Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

[Isofarro]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

kchayka wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hey Harlan, I don't suppose you are listening to any of this...[/color]


Listening to books? Damn Newsweek for having the presumption not to have a
volume control on its newspapers! The audacity! The gall!

;-)


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[MozillaCensorsMe]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"Owen Jacobson" <ojacobson.usen et@mx-deus.net> wrote in message news:<ALe8b.654 6$fC5.1265361@n ews20.bellgloba l.com>...[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>
>
> You're almost as persistent as andkonDOTcom was.[/color]

My persistence was due to the fact that many people couldnt articulate
what they wanted to say in a logical and non-flaming manner. Also,
some were hypocrites. They preached validation, structure, etc but
failed to demonstrate that on their own sites.

I think you'll be very happy to hear that I am trying to make a
completely new tutorial. First part will be only structure (html). The
second will be CSS. Hopefully, this one will get better reviews :-)

[Stan Brown]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <oqk3mvkpejcnhg v9npfcnchsv8a5g fr998@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan>
wrote:[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.[/color]

God yes! This is also the problem with putting documents into PDF.
That might be all right for printing (N.B. might), but for viewing
it's horrendous. "Like reading a magazine through a keyhole" --
that's _exactly_ the problem.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Kris]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <bjqbi3$m27fk$1 @ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> If I'm presenting data in a twelve-column-wide table, either you have a use
> for that information or you don't. If you don't, it has nothing to do with
> the layout, and I don't expect to include you in the audience. If you do,
> well, here's your two-dimensional table with twelve columns. Either scroll
> or don't use the table. If your PDA will display the columns one after
> another, chained together vertically, so be it, but while you can get the
> needed information from it, the visual impact of two dimensions will be
> lost. I'm *certainly* not going to design the table so it appears in that
> format by default.
>
> If I'm presenting a map of the US that show all county boundaries, and each
> county is color-coded to show some piece of pertinent information, then
> either scroll, or don't use my page, because the map ain't gonna be usable
> at 2 inches wide.[/color]

A table or an image is the content, not the layout. If it is, then
you're doing something wrong. The dimensions of either a table or image
are (semi-)fixed, because that is the nature of them. Twelve columns
will not fit into a tiny screen, but is that a justification to forget
about layout completely, or to forget about using tables and images that
may be viewed on screens of X x Y size?

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.

[Kris]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <3f610587$1@new s.sihope.com>,
kchayka <kcha-ns-yka@sihope.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>
>
> BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique, but if you find any
> functional problems with it, I'd certainly want to know about them.[/color]

"Contact" produces a 404.

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)
"We called him Tortoise because he taught us" said the Mock Turtle.

[Isofarro]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

kchayka wrote:
[color=blue]
> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]

Wow. Now that is a website that convinces me there's something inside worth
reading. Very impressive, very clean, and very modern looking. Fantastic
work.

Further in - to the Gallery - another wow. Of course, a gallery is 'merely'
a list of images. And also the website feel complements the amazing
artwork.

[color=blue]
> BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique[/color]

Tough!


--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[kchayka]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Isofarro wrote:
[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <URL:http://tb.c-net.us/>[/color]
>
> Wow. Now that is a website that convinces me there's something inside worth
> reading. Very impressive, very clean, and very modern looking. Fantastic
> work.[/color]

<blush> thank yee, kind sir. The design was actually inspired by
another site, but that one was a fixed design using layout tables. I
was shooting for better usability.
[color=blue]
> Further in - to the Gallery - another wow. Of course, a gallery is 'merely'
> a list of images. And also the website feel complements the amazing
> artwork.[/color]

One of my specific goals was to *not* have the design detract from the
art. I guess I did OK. :)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> BTW, I'm not really interested in a critique[/color]
>
> Tough![/color]

I won't complain. :-)

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

[Peter Stokes]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
actually offers some help.

pj

[EightNineThree]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"Peter Stokes" <peterstokes@op eramail.com> wrote in message
news:10876b94.0 309140957.7e363 c10@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
> someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
> built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
> right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
> actually offers some help.[/color]

I find it fascinating that those who cry about such responses are the ones
with vehement apologetics for design practices that are patently *not* user
friendly.
Often, people do need to be told that their idea is ultimately a bad one.
What good does it do to show someone how to do something (i.e. "how do I
hide my source?") when it is a poor idea to begin with?
While I can see where some responses (including my own, sometimes) may be
unhelpful, in that the response is typically "Don't do that", it is far
better than showing them some hackish workaround that is more or less
uneffective and alienating to visitors.


--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Sun, Sep 14, Peter Stokes inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
> someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
> built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place,[/color]

Do you? From the way that you're talking, it would seem you have no
intention of learning anything from the observation. Am I wrong?

It's not a matter of "should't be doing it": the fact is it cannot be
done. But the harder one tries, the worse the consequences. For
which the only remedy is to recognise reality, and adapt to it.
[color=blue]
> but none of the self-proclaimed experts[/color]

What kind of nonsense is this? I challenge you to produce a posting
here in which anyone has claimed the title of "expert".
[color=blue]
> acknowedge her/his right to do whatever s/he damned well likes[/color]

If they want to do that, then they should get right on with it. If
they ask for our counsel, then they should not be surprised to get it.
[color=blue]
> in building a web page and actually offers some help.[/color]

Help is what they were given. Anything else would be short measure.

bye.

[Tina Holmboe]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

peterstokes@ope ramail.com (Peter Stokes) exclaimed in <10876b94.03091 40957.7e363c10@ posting.google. com>:
[color=blue]
> place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
> right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
> actually offers some help.[/color]

(1) Noone has proclaimed themselves experts, and
(2) We're not paid to help out.

As a consequence of (2), we speak our mind and if that isn't good 'nuff
for you, there's always somewhere else.

Where did the assumption come from that when asking questions in ciwah, an
answer should be quickly forthcoming on how to solve the "problem" ?

This is a discussion forum on the topic of HTML, not anyones personal
helpdesk. Keep it in mind or kindly keep out of the debate. The OP has
gotten alot for his money, IMHO.

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

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Peter Stokes wrote:[color=blue]
> I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
> someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
> built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
> right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
> actually offers some help.
>[/color]

isn't it a fascinating insight that you found it worth your while to make
such a pointless post

I have the right to give what advice I choose in Usenet posts...I do not
receive a salary for it, I have no responsibilitie s to uphold any
particular point of view...and I am not ANYBODY'S free tech support

HTH

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

[Quotes rewrapped]

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower .net> wrote in message
> news:WO38b.2810 7$dP1.77285@new sc.telia.net...[color=green]
>> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> exclaimed in[/color]
> <bjqbi3$m27fk$1 @id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>:[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> Which is why you create a logical document independent of the
>> >> physical device.
>> >
>> > If I expect that 5 million people will see my page at 800 x 600, and I
>> > feel that 5 million pairs of eyes makes it worth my while to design a
>> > display for[/color]
>>
>> That is a huge expectation - and quite a mouthful of assumptions to
>> boot.
>>
>> 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 Web isn't print. It's an inherently more accessible medium than print,
and was made to be that way quite on purpose.
[color=blue]
> See how absurd your characterizatio n of my position is?[/color]

What's absurd, is assuming that someone will be using a desktop PC with a
graphical browser when many more means of accessing Web documents exist.
[color=blue]
> I suppose all graphic design principles should have been ignored all these
> years, regardless of their benefits in respect of the sighted audience, in
> favor of only every producing linear text that a Kurzweil machine could
> read. Of course not. That doesn't mean the print industry "assumed" every
> person SEES.[/color]

You completely miss the point.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Second, you assume that people see graphics.[/color]
>
> Ditto.
>[color=green]
>> Third, you assume that people run 800x600.[/color]
>
> I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my targeting
> that market.[/color]

Why limit yourself to 800x600? (I run 1024x768 but my browser window is a
bit smaller than it would be maximized on 640x480.) It is quite possible to
make sites that work well in *every* resolution. this is the concept that
you fail to grasp.
[color=blue]
> When you write in English, are you assuming everyone knows English? Are
> you going to go out of business because you're limiting your audience to
> English speakers?[/color]

Non sequitur.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Fourth, you assume that people run their browser in 800x600[/color]
>
> Or more. I *know* that a sufficiently large audience *does* to justify my
> targeting that market.[/color]

A site which locks itself into an 800 pixel wide space in a 3072x2304 window
is just as annoying as one which spills over outside of a 640x480 (or
narrower) window.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Strawman argument. When you write it, you have control over what you
>> write.[/color]
>
> When I write for IE and Netscape, I have control over what I write. It's
> you who insists that I'm also writing for other platforms without giving
> me any say in the matter.[/color]

The World Wide Web is bigger than just IE and Netscape Navigator. In fact,
[color=blue][color=green]
>> People "in the trade" have spent exactly 13 years trying
>> to figure out what works *on the web*. So far they have more or less
>> all failed.
>>
>> This isn't a piece of paper. The physical characteristics are
>> different; glaringly different. Yes, that was a pun.[/color]
>
> Eyesight is still eyesight. Text is still text.[/color]

The Web is not, and will never be, just "fancy paperless DTP for desktop PC
screens". To assume this is all the Web is, is a patently erroneous
assumption and an eventual self-generated downfall. The Web is not radio,
TV, or print, in fact the difference is so fundamental because HTML
documents on the Web can be rendered visually on screen, visually on paper,
and aurally, with stylesheets specific to each of these.

Eyesight does not matter for the accessibility of Web documents, because the
user can always ask for larger fonts or even an aural rendering (which may
require changing browsers). As further evidence of just how far off the
mark your reference is, Googlebot, Gulliver, and Scooter are all blind.
Understanding this is the key to being enlightened.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Alexander Johannesen]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

EightNineThree <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> While I can see where some responses (including my own, sometimes) may be unhelpful, in that the response is typically "Don't do that", it is far better than showing them some hackish workaround that is more or less uneffective and alienating to visitors.[/color]

Not to mention that some of us care about the well-being of the web,
but who cares about the environment anyways?


Alexander
--
_______________ ____ _______________ _______ _______________ ______________
| |
http://shelter.nu/ | alex at shelter . nu | http://shelter.nu/xsiteable/
_______________ ____|__________ ____________|__ _______________ ____________

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Peter Stokes schrieb:[color=blue]
>
> I find it a fascinating insight into web-writer behaviour that when
> someone asks a simple question, s/he generates more than 80 replies
> built around the premise that s/he shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place, but none of the self-proclaimed experts acknowedge her/his
> right to do whatever s/he damned well likes in building a web page and
> actually offers some help.[/color]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


Matthias