Browser survey

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 3, 9:11 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!

well Jonathan, we are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT here...

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 3, 9:16 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

So that is not a solution.  At best, it is a very small band aid.

But is still IS a solution, where there is NONE for the reverse
scenario, therefore it is a fact that supports my point, and not your
opinion.

It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor has
a clue about their browser. I am not willing to make that
concession. I think the overwhelming majority of people surfing have
no idea what a user style sheet is, or what to put in it even if they
did know what it was. In this group, the overwhelming majority DOES
know about those things, and it would be a solution for them.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:11 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

>Try a Food Lion for a really dismal experience!

>
well Jonathan, we are in COMPLETE AGREEMENT here...

As staff shambles about, vacuous stares, and pasty complexions...
corporate must have sucked the life out of them long ago like the cast
of Romeo feature...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[William Gill]

Re: Browser survey

Scott Bryce wrote:

It is also subject to the end-user's environment. I subscribe to the 10
to 14 words on a line rule. A fluid design breaks that rule unless the
user resizes his window. A fixed width design breaks that rule if the
user resizes the font.

Not necessarily, any more than images having "fixed widths" violate a
fluid layout. You can

>
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think there are any correct
answers in this medium.
>
That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be debate. If there are no
answers, there are no guidelines. The debate allows us to weigh the
various options and decide what we think is best. Without the debate,
more people will make wrong choices, having too little information to
make better choices.

That was my whole point in introducing "optimum line length" into the
discussion(thou gh I wasn't too careful in which reference I cited,
several others addressed Chris's valid questions regard other
variables). Chris is doing something I often do, taking things apart,
examining the pieces and possibly, though not necessarily, reassembling
them in a new way.

Unfortunately many who favor rigid or fluid design, don't always favor
non-rigid thinking. Hence the frequent discussion of "right" and
"wrong." There are no absolutes, as acknowledged, at least indirectly,
when saying things like "..graceful ly break down."

Things like accessibility and preference are spices to the stew, but not
necessarily the ultimate goal of a design. Microsoft took a marketing
approach that didn't address the top 10-15% of users or the bottom
10-15% of users, but instead plowed straight down the middle 70-80% and
let the rest fall off the table (creating a market for people like us
who could feed nicely on those "crumbs"). You can say what you want
about Microsoft, their balance sheet seems to say they adopted a
successful strategy. I still remember when only an "elite few" could
use computers, there were no bells and whistles, only blinking cursors
and a complex "foreign language" only understood by the high priests of
programming.

So I agree with you when you say "The debate allows us to weigh the
various options and decide what we think is best.", but the bottom line
is we each decide what we think is best, there is no mathematical
formula, or someone would write a program that would put us all out of work.

[William Gill]

Re: Browser survey

William Gill wrote:

Not necessarily, any more than images having "fixed widths" violate a
fluid layout. You can

Sorry, someone came up behind me and I accidentally sent an unfinished
thought.

I was saying, you can place your text in a container that "optimizes
line length" (for whatever you decide is optimum), and still place that
in a fluid layout.

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote:

The lunatic fringe are beyond hope.
>

I used to think that. Then I discovered Harmony Hairspray!

<g>

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

>On Jul 2, 7:37=A0pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

What can I say, we have different opinions.

>Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
>by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

>
>Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
>website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.

How about, pure, simple HTML, as it was originally designed and
intended? That's fluid. It was never intended as a replacement for
DTP.

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

dorayme <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

>Like arguing for or against the existence of God - quite irresolvable
>because no one has a properly meaningful idea about what the hell they
>are talking about.

Pun intended?

LOL

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

>So, what's your views on abortion...
>

Dead and buried.....

</gets coat>

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias .net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:

>On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbr yce.comwrote:
>

>Steve wrote:

>>Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
>>thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
>>experience for their visitors?

>>
>I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
>the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
>different with groceries than it is with clothes.

>
>Sometimes, but don't forget about edible underwear...
>

Indeed not.....Many an unfortunate incident when one has forgotten
that is also dissolvable .......

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Browser survey

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias .net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:

>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>

>>Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't
>>believe a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a half-width
>>environment , either.
>>>

>>
>Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
>lot of other windows open at the same time.

>
>Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page, and
>that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to make an
>interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.
>

Web page authors have lots of rights. They can also insist on only
writing the text of their page in Mala, but I should tentatively
suggest that English might have a wider potential audience?

Matt


--
The Probert Encyclopaedia

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

On 03 Jul 2008, (Matt Probert) wrote:

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias .net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>

>>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>>

>>>Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't
>>>believe a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a half-width
>>>environmen t, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
>>lot of other windows open at the same time.

>>
>>Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book page,
>>and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the right to
>>make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some extent.
>>

>
Web page authors have lots of rights. They can also insist on only
writing the text of their page in Mala, but I should tentatively
suggest that English might have a wider potential audience?

But if the page is meant for people in Malala..?

- Okay, a somewhat discordant reply to an inappropriate analogy.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:

Neredbojias wrote:

>On 02 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attg lobal.netwrote:
>>

>>>Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't
>>>believe a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a half-width
>>>environmen t, either.
>>>>
>>Why not? I generally don't have my browser at full screen - I have a
>>lot of other windows open at the same time.

>>
>Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book
>page, and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the
>right to make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some
>extent.
>>

>
Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.
>
If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.

So no Web author can/should control what his site looks like? Okay...

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

On 03 Jul 2008, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote :

Neredbojias wrote:
>

>Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't
>believe a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a
>***half-width*** environment, either.

>
Was what I highlighted a typo on your part :-) ?

Yeah, I meant "1/2-width"...

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

On 03 Jul 2008, (Matt Probert) wrote:

Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias .net/_eml/fliam.phpwrote:
>

>>On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbr yce.comwrote:
>>

>>Steve wrote:
>>>Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
>>>thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
>>>experience for their visitors?
>>>
>>I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
>>the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
>>different with groceries than it is with clothes.

>>
>>Sometimes, but don't forget about edible underwear...
>>

>
Indeed not.....Many an unfortunate incident when one has forgotten
that is also dissolvable .......

:}

....But also many a fortunate incident!

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds