Browsers have advanced quite a bit since then. Including Opera.
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Starsky & Hutch (Saturday, May 1)

[Mark Johnson]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you? No. You only have to pay, if you don't want to see the ad bar.

So they have some sort of spyware, or just nuisance ware? I don't
believe M$ or NN/AOL force banners into their browsers or title
bars, or wherever.

MS and AOL are huge companies with billion dollar budgets and can
afford to give away a browser.
M$ even incorporates it, or wanted to, more and more into the OS.
Opera is a small, browser-only, company
with just a handful of employees. Yes, the free version has a banner
ad in the upper right toolbar. So what?
I'm sure it's very distracting.
If you know nothing about Opera (the browser or the company) why do
you bash it?
Bash it? Gee.
Why not download it and see how good it is? Choose the non-Java
version; it's only 3.2 MB.
http://opera.com/download/

So then it'll be busted when it comes to java applets? I guess I'll
have to see how much this puppy will run.

[Mark Johnson]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

[Opera]

But it breaks on style sheets.

Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning, ...

Generated content
Generated content? Works just fine on that which I generate.
Css tables
How so?
Min/max width
Perhaps.
Inline tables
CSS counters
Not implemented?
Run-in headers
Outline
Empty-cells
Maybe IE and NN handle empty table cells, differently. I liked the
notions at Zen Garden, though, which was partly an effort to move . .
away . . . from using TABLE for presentation and layout.
:hover psuedo class on anything but anchors
Yes, I read about that. It would be convient to have :hover over other
elements. But it would not preclude a more general solution, as I
suggested, previously.

And that's just a sample of the css properties and values supported by
Opera that IE doesn't support, don't get us started on IEs css bugs and
it's http spec violations, png and html problems.

I'm curious, though. If someone found problems Opera, would you be so
quick to say - don't get me started? Or would you jump to its defense?

[Mark Johnson]

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: But it breaks on style sheets. Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning

What would be some specific examples?

child selector:
div > p {color: red;}
IE simply doesn't support this. This was all established, previously.
attribute selector:
input[type="text"] {width: 20em;} fixed positioining:
div#headline {position: fixed; top: 0; left: 0;}
Absolute or relative, only, as I understand it.
None of the above work in IE. They all work in Opera.
No one uses Opera. Those looks like useful extensions. But you have to
buy Opera? As long as you do, I suspect not many will use Opera.
There are lots more examples. There are very few (maybe none?)
examples of standard CSS that work in IE but not in Opera.
Perhaps the ones everyone uses. I don't have Opera, so I can't
compare.
You claim that Opera "breaks on style sheets" but you haven't given
any examples.

Just the impression I get from reading all these threads. I, myself,
don't have Opera. I guess you're trying to sell me on getting a copy,
just out of curiosity.

[Mark Johnson]

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

IE and NN are free. IE certainly isn't, you pay for it when you buy the OS that it's part
of.

You buy the OS. IE you download for free.

Sure, just as you buy a car, the engine is included for free.
But you don't have to pay for it as an option. The dealer might say,
well - the black on the tires is a tad extra. To which you say, but
the tires only come in black. And then he has to argue that the tires
are an add-on items. To which you say . . You don't pay any extra for
IE. That's even supposed to be the unfair practice, right? And M$ then
says, well, it's like charging extra for the standard engine, as you
say, or the tires.

But then again, most everyone uses IE 5.5+. Irrelevant
Nothing could be more relevant.

As for websites, I was looking at the johnkerry.com site, with its
old-school reliance on tables and image-sliced rollover graphics. So
the tables lock things in place, even if you override font size to get
the text to bunch up in the boxes. On the other hand, since most
people use 1024+ resolution

You really don't have a clue

Somebody here doesn't. I take it I've stepped into yet another of the
assorted 'religious wars' from defenders of this or that school of
style use?

So the best you can come up with is a gratuitous insult? This is your
intellectual best?

Well, allow me to insult you, since you so freely offered, yourself -
maybe you don't have a clue.

If all you have is insults - then you've got nothing. Why even bother?

If you can't be constructive, maybe you shouldn't say a thing.

[Christoph Paeper]

*Mark Johnson* <10*******@compuserve.com>:

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

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

That's probably why both are included in the W3C spec?

|¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.ht...ngth:¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
| Absolute length units are only useful when the physical properties of the
| output medium are known. The absolute units are:
| in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.
| cm: centimeters
| mm: millimeters
| pt: points -- the points used by CSS2 are equal to 1/72th of an inch.
| pc: picas -- 1 pica is equal to 12 points.
|_________________________________________________ __________________________

You don't know the "physical properties of the output medium" in a WWW
context.

'px' is unusable, because it's not implemented as specified.

All these units can be appropriate in certain situations, though. 'px' for
instance when sizes have to match bitmap dimensions.

--
Before you borrow money from a friend, decide which you need more.

[Darin McGrew]

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:

cookies: used far more often than is necessary; many sites could do
without them entirely; but if you *do* need them, it's best not to
require js, since not all users have or want to enable it

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: And what would you use, instead?
You can set and read cookies on the server. You still need to make sure
your site behaves sensibly when cookies are refused, but at least you
aren't adding an unnecessary requirement for JavaScript.
[re: Stephen Poley's Web Matters site]
That was the site with the background over the background, which might
be a problem without image loading? with all sorts of tables, below?

That's <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/>, which works just fine
with images disabled (give it a try sometime). Some purists might argue
that the data in its two-column tables would be better represented some
other way, but the tables are clearly structural, rather than purely
presentational.
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Starsky & Hutch (Saturday, May 1)

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: Plus, you have to pay for Opera, don't you? No. You only have to pay, if you don't want to see the ad
bar. So they have some sort of spyware, or just nuisance ware? I
don't believe M$ or NN/AOL force banners into their browsers or
title bars, or wherever.

[BTW, the last time I looked over the shoulder of an AOL user, there
were banners everywhere!]
MS and AOL are huge companies with billion dollar budgets and can
afford to give away a browser.

M$ even incorporates it, or wanted to, more and more into the OS.

...as it will be, totally, with the next version, Longhorn. No more
separate download.

Opera is a small, browser-only, company with just a handful of
employees. Yes, the free version has a banner ad in the upper
right toolbar. So what?

I'm sure it's very distracting.

We never said you had to use it for your daily, mainstream browser.
Wasn't this about testing in multiple browsers? Personally, I don't
find it very distracting at all, as my eyes are conditioned to avoid
banner ads, like most people.

If you know nothing about Opera (the browser or the company) why
do you bash it?

Bash it? Gee.

Yes, pretty much you were bashing it.

Why not download it and see how good it is? Choose the non-Java
version; it's only 3.2 MB. http://opera.com/download/

So then it'll be busted when it comes to java applets? I guess I'll
have to see how much this puppy will run.

My suggestion was for you to try it. If you like it, go get the other
version. Then, you may already have Sun Java on your machine.

Personally, I don't allow Java applets on my computer... but that's
another story.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Steve Pugh]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote: But it breaks on style sheets.Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioningWhat would be some specific examples?

child selector:
div > p {color: red;}
IE simply doesn't support this. This was all established, previously.

Exactly. Opera supports it, IE doesn't. Opera has better CSS support
than IE.
attribute selector:
input[type="text"] {width: 20em;}
No comment on this one?
fixed positioining:
div#headline {position: fixed; top: 0; left: 0;}

Absolute or relative, only, as I understand it.

No, read the spec. Fixed is in there. Again IE doesn't support it.

None of the above work in IE. They all work in Opera.

No one uses Opera.

I do. It's my primary browser.
Those looks like useful extensions.
Yes, that's why people curse IE - it's holding back the development of
the web. CSS2 was published in 1998, six years later and IE still does
not support a lot of it.
But you have to buy Opera?
Mozilla, and increasingly Safari/Konqueror, also support much of CSS
that IE does not. Increasingly IE is the odd one out.
As long as you do, I suspect not many will use Opera.

There are lots more examples. There are very few (maybe none?)
examples of standard CSS that work in IE but not in Opera.
Perhaps the ones everyone uses.

Nope.
I don't have Opera, so I can't compare.
Then stop doing so.

You claim that Opera "breaks on style sheets" but you haven't given
any examples.

Just the impression I get from reading all these threads.

But there are many more threads lamenting the piss-poor CSS support in
IE. So why aren't you saying "IE breaks on style sheets"?
I, myself, don't have Opera.
Do you always make comments on subjects about which you have no first
hand experience?
I guess you're trying to sell me on getting a copy, just out of curiosity.

No, I'm trying to make sure that innocent lurkers don't stumble across
your posts and mistakenly assume that you know what you're talking
about.

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/>

[Steve Pugh]

Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote:

[Opera] But it breaks on style sheets.Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning, ...

Generated content

Generated content? Works just fine on that which I generate.

Really? How do you get IE to support generated content.
Even something simple like
foo:before {content: "hello world";}
Css tables

How so?

No support for display: table-cell; etc.

Min/max width

Perhaps.

Definitely. IE does not support min-width, etc. and also behaves
incorrectly when it comes to the overflow. And let's not get started
on the whole box model fiasco.

and so on...

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/>

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

> Brian wrote: Javascript is used for all sorts of things. But I don't
>> *rely* on it. Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about
them?

That's irrelevant.
No, it's not.

I'm afraid it is. You cannot rely on something that is not there, no
matter how much you demand that it be there.
You can't just blurt out - that's irrelevant, like you just don't
care.
Whether I care or not does not change the fact that not all users have
or want javascript-enabled browsers.
Then they are excluded.
Now we see your web authoring principles. (We'll return to these
principles in a moment.)
I like the idea of css rollovers, and now use them. But it requires
using the dreaded background image.
Of course not. Rollovers can be done with or without rollovers,
depending on what visual presentation you want.
What I'd like to see is some integrity from IE in disallowing popups
by throwing a single 'accessibility' switch, or whatever.
The Google tool bar for IE will block popups. Or just use a browser that
gives you more control, such as Opera or Mozilla. Or use one that
ignores such silliness in the first place, like Lynx. Note, though, that
Lynx does not have javascript capabilities. If you use it, you'll be
barred from sites whose authors take your position on javascript ("then
they are excluded," you said).
cookies: used far more often than is necessary; many sites could do
without them entirely; but if you *do* need them, it's best not to
require js, since not all users have or want to enable it

And what would you use, instead?

Generate them server side. Perhaps use js, with server-side as fallback.
Since I have never had need of cookies, I cannot provide specific advice.

[re: Stephen Poley's Web Matters site]

That was the site with the background over the background, which
might be a problem without image loading?

What would be the problem?
with all sorts of tables, below?

With *one* (data) table below. Is there some reason why you are not
being truthful?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/