Browser survey

[Neredbojias]

Re: Browser survey

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

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.

I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen resolution
doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But within 1280 px, a
(for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so _can be_ fine. (Well,
maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez monitors.) The fact that users
can't view the site sans horz scrollbar with a half-width browser doesn't
hold much water with me. What if the page has a 500px image or something?

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.net/

Great sights and sounds

[Steve]

Re: Browser survey

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. :(

They're controlling exactly where their advertising appears in relation
to the (free) content they're offering their traffic.

They're ensuring article links are placed exactly where they deem most
likely to encourage click-through an additional readership (and
additional ad revenue).

They have broken functionality for javascript-disabled viewers because
they're more than willing to hinder the experience for a minute portion
of their audience for the benefit of the vast majority.

They don't care about any individual's preferences.

They're doing exactly what they *should* be doing for a commercial
website - trying to maximize revenue. It's doubtful they've created the
flawless layout, but it's safe to say they've experimented with layouts
and reached the conclusion their fixed format is far better than
relinquishing all control of these essential visual cues.

In many, many cases (most often commercial sites) a fixed layout is
going to be the correct choice. In other cases fluid might be right.
In commercial sites probably a decision best made by marketing
departments who understand it's all about revenue and/or lead generation
rather than the coder who naively touts a circa-1999 "It's all about the
visitor's experience!" mantra.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Browser survey

Neredbojias wrote:

I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen resolution
doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But within 1280 px, a
(for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so _can be_ fine. (Well,
maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez monitors.) The fact that users
can't view the site sans horz scrollbar with a half-width browser doesn't
hold much water with me. What if the page has a 500px image or something?
>

An image is an image (modern web browsers do have a fit-image to browser
window feature), but it sure is a pain when researching and you have a
600-odd pixel browser window with a 600-odd pixel word processor window
adjacent and you cannot read the dang website copy because the site is a
fixed 800 pixels! A real-world possible scenario for folks who use the
the web from more than "reality TV" or computers from more than playing
games...

--
Take care,

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

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 1:44 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

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

You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: Browser survey

On 2008-07-02, Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jul 2, 1:44 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

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

>
You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.

Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
hope.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Guy Macon]

Re: Browser survey




Travis Newbury wrote:

>Some here feel anything NOT fluid is wrong.
>I tend to disagree with that.

I find that some people (not necessarily you) make unwarranted
assumptions when I discuss fluid design. I most emphatically do
*not* think that anything not fluid is wrong. My opinion is that
anything that requires a particular browser window size, font size,
etc. to be easily readable is wrong. My philosophy is that a
professional webmaster should be free to use whatever techniques
he chooses, but that he should also test his work on a tiny cell
phone browser, a very high resolution display, a text-only browser
such as lynx, and an aural browser, navigating by sound alone with
the monitor turned off. If his non-fluid design works well in all
of those situations, I like it. If a fluid design does not work
well in all of those environments, I don't like it. Fluid design
is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

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

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 4:54 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.co m/wrote:

My philosophy is that a
professional webmaster should be free to use whatever techniques
he chooses, but that he should also test his work on a tiny cell
phone browser, a very high resolution display, a text-only browser
such as lynx, and an aural browser, navigating by sound alone with
the monitor turned off.

This is hypothetical, but what if you had a client that had a
successful, but not so accessible website, and you change it so it
does everything on your list, and it becomes less successful?

In your opinion, would it be better to leave it more accessible, but
less profitable for your client, or would you advice the company to
revert back to their less accessible, but more profitable format?

That is where we differ. I believe a good webmaster uses what ever
technologies he needs to make the website profitable (Assuming the
goal of the site is increasing revenue). This means that if it is
more profitable for a company to use XYZ technology, then it is you
duty as a webmaster to use it. No matter what XYZ is.

Different design philosophies. Neither more right or wrong than the
other. Just different.

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 4:47 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gma il.comwrote:

    Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
    everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
    will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
    hope.

What can I say, we have different opinions.

[Dr J R Stockton]

Re: Browser survey

In comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html message <xp6dnZFu_JZ1SP fVnZ2dnUVZ
_j2dnZ2d@comcas t.com>, Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:11:41, Scott Bryce
<sbryce@scottbr yce.composted:

>
>Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
>visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
>window maximized.

You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris, and
sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/batfiles.htm- also batprogs.htm.

[Travis Newbury]

Re: Browser survey

On Jul 2, 4:25 pm, Dr J R Stockton <j...@merlyn.de mon.co.ukwrote:

Personal preference. I like to focus on one thing at a time. Multiple
visible windows are distracting to me. I prefer to keep my browser
window maximized.

>
You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris, and
sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.

Good suggestion. Or I could do exactly what I am doing now.

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

You can open and maximise an empty Notepad, to conceal the debris,
and sit your browser on top at whatever size suits the current page.

Why would I want to? I alt-tab between windows. The fewer I have open,
thee easier is is to move around.

[Scott Bryce]

Re: Browser survey

Travis Newbury wrote:

This is hypothetical, but what if you had a client that had a
successful, but not so accessible website, and you change it so it
does everything on your list, and it becomes less successful?

<snip>

That is where we differ. I believe a good webmaster uses what ever
technologies he needs to make the website profitable

The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.

[dorayme]

Re: Browser survey

In article <DuednQ0UGdFyBf bVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dn Z2d@comcast.com >,
Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbr yce.comwrote:

dorayme wrote:

Actually, you may have already made the "wasted space" argument clear to
me in another post where you demonstrated fluid, yet still constrained
design.
>
You allowed the "images" on that page to be fluid. Had you constrained
the width of the page, a reader with a wide browser window would have to
scroll more than necessary due to the unused portion of the browser window.
>
OK, I understand "wasted space" in that context.
>

I hope you mean by this also the subtler thing that there is in fact
'wasted' space at the URL I gave you, namely the *sides* - after there
is an optimum distribution of the thumbnails to achieve the centring of
the mass.

This is not *necessarily* an optimum distribution to conserve space. It
may so happen that a more higledy pigledy arrangement would conserve
even more space. The idea of optimum like percentage, needs a reference
point. And the the reference point is not simply "the browser width
without reference to anything else at all". There are *some* aesthetic
considerations too.

In other words, there are constraints in achieving fluid aims. There are
limitations and it is not an all or nothing affair.

What the "two sides" do often in these disputes is ride roughshod over
all the distinctions that need to be made and seize various phrases out
of context and bang drums.

Everyone worth talking to would agree, when it comes down to it that
nothing in this matter is an all or nothing affair. But this agreement
gets you absolutely nowhere at all in understanding the least damn
thing.

My own business web site has a page that is probably a better example of
"wasted space." I have tried to find a way to make it more fluid, but
with no success. When I designed the page, I knew I was breaking design
rules, but couldn't find a way make the content work within the rules.
>
Maybe I'll post a link and let the fluid design ALWAYS folks show me how
it aught to be done. I could learn from that.
>
What Jerry doesn't understand is

is exactly what a blunt mallet fails to understand (from my memory)

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Browser survey

In article
<9427998d-0e5e-46e6-857f-99881d0ab7b2@r6 6g2000hsg.googl egroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@ hotmail.comwrot e:

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...)

It *is* the great temptation: Preaching impossible to dispute
generalities.

For obvious reasons: it is easy to do, it does not require research, you
have a stranglehold on all your opponents who attempt an assault on your
statements because they don't really think you are saying something so
general or unassailable.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Browser survey

In article <e904a$486be94b $cef88ba3$11780 @TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gma il.comwrote:

On 2008-07-02, Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jul 2, 1:44 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi. comwrote:

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

You will only be able to please a portion of your visitors. Never all
of them. Neither fluid design or fixed width will guarantee you will
please the most. Nor does one have an advantage over another.

>
Nonsense. A fluid design wins hands down. It will not please
everyone, but it will be better for the vast majority. A max-width
will take care of most of the rest. The lunatic fringe are beyond
hope.

I agree.

--
dorayme