Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

[Sean Jorden]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"Owen Jacobson" <ojacobson.usen et@mx-deus.net> wrote in news:ALe8b.6546
$fC5.1265361@ne ws20.bellglobal .com:
[color=blue]
> <feed>
> Actually, it'd probably look something like
> <http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
> hand to test with, though -- got one?
> </feed>[/color]

I get a content-type error.. did you mean a WAP phone?

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Owen Jacobson wrote:[color=blue]
> You're almost as persistent as andkonDOTcom was.[/color]

Nice try, Owen. Thanks for playing.


Matthias

[Els]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Owen Jacobson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
>>>curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at
>>>the moment, but you should get the idea.
>>><URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]
>>
>>Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
>>amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
>>images, though.[/color]
>
>
> <feed>
> Actually, it'd probably look something like
> <http://mx-deus.net/2003/09/tb.c-net.us>. Hard to say without one on
> hand to test with, though -- got one?
> </feed>[/color]

Actually, it wouldn't, as Kchayka didn't have her text at
fixed width lines ;-)

On a PDA it would look quite nice though:

http://home.tiscali.nl/~elizabeth/test/kchayka-pda.jpg

--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Fri, Sep 12, Matthias Gutfeldt inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
> amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
> images, though.[/color]

Maybe I'd commend the fact that the site had not offered pointless
obstructions to my access, despite that browsing platform being
relatively unsuitable for the specific purpose, and make a note to
revisit when I'm in a position to enjoy the site.

Whereas, if it had told me that it was "optimised for IE4 or better on
a 600x800 display blah blah blah", then there's quite a likelihood
that I'd have left straight away and not gone back.

Incidentally, where _are_ all these mythical surfers who never, ever,
change any of their OS, display, or browser settings, but yet are
browsing in fullscreen mode? Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but
I've never yet seen one of the popular browsers freshly installed that
doesn't come up in a window.

[Jim Dabell]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[color=green]
>> Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>kchayka schrieb:
>>>
>>>>Ah, but that's the whole point! You don't seem to be engineering
>>>>specificall y for the web.
>>>
>>>Could you give us the URLs to a couple of the sites you engineered
>>>specifical ly for the web? Thanks![/color]
>>
>>
>> Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.[/color]
>
> Oh, but it is. There's quite often a huge gap between theory and practice.[/color]

Then point out the gaps. Questioning his websites seems little more than an
ad-hominem attack.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
>> curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
>> moment, but you should get the idea.
>> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]
>
> Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
> amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
> images, though.[/color]

A prospective buyer would probably read about the artist and then use
something with a better display to view the pictures when convenient. An
artists website is a _very_ special situation, it doesn't generalise.


--
Jim Dabell

[Jim Ley]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:32:09 +0200, Matthias Gutfeldt <worte@gmx.at >
wrote:
<URL: http://tb.c-net.us/ >[color=blue]
>Nice site, I like it. I wonder what a prospective buyer using
>amonochrome cell phone display is going to make of those beautiful
>images, though.[/color]

I don't know about monochrome cell-phone, as most people who use web
on their phones have colour displays, and the site works very well on
my mobile phone, the pictures look good. Unfortunately my browser and
my screenshot proggy eat too much memory to both be open at once, or
I'd show screenshots. It looks good though, no problems seeing the
images, and I'd definately be interested in seeing them on a real
machine later.

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

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower .net> wrote in message
news:yu58b.2812 5$dP1.77436@new sc.telia.net...[color=blue]
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> exclaimed in[/color]
<bjqk73$lsdni$1 @id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>:[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> First, you assume that people SEE.[/color]
> >
> > <sarcasm>
> > Yes, and damn the print industry all these years for making the same
> > assumption.
> > </sarcasm>[/color]
>
> The print industry have had no other option. You do.
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > See how absurd your characterizatio n of my position is? I suppose all
> > graphic design principles should have been ignored all these years,[/color]
>
> If that is the way you wish to perceive it.
>
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Third, you assume that people run 800x600.[/color]
> >
> > I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my[/color][/color]
targeting[color=blue][color=green]
> > that market.[/color]
>
> You "know" that a "sufficient ly large" audience runs 800x600 and that[/color]
the[color=blue]
> same audience run their browser fullscreen. Would you like to tell us
> *how* you know ? Did you ask ?[/color]

I guess because I'm not in my own little ivory tower composed of the Latest
and Greatest in everything. In actual reality, millions and millions of
people sit at computer screens daily and use the major industry browsers on
computer monitors. This is obvious and I have no further interest in arguing
this point with anyone who imagines that the situation is otherwise.
[color=blue]
>
> If you say "browser statistics", then I'm afraid you might live to get
> the full force of an analysis of the inherent shortcomings of browser
> statistics.
>
> Yes, you may know that your N thousand intranet users all run IE on
> Windows and 800x600 (OR Netscape 4 on Solaris at 1190x900 something;
> the principle apply equally).[/color]

Do you think a fixed-width 800x600 browser window can't be used on a
1190x900 screen? At no point have I implied that I think most people are
using *exactly* 800x600 resolution. I believe that rather few people use
*less* these days, and for everyone else using a computer monitor, 800x600
is the least common denominator. I never said I expect that people are
maximizing their browsers to use them.
[color=blue]
> Or rather: you may know that they did
> this when the person installing the thing went away. I know of no
> platform that can hinder a person from resizing the browser window ...
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to[/color][/color]
English[color=blue][color=green]
> > speakers?[/color]
>
> That is still a faulty assumption, Harlan. I know what language I write
> in, but I can never know what language it will be read it. Doesn't that
> sound silly even to you ?[/color]

I don't understand your point.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Strawman argument. When you write it, you have control over what you[/color]
> > write.
> >
> > When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving me[/color][/color]
any[color=blue][color=green]
> > say in the matter.[/color]
>
> You always have control over what you write. What you do NOT control is
> what happens to it once it arrives where the user is. That is why it
> is such a good idea to make sure it can adapt, and survive.[/color]

If it looks like a mess, because the receiving device has no intelligent
idea of how to arrange it, then it hasn't adapted and survived.

If I have to discard excellent presentation techniques altogether, because
some people want to see the information on devices where those techniques
don't work, then it hasn't adapted and survived. It's been gutted and
weakened.

Apparently the only worthwhile criterion for some people is the size of the
audience who can use the presentation at all, not the effectiveness of the
presentation.
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
> >>
> >> which with some imagination applies also to fixed widths.
> >>
> >>
> >> > thinking, "Gosh, I wish they would use yellow backgrounds instead of[/color]
> > pink[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> You know what they have been thinking ?[/color]
> >
> > LOL. Come down to earth.[/color]
>
> Certainly. Did you read the article ?[/color]

Yes. And the analogy is poor, I believe, because people have always known
their TV comes with a volume knob, and it requires no sophistication to use.
People know what loud and soft are. Changing the volume doesn't alter the
arrangement of the presentation.

Many people are application-illiterate, and have no idea how to fine-tune
their software or even whether it can be altered. They are also not
typography experts. They don't know what pitch or pixels are, or the uses of
proportional versus monotype. They don't know how many different canonical
sizes text comes in on a web page (<H1> through <H6>, <P>, <sub> and
<super>). I have no numbers, but I'm curious what percent of the
browser-using population really adjusts these settings. And for all those
who don't, the defaults are awful. Using relative type sizes on IE causes a
crappy appearance in Netscape and vice versa. And when people change these
settings, it does alter the arrangement of the presentation, sometimes in
genuinely bad ways.

So beneath the surface I don't see the volume knob as an adequate analogy.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> It was a struggle, I assure you. Scarcely a day went by lest I wished[/color][/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> could reduce The Times to a format that fit me, and didn't require me[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> have the arms of a chimpanzee to open it. The bills for broken noses[/color]
> > from[color=darkred]
> >> fellow passengers grew to untenable amounts.[/color]
> >
> > <grin> But I don't think a 2-inch by 55-inch column would have been the
> > answer. Or, worse yet, a newspaper published each day on adding machine
> > rolls.[/color]
>
> You're so right. What *was* the answer was a type of packaging (HTML)
> that allows the content to adapt the way it is presented to me. Why
> should I adapt to the display specifics of the designer, I ask of you ?[/color]

Fine, don't. Use your PDA for all web access. Also, while you're at it, get
yourself a pair of glasses that kill your peripheral vision, or create a
fisheye effect, and then ask that streets and signage be redesigned to
accommodate you. And get yourself a pair of aural devices that cut off
frequencies below high C and ask everyone to speak in a different pitch to
accommodate you.
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Personally I think we are *seriously* miscommunicatin g here. You[/color][/color][/color]
can't[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> possibly think say - in 2003 - that your table SHALL display at xxx[/color][/color][/color]
pixels[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> come hell or high water.[/color]
> >
> > No, I know it *won't* display at 200 pixels, but I'm not going to forgo[/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green]
> > presentation that will be useful for people at 800 pixels. Would you[/color][/color]
*like*[color=blue][color=green]
> > the information in a format that's useful at 200 pixels? If the group of[/color]
>
> Nope. I'd like the information in a format that will *adapt* itself to
> what I am using. If I want to see the information at 800 pixels wide,
> I'll adjust my settings to fit.
>
> Sorry. I don't want you to decide that 800 is optimal.[/color]

LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiven ess" in design,
do you?

[snip the rest--really pointless to go on]

[Tim]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:59:26 -0400,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Consider magazine articles. They have side bars, pull quotes, various kinds
> of graphics to supplement the main story. These are extremely effective way
> of presenting information. Writing for browsers on computer monitors, I can
> use these techniques.[/color]

These are extremely annoying ways to read magazines, and even more
annoying ways to read things on a computer screen. It's like trying to
read a magazine through a keyhole. Even on a large screen, you have to
scroll up and down to read columnar displays, and you can't read an
article in a linear fashion, you end up having to read bits of spread
around, or are just distracted by the repeating of parts of the article
strewn around the page.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Fri, Sep 12, Tim inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> These are extremely annoying ways to read magazines, and even more
> annoying ways to read things on a computer screen. It's like trying to
> read a magazine through a keyhole. Even on a large screen, you have to
> scroll up and down to read columnar displays, and you can't read an
> article in a linear fashion, you end up having to read bits of spread
> around, or are just distracted by the repeating of parts of the article
> strewn around the page.[/color]

So you're experiencing those "proven impact-producers" that the design
industry has developed over the years, which the hon. Usenaut was
telling us about. Seems the plan is really working. SCNR.

[Tina Holmboe]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> exclaimed in <bjsj39$ms82d$1 @id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>:

This
[color=blue]
> Many people are application-illiterate, and have no idea how to fine-tune
> their software or even whether it can be altered. They are also not
> typography experts. They don't know what pitch or pixels are, or the uses of
> proportional versus monotype. They don't know how many different canonical[/color]


this

[color=blue]
> sizes text comes in on a web page (<H1> through <H6>, <P>, <sub> and
> <super>). I have no numbers, but I'm curious what percent of the
> browser-using population really adjusts these settings. And for all those
> who don't, the defaults are awful. Using relative type sizes on IE causes a[/color]


and this

[color=blue]
> Fine, don't. Use your PDA for all web access. Also, while you're at it, get
> yourself a pair of glasses that kill your peripheral vision, or create a
> fisheye effect, and then ask that streets and signage be redesigned to
> accommodate you. And get yourself a pair of aural devices that cut off
> frequencies below high C and ask everyone to speak in a different pitch to
> accommodate you.[/color]


lead me to conclude that you don't know, don't want to learn, and quite
likely are incapable of doing so.

Continuing this debate would be pointless. The lightbulb will not be
changed unless it really wants to.


[color=blue]
> LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiven ess" in design,
> do you?[/color]

No, I obviously don't. HAND.


--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower. net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

[Brian]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

kchayka wrote:[color=blue]
> FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
> curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
> moment, but you should get the idea.
> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]

Judging from the comments here, you apparently nailed it. I am going
to refer an artist whose photography site I fixed (mostly at the
markup level) to your site to give an idea of other artist sites.

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

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
>
> LOL. You really don't understand the concept of "effectiven ess" in design,
> do you?
>[/color]

the first thing required for effective design is that it is appropriate to
the medium

think on't

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[kchayka]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[color=green]
>> FWIW, I'm redesigning a site for an artist that may satisfy your
>> curiosity. Only the home page and gallery pages are functional at the
>> moment, but you should get the idea.
>> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]
>
> Judging from the comments here, you apparently nailed it. I am going
> to refer an artist whose photography site I fixed (mostly at the
> markup level) to your site to give an idea of other artist sites.[/color]

Groovy! :-)

Hey Harlan, I don't suppose you are listening to any of this...

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

[kchayka]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Els wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>><URL:http ://tb.c-net.us/>[/color][/color]
>
> On a PDA it would look quite nice though:
> http://home.tiscali.nl/~elizabeth/test/kchayka-pda.jpg[/color]

It came out pretty much the way I expected it to.
Thanks for confirming it!

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

[kchayka]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Whether or not I have constructed a site isn't particularly relevant.[/color]
>
> Oh, but it is. There's quite often a huge gap between theory and practice.[/color]

I'm not convinced it's true in this case, but even if it were, does it
discount the fact that fixed designs generally suck from a user
standpoint? Too much form, not enough function. I don't see how this
is a good thing from any standpoint, except maybe the designer's. Egos
are fragile things I suppose.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]
>
> Nice site, I like it.[/color]

Thanks. I rather like it, too. :) Ted hasn't seen it yet, but I think
he'll like it as well.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.