Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

[Markus Ernst]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"SoloCDM" <deedsmis@aculi nk.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F5D18EB.1 050002@aculink. net...[color=blue]
> How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?
>[/color]

Wow, what a discussion for a small and simple question. I am impressed.

Put your content into a <div> or a <table> and define it's width. Learn HTML
and CSS, they are great things to use.

And read the whole discussion, there are lots of interesting arguments.
Text-only browsers and PDAs are a fact as the importance of design is.
Actually it is the same discussion that appears in web authoring related
groups again and again, it is an important discussion as web development is
always about making compromises between design and technology. The more you
learn about technology and accessibility the better you can decide where to
make the compromises.

Unfortunately some developers think that all designers are idiots and stuck
in a paper-oriented philosophy. Of course anybody who comes from desktop
publishing must make his/her way to learn about the special aspects of the
web which are far more than design and are constantly developing and
changing. But some of the developers tend to forget that design is an
integral part of every product, and utter their point of view in a
respectless way.

I visit the newsgroups to learn, and it is far more easy to accept an
argument from somebody who has a minimum of respect for me, my work and my
question, than from somebody who wants to tell me that what I want to do is
bad.

--
Markus

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Markus Ernst wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I visit the newsgroups to learn, and it is far more easy to accept an
> argument from somebody who has a minimum of respect for me, my work and my
> question, than from somebody who wants to tell me that what I want to do is
> bad.
>[/color]

why?

personally I don't use web authoring newsgroups to massage my ego...what's
so hard about coping with suggestions that one's approach to a problem is
misconceived?.. .if I knew everything I wouldn't be asking questions

if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
learn?

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

On Tue, Sep 16, Markus Ernst inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> "SoloCDM" <deedsmis@aculi nk.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3F5D18EB.1 050002@aculink. net...[color=green]
> > How do I keep my entire web page at a fixed width?[/color]
>
> Put your content into a <div> or a <table> and define it's width.[/color]

It's...[1]

And in what practical sense would this width be "fixed"?

Perhaps you'd care to explain to the audience the theoretical and
practical properties of the various sizing units available in CSS, and
show how to use them to produce a result which is "fixed" across each
and every display situation? Then explain what its benefits would be
(if it could be done), relative to the flexible approach regularly
advocated here.
[color=blue]
> Learn HTML and CSS, they are great things to use.[/color]

Good idea. Don't miss the full meaning of that word "Cascading" in
CSS.
[color=blue]
> Unfortunately some developers think that all designers are idiots
> and stuck in a paper-oriented philosophy.[/color]

Oh no, there's some really good web designers, and we've been
privileged to see some of their work. But there's still plenty of
folk who evidently think they're doing straight DTP, and believe they
can still achieve something by trying to sabotage some the best
features of the WWW (flexibility, accessibility) in the intention of
achieving their rigid, fragile, DTP design, guaranteed to shatter into
fragments if the reader doesn't conform to the predetermined
requirements.

verdammtnochmal .

[1] news:alt.posses sive.its.has.no .apostrophe

--
Procrastination gives you something to look forward
to putting off tomorrow. -spotted on ahbou

[Tim]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Tim wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The difference between this and the Spanish Inquisition (apart from
>> torture and death), is that the proper published way to write HTML is
>> fact: There is no option for someone to have an alternative way to do
>> HTML 4.01, CSS 2, etc.[/color][/color]


Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> what do you mean "apart from torture and death"?...have I been doing this
> wrong, and what should I do with the spammer currently on the rack?[/color]

Unfortunately we're not allowed to do that to spammers. Though we'd all
like to. :-\

/me passes you the thumbscrews . . .

--
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.

[Tim]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Tim schrieb:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The difference between this and the Spanish Inquisition (apart from
>> torture and death), is that the proper published way to write HTML is
>> fact: There is no option for someone to have an alternative way to do
>> HTML 4.01, CSS 2, etc.[/color][/color]


On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:28:42 +0200,
Matthias Gutfeldt <worte@gmx.at > wrote:
[color=blue]
> Not a convincing argument. The Malleus Maleficarum was considered fact
> for a couple hundred years. And there are quite a few HTML versions to
> choose from, many not published by the W3C.[/color]

Let's not get into a religious debate (heaven forbid). ;-) But while
there are different versions of HTML, "HTML 4.01" is a W3C defined
thing, likewise for CSS2. I was being rather precise in my wording.

--
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.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"EightNineThree " <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote in message
news:bk5do4$e7n $1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m...[color=blue]
>
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bk4he8$ops 70$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=green]
> >
> > "EightNineThree " <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote in[/color]
> message[color=green]
> > news:bjqqi3$6na $1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m...[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:bjpv3v$lcv ke$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Educate yourself.
> > > http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/oct022.htm[/color]
> >
> > "The users indicated that "the 'Fluid' layout was best suited for[/color][/color]
reading[color=blue][color=green]
> > and that it allowed them to find key information more easily." Notice[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > this does not say that users enjoyed the fluid sites more.[/color]
>
> I'm sorry, I thought the quote was " They found no reliable differences
> among the methods in search time, accuracy of finding information, or in
> search efficiency (number of clicks, use of the Back button, etc.).[/color]
However,[color=blue]
> their users reliably believed that the "Fluid" layout was best suited for
> reading and that it allowed them to find key information more easily. In
> addition, users reliably preferred the "Fluid" method. "
>
> Hey, you can alienate visitors all you want. I'm gonna go for "User
> Preference" for the win, Alex.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/may002.htm[/color]
> >
> > This study concludes that higher resolution is better. Most of my
> > correspondents here are scolding me for not designing with
> > *lower*-resolution screens in mind.
> >[/color]
>
> Nobody said not to keep lower resolutions in mind. In fact, the entire[/color]
point[color=blue]
> of this argument is "resolution-independence" - not designing for any[/color]
given[color=blue]
> resolution.
> Since users prefer higher resolutions, why wouldn't you allow those that
> have *chosen* higher settings to exploit the benefits of them?
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov022.htm[/color]
> >
> > "If you are creating a site for the general public to read news the
> > objective is satisfaction. We don't really care how long it takes to[/color][/color]
read[color=blue][color=green]
> > the news. We just want people to enjoy it."
> >[/color]
>
> Nice way to misquote and put your own spin on things.[/color]

You know, I'm copying and pasting verbatim, and then you keep accusing me of
misquoting. Doesn't really entice me to value your judgment highly.

[Kris]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <MPG.19d054bae9 1d3c6f98b3b8@ne ws.odyssey.net> ,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> >HTML pages save paper, thus save trees.[/color]
>
> Do they? I just heard a report on the news a few days ago that paper
> usage, specifically office paper, has doubled since the mid-1980s.
>
> Maybe it's people printing out all those Web pages? :-)[/color]

Must be the RIAA subpoenas.

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

[EightNineThree]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
news:bk76tr$qdm 5n$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
>
> "EightNineThree " <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote in[/color]
message[color=blue]
> news:bk5do4$e7n $1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m...[color=green]
> >[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> You know, I'm copying and pasting verbatim, and then you keep accusing me[/color]
of[color=blue]
> misquoting.[/color]

Bullshit.
[color=blue]
>Doesn't really entice me to value your judgment highly.[/color]

Here's a newsflash for you - I don't care one bit what you think of my
judgment. You're not my boss, father, brother, friend, or significant
other. You're an poster on a newsgroup.
The regular posters of CIWAH have posted more than enough information to
refute your assinine comments. If you choose to continue your position, it
is only because you're not man enough to admit that you're wrong.

Let's summarize -
1. The web is not paper and therefore web pages are not bound by the
constraints of a physical media
2. People can access the web with a variety of devices. The various devices
can have an array of physical sizes, resolutions, user-agents, and
combinations thereof.
3. Studies show that users prefer flexible width layouts (though admittedly,
there is no reading performance difference on flexible vs. fixed)
4. Further, studies show that "flexible layouts create lines of text that
are too long" is a myth. Studies show that reading performance is NOT
hampered by long lines of text.
5. In fact, long lines of text on a flexible layout can facilitate scanning.
Simply put, a flexible layout on a high resolution monitor means that more
of the text is visible on screen without having to scroll.
6. Though I did not reference any, studies do show that overall task
performance is greatly enhanced by placing as much of the most important
text on the page as possible without needing to scroll.
7. You cannot predict the user's browser window size. You can detect their
screen resolution settings, but that doesn't do you any good, because you
cannot assume that their window is maximized.
8. Even if you use the oft-advised 760px fixed width, you're striking out.
When someone with a maximized window on a 1024 monitor comes to your site,
you're wasting more than 200 (20%+) of their monitor. It only gets worse
from there. I have a 1400 wide monitor. Do you know how *l-a-m-e* a 760
wide site looks on my screen?
9. Using a flexible width means you're empowering the user. Let's make one
thing clear - the web is about the user, not about the idiot webmaster.
Using flexible layout will empower the visitor and keep them in control of
their browser experience.


So, exactly what was your argument again?
Did you want to go over your false analogy to print media again, or did you
think of something else?


--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Peter Stokes]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"EightNineThree " <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote in message news:<bk2c9e$b9 n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m>...[color=blue]
> "Peter Stokes" <peterstokes@op eramail.com> wrote in message
> news:10876b94.0 309140957.7e363 c10@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
> > 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.[/color]

I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.

[EightNineThree]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"Peter Stokes" <peterstokes@op eramail.com> wrote in message
news:10876b94.0 309170235.4c6c2 a99@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> "EightNineThree " <eightninethree @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote in[/color]
message news:<bk2c9e$b9 n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.co m>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > "Peter Stokes" <peterstokes@op eramail.com> wrote in message
> > news:10876b94.0 309140957.7e363 c10@posting.goo gle.com...[color=darkred]
> > > 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[/color][/color]
ones[color=blue][color=green]
> > with vehement apologetics for design practices that are patently *not*[/color][/color]
user[color=blue][color=green]
> > friendly.
> > Often, people do need to be told that their idea is ultimately a bad[/color][/color]
one.[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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[/color][/color]
be[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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]
>
> I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
> respondent knows best[/color]

They often do around here.

[color=blue]
>and the questioner has no right to explore doing
> things the way they want to.[/color]

They have a right to do anything they want to do with their website.
And, as respondents to their questions, we have the right to say whatever we
want in response.
This includes telling them their idea is not the best idea.
[color=blue]
>If a fixed width page is as bad as some
> people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
> out for themselves.[/color]

Or, they can avoid learning the hard way by heeding the advice they get
here.

As others have said: Nobody gets paid to post here. Any response, however
negative in tone, that addresses an OPs concern should be appreciated.


--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width


"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19d10a 36a2eae6f198b75 c@News.CIS.DFN. DE...[color=blue]
> Markus Ernst wrote:
> if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
> challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
> learn?[/color]

I don't think that is what he is saying. At least, I would spin it a
different way. There is a way to inform people of misconceived approaches to
web development that would come across in a more helpful way. The approach
that most of the common posters in here take is one of disgust. Sure, you've
seen the same "stupid" questions over and over again but there are users
that are coming to this group not only to help learn about web development
in general but may also be new to using newsgroups and don't understand FAQs
and etiquette. Kindly point these people in the right direction and
everybody would be much happier. Much better than kicking them in the
kneecaps to stop them from going in the wrong direction. :)

Jonathan

[Tina Holmboe]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

peterstokes@ope ramail.com (Peter Stokes) exclaimed in <10876b94.03091 70235.4c6c2a99@ posting.google. com>:
[color=blue]
> things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
> people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find[/color]

Not likely. Most have failed to discover that there is something called
"a user" out there after spending several years "working" with the web.


[color=blue]
> out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.[/color]

Where did you find a requirement carved in stone for Usenet discussion
group readers to *answer* a question, much less answer it non-dictatorial ?

WYSIWYG - What you see IS what you get, and you ain't gettin' no
helpdesk. If what you get isn't what you want, try elsewhere or apply
your killfile. It's *your choice* - you can't find anything more democratic
than that.

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

[Brian]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

Peter Stokes wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
> respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
> things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
> people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
> out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.[/color]

Which dictatorial response was that? References please. Otherwise,
we might just have to dismiss you as someone who tosses around empty
accusations with a caustic tone that is unwarranted.

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

[Tim]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis .co.uk> might have written:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> if one starts from a POV that ones preconception cannot and must not be
>> challenged since that would imply lack of respect, how can one possibly
>> learn?[/color][/color]


"Jonathan Snook" <goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I don't think that is what he is saying. At least, I would spin it a
> different way. There is a way to inform people of misconceived approaches to
> web development that would come across in a more helpful way. The approach
> that most of the common posters in here take is one of disgust. Sure, you've
> seen the same "stupid" questions over and over again but there are users
> that are coming to this group not only to help learn about web development
> in general but may also be new to using newsgroups and don't understand FAQs
> and etiquette. Kindly point these people in the right direction and
> everybody would be much happier. Much better than kicking them in the
> kneecaps to stop them from going in the wrong direction. :)[/color]

I see a different spin on what generally happens around here, and other
newsgroups:

1. Someone asks about doing something daft.

2. It's pointed out that it's daft. Usually quite briefly, initially
(it usually takes a while before anything gets heated). Often with
links to reference material. There really isn't an easy way to nicely
say that someone's doing a dumb thing, and people really aren't going to
write a 20k diplomatic answer.

3. The next respondent is probably another party who starts an affray.

4. The original poster vehemently defends their position (often with
daft reasons), but doesn't say, "oh, I never thought of that" (about the
first lot of advice not to do something daft).

5. The thread changes direction to a new, and even longer, one
discussing what should or should not have been said, saying it wasn't
helpful, and the original HTML issue has disappeared from the
discussion.

Many of the "fixing the wrong solution" issues tend to be basic common
sense, nothing to do with HTML. If people would think about what
they're trying to do, before even considering technical issues, they'd
be in a better position, in the first place.

--
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.

[Stan Brown]

Re: Keeping Web Page at Fixed Width

In article <10876b94.03091 70235.4c6c2a99@ posting.google. com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Peter Stokes
<peterstokes@op eramail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>I find that sort of answer based on an arrogant assumption that the
>respondent knows best and the questioner has no right to explore doing
>things the way they want to. If a fixed width page is as bad as some
>people here appear to believe, then the original questioner will find
>out for themselves. S/he asked for help, not a dictatorial response.[/color]

Precisely: he asked for _help_.

When someone wants to do something wrong, answering the precise
question they asked is not helping them. Telling them _why_ it's
wrong and what they should do instead _is_ helping them.

--
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/