Centered CSS

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Centered CSS

In article Jocab wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:49:36 -0500, Neal <neal413@spamrc n.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >Check out the page design at htmldog.com and tell me if it won't work in
> >all the viewport sizes you listed and then some.[/color]
>
> Sure it does. But it has no minimum width.[/color]

That is becasue minimum width is hardly ever useful. In fact, it is most
often harmful. Google old posts by me, if you can't figure it out
yourself. You could for example try 400px wide window (on low res
screen), and then think again if min-width of 800px makes sence.
[color=blue]
> It looks nice in 1600*1200
> but my site won't have that much content so won't look nice...[/color]

If your problem is not having content, it is not really good reason to
make it break down to hide that.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Brian]

Re: Centered CSS

Jocab wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:45:00 GMT, Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> That's a strange definition of liquid design. How about designing
>> for any width?
>>
>> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign[/color]
>
> Well, let me be a little clearer. What I want is a page with a
> minimum resolution of 800 pixels (this is just an example),[/color]

[snip]
Actually, you were quite clear the first time. But setting widths for
content that does not require it (e.g., images) is a bad idea. And
setting widths for text content in pixels is a terrible idea.
[color=blue]
> Is my reasoning wrong?[/color]

In short, yes. Design for any size. See the link I provided.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Re: Centered CSS

Jocab wrote:
[color=blue]
> wouldn't it be possible to have the left and right navs be fixed
> (ie 200px). And the middle content relative?[/color]

Yes, it's possible. And what happens when the content of the navs
doesn't fit in a 200px wide container? Flexible design means you avoid
having your page fall apart in browsing situations outside of the one
you imagine is common.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Els]

Re: Centered CSS

Lauri Raittila wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article Els wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Jocab wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:56:47 +0100, Els <els.aNOSPAM@ti scali.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://home.tiscali.nl/~elizabeth/jocab.html
>>>
>>>Impressive , thanks. Will work a little on it :) Are there any hacks to
>>>make it work on IE?[/color][/color]
>
> I would rather call it elementary. Not becasue it is bad, but because it
> is pretty simple.[/color]

It is really, once you get the hang of it ;-)
[color=blue]
> http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/[/color]

That's very interesting, and I can make it work for the
example with the 30em, but any other amount I fill in there,
makes the width static.
Also the pixelwidth version, that which gives me a static
width as well.
It probably has to do with what my stylesheet already says,
so I'm gonna have a more indepth look at it later.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>But why bother? Most people don't use 1600x1200 screens.
>>I have one myself, but I have it set at 1280x1024, cause it
>>looks better :-) (19inch)[/color]
>
> I have done that because I have lousy graphics card. But I never run
> browser fullscreen, not even on 800*600. I used browser on 800*600 for 2
> years only making it fullscreen about twice a month.[/color]

Which you would for instance have had to do to view the site
you mentioned ;-)
If you were using Gecko browser that is.
It's going off the left side of the screen when the window
is narrower than about 620px.

Very interesting read though, thanks for posting the link :-)


--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Neal]

Re: Centered CSS

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:15:01 GMT, Jocab <john@jo-nospam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 03:49:36 -0500, Neal <neal413@spamrc n.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> Check out the page design at htmldog.com and tell me if it won't work in
>> all the viewport sizes you listed and then some.[/color]
>
> Sure it does. But it has no minimum width. It looks nice in 1600*1200
> but my site won't have that much content so won't look nice...[/color]


Well, if it's lack of content, I'd think max width would be more critical,
to avoid all that open expanse. Setting a min width would mean the outer
columns wouldn't scrunch up the middle enough.

Seeing 800px as a minimum is poor. I think it's not always possible to
have a design that is viewable down to 50px, at some point even the best
fluid designs get to be problematic. My personal rule of thumb - which is
likely overly generous for some - is to be certain the layout is good down
to 500px wide, and smaller if possible. Certainly the smaller the better.

Setting a min width which forces horizontal scrolling, and having things
begin to overlap and get weird at narrow widths - which is really worse? I
think the horizontal scrolling is.

[Jocab]

Re: Centered CSS

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:48:15 +0200, Lauri Raittila
<lauri@raittila .cjb.net> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Not that I know off, But you could give it a fixed width in
>> IE, using CSS hacks to avoid other browsers to read it, but
>> that would have to be a fixed width of less than 750px, and
>> I don't think you want over 90% of your viewers to see a
>> static width.[/color]
>
>http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/[/color]

That method doesn't work for the <body> tag or a style on that tag...

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Centered CSS

In article Els wrote:[color=blue]
> Lauri Raittila wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/[/color]
>
> That's very interesting, and I can make it work for the
> example with the 30em, but any other amount I fill in there,
> makes the width static.
> Also the pixelwidth version, that which gives me a static
> width as well.
> It probably has to do with what my stylesheet already says,
> so I'm gonna have a more indepth look at it later.[/color]

I have never actually tested it much, because I have not yet find need
for use it.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I used browser on 800*600 for 2
> > years only making it fullscreen about twice a month.[/color]
>
> Which you would for instance have had to do to view the site
> you mentioned ;-)[/color]

No, I would have either used ctrl+f4 or ctrl+s,ctrl+s (discard
stylesheet.)
[color=blue]
> If you were using Gecko browser that is.[/color]

I'm not. It's slow and bloated browser engine, with half done CSS
support¹. And GUIs for it are usually worse. Using Opera 7.5p2.


[1] This is troll. But it is true too: user stylesheet handling is pretty
much non-existant in gecko, and as it is half of CSS...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Centered CSS

In article Jocab wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:48:15 +0200, Lauri Raittila
> <lauri@raittila .cjb.net> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Not that I know off, But you could give it a fixed width in
> >> IE, using CSS hacks to avoid other browsers to read it, but
> >> that would have to be a fixed width of less than 750px, and
> >> I don't think you want over 90% of your viewers to see a
> >> static width.[/color]
> >
> >http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/[/color]
>
> That method doesn't work for the <body> tag or a style on that tag...[/color]

That is because IE don't support much styling on body tag. You most
likely need to wrap everything to div...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Els]

Re: Centered CSS

Lauri Raittila wrote:
[color=blue]
> Els wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Lauri Raittila wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>http://www.svendtofte.com/code/max_width_in_ie/[/color]
>>[/color]
> I have never actually tested it much, because I have not yet find need
> for use it.[/color]

Well, I tested the very examples given on the site, and
noticed that they work as long as no doctype is specified.
When I specify a doctype (either 4.01 strict or
transitional), IE crashes as soon as the (in this case)
min-width of 800px is reached.
So, I won't be using this trick, unfortunately :-(

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Els]

Re: Centered CSS

Neal wrote:
[color=blue]
> Setting a min width which forces horizontal scrolling, and having things
> begin to overlap and get weird at narrow widths - which is really worse?
> I think the horizontal scrolling is.[/color]

Depends on the layout of the page.
If I see a page with a menu on the left of 150 or 200px
wide, and I have my browser at about 500px, I'd prefer to be
able to scroll the menu to the left and be able to read the
content comfortably, than having to keep the menu in my face
and reading lines (in the content) that are half as long and
sometimes 'overlap or get weird' as you said.

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Centered CSS

In article Els wrote:[color=blue]
> Neal wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Setting a min width which forces horizontal scrolling, and having things
> > begin to overlap and get weird at narrow widths - which is really worse?
> > I think the horizontal scrolling is.[/color]
>
> Depends on the layout of the page.
> If I see a page with a menu on the left of 150 or 200px
> wide, and I have my browser at about 500px, I'd prefer to be
> able to scroll the menu to the left and be able to read the
> content comfortably, than having to keep the menu in my face
> and reading lines (in the content) that are half as long and
> sometimes 'overlap or get weird' as you said.[/color]

Best is to design thing so that navigation and content won't be rendered
side by side when using narrow browser window. At least I think so.

Personally I use 500 - 550px window, and wind 2 cols side by side better
than scrolling.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Els]

Re: Centered CSS


Lauri Raittila wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article Els wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Neal wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Setting a min width which forces horizontal scrolling, and having things
>>>begin to overlap and get weird at narrow widths - which is really worse?
>>>I think the horizontal scrolling is.[/color]
>>
>>Depends on the layout of the page.
>>If I see a page with a menu on the left of 150 or 200px
>>wide, and I have my browser at about 500px, I'd prefer to be
>>able to scroll the menu to the left and be able to read the
>>content comfortably, than having to keep the menu in my face
>>and reading lines (in the content) that are half as long and
>>sometimes 'overlap or get weird' as you said.[/color]
>
> Best is to design thing so that navigation and content won't be rendered
> side by side when using narrow browser window. At least I think so.[/color]

That of course would be better, for instance with a
horizontal menu at the top and/or bottom, but that limits
the variety in possible layouts quite a lot.
Or do you mean you prefer the complete 'content column' to
flip under the menu when the page gets narrower? That too is
an option, but personally I don't like blocks moving to
different places when I adjust my windowsize :-)
[color=blue]
> Personally I use 500 - 550px window, and wind 2 cols side by side better
> than scrolling.[/color]

Okay :-)

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: Centered CSS

In article Els wrote:[color=blue]
> Or do you mean you prefer the complete 'content column' to
> flip under the menu when the page gets narrower? That too is
> an option, but personally I don't like blocks moving to
> different places when I adjust my windowsize :-)[/color]

Might be. But do you adjust your window size often? To smaller than maybe
35em?


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

[Els]

Re: Centered CSS

Lauri Raittila wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article Els wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Or do you mean you prefer the complete 'content column' to
>>flip under the menu when the page gets narrower? That too is
>>an option, but personally I don't like blocks moving to
>>different places when I adjust my windowsize :-)[/color]
>
> Might be. But do you adjust your window size often? To smaller than maybe
> 35em?[/color]

Only sometimes, for instance if I'm doing something in an
application and want to read instructions for it on some
webpage at the same time. But usually my browser window is
wider than that.
I actually have my favourites bar on the left, which I have
quite wide (200px?), and if any page I'm viewing needs more
space than I have open, I usually click the little cross top
right of the fav bar, to instantly have 200px more :-)
Quicker than grabbing the right side (and the right one too)
to adjust the window.
But at 35em, if they put in a 200px wide menu, I wouldn't
read comfortably, and therefore close the favbar ...

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Chris Morris]

Re: Centered CSS

Lauri Raittila <lauri@raittila .cjb.net> writes:[color=blue]
> [1] This is troll. But it is true too: user stylesheet handling is pretty
> much non-existant in gecko, and as it is half of CSS...[/color]

Non-existent in Mozilla, maybe. Galeon 1.2 had excellent user CSS
support (similar to Opera 7's, but without having to hack an obscure
config file to add your own). Unfortunately Galeon 1.3 hasn't had it
reimplemented yet, but I suppose they've had more mainstream features
to work on.

--
Chris