Browser survey

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And I'm not going to waste my time repeating what others have already
said. You're not worth it.

OK. You win.

[Guy Macon]

Re: Browser survey




Scott Bryce wrote:

>
>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/wrote:
>

>Th above seems to assume that you know better than the user how long
>his lines should be. With a liquid design, if the user wants short
>lines he can reduce the width of his browser window. Liquid design
>gives the user control of the line width. This is a Good Thing.

>
>I understand your argument, but you don't understand that you are
>arguing against yourself. (Which is why i don't think there are any
>correct answers in this medium.)
>
>If a site has a fluid design, you argue, the user has the option of
>resizing his browser window to view the site however he wants to. (And I
>have done that from time to time, though I find it annoying that I have
>to.) But if the site has a fixed width design, you don't see why you
>should have to resize your browser window to read the site.

I believe that you have me confused with someone else.
I never made the argument you attribute to me.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Guy Macon]

Re: Browser survey




William Gill wrote:

>Interestingl y, I settled on 35ems as a target width for content also,
>based on what I gleaned from several of the essays on "optimal line length."

Hmmm. Commodore 64 and TRS-80
users have a *lot* of experience
with 40 characters vs. 80
characters, and I don't know of a
single one who prefers 40
characters.

BTW, do the <35 character lines in
this post seem a bit short to you?


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Guy Macon]

Re: Browser survey




Scott Bryce wrote:

>Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>If you have a high resolution big monitor why you would have your
>browser maximized?

>
>As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it is a personal preference. I
>work better when I only have to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
>visible windows are distracting to me.

You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows. Minimize them or cover them up with another open browser
window under the working browser window. That way you have the
same "cover all" behavior without having your working browser set
way too wide.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Guy Macon]

Re: Browser survey




Scott Bryce wrote:

>Jonathan N. Little wrote:

>If you have a high resolution big monitor why you would have your
>browser maximized?

>
>As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it is a personal preference. I
>work better when I only have to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
>visible windows are distracting to me.

You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows. Minimize them or cover them up with another open browser
window under the working browser window. That way you have the
same "cover all" behavior without having your working browser set
way too wide.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.co m/>

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Guy Macon wrote:

BTW, do the <35 character lines in this post seem a bit short to you?
>

There is a difference between 35ems and 35 characters. Most characters
are narrower than 1em. 35ems is somewhere around 55 characters, which is
pretty close to the 10 to 14 words on a line that I find easier to read.

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 11:13 am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbr yce.comwrote:

So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which ones you
are going to break for the benefit of the site owner.

Except that we should design for the reader, not the owner.

If it benefits the owner, then it has already benefited the reader
else, the site owner would not benefit. (So my statement agrees with
you)

And yes (I hope I have made this clear by now) I understand that that is
an argument in favor of fluid design.

I agree with you. There is no mutual exclusion for fluid and fixed
width. Both can (and are) be enjoyed on the web. Some here feel
anything NOT fluid is wrong. I tend to disagree with that.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:38 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

>If the layout is liquid then you will get what *you* prefer and *I* get
>what *I* prefer, a win-win. But if the *deziner* is stuck on fixed
>width: 800px layouts and *I* want a browser window at 600px and then *I*
>am stuck with a scrollbar! Web great virtue of the web over paper is
>that if done properly can accommodate anybody.

>
Your idea is great. But (isn't there always a big BUTT?) a very small
handful of people know how to set up a user style sheet, or would know
what to put there even if they did know it existed. It is also
meaningless to people that don't care either way. (Which, I believe
is the overwhelming majority of the people who use browsers. Meaning,
other than this group, I have never heard anyone ever say "Man, I wish
that site was flexible width....".)

Funny, I know why you don't hear "Man, I wish that site did not
disappear off the right of my screen" Because they are people who barely
know how to email. Maintaining public computers at a rural county
library and observing real newbies to "the information superhighway" can
be quite revealing! Although I find Jacobson a bit over the top, I have
witness the bewilderment generated by a 'target="_blank "'. Fixed-layout
sites are typically also fixed-font sites. So no I do not believe it is
a reciprocal argument. It is much easier for flexible-layout sites to
accommodate visitors that prefer static fixed-layouts then fixed-layout
sites to accommodate visitors that prefer flexible-layouts.

Of course just because a site has a flexible-layout doesn't make it
good. There are better approaches to flexible-layouts then others, but
flexible-layouts in general are easier for the visitors to adjust to
their liking, where fixed-layouts are designer-centric.

>
I don't believe the opinions of this group reflect the general public.
(this does not mean I think the opinions of this group are wrong). I
just don't think people care really. Most, like myself, will just
accommodate based on the page we are currently on.

No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.


--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury wrote:

If it benefits the owner, then it has already benefited the reader
else, the site owner would not benefit. (So my statement agrees with
you)

Actually, I see it the other way around. Design for the reader, and the
owner benefits. Sometimes the owner feels that he will benefit from
things that are of no practical use to the reader.

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 12:08 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.

Oh well, we disagree. I do not believe most people browsing will
leave and never return because they have to change the size of their
browser, or change the font size.

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 11:38 am, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/wrote:

You don't have to maximize your browser to avoid seeing the other
windows.  

Is it my desk top? How about I decide what works best for me?

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 11:03 am, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbr yce.comwrote:

What Jerry doesn't understand is that I'm not saying that fluid designs
are bad. Or that fixed width designs are better. What I'm saying is that
given the unusual nature of the medium, there is no one size fits all
answer to the question.

Man dorayme, is this guy preaching from the Book of Travis or what?
(or I from the book of Bryce...)

[Bergamot]

Re: Browser survey


Travis Newbury wrote:

>
Why would I want to change the size of the window of my browser to a
size I do not prefer so I enjoy your site, when I will have to change
it again (to my prefered size) when I go to a different site.

My sentiments exactly!

The difference is you prefer a wide default, and I don't. Now if the
site used a fluid design with a reasonable max-width (in ems), then we
might both find that same site to be just peachy.

There's no reason why a site like foxnews can't do that, they just
choose not to. :(

--
Berg

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

On 02 Jul 2008, Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

On Jul 2, 12:08 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

>No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.

>
Oh well, we disagree. I do not believe most people browsing will
leave and never return because they have to change the size of their
browser, or change the font size.

Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites where I
absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's happened, no, I don't go
back if there is any viable alternative at all. Okay, so I'm not "most
people", but I'll bet there are plenty of gentlemen who react the same.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Neredbojias wrote:

Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites
where I absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's
happened, no, I don't go back if there is any viable alternative at
all. Okay, so I'm not "most people", but I'll bet there are plenty
of gentlemen who react the same.

My vision is not what it is when I was younger. Sometimes I will lean
back in my chair, away from my monitor, which requires me to increase
the font size on a site. As long as the site does not break when the
font is resized, I see no reason to leave.