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:

I take it I've stepped into yet another of the assorted 'religious
wars' from defenders of this or that school of style use?

You can cry that others are being unfair, that they're all on a crusade,
and you're just the innocent bystander, if you want. But I doubt it will
fly after your behavior. You make wild charges and innuendo, all the
while showing that you simply don't know what you're talking about. I
stopped taking you seriously some time ago. The killfile will be along
shortly, I'm sure.

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

[Christoph Paeper]

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

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: 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 that's going to turn off the images, no matter what.

Images included with 'img' have an 'alt' text that you see with images
turned off---CSS doesn't matter. The various CSS "image replacement
techniques" don't provide such a required feature (actually one, that uses
CSS3 does). Or if they do, they require adding junk code to the HTML.

--
"We know it's summer when the rain's a wee bit warmer."
cab driver in Glasgow

[Andrew Thompson]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:03:35 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

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.

It's irrelevant if it has Java in any
case, the current crop of 1.4 Java Plug-Ins
will fail to run the 1.5 stuff that the
programmers are itching to churn out.

For an older article discussing the 'Will
IE ever come standard with Java?' question.
<http://www.physci.org/codes/java/plugin.jsp>

And with the 1.5 Java core classes pushing
_31_ Meg, it is unlikely Java will come
standard with any browsers in the near future.
Personally, I don't allow Java applets on my
computer... but that's another story.

Aaah.. but if you Win/IE(?) you
might have one lurking.
<http://www.physci.org/jvmclean.jsp>

Of course, you need the real Java to
run the cleaner utility.. ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Mark Johnson]

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

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.
Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct? I've seen this
in spyware, before. We all have. It didn't so much bother people that
the app was spying, but that the banners were often ugly and
distracting. So even if Opera isn't spying, you still have the banner
problem.
browser, to avoid being misled by MSIE bugs), then the free adware version
should be fine.
Perhaps. But then no one uses Opera. Practically everyone uses IE.
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).
But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line?

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.
I remember when NN 3 was new. And for its day, it was a heck of nice
browser. I think only 7, the latest version, has come up to the same
quality standard.

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.

I'd hope so. Can't say you haven't gotten me curious about it.

[Mark Johnson]

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

'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.

It's either one or 'tother - right? It's either "unusable" or "for
instance when"?

I generally prefer the "pt" to "px", despite what otherwise is said. I
tend to prefer using some fractional "em", much more, however.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Andrew Thompson:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:03:35 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Personally, I don't allow Java applets on my
computer... but that's another story.
Aaah.. but if you Win/IE(?) you
might have one lurking.

Shouldn't matter as I do have all Java options turned off, and the
only thing I use IE for is Windows updates.
<http://www.physci.org/jvmclean.jsp>

Of course, you need the real Java to
run the cleaner utility.. ;-)

<g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Mark Johnson]

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

Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> 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.
(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.

Oh, I'd agree they are "clearly structural". And you can see all the
wires and turnbuckles.

[Harlan Messinger]

"Mark Johnson" <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a3********************************@4ax.com...

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

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.

Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct?

There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.
And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port,

IIRC).
But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line?

Everything that has a feature in common with DOS *is* DOS? Lynx isn't a "DOS
browser" any more than it's a Unix shell browser or a VM/CMS browser.

[Christoph Paeper]

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

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

It's either "unusable" or "for instance when"?
'px' is unusable for 'font-size'. For 'margin', 'padding', 'border',
'width', 'height' etc. it can be okay.
I generally prefer the "pt" to "px", despite what otherwise is said.
So you don't bother about OSs with differing dpi (i.e. point size) settings,
very likely resulting in unreadable fonts on the other system?
I tend to prefer using some fractional "em", much more, however.

That's a good start, as long as that fraction is greater than one.

--
Useless Fact #3:
Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury.

[Mark Johnson]

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

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

Spartanicus <[e-mail]> wrote:

Johannes Koch <ko**@w3development.de> wrote: Does it? WinIE breaks on child selectors, attribute selectors, fixed
positioning, ... Generated content

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

foo:before {content: "hello world";}
Oh.

Css tables How so? No support for display: table-cell; etc.
I see.

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.
Actually - I agree with you.

and so on...

Don't know about that.

[Mark Johnson]

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

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: 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!]
There only AOL users I personally know are EX-AOL users. And did they
have trouble trying to quit. AOL operators are apparently trained to
give people a real hard time about it.

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.
Mmm. I thought they ordered to break it out.

Oh, well. How will the user-agent read?

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.
But that's how people use IE.

Wasn't this about testing in multiple browsers?
Those that people use. I could test in Lynx, too, and even used to do
that.

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.
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.
Just wondering how fast the puppy will tire out.
If you like it, go get the other
version. Then, you may already have Sun Java on your machine.
It's difficult to avoid having that installed by one app or another.

Personally, I don't allow Java applets on my computer.

They look ancient, to me. But I like some of them quite a bit. I
really have nothing against Java. It's a 'work in progress'. See what
we say about it in 2010, if anyone's still here?

[Mark Johnson]

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

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
>positioning What 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.
That's very good for Opera, I think.

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.
No, it doesn't.

None of the above work in IE. They all work in Opera. No one uses Opera. I do. It's my primary browser.
Let me rephrase. Very few use Opera. Very, very few. It depends on
your threshold as to when very, very becomes infinitely small, as it
were.

Those looks like useful extensions. Yes, that's why people curse IE
I'm not the biggest fan of IE. I would prefer than 90% were using NN
7, at this point.

They aren't. And IE does have some tricks which are nice, like the
directX gradients and a few other things.

it's holding back the development of
the web.
You could REALLY blame that on Micro$oft, not so much IE, itself.

CSS2 was published in 1998, six years later and IE still does
not support a lot of it.
No.

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.
Proprietary is the word, they like.

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.
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"?
Because it's the standard. I would not mind saying that IE breaks
everything, if Opera were used by 90% of the viewers.

I, myself, don't have Opera. Do you always make comments on subjects about which you have no first
hand experience?
I do have first-hand experience. I don't have Opera. I know this
because I'm the one telling you this. I did have a much older version,
at one time. It was free. And I really hated it, maybe even more than
NN 6, which is saying something.

I guess you're trying to sell me on getting a copy, just out of curiosity.

No

okay.

[Mark Johnson]

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

Mark Johnson wrote:

wars' from defenders of this or that school of style use?

You can cry that others are being unfair

I'm just suggesting that 'religious wars' are probably best left to
religion, and that tradecraft, while never immune to such, could
benefit from a little more give and take. We're not talking Revelation
with this stuff.

[Mark Johnson]

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

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

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: 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 that's going to turn off the images, no matter what.

Images included with 'img' have an 'alt' text that you see with images
turned off---CSS doesn't matter. The various CSS "image replacement
techniques" don't provide such a required feature (actually one, that uses
CSS3 does). Or if they do, they require adding junk code to the HTML.

You complain that those using browsers designed for the blind, let's
say, can't hear the label for the substitute image. Alt isn't used. In
fact, the 'title' is loaded as a background. And why would you label a
background?

Could one check for such browsers, and simply disable those sorts of
style sheets in javascript? Is there a user-agent, functional check?

[Mark Johnson]

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

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Brian wrote: Maybe others have more demanding site requirements. What about
them? That's irrelevant.

No, it's not.

I'm afraid it is.
No man is an island. Standards, real standards, are set by practice in
a trade - like designing or coding for the web. That's your standard.
And you have to compare yourself to it - to other people.

Then they are excluded. Now we see your web authoring principles.
And what do think that would be?

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
Um . . . ?

You could change aspects of the text. That's what _I_ do. But in other
cases, I use two images, for CSS rollover, because it seems more
visually appropriate.

depending on what visual presentation you want.
No there ya go.

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.
Didn't know that. Given Google's nosiness when it comes to their
e-mail scheme, I'm not convinced that the toolbar isn't just yet
another bit of spyware. And I'd rather not, if so.
ignores such silliness in the first place, like Lynx.
But isn't Lynx - text-only. It ignores quite a bit, does it not?
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
Riiiight. Excluded from the styles. They see the base-level page,
which would be perfect for Lynx. They just don't have access to the
IE, or NN, specific style sheets (which move the content all around
and present it in various visually pleasing ways).
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.
You can do much, server side. And what about dhtml? That's as
client-side as it gets?

with all sorts of tables, below?

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

It's just not a good look. Again, people will climb over bad
presentation to get to content, if they really want it. I do think
presentation is often more window dressing, as designed. It's the
content that matters. You can have the klunkiest, most evil-looking
web page, and still crank out the hits if people just want to read the
info you have. And since CSS is just as brower driven and dependent as
old javascript, one might be tempted to just do everything in Flash -
if it weren't that Flash so bugged people, otherwise, and really isn't
good with any fair amount of information. I prefer just to filter the
styles to particular browsers and versions. It won't guarantee
compatibility. And if you insist on overriding the style with your
own, then you can't very well complain. But it'll get you close if you
don't try a one size fits all. Because if you want to do that, then
it's back to the old 'purist' vs 'design' argument, from years ago,
where the 'purist' wants only headings, bullets and paragraph tags,
and the 'designer' wants to try things that are a bit different, shall
we say.

[Mark Johnson]

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Mark Johnson" <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a3********************************@4ax.com.. .

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

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

Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct?

There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.
So they don't rotate banners? No Flash ads, etc?

>And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port,

IIRC).

But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line?

Everything that has a feature in common with DOS *is* DOS? Lynx isn't a "DOS
browser" any more than it's a Unix shell browser or a VM/CMS browser.

I'm not sure I see your complaint. But it does seem that people love
to complain in this ng. I wrote: But that's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only?

And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.

Didn't I? Just above?

[Mark Johnson]

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

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

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote: It's either "unusable" or "for instance when"?

'px' is unusable for 'font-size'. For 'margin', 'padding', 'border',
'width', 'height' etc. it can be okay.
Are the fonts not translated to screen fonts based on pixel metrics?
I'm curious why it would work for the 'box model', but not the font
face?

I generally prefer the "pt" to "px", despite what otherwise is said. So you don't bother about OSs
And:
I tend to prefer using some fractional "em", much more, however.

That's a good start, as long as that fraction is greater than one.

Not always. I wouldn't use but a very small fractional em for
letter-spacing, for ex.

[Mark Johnson]

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

only thing I use IE for is Windows updates.

Do you exclusively use something like . . Opera, instead?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

[BTW, the last time I looked over the shoulder of an AOL user,
there were banners everywhere!]
There only AOL users I personally know are EX-AOL users. And did
they have trouble trying to quit. AOL operators are apparently
trained to give people a real hard time about it.

I know a lot of AohelLers who got it because relatives had it, and now
are too lazy, or too intimidated, to change. AOL has been known to
give free months of service if you threaten to leave.

M$ even incorporates [IE], or wanted to, more and more into the
OS.

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

Mmm. I thought they ordered to break it out.

I can't find the link at the moment, but there is a page at microborg
that states v6 is the last separately issued version.
Oh, well. How will the user-agent read?

Read what?

<snip> We never said you had to use it for your daily, mainstream
browser.

But that's how people use IE.

That sentence makes no sense in the current context.

Wasn't this about testing in multiple browsers?

Those that people use. I could test in Lynx, too, and even used to
do that.

Yes, you could, and should, because that is how Google sees your site.
Google doesn't read JavaScript, or Java applets, or ActiveX...
<snip>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

only thing I use IE for is Windows updates.

Do you exclusively use something like . . Opera, instead?

Firefox is my everyday browser.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Rollovers can be done with or without rollovers

Um . . . ?

Should have read, "Rollovers can be done with or without images...."

with all sorts of tables, below?

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

It's just not a good look.

So, first, it was a "a '96 welcome to the world of table design," then
it was "all sorts of tables," and now you've retreated to the position
that you simply don't care for the visual presentation. Quite an honest
dialog you have going there.

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

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be
more text-only than a DOS command line?

I dunno, a unix command line? A vax command line? The longer this goes,
the less it appears you know about computers, in spite of your blustering.

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

[Harlan Messinger]

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

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Mark Johnson" <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a3********************************@4ax.com. ..

Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct?

There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.
So they don't rotate banners? No Flash ads, etc?

Like I said, I never even really noticed it, so if it helps to know
that at least one person doesn't find it distracting, there you are.

And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port,

IIRC).

But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line?

Everything that has a feature in common with DOS *is* DOS? Lynx isn't a "DOS
browser" any more than it's a Unix shell browser or a VM/CMS browser.

I'm not sure I see your complaint. But it does seem that people love
to complain in this ng. I wrote: But that's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only?

And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.
Didn't I? Just above?

You did, and I don't know why you would have mentioned DOS *again* if
not to defend your previous description of Lynx as a "DOS browser",
which, again, is a misstatement, for the reasons stated.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Mark Johnson]

Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

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

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Mark Johnson" <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a3********************************@4ax.com ...
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct? There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.

So they don't rotate banners? No Flash ads, etc?

Like I said, I never even really noticed it, so if it helps to know
that at least one person doesn't find it distracting
Well, flashing banners and Flash animations get under people's skins.

But someone said that's not what's shown by Opera.

>And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port,
IIRC). But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line? Everything that has a feature in common with DOS *is* DOS? Lynx isn't a "DOS
browser" any more than it's a Unix shell browser or a VM/CMS browser.

I'm not sure I see your complaint. But it does seem that people love
to complain in this ng. I wrote: But that's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only? And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.
Didn't I? Just above?

You did, and I don't know why you would have mentioned DOS *again* if
not to defend your previous description of Lynx as a "DOS browser",
I'm not sure I see your complaint. That's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only?

And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.

Didn't I? Just above?

which, again, is a misstatement, for the reasons stated.

So I repeated what I had posted, to correct the record - correct?

[Mark Johnson]

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

Mark Johnson wrote:

But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be
more text-only than a DOS command line?

I dunno, a unix command line? A vax command line?

I'm not sure what you mean.

This is what _I_ wrote:

But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
text-only than a DOS command line?
Now, why not read what _I_ post, what _I_ write, word for word, as
written? How really difficult can that be, for you?
Here's what I wrote:

"But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be
more text-only than a DOS command line?"

Those are the words used. If you wanted me to write something else -
too bad. I didn't.

[Mark Johnson]

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

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

only thing I use IE for is Windows updates.

Do you exclusively use something like . . Opera, instead?

Firefox is my everyday browser.

In your opinion, is there any particular advantage to this browser,
particularly over IE and NN?

[Mark Johnson]

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

Mark Johnson wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote: Brian wrote: It's just not a good look.

So, first, it was a "a '96 welcome to the world of table design," then
it was "all sorts of tables," and now you've retreated to the position

Not a good look. A '96-welcome-to-the-world-of-table-design'.

Can't you take criticism? Why post on these ngs if you can't handle
criticism?

I don't understand that.

[Mark Johnson]

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

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

There only AOL users I personally know are EX-AOL users. And did
they have trouble trying to quit. AOL operators are apparently
trained to give people a real hard time about it.

I know a lot of AohelLers who got it because relatives had it, and now
are too lazy, or too intimidated, to change. AOL has been known to
give free months of service if you threaten to leave.
Compuserve was different, for me. I got it just before NN 3 really
hit, and Mosaic was still the 'popular' browser. It really wasn't that
long ago. It was actually after Clinton got elected, the first time.
It's just not that long ago. And when a year or so ago I finally
wanted to drop my ancient account, which I hadn't used for years but
was still getting billed 10 buck/mo, and which was technically a
division of AOL by then, they couldn't wait to get me off the books.
But I think if I had been an AOL subscriber, directly, it would have
been much different.

M$ even incorporates [IE], or wanted to, more and more into the
OS. ..as it will be, totally, with the next version, Longhorn. No
more separate download. Mmm. I thought they ordered to break it out. I can't find the link at the moment, but there is a page at microborg
that states v6 is the last separately issued version.
Odd. I'd thought that they had to separate it. Maybe Justice is not
pursuing it, now. There was that unfortunate coincidence of the
'dot-com' bust about the time Justice was making headlines in the
Micro$oft case. Have to see if historians decide there was any
connection.

Oh, well. How will the user-agent read? Read what?
What will it say?

We never said you had to use it for your daily, mainstream
browser. But that's how people use IE. That sentence makes no sense in the current context.
As their daily always on browser. It's what people use.

Wasn't this about testing in multiple browsers?

Those that people use. I could test in Lynx, too, and even used to
do that.

Yes, you could, and should, because that is how Google sees your site.
Google doesn't read JavaScript, or Java applets, or ActiveX...

I thought google ranked URLs based on links? I've got some pages, on
various sites that are very 'linked up'. And those particular pages
pop up easily on google, where the site home pages do not.

[Nick Theodorakis]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:21:48 -0700, Mark Johnson
<10*******@compuserve.com> wrote:

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.

FWIW, on my site my stats are showing less than 75% IE use, about 13%
Mozilla, and about 3% each for Opera, Netscape, and Safari. YMMV,
obviously.

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
nicholas_theodorakis [at] urmc [dot] rochester [dot] edu

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

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

Firefox is my everyday browser.

In your opinion, is there any particular advantage to this browser,
particularly over IE and NN?

Any browser is an advantage over IE. And I assume you mean Netscape 7,
which is a soon-to-be-dead browser company, so why bother with it? I
happen to like the look and feel of Firefox or Moz, but if they were
not available, it would be Opera.

Of course the prime reason for not using IE is the lack of security.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Johnson:

<mess of snippage>

Compuserve was different, for me.

That's where I started. Loooong ago.

I can't find the link at the moment, but there is a page at
microborg that states v6 is the last separately issued version.

Odd. I'd thought that they had to separate it. Maybe Justice is not
pursuing it, now. There was that unfortunate coincidence of the
'dot-com' bust about the time Justice was making headlines in the
Micro$oft case. Have to see if historians decide there was any
connection.

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3244

Oh, well. How will the user-agent read?

Read what?

What will it say?

"Welcome to the WWW." ?

We never said you had to use it for your daily, mainstream
browser. But that's how people use IE.

That sentence makes no sense in the current context.

As their daily always on browser. It's what people use.

The number goes down every day...

Wasn't this about testing in multiple browsers? Those that people use. I could test in Lynx, too, and even used
to do that.

Yes, you could, and should, because that is how Google sees your
site. Google doesn't read JavaScript, or Java applets, or
ActiveX...

I thought google ranked URLs based on links? I've got some pages,
on various sites that are very 'linked up'. And those particular
pages pop up easily on google, where the site home pages do not.

Links from other sites are very important. But, when google gets to
your site (because another site listed your domain) and can't find any
links from your main page or sitemap, what will it do?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Christoph Paeper]

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

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

'px' is unusable for 'font-size'. For 'margin', 'padding', 'border',
'width', 'height' etc. it can be okay.
Are the fonts not translated to screen fonts based on pixel metrics?

Even if (when displayed on a screen), it doesn't matter here. Vector fonts
for instance are not pixel dependent, although they may be optimized for a
certain set of point sizes.
I'm curious why it would work for the 'box model', but not the font face?

You don't read borders etc., thus differences are tolerable.

--
Ociffer, I swear to drunk, I'm not God!

[Christoph Paeper]

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

Christoph Paeper <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

Images included with 'img' have an 'alt' text that you see with images
turned off---CSS doesn't matter. The various CSS "image replacement
techniques" don't provide such a required feature
You complain that those using browsers designed for the blind, let's
say, can't hear the label for the substitute image.

No, I'm complaining that *I* can't see the information that the image is to
carry, because I like to surf with CSS on and images off; only images I
think I'd like/need to see I load.
Alt isn't used.
Sure it is. Even though some ignorant jerks don't use it (properly) is no
excuse for the bad image replacement techniques. They simply don't fall back
nicely, while 'img' does (or at least can).
In fact, the 'title' is loaded as a background. And why would you label a
background?
What the fuck are you talking about now?
Could one check for such browsers, and simply disable those sorts of
style sheets in javascript?

Most screenreaders rely on IE's visual rendition. Of course nobody stops you
from excluding IE from your stylesheets (to solve a problem that you don't
need to have when doing things correctly). Healing symptoms.

--
To be or not to be---that's no question, it's a decision.

[Els]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

>Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct?There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.So they don't rotate banners? No Flash ads, etc?

Like I said, I never even really noticed it, so if it helps to know
that at least one person doesn't find it distracting

Well, flashing banners and Flash animations get under people's skins.

But someone said that's not what's shown by Opera.

Yep, true.
I installed Opera (free version) and when I read later that
there was a banner on it, I thought "what banner?" and had a
proper look. It's there alright, in the top right corner,
but I had never seen it as a banner.
And if you get the 7.50 beta version, there's no banner at
all. Just two lines of text ads, which didn't catch my eye
either, till right now, whilst looking for the banner ;-).

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Harlan Messinger]

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

Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

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

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a3********************************@4ax.co m...
> Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> >Mark Johnson <10*******@compuserve.com> wrote: Which means distracting or annoying banners, correct?There's one banner in the upper right-hand corner of the frame, and it
usually just says, "Buy Opera Today! And make this banner go away." I never
even read it until just now.So they don't rotate banners? No Flash ads, etc?

Like I said, I never even really noticed it, so if it helps to know
that at least one person doesn't find it distracting
Well, flashing banners and Flash animations get under people's skins.

But someone said that's not what's shown by Opera.

>And Lynx isn't "the DOS browser" (although there is/was a DOS port,
IIRC). But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be more
> text-only than a DOS command line?Everything that has a feature in common with DOS *is* DOS? Lynx isn't a "DOS
browser" any more than it's a Unix shell browser or a VM/CMS browser.I'm not sure I see your complaint. But it does seem that people love
to complain in this ng. I wrote: But that's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only?And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.
Didn't I? Just above?

You did, and I don't know why you would have mentioned DOS *again* if
not to defend your previous description of Lynx as a "DOS browser",

I'm not sure I see your complaint. That's the point of Lynx, isn't
it - text only?

And THEN . . I pointed to DOS as being an example of such.

Didn't I? Just above?

And didn't I just acknowledge that, and then point out, again, that
that's not the point?

which, again, is a misstatement, for the reasons stated.

So I repeated what I had posted, to correct the record - correct?

You didn't correct anything, you repeated what was already
acknowledged to be two correct, independent facts ("Lynx is a text
browser." "DOS is an example of an operating system with a text
shell.") without altering the incorrectness of your characterization
of Lynx as a "DOS browser".

One more time around and you'll be a certified troll.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Harlan Messinger]

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

Here's what I wrote:

"But that's the point of Lynx, isn't it - text only? What could be
more text-only than a DOS command line?"

Those are the words used. If you wanted me to write something else -
too bad. I didn't.

You really are a piece of work. Everyone responding to you on this has
read exactly what you wrote, understood it perfectly, and responded in
a pertinent manner (which is how I deduce the first two clauses of
this sentence). You're just not understanding the responses.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[Brian]

Mark Johnson wrote:

Brian wrote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

What could be more text-only than a DOS command line?

I dunno, a unix command line? A vax command line?

I'm not sure what you mean.

You're not sure of very much.
Now, why not read what _I_ post, what _I_ write, word for word, as
written? How really difficult can that be, for you?

In the future, quite difficult, because you'll be in the killfile.

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

[Barry Pearson]

Brian wrote:
[snip]

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.

[snip]

MSIE/Win has a "Accessibility" option "Ignore font sizes specified on web
pages". This appears to cause IE to render in its default for the element.
(Eg. browser default size for header 1, browser default size for paragraph,
etc). These override any px values. Given the number of web sites in the world
that use px values, I suspect many people with vision problems have to use
this option.

Then the "Text size" option can be used to override this default - "largest"
through to "smallest". This appears to scale all of the defaults up or down.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[jake]

In message <8w************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes

Brian wrote:
[snip]

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.[snip]

MSIE/Win has a "Accessibility" option "Ignore font sizes specified on web
pages". This appears to cause IE to render in its default for the element.
(Eg. browser default size for header 1, browser default size for paragraph,
etc). These override any px values. Given the number of web sites in the world
that use px values, I suspect many people with vision problems have to use
this option.

I'm sure there are many of us with 'normal' sight (with glasses on) that
quite often use the accessibility option to read the microfonts being
used on many pages and specified in px.

Occasionally I forget to switch it off and, for a while, think how much
better things are getting ;-)
Then the "Text size" option can be used to override this default - "largest"
through to "smallest". This appears to scale all of the defaults up or down.

--
Jake

[Michael Stemper]

In article <rn********************************@news.spartanic us.utvinternet.ie>, Spartanicus writes:

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,

My browser is usually around 600-700 px wide. I don't get a scroll bar.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[Mark Johnson]

jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Then the "Text size" option can be used to override this default - "largest"
through to "smallest". This appears to scale all of the defaults up or down.

Occasionally I forget to switch it off and, for a while, think how much
better things are getting ;-)

That's what the 'pt' school insists. I was recently 'schooled' by
them, in another ng, that you ALWAYS you 'pt' in your style sheets.
However, I tend to 'em'. And in fact, W3C suggests "em", specifically.

On the other hand, as was just pointed out, some style sheets respond
to the text size in IE - smallest to largest. I find that mine, which
might still have a few "px" and "pt" font-sizes scale up and down
beautifully. However, there are a lot of those "professionally
designed" sites that are impervious to such changes. Some of them
provide little javascript controlled buttons to increase or decrease
text size, or change/switch font face.

[Barry Pearson]

jake wrote:

In message <8w************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes [snip]

MSIE/Win has a "Accessibility" option "Ignore font sizes specified on
web pages". This appears to cause IE to render in its default for the
element. (Eg. browser default size for header 1, browser default size
for paragraph, etc). These override any px values. Given the number
of web sites in the world that use px values, I suspect many people
with vision problems have to use this option.

I'm sure there are many of us with 'normal' sight (with glasses on)
that quite often use the accessibility option to read the microfonts
being used on many pages and specified in px.

The TFT screen on my laptop is about 117ppi, and it can be a strain at times.
Some people have resolutions over 150ppi, I believe!

But it isn't necessarily just px that causes problems. Small %s can also be a
problem. They are simply a little easier to adjust with IE.
Occasionally I forget to switch it off and, for a while, think how
much better things are getting ;-)

[snip]

I eventually took advice from here & elsewhere, and no longer set an overall
font-size, and then adjust for special cases (headers, admin, buttons) using
%. One of the standard tests I now do on my pages is to increase the text size
by a lot, to see what happens. But that only works because I am not a graphics
designer.

I can understand those who want tighter styling. After all, each generation of
CSS promises more pixel-perfect features. Why not use it? It isn't that
attempting such tight specification is wrong. The problem arises for authors
who don't realise that their precision may be overridden. I style really for a
range of common browsers at their default settings, and for them try to get
just right, but I allow for overriding. There is no need to abandon precision
styling.

Fixed-width issues are a different matter. The inflexibility of images, such
as photographs, is a tricky problem.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Mark Johnson]

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

Fixed-width issues are a different matter. The inflexibility of images, such
as photographs, is a tricky problem.

I used to have a dhtml auto-resize box for photos at my
scenic-route.com site. For one thing, I hadn't incorporated generation
of catalogs. So I had no other photo gallery. And it was also a way to
show off a 'remote control' app using Flash, communicating with the
client-side (not always without error). But the real problem was
simply in the sharpening. Web graphics that look - WOW! - because of
clean sharpening, really have to be shown full size. Particularly
scaling up makes them appear very blocky and ugly. This was
particularly true for some of the guest photos in the galleries, which
looked amazing, but didn't often scale well.

[Barry Pearson]

Mark Johnson wrote:

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

Fixed-width issues are a different matter. The inflexibility of
images, such as photographs, is a tricky problem.

I used to have a dhtml auto-resize box for photos at my
scenic-route.com site. For one thing, I hadn't incorporated generation
of catalogs. So I had no other photo gallery. And it was also a way to
show off a 'remote control' app using Flash, communicating with the
client-side (not always without error). But the real problem was
simply in the sharpening. Web graphics that look - WOW! - because of
clean sharpening, really have to be shown full size. Particularly
scaling up makes them appear very blocky and ugly. This was
particularly true for some of the guest photos in the galleries, which
looked amazing, but didn't often scale well.

Precisely! All my photographs have "unsharp mask" applied while they are at
the chosen web size, and if I publish them at 2 sizes, I have 2 different sets
of unsharp mask parameters. (Typically the radius may change a little).

I hope that JPEG2000 will be part of a solution, but I haven't seen a sign
that there is an HTML/CSS initiative to control the amount of downloading
according to the chosen size. (In other words, for a 1000px wide photograph
download all of it, for a 500px photograph download half of it).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[jake]

In message <b2************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
[snip]

Fixed-width issues are a different matter. The inflexibility of images, such
as photographs, is a tricky problem.

I find that letting the browser resize the photos (downward) seems to
work quite well. I provide a photo big enough in pixels so that (for the
majority of viewers ) the browser always re-sizes downwards. The photo
is obviously bigger than you would normally want to provide, but the
extra size means that it can take a higher compression and still look
OK.

regards.
--
Jake

[Andrew Thompson]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:38:45 +0100, jake wrote:

Fixed-width issues are a different matter. The inflexibility of images, such
as photographs, is a tricky problem.
I find that letting the browser resize the photos (downward) seems to
work quite well.

Aaaaaargh!!
...I provide a photo big enough in pixels so that (for the
majority of viewers ) the browser always re-sizes downwards.

Not on my browser it doesn't.

It (IE6) did, till I told it not to. ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology