Fixed font sizes

[Mark Johnson]

Re: Fixed font sizes

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:
>>>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>---------
>>>>>Brian <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:
>>>>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Please learn to trim attributions correctly. Neither Alan nor Brian
>>>wrote anything in the message you posted.[/color]
>>
>>Nobody said they did - except for you, right here.[/color]
>
>In your post
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ksbn%404ax.com
>you included four levels of attributions (me, Brian, you and Alan) but
>only include quoted materal from my previous post.[/color]

But you need to know the basics of these messages. Look at the angle
brackets. Unless you, yourself, mess around with those, as I think you
did in the follow-up, the quoted text refers to the alias/email which
has one less bracket. So if the text is prefixed with two angle
brackets, then it was written by whoever has one angle bracket before
their name.

[color=blue][color=green]
>>It's interesting that I DID ASK for people to positively suggest pages
>>or sites that just really impressed them in the matter of style
>>sheets.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>And once again with the bizarre comprehension.[/color]

I'm just asking you, in all you time surfing the web, has any
particular page or site just jumped out at you as the very epitomy of
the use of style sheets? Do you just not care about css, but still
post to this ng? Do you feel you have no standard to judge what is
good, bad or indifferent? And so on. What would be the URL of such an
example page?

[color=blue][color=green]
>>And I don't see any messages from you, in that thread.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>So?[/color]

So here's your opportunity. Sometimes being critical of others is a
symptom of a man who doesn't know quality when he sees it? Sometimes.

I'm asking you to point to that quality, posted on the web. It speaks
volumes, I think, if you simply cannot.

[Steve Pugh]

[OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>In your post
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ksbn%404ax.com
>>you included four levels of attributions (me, Brian, you and Alan) but
>>only include quoted materal from my previous post.[/color]
>
>But you need to know the basics of these messages. Look at the angle
>brackets. Unless you, yourself, mess around with those, as I think you
>did in the follow-up, the quoted text refers to the alias/email which
>has one less bracket. So if the text is prefixed with two angle
>brackets, then it was written by whoever has one angle bracket before
>their name.[/color]

And for your next trick you'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

I was merely pointing out that you had included extraneous
attributions and suggesting that you be more careful in trimming them
in future. I was not suggesting that by doing so you had actually
mis-attributed anything (that's the personal bugbear of another of the
regulars). You had three possible ways of responding:
1. Ignore it and say nothing.
2. Say "whoops, sorry".
3. Claim that you hadn't made a mistake at all.
Your choice.
[color=blue]
>I'm just asking you, in all you time surfing the web, has any
>particular page or site just jumped out at you as the very epitomy of
>the use of style sheets?[/color]

Maybe. But the thread rapidly turned into one about sites with good
design that use CSS. Which is different to what you seem to be asking
here, and what I think your original post also asked about - which was
sites that had well designed CSS (i.e. the CSS itself is good,
regardless of the actual design of the site).
[color=blue]
>What would be the URL of such an example page?[/color]

I think that the CSS I use on http://www.sfsfw.net/ is good. It's
simple, concise, well commented, works well across browsers, works
around some fairly obscure bugs, complies with the specifications, use
logical class names, copes with a fairly broad range of page contents,
is accessible, etc. The visual design of the site will never win any
awards as it is very much of the plain and simple school, but the CSS
(and other aspects of the site's technical architecture) is IMO well
designed. (Obviously there are things that can be improved, but there
always are.)

For an example of what can be done layout-wise with CSS I have an
example at http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/ that demonstrates a few neat
things that would be extremely difficult to replicate without CSS. The
colour scheme needs work but the layout and structure is quite nifty.

For really cool things that make one go "Ooooo", it's still hard to
beat Eric Meyer's complex spiral:

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html

(BTW I hope you're looking at these pages in Opera or Mozilla, because
whilst the look good in IE they look even better in a decent browser.)

A List Apart http://www.alistapart.com/ was designed by professionals
so one would assume that the visual design is at least competent,
though it doesn't do anything for me. I think that their stylesheet is
overly complex and based on not very well structured xhtml. The site
also has major accessibility and usability problems, but because they
used CSS it's possible to fix some of those problems with a user
stylesheet as outlined at http://steve.pugh.net/articles/taming.html

Everything about ALA also applies to http://www.zeldman.com/
You may or may not agree with everything that Jeffrey Zeldman writes
(I certainly don't) but he frequently posts URLs of the sites that he
considers to be good deisgn and which realise that design through CSS.
Whether the CSS itself is well designed is another matter.

Possibly my favoirite example of good CSS isn't on any site at all but
in the user stylesheet I use. There's just one line that is a work of
beauty:
iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"] { display: none;}

On the subject of good design I don't think that any web site I've
ever seen is a design classic in the sense of a VW Beetle, iMac, Eames
Chair, etc. But the web is only just over 10 years old and the rules
of the medium have been, and still are, in considerable flux. Give it
another twenty years and maybe some examples of really good design
will start to emerge.
[color=blue]
>I'm asking you to point to that quality, posted on the web. It speaks
>volumes, I think, if you simply cannot.[/color]

Coming from a man who repeatedly refuses to answer simple questions
from people who are trying to help him, that's rich.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Mark Johnson]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>In your post
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ksbn%404ax.com
>>>you included four levels of attributions (me, Brian, you and Alan) but
>>>only include quoted materal from my previous post.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>But you need to know the basics of these messages. Look at the angle
>>brackets. Unless you, yourself, mess around with those, as I think you
>>did in the follow-up, the quoted text refers to the alias/email which
>>has one less bracket. So if the text is prefixed with two angle
>>brackets, then it was written by whoever has one angle bracket before
>>their name.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>And for your next trick[/color]

You suggested I misattributed a quote. I pointed out that you need to
understand how these messages are posted to Usenet.

[color=blue]
>1. Ignore it and say nothing.
>2. Say "whoops, sorry".
>3. Claim that you hadn't made a mistake at all.[/color]

Yeeeaaah. This is very basic stuff, understanding how to count the
angle brackets in a Usenet message.

[color=blue][color=green]
>>What would be the URL of such an example page?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I think that the CSS I use on http://www.sfsfw.net/ is good.[/color]

http://www.bifrost.org.uk/

Horizontal scroll hits pretty fast. And it's not really what you'd
call a graphics page. There's no pretty photographs.
[color=blue]
>simple[/color]

Basic.
[color=blue]
>concise[/color]

Could have used Flash, there's so little content.
[color=blue]
>well commented, works well across browsers[/color]

It's very basic.
[color=blue]
>around some fairly obscure bugs[/color]

Such as?
[color=blue]
>complies with the specifications, use
>logical class names, copes with a fairly broad range of page contents[/color]

Well . . . but okay. (?)
[color=blue]
>is accessible, etc. The visual design of the site will never win any
>awards as it is very much of the plain and simple school[/color]

Basic.
[color=blue]
>For an example of what can be done layout-wise with CSS I have an
>example at http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/ that demonstrates a few neat
>things that would be extremely difficult to replicate without CSS. The
>colour scheme needs work but the layout and structure is quite nifty.[/color]

Well . . You certainly do move things around, though. And it degrades
beautifully on NN3, I should point out. Very nice, that. So you have
the logic of the content clearly laid out in basic, but only enhanced
by the css. Now isn't that also a good design principle? The greenish
tinge is what hurts it. Needs to be more the XP 'faded blue', and
without the borders. Brighter background color, but not too much.

[color=blue]
>For really cool things that make one go "Ooooo", it's still hard to
>beat Eric Meyer's complex spiral:
>http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edg...iral/demo.html[/color]

The design bothers me. I've seen this many times, now.

[color=blue]
>A List Apart http://www.alistapart.com/ was designed by professionals
>so one would assume that the visual design is at least competent,[/color]

The visual aspect might by 'proportional' to a certain
'professionalis m'. Give 'em credit on the visuals. It's the rest of
the stuff that comes with 'professional design' that make surfing the
web very annoying, sometimes.

I come across these pages, quite often, as well. I think it's nice
enough. It suggests sort of Mac motif. Unlike other 'professional'
sites, the text here is sizable in IE from the browser menu, which is
nice.

The obvious problem is the layout. It's set up for a small window. And
most people use large windows. Much more could be presented, and
cleanly.

[color=blue]
>Everything about ALA also applies to http://www.zeldman.com/[/color]

It's not a very balanced layout, and becomes distracting even for the
bright colors employed.
[color=blue]
>You may or may not agree with everything that Jeffrey Zeldman writes
>(I certainly don't) but he frequently posts URLs of the sites that he
>considers to be good deisgn and which realise that design through CSS.
>Whether the CSS itself is well designed is another matter.[/color]
[color=blue]
>Possibly my favoirite example of good CSS isn't on any site at all but
>in the user stylesheet I use. There's just one line that is a work of
>beauty:[/color]
[color=blue]
>iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"] { display: none;}[/color]
[color=blue]
>On the subject of good design I don't think that any web site I've
>ever seen is a design classic in the sense of a VW Beetle, iMac, Eames
>Chair, etc. But the web is only just over 10 years old and the rules
>of the medium have been, and still are, in considerable flux.[/color]

I would think that there are aspects to css.

One is 'accessibility' for the handicapped. Now that's important. And
sums have been spent on this in so many ways.

But there are other aspects. And one would seem to simply be the basic
'blocking rules' used in ad or magazine layout - yes? Style has been
around since before Look magazine. Publishing, in other words. We're
talking about screens/pages. How do you break up the page? And how
much can you count on the layout holding together as the viewer tries
to override this or that?

There's a bit of a contradiction, isn't there, in the very idea of
positioning floating blocks? The platform or browser may not honor the
alignment and size, or color or whatever else. You literally don't
know how big the page is, depending on the client width.

Flash is a little more controllable. But Flash is just not good with
large amounts of content. Now, I haven't experimented so much with MX,
which I got about a month ago. Maybe Flash has changed. But the 4 and
5 versions were good with 'flash', not so much so with full websites.
But you could do very 'flashy' stuff, admittedly, sometimes with
REALLY clumsy kludges (I mean, you didn't even have basic trig
functions and had include a crude alias lookup table as substitute).

[color=blue][color=green]
>>I'm asking you to point to that quality, posted on the web. It speaks
>>volumes, I think, if you simply cannot.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Coming from a man who repeatedly refuses to answer simple questions[/color]

Maybe too simple. Sometimes you can phrase things so generally, so
broadly, that no real answer is possible. As I say, I think css is
limited, somewhat, by what may be a logical contradiction between the
desire for pixel level alignment in a browser or appliance dependent
screen, or device. So to clarify the matter, I think something could
be said by breaking down the 'accessibility' issue, which seem of
principal interest to those posting here, and so which suggests a
niche that could be occupied by css, to explaining just where css
uniquely contributes to what seems an agreed upon design principle,
here - legibility and clarity of presentation. Print sometimes resort
to tricks to advertize something or other. Maybe even tricks are
safely employed for 'accessibility' with css.

[Steve Pugh]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
>
>You suggested I misattributed a quote.[/color]

No I didn't. I stated that you had included attributions that didn't
refer to anything in the quoted material. That's all. If you infer
from that some people might misattribute a quote as a result of your
mistake then you may be correct, but I was not implying that, I was
simplying pointing out that you ahd cluttered up your message with
attributions to nothing.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>1. Ignore it and say nothing.
>>2. Say "whoops, sorry".
>>3. Claim that you hadn't made a mistake at all.[/color]
>
>Yeeeaaah. This is very basic stuff, understanding how to count the
>angle brackets in a Usenet message.[/color]

So you're still plumping for option 3.

Here's a simple yes/no question:

Did you include attributions that did not refer to anyting in the
material you quoted?

Here's another:

Was this a mistake on your part?

I really don't see how you can answer anything other than yes and yes.

But if you do answer no to the second one maybe you can tell us why
you included those extra attributions?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>What would be the URL of such an example page?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>>I think that the CSS I use on http://www.sfsfw.net/ is good.[/color]
>
>http://www.bifrost.org.uk/[/color]

Not my site, not the example I gave. But feel free to come along in
July and have a game if you're interested.
[color=blue]
>Horizontal scroll hits pretty fast.[/color]

On sfsfw.net? Seems to hit at about 575px wide with my font settings,
maybe a bit higher with default font settings. That's for the home
page, other pages depend on whether they include any illustrations or
not. On the bulk of the pages there's no horizontal scrolling until
your at less than 400px.
[color=blue]
>And it's not really what you'd call a graphics page.
>There's no pretty photographs.[/color]

Not intended to be, though more eye candy will be added when I have
time and when the society members supply me with some.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>simple[/color]
>
>Basic.[/color]

The best things often are.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>concise[/color]
>
>Could have used Flash, there's so little content.[/color]

Replace the CSS with Flash?
I was talking about the fact that the CSS is concise.

If you're saying that there's little content on the site then maybe
you need to look again. There may not be thousands of pages but there
are a couple of hundred including some substantial articles.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>well commented, works well across browsers[/color]
>
>It's very basic.[/color]

Well CSS is pretty basic. I suppose the most complex thing is the use
of a selctor such as
index td:first-child + td + td

(The fact that IE is ignorant of this selector doesn't matter as this
is for a rare case where IE supports part a standard (HTML 4 this
time) but Gecko doesn't, namely the aligna ttribute of the col
element.)
[color=blue][color=green]
>>around some fairly obscure bugs[/color]
>
>Such as?[/color]

If you had bothered to read the comments in the CSS file you would
have seen this:
* setting left and right margins to 10% and auto respectively has the
same effect as 10% and 10% or auto and auto in decent browsers but
avoids creating a horizontal scrollbar in IE */
[color=blue][color=green]
>>complies with the specifications, use
>>logical class names, copes with a fairly broad range of page contents[/color]
>
>Well . . . but okay. (?)[/color]

If the above aren't signs of well designed CSS then what is?
[color=blue][color=green]
>>is accessible, etc. The visual design of the site will never win any
>>awards as it is very much of the plain and simple school[/color]
>
>Basic.[/color]

Is this your favourite word today?
[color=blue][color=green]
>>For an example of what can be done layout-wise with CSS I have an
>>example at http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/ that demonstrates a few neat
>>things that would be extremely difficult to replicate without CSS. The
>>colour scheme needs work but the layout and structure is quite nifty.[/color]
>
>Well . . You certainly do move things around, though. And it degrades
>beautifully on NN3, I should point out. Very nice, that.[/color]

I know. It also degrades to a barely styled version (colours, fonts,
background image - no layout) in NN4, IE4 and (thanks to some hackery)
WebTV. I think there may still be some problems in Konqueror but other
than that I'm happy with it in recent-ish versions of Win IE, Mac IE,
Gecko and Opera.
[color=blue]
>So you have
>the logic of the content clearly laid out in basic, but only enhanced
>by the css. Now isn't that also a good design principle?[/color]

Yes it is.
[color=blue]
>The greenish
>tinge is what hurts it. Needs to be more the XP 'faded blue', and
>without the borders. Brighter background color, but not too much.[/color]

I was actually thinking of changing it to a more arctic feel - white,
off white greys and blues. XP Blue is too much of a cliche. But's
that's by the by.

The borders are kind of the whole point of the design, without the
borders - http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/index-nb.html it's clearly lacking
something.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Brian]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc

Steve Pugh wrote:
[color=blue]
> Possibly my favoirite example of good CSS isn't on any site at all
> but in the user stylesheet I use. There's just one line that is a
> work of beauty:
> iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"] { display: none;}[/color]

? I see no iframe on Google's search result page. Is this some third
party thing? (I do recall Google offering some sort of ads/revenue
thingy of some sort to site owners, but ignored the details.)

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

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc

Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh wrote:
>[color=green]
>> iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"][/color]
>
> Is this some third party thing?[/color]

To answer my own query: STFW. Now I know. Has anyone come across pages
that have this "ads sense" thing?

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

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:50:30 -0400, Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh wrote:[color=green]
>> Possibly my favoirite example of good CSS isn't on any site at all
>> but in the user stylesheet I use. There's just one line that is a
>> work of beauty:
>> iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"] { display: none;}[/color]
>
> ? I see no iframe on Google's search result page. Is this some third
> party thing? (I do recall Google offering some sort of ads/revenue
> thingy of some sort to site owners, but ignored the details.)[/color]

Spot on. I have Google ads in my own pages..

It calls a .js script including the lines..

document.write( '<ifr' + 'ame' +
' name="google_ad s_frame"' +

I find it rather interesting that it
breaks up the first line, but not
the second (??)...

Of course, it is also pretty effective
to shut it down if you do not have JS,
but cutting off functionality simply to
suppress one thing you do not like is
a pain.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:09:04 -0400, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Steve Pugh wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> iframe[name="google_ad s_frame"][/color]
>>
>> Is this some third party thing?[/color]
>
> To answer my own query: STFW. Now I know. Has anyone come across pages
> that have this "ads sense" thing?[/color]

...see my other post.

As an aside, I have begun to suspect
that pages with that stuff get ..indexed
as a priority. I was almost going to
suggest you add it* to the tsmchughs site.
[ * ..as a PUN, as a pun - sheesh! ] ;-)

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

[Brian]

OT Google Adsense (was Attributions, CSS and design, etc)

Andrew Thompson wrote:

google_ads_fram e"]
[color=blue]
> As an aside, I have begun to suspect that pages with that stuff get
> ..indexed as a priority.[/color]

I read the Google pages on the program (after having STFW, natch). There
is a second robot to spider adsense pages. They say that it may take "a
few hours" after being approved before they can start serving ads. Does
this mean for the advertBot? If they spider with the other bot, too,
then that arguably gives an advantage to advertising with Google in
their search results. I'm searching now for articls on this particular
topic. Nothing yet...
[color=blue]
> I was almost going to suggest you add it* to the tsmchughs site. [ *
> ..as a PUN, as a pun - sheesh! ] ;-)[/color]

:-D

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

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Mark Johnson]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You suggested I misattributed a quote.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>No I didn't.[/color]

Last word, then.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>1. Ignore it and say nothing.
>>>2. Say "whoops, sorry".
>>>3. Claim that you hadn't made a mistake at all.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Yeeeaaah. This is very basic stuff, understanding how to count the
>>angle brackets in a Usenet message.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>So you're still plumping for option 3.[/color]

Ummm . . . I thought that would be the last word. You just can't let
it go? You were wrong. Face it.

[color=blue]
>Did you include attributions that did not refer to anyting in the
>material you quoted?[/color]

Angle brackets.

Angle brackets. That's how you tell.


[color=blue][color=green]
>>http://www.bifrost.org.uk/[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Not my site, not the example I gave. But feel free to come along in
>July and have a game if you're interested.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Horizontal scroll hits pretty fast.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>On sfsfw.net?[/color]

http://www.bifrost.org.uk/

[color=blue]
>Seems to hit at about 575px wide[/color]

Wider than that.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>concise[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Could have used Flash, there's so little content.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Replace the CSS with Flash?
>I was talking about the fact that the CSS is concise.[/color]

I meant the content.

[color=blue]
>(The fact that IE is ignorant of this selector doesn't matter as this
>is for a rare case where IE supports part a standard[/color]

I really don't know why Microsoft does what they do. _I_ agree that
they probably have stunted development in software, in UI, in a lot of
things, just by their presence - but - have also helped to introduce
particularly the commodity PC as widely as possible for the standard
of Windows. _I_ tend to think of Windows as very flawed. However, it
gets put to a lot of tests, and a lot of use. If Linux were on that
many desktops and notebooks, with so much third party software, would
Linux seem so 'reliable' today? And I'm, personally, able to do a LOT
with Windows, with M$ software, and third party apps. For me, the
Win-based computer is an essential tool.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>around some fairly obscure bugs[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Such as?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>If you had bothered to read the comments in the CSS file you would
>have seen this:[/color]
[color=blue]
>* setting left and right margins to 10% and auto respectively has the
>same effect as 10% and 10% or auto and auto in decent browsers but
>avoids creating a horizontal scrollbar in IE */[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>complies with the specifications, use
>>>logical class names, copes with a fairly broad range of page contents[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Well . . . but okay. (?)[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>If the above aren't signs of well designed CSS then what is?[/color]

That's what I'm asking.

Even more, what I'm asking, really, is - what's the standard? How do
you know it's a good use? What is a good use of css?

Frankly, where's the position statement from W3C on css? What did they
hope this would accomplish, what problems were solved by it, the
future applications, and so on?

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>is accessible, etc. The visual design of the site will never win any
>>>awards as it is very much of the plain and simple school[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Basic.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Is this your favourite word today?[/color]

You want me to say - basically - don't you?

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>For an example of what can be done layout-wise with CSS I have an
>>>example at http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/ that demonstrates a few neat
>>>things that would be extremely difficult to replicate without CSS. The
>>>colour scheme needs work but the layout and structure is quite nifty.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Well . . You certainly do move things around, though. And it degrades
>>beautifully on NN3, I should point out. Very nice, that.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I know. It also degrades to a barely styled version (colours, fonts,
>background image - no layout) in NN4, IE4 and (thanks to some hackery)
>WebTV. I think there may still be some problems in Konqueror but other
>than that I'm happy with it in recent-ish versions of Win IE, Mac IE,
>Gecko and Opera.[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>So you have
>>the logic of the content clearly laid out in basic, but only enhanced
>>by the css. Now isn't that also a good design principle?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Yes it is.[/color]

And it's a very good example, as well.

[color=blue][color=green]
>>The greenish
>>tinge is what hurts it. Needs to be more the XP 'faded blue', and
>>without the borders. Brighter background color, but not too much.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I was actually thinking of changing it to a more arctic feel - white,
>off white greys and blues. XP Blue is too much of a cliche. But's
>that's by the by.[/color]
[color=blue]
>The borders are kind of the whole point of the design, without the
>borders - http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/index-nb.html it's clearly lacking
>something.[/color]

I don't know. It looks like old-style tables. I don't think there's
anything wrong with just a 'flat design'. Again, it's more 'print',
just colored block areas.

But . .

[Steve Pugh]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[color=green]
>>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>1. Ignore it and say nothing.
>>>>2. Say "whoops, sorry".
>>>>3. Claim that you hadn't made a mistake at all.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Yeeeaaah. This is very basic stuff, understanding how to count the
>>>angle brackets in a Usenet message.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>>So you're still plumping for option 3.[/color]
>
>Ummm . . . I thought that would be the last word. You just can't let
>it go? You were wrong. Face it.[/color]

How was I wrong? The attributions were in your post. They did not not
refer to any of the quoted material in your post. That's what I
pointed out to you. I thought I was doing you a favour by pointing out
what I presumed was a simple accident on your part.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Did you include attributions that did not refer to anyting in the
>>material you quoted?[/color]
>
>Angle brackets.
>
>Angle brackets. That's how you tell.[/color]

Yes, that's how I tell that the answer to my above question is 'yes'.
I counted the angle brackets and saw that nothing in your post matched
the bottom three levels of attributions you gave, therefore I knew
that those attributions were there in error.
But I guess you're simply too stubborn to admit that you made a simple
mistake.

* plonk *

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > <http://steve.pugh.net/>

[Stan Brown]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets:[color=blue]
>I pointed out that you need to
>understand how these messages are posted to Usenet.[/color]

Indeed you do.

Because so many people who post screw up the ">" widgets
*cough*AOL*coug h*, they are not reliable as a guide to matching up
who said what.

What I don't get is why you are defending misleading
selection of attributions.

--
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/

[Mark Johnson]

Re: [OT] Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>Mark Johnson <102334.12@comp userve.com> wrote:
>>>>Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[/color][/color]
>But I guess you're simply too stubborn to admit that you made a simple
>mistake.[/color]
[color=blue]
>* plonk *[/color]

Why don't you grow up?

You count the angle brackets to see who posted what. That's how it
works. That's how it's supposed to work. What's more, I'm SURE you
know that. And there is something very wrong with you that you persist
in this fashion. Deal with your problems. Seriously.

[Owen Jacobson]

Re: [Way, way OT]: Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:06:42 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net > wrote:[color=green]
>>But I guess you're simply too stubborn to admit that you made a simple
>>mistake.
>>
>>* plonk *[/color]
>
> Why don't you grow up?
>
> You count the angle brackets to see who posted what. That's how it
> works. That's how it's supposed to work. What's more, I'm SURE you know
> that. And there is something very wrong with you that you persist in
> this fashion. Deal with your problems. Seriously.[/color]

Which leads the rest of us to ask something along the lines of "why the
gibbering zombie-fornicating nether kingdoms are you leaving in the
attributions, if you're not attributing any material?" "Correct"
quote-depth markers or no, they provide even less useful content than the
rest of your post.

--
Some say the Wired doesn't have political borders like the real world,
but there are far too many nonsense-spouting anarchists or idiots who
think that pranks are a revolution.

[Mark Johnson]

Re: [Way, way OT]: Attributions, CSS and design, etc (was: Fixed font sizes)

Owen Jacobson <angstrom@lions anctuary.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:06:42 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
>attributions , if you're not attributing any material?" "Correct"
>quote-depth markers or no, they provide even less useful content than the
>rest of your post.[/color]

What in the . . . .?

For some reason you like to be wrong. Maybe it's a peverse nature? I
don't know. But angle brackets are how you tell. That's how you
determine who said what.

And if you don't like the Usenet, don't post to the Usenet, as it
were. Fair?