 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / HTML / July 2008Browser survey
I have posted a quick survey at <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>. There's only one question: select the widest line that fits in your normal browser window. Your assistance is appreciated.  SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > I have posted a quick survey at > <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>. > There's only one question: select the widest line that fits > in your normal browser window. Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll? Do let ut have the 'final' results, cheers. SignatureAndrew seo2seo.com sick-site-syndrome.com UK Residents: STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff" Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the very poorest tell your friends about this petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/ >> I have posted a quick survey at >> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>. >> There's only one question: select the widest line that fits >> in your normal browser window. > > Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll? Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any widths. This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see. For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text. In my typical window, the columns are narrower than I like. They are still very readable, but I prefer to have more text. If I find that most people will see even less than I do, I may rethink the page; if the majority see more than I do, I'll leave it. > Do let ut have the 'final' results, There is a running total at <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.cgi>. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > > Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll? > Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any > widths. > This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see. > For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text. If you have 3 columns of text then it sounds like you need to be looking at Flexible width sites rather than worrying about it. >> > Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll? >> Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you have 3 columns of text then it sounds like you need to be > looking at Flexible width sites rather than worrying about it. Any page I design *is* flexible width (with the exception of the survey page). That's not the point. I want to know how what I see in my browser window compares with what others see. If most people see less text than I do, I will probably abandon my 3-column design. If, as I suspect, most see more, then the design will work better for most people than it does for me -- and for me it is readable, but not quite optimum. > For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) 4 people with 300 ems.... How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder. Ron >4 people with 300 ems.... > >How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder. 300 times the width of a letter m. Which is slightly shorter than a piece of string. The em is a relative size. Em being the width of the lowercase letter m in that font. Thus it varies with typefaces, point sizes etc, Matt -- The Probert Encyclopaedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com >>4 people with 300 ems.... >> >>How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder. > > 300 times the width of a letter m. An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square". The em square is some sort of rectangle (not necessarily actually a square one...) into which the font designer is supposed to put glyphs. He's not meant to go outside it although some do. So an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m. If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a browser: <div style="font-size: 100px; width: 1em; height: 1em; background-color:green; color: white"> m </div> The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox. >>>How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder. >> >> 300 times the width of a letter m. > > An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square". Sorry people, I just asked my question to point out the unrealistic screensize..... ;-) On Jul 6, 3:16 pm, "Ronny" <anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> 300 times the width of a letter m. > > An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square". > Sorry people, I just asked my question to point out the unrealistic > screensize..... ;-) Makes no difference, Usenet lives and evolves. Just look at this thread. 300+ posts and maybe 20% of them have anything to deal with the OP's post... > >>4 people with 300 ems.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox. A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide: <http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html> Signaturedorayme >> >>4 people with 300 ems.... >> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ><http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html> A nice example. It would also help to add line-height: 1 to #monospace div (and the others), because that puts the glyphs properly in their em-squares. Otherwise they will be slightly or quite a bit too low (depending on how much leading you get for that font in that browser with line-height: normal). In the majority of fonts none of the glyphs are quite as wide as the em square, because they're all a bit taller than they are fat. The black squares are the em-squares. Quite a few glyphs still escape their em-squares, even with line-height: 1 in the browsers I tried. > an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest > >> glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > div (and the others), because that puts the glyphs properly in their > em-squares. Yes, I guess. My aim was to simply make sure the em squares were clear and all else was more or less normal. But come to think of it, it is a good idea to set line-height to see what might then be any browser variations. Let me do this right now. And simplify the css while at it. > Otherwise they will be slightly or quite a bit too low (depending on how > much leading you get for that font in that browser with line-height: > normal). ... > Quite a few glyphs still escape their em-squares, even with line-height: > 1 in the browsers I tried. Yes. The p, q, j, y and all brackets, and divider all protrude a touch out of their boxes in monospace. The underscore is logically enough interestingly and bravely quite outside. In fact, in all my set fonts, there are some protrusions, all very beautiful to see - especially cursive and fantasy where, obviously, their designers were not to be constrained. Signaturedorayme >> an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest >> >> glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >beautiful to see - especially cursive and fantasy where, obviously, >their designers were not to be constrained. Some of you still don't get what an em is do you? Still, I guess the ones arguing are children who don't remember hot metal. An em is a relative measurement. It's not a square, it has no vertical element. It is is purely a relative width, relative to the space occupied horizontally by a capital (sorry did I say lowercase before?) M (or em as it is known, hence the name of the 'em'). Incidentally, in standard printing 12 points was the benchmark typeface vertical size, and an em was then usually the width of the capital M at 12 points vertical height, varying with the style of the typeface. Try widely varying your typeface and see what happens, even if you retain the same vertical point size..... Matt -- The Probert Encyclopaedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com > Some of you still don't get what an em is do you? Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts ago... >> Some of you still don't get what an em is do you? > >Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts >ago... Feeling the need to belong to a large group is indicative of feelings of inferiority. Hence the use of the term "us". Pity you don't care about ems, but then you're obviously not involved in print, design, or web sites. Matt -- The Probert Encyclopaedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com > >Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts > >ago... > Feeling the need to belong to a large group is indicative of feelings > of inferiority. Hence the use of the term "us". If you were following this thread you would have noticed that "most of us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped caring about EM and moved on to more important things like Flash, and Guy's resume, and Jerry's, well his bullshit. Then there was the occasional side pun, and a few dick jokes mixed in. So the use of the term "us" was completely appropriate. > Pity you don't care about ems, but then you're obviously not involved > in print, design, or web sites. Why is it a pity? >>> Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts >>> ago... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped > caring about EM I just really wish you all would stop abusing my initials and move on to another topic. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net Deja Fu: The feeling that somehow, somewhere, you've been kicked in the head like this before. > > If you were following this thread you would have noticed that "most of > > us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped > > caring about EM > I just really wish you all would stop abusing my initials and move on to > another topic. As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group I plead with all of you to honor Mr Mullen's request. I mean, that would be like if we made fun of Guy Macon's initials by demonstrating how GM rhymes with BM which is another name for poop. Thank you. Travis (I care about your feelings) Newbury "Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> dribbled: > As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group > I plead with all of you to ... Enough already. Join Mr Probert - *plonk* > > As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group > > I plead with all of you to ... > Enough already. > Join Mr Probert - *plonk* Man, no sense of humor at all... >>> an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest >>> >> glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> > >>> ><http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html> [...] > Some of you still don't get what an em is do you? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > occupied horizontally by a capital (sorry did I say lowercase before?) > M (or em as it is known, hence the name of the 'em'). That's not what it means in CSS (although perhaps it did mean that in the names of hot metal). Look at dorayme's example. The 1em box is quite bit wider than the capital M (for most fonts and browsers). > An em is a relative measurement. It's not a square, it has no vertical > element. It is is purely a relative width Not in CSS terms, it isn't. It's a measurement of height, not width. There is no CSS unit relative to character width, though I wish there were. SignatureBerg > 4 people with 300 ems.... I would advise anyone who came across a gang of four with that many ems, to quietly slip into the shadows and just hope to God they do not see you. Call the police as soon as possible. Signaturedorayme In our last episode, <4963e$4865ce2d$cef88ba3$11599@TEKSAVVY.COM>, the lovely and talented Chris F.A. Johnson broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html: > I have posted a quick survey at > <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>. > There's only one question: select the widest line that fits > in your normal browser window. > Your assistance is appreciated. Gee, they all fit in Lynx, and you could keep on until you reached 70-something digit numbers. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 206 days to go. In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > I have posted a quick survey at > <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your assistance is appreciated. 63 Nice idea... Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: > In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nice idea... 78 SignatureRob Waaijenberg > Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: >> In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 78 Ditto. Hey, maybe it's an omen. Like we should go into business together: Waaijenberg and Neredbojias Widgets, Inc. Kinda catchy. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great sights and sounds On Jun 28, 11:48 am, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/ fliam.php> wrote: > Ditto. Hey, maybe it's an omen. Like we should go into business together: > Waaijenberg and Neredbojias Widgets, Inc. Kinda catchy. Please, for the love of big boobs, let him choose the spokes woman... > On Jun 28, 11:48 am, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/ > fliam.php> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please, for the love of big boobs, let him choose the spokes woman... Ah, but is there anything so endearing to a man as the budding young nips of a febrile, fledgling female filled with desire yet concerned by the mode of its consummation, shy but nascently needy and destined to nevertheless take that "next step" along the road to womanhood regardless of personal consequences? Except a good beer, of course. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great sights and sounds Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote in message: Xns9ACB7EF5F49D4neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78, >> On Jun 28, 11:48 am, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/ >> fliam.php> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to nevertheless take that "next step" along the road to womanhood > regardless of personal consequences? Except a good beer, of course. Nicely done. SignatureRed > Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: >> In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 78 79 Nah nah nah nah nah! +mrcakey >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: >>> In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Nah nah nah nah nah! 79.05! SignatureEd Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email) Win the War Against Breast Cancer. Knowing the facts could save your life. http://www.breastthermography.info >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: >>>> In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > 79.05! Darn it! +mrcakey >>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef: >>>>> In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > :-)) SignatureEd Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email) Win the War Against Breast Cancer. Knowing the facts could save your life. http://www.breastthermography.info > In alt.html, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nice idea... I think it's an interesting idea, too. But I get only 39. SignatureBerg > I have posted a quick survey at 104 But if you are trying to get a "reading" for the general populous, then this group is hardly a good sample. > There's only one question: select the widest line that fits > in your normal browser window. Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors? There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but > propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors? Oh ye of such little faith. Maybe the survey will prove your point that there is no "standard size" and that the browser window size is so random that it is meaningless to try to code for it. > There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it. And if you participate in the survey I believe you may help to prove that once and for all. Or are you afraid to participate because the results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be wrong? > Or are you afraid to participate because the > results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be > wrong? This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right? Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go > take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right? First, it's not my survey, second I really don't care what you do. > Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid. I don't know you so I really can't make that call >> Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but >> propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be > wrong? Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it over and over again. Design the page correctly and the content adjusts itself to any window size within reason. I'm not afraid to participate. It's just now worth my time. But you are tacky and manipulative for even suggesting such a thing. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been around for > a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it over and over > again. > > Design the page correctly and the content adjusts itself to any window > size within reason. Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed width. Both are equally correct based on the website. And before we start another boring thread, lets just agree we have different opinions about what is "correct" >> Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been around for >> a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it over and over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed > width. Both are equally correct based on the website. Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites which resize themselves. > And before we start another boring thread, lets just agree we have > different opinions about what is "correct" Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > > Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed > > width. Both are equally correct based on the website. > Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites > which resize themselves. Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs... >>> Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed >>> width. Both are equally correct based on the website. >> Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites >> which resize themselves. > > Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs... Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients they are "professionals". Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you "professional". It just means you got paid. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients > they are "professionals". > Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you > "professional". It just means you got paid. Yea, suck doesn't it... >> Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients >> they are "professionals". >> Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you >> "professional". It just means you got paid. > > Yea, suck doesn't it... Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. Fortunately, professionals stand out. Much of that is the quality of their work. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. Fortunately, > professionals stand out. Much of that is the quality of their work. Jerry, fortune 500 companies and advertising agencies are paying top buck for people that can produce quality Interactive websites. As hard as it seems to be for you to understand, it's what they want. I don't give a sh.t if a few people in alt.html think what I do is amateur or wrong. I have a great time producing them and there is an awesome market for them. And go ahead and say something dumb like, "Just because they want them doesn't make them right" becasue you know what? It DOES make them right. And why do you give a sh.t anyway, I welcome you to try to get them to change their mind. You just keep on working on your mom and pop sites (because I completely believe that THEY need to make sites exactly like you want). But if you were to suggest the same kind of site for a company I work with they would laugh you out of the door. When it comes to corporate sites, you are the amateur. And in 10 years there will be all new technologies for you to not understand, fear, and condemn. And as Flash gets more and more accessable with each version, we will see more and more call for these "amateur sites" I create. Flash/ Slverlight and what ever new technology is around the cornor is just going to keep growing no matter what you think is right. Sorry that bothers you so much. >> Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. Fortunately, >> professionals stand out. Much of that is the quality of their work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > amateur or wrong. I have a great time producing them and there is an > awesome market for them. Yep, I used to be a FTE of IBM, and I still contract to them and other companies. And they appreciate *professional* looking websites much more than fixed width sh.t. But you can con them for a while. Eventually they will go to a professional to straighten out the crap you wrote. They all do when they figure out they've been conned. > And go ahead and say something dumb like, "Just because they want them > doesn't make them right" becasue you know what? It DOES make them > right. And why do you give a sh.t anyway, I welcome you to try to get > them to change their mind. No, it doesn't. It means they don't KNOW what they want. I educate them as to their options - along with everything else. And you know what? Every one of them picks a site that adjusts to the window size when shown the options. I've gotten quite a few customers from amateurs like you when they see what they *can* have. OTOH, I've never LOST one to a con man like you. And BTW - I don't follow alt.html. > You just keep on working on your mom and pop sites (because I > completely believe that THEY need to make sites exactly like you > want). But if you were to suggest the same kind of site for a company > I work with they would laugh you out of the door. When it comes to > corporate sites, you are the amateur. And in 10 years there will be > all new technologies for you to not understand, fear, and condemn. Guess again. My customers are mainly Fortune 500. You would easily recognize every single one of them. > And as Flash gets more and more accessable with each version, we will > see more and more call for these "amateur sites" I create. Flash/ > Slverlight and what ever new technology is around the cornor is just > going to keep growing no matter what you think is right. > > Sorry that bothers you so much. How you screw your customers doesn't bother me at all, con man. But it will bother you a lot when I, or another professional like me, takes them away from you. Face it - you're a neophyte amateur with absolutely no idea what you're doing. Once of these days you're going to get your butt sued for everything you have. Then you'll come crying. And I'll be laughing. But in the meantime, what I do care about is that you and the likes of you give professionals a bad reputation. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > No, it doesn't. It means they don't KNOW what they want. why of course... > But in the meantime, what I do care about is that you and the likes of > you give professionals a bad reputation. Yea, that's me, just giving all you "professionals" a bad name.... Grow up and except the fact that not everyone want's what Jerry thinks is best. >> No, it doesn't. It means they don't KNOW what they want. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Grow up and except the fact that not everyone want's what Jerry thinks > is best. Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed web designer. ROFLMAO! I'll tell you what. Let's take one of your customers. Let me give him my designs for his site. Wanna see how long they stay with you? Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my customers. Wanna bet they stick with me? I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you aren't that stoopid. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed > web designer. > ROFLMAO! Yea, I just suck. > I'll tell you what. Let's take one of your customers. Let me give him > my designs for his site. Wanna see how long they stay with you? Absolutely! Contact Chick-fil-a and tell then you have a great new idea for their Bowl site. We are going to change the entire design to an even more Flash based design in August. So this is a great time to tell them that you have a better idea for their site. That gives you a whole month to convert them. Please post the results of your efforts. > Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my > customers. Wanna bet they stick with me? Give me a url of one of your customers > I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you > aren't that stoopid. I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me with a URL please. >> Or maybe you should grow up and learn that you're not even a half-assed >> web designer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a whole month to convert them. Please post the results of your > efforts. ROFLMAO! No, you didn't do that site. What a liar. >> Then we'll turn it around. You can off your crap to one of my >> customers. Wanna bet they stick with me? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me > with a URL please. Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer. So, really well designed variable width page, there, then? .oO(nully) >> Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. >> >LMFAO! Horizontal scrollbar when mousing over a link in the footer. Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those links. Maybe you should check your own system. Micha > .oO(nully) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure. Especially since there's not even a hover style defined for those > links. Maybe you should check your own system. You were saying... http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif > You were saying... > http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif I'm guessing that you have the "Link Alert" addon, or something similar? I'm using Firefox too, but I don't see what you are seeing. I did notice that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which looks similar to something that Link Alert would add. SignatureDylan Parry http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own. >> You were saying... >> http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that there's an icon appearing near the link on your screenshot, which > looks similar to something that Link Alert would add. Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. But it nicely demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every pixel. Its hardly a unique setup I'm using, so surely one of these ultimate professional designers should have built in sufficient redundancy to accommodate such browser configurations... >>> You were saying... >>> http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ultimate professional designers should have built in sufficient > redundancy to accommodate such browser configurations... Actually, it's a bug in Firefox that causes it. I've run across this bug in creating my own pages. SignatureNeredbojias http://www.neredbojias.net/ Great sights and sounds .oO(nully) >>> You were saying... >>> http://www.pixelshack.com/img/928764fcc.gif [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. May I suggest a better browser like Opera? >But it nicely >demonstrates the problem of creating sites that automatically use every >pixel. Wrong again. Using every pixel is not bad. Every flexible layout does that. If the browser window is 789 pixels wide, you can use 789 pixels. The point is to properly scale if you increase the font size, and the given page does that. The markup is ugly and 80's style, but it works better than most "modern" sites with totally braindead div-soup. >Its hardly a unique setup I'm using, so surely one of these ultimate >professional designers should have built in sufficient redundancy to >accommodate such browser configurations... You can't blame a site maintainer for your own buggy software. With such an attitude every website would be bad, because it can easily be broken with a user stylesheet. Too bad the author didn't built in sufficient redundancy to accomodate my 30px font size ... The given site works in an acceptable range, even with a font size increased multiple times. It's your very own setup that breaks it. Micha > .oO(nully) >>>> You were saying... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>Yup, its undoubtedly a FF extension that 'causes' it. > May I suggest a better browser like Opera? I do use Opera but 9.5 core dumps with wrong phase of the moon... : < Had to go back to 9.2 something. Good luck with that! Think I got 38 ems on a 1280x1024 screen : > > Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has their briowser full screen. Also, if I were to build this site, it would be a flexible width (but with max-width so the text is not 150 characters wide) with no flash. There is no need for Flash on this site. This site is little more than a list of links. You see Jerry, even though I state it OVER AND OVER, you still are either too blind, dumb, or ignorant to absorb the fact that I do not think ALL sites need to be fixed width or contain Flash. This is an example of one that doesn't need it. You have shown your true colors there Jerry. You are quite the professional... >> Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. > > Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then > you truely are an amateur. Transitional doc type? The text lines are > almost 150 characters long, Virtually useless to someone that has > their briowser full screen. It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have. Yes, it's transitional. That's because we had to work a lot of existing stuff into the new design. And they weren't willing to spend the time or the money to make it work strict. And yes, the text lines are short - there's a LOT of information on that main window. The short lines are synopses and pointers to other important information. But then a real web designer would see that and understand it. > Also, if I were to build this site, it would be a flexible width (but > with max-width so the text is not 150 characters wide) with no flash. > There is no need for Flash on this site. This site is little more > than a list of links. Nope, it uses all available space. And this is just the current page. Information on the page changes often - sometimes there's more, sometimes there's less. > You see Jerry, even though I state it OVER AND OVER, you still are > either too blind, dumb, or ignorant to absorb the fact that I do not > think ALL sites need to be fixed width or contain Flash. This is an > example of one that doesn't need it. And there's no need for flash on the main page of chick-fil-a, either - or a page that's wider than most browser windows. But you're too stoopid to see that, Travis. > You have shown your true colors there Jerry. You are quite the > professional... Yes, my sites use flash APPROPRIATELY - not just because it's there. My sites resize themselves to the current window size. I don't build the crap sites like you've shown you do. Fixed width? Horizontal scroll bars for virtually every browser window? ROFLMAO! But as I said earlier - a con artist can always find a sucker. But sooner or later the conned will learn. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > >> Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. > > Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then > > you truely are an amateur. > It's a hell of a lot more professional than the crap you have. I don't believe you really have sites Jerry. I think you are nothing more than a wannabe. And I knew I read that word "stoopid" before. Old habits die hard eh? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Stuckle+%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF -8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS202US203 Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe. >>>> Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. >>> Two things, first, if this is your best example of professional, then [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe. ROFLMAO! Good luck, sucker. I've been programming longer than you've been alive. 40+ years now. Including a number of those as a FTE of IBM, and even more as a successful consultant. What you believe is of absolutely no consideration to me. Such searches just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and what I'm saying. But you can't - because I'm right. Loser. And a stoopid one one, at that. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== > >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Stuckle+%22&sourceid=navclien... > > Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe. > Such searches > just show how desperate you are to find some way to discredit me and > what I'm saying. No, apparently the truth pisses you off. >>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jerry+Stuckle+%22&sourceid=navclien... >>> Bye-bye now Mr professional wannabe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, apparently the truth pisses you off. ROFLMAO! Not at all. Just pointing out how desperate you are. It's the way losers like you go every time you can't come up with valid responses. You're a loser. All around. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== ... >> I took it Jerry, now put your money where your mouth is. Supply me >> with a URL please. > > Sure. www.fcc.gov. Good luck. That's not a site I'd brag about: The words "Federal Communications Commission" are in an image and are too small for me to read. Table-based layout. The search entry bar spills out of its container. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) > ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The search entry bar spills out of its container. Shhhhh!!!! Mustn't criticize Jerry! He'll have to point out that you must be a loser! I wouldn't call it a 'site' anyhow - its just a freakin great list of links... >>> No, it doesn't. It means they don't KNOW what they want. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you aren't > that stoopid. I see your wonderful 'style' of posting is still winning friends, Jerry... > I know you won't take the bet, though. You may be stoopid, but you > aren't that stoopid. Oh Jerry, could the URL you supply be of the same caliber as Chick-fil- a? I don't do Mom and Pop sites. Thanks > Yep, con artists can usually find a sucker who will pay. Fortunately, > professionals stand out. Much of that is the quality of their work. Why so bitter, dude? >> > Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed >> > width. =A0Both are equally correct based on the website. >> Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. =A0Professionals design sites >> which resize themselves. > >Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs... The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less professional in their trade. Matt -- The Probert Encyclopaedia http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com > >Yea, those damn highly paid amateurs... > The computer industry is full of cowboys. Just because they blag some > poor sucker into paying out lots of money for shoddy work does not > make the shoddy work any less shoddy, or the "amateur" any less > professional in their trade. Did you proof read that before you pressed send? >>>> Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed >>>> width. =A0Both are equally correct based on the website. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The Probert Encyclopaedia > http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com That's right, Matt. And did you look at the crap he supposedly created? I KNOW he didn't have anything to do with that site. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message: fPOdnVRXzsXSBPvVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com, >>> Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been >>> around for a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites > which resize themselves. Hey, that's not fair to amateurs! Even I (with minimal web design knowledge and skill) know better than to use fixed widths. Scroll bars can be a minor annoyance on a typical desktop screen, but they really suck when visiting a site on a mobile phone. Some webmasters don't get it. Other webmasters don't want to get it. But ultimately everyone is free to do what they want. Better that, than having some self-appointed entity dictating how things have to be done. Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match. SignatureRed > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message: > fPOdnVRXzsXSBPvVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can be a minor annoyance on a typical desktop screen, but they really > suck when visiting a site on a mobile phone. That's true, Red. Sorry, I didn't mean to be down on amateurs. > Some webmasters don't get it. Other webmasters don't want to get it. But > ultimately everyone is free to do what they want. Better that, than > having some self-appointed entity dictating how things have to be done. > > Nor is it worth a newsgroup pissing match. Yes, I just hate it when someone with such lousy skills calls himself a "professional". He's a blight on professionals, everywhere. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== >> There's only one question: select the widest line that fits >> in your normal browser window. > > Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but > propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors? This is not measuring screen size or window size. It is measuring the width of browser windows in ems. The screen or window size in pixels is irrelevant, as is the user's font size. While a good page may suffer somewhat when extreme sizes are used, and should degrade gracefully when they are, pages may be optimized for a certain range. The purpose of this survey is to determine how wide this range should be. In practice, I don;t think this information will make a significant difference to the way my pages are coded. > There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it. Agreed; and I am dealing with it. SignatureChris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote: > Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but > propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors? If it matters to readers (and it does), then it *should* matter to HTML authors. It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer. But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target audience. but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls, carry on. I'll happily take bouncing visitros off your hands ;o) SignatureAndrew seo2seo.com sick-site-syndrome.com UK Residents: STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff" Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the very poorest tell your friends about this petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/ > On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote: >> Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not a myth. It's a poor designer who assumes (for example) that > everyone has a 23" screen on an Apple computer. So we agree, then. A designer to whom screen size matters - i.e. one who makes assumptions about visitors screen size - is a poor designer. > But a more useful survey would be targetted at his own target > audience. An even more useful approach is to not to use any fixed-width at all. > but don't mind me - if you think visitors are happy with horizontal scrolls, > carry on. Horizontal scrollbars are the result of designers who *do* think screen size matters, and insist that their pages must be precisely X pixels wide, regardless of whether that matches their users reality or not. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote: >>> Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > sherm-- Exactly, Sherm. Signature================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== How is this survey different from / better than these? http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/11/23/screen-resolutions-and-better-user-ex perience/ http://www.baekdal.com/reports/actual-browser-sizes/ > How is this survey different from / better than these? > > http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/11/23/screen-resolutions-and-bet... > > http://www.baekdal.com/reports/actual-browser-sizes/ They're not his? Just a side note. That first link seems to promote fixed width sites of "at most 1000px" ----------------- From the site ------------- So what do we do? Don’t optimize your web designs for your personal convenience. Don’t guess blindly; instead try to estimate the profile of your visitors and leverage your design accordingly. In most cases you can improve the user experience by keeping the width of your layout at most 1000px. Design for your visitors, even if it means that your design looks terrible on your high-resolution wide-screen laptop. ------------------------------------------------ This is NOT the kind of advice we want around these parts... (yes, sarcasm) >> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/11/23/screen-resolutions-and-bet... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > ------------------------------------------------ That is not what it says. "At most" is not "fixed at". The advice sounds like what is typically espoused in alt.html. The author's general width metric was to restrain the content to 60 - 80 characters per line. That is a reasonable textual readability metric. Signaturejmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email) > That is not what it says. "At most" is not "fixed at". The advice sounds > like what is typically espoused in alt.html. Well since Max width doesn't work (for the most part, or is rarely used), setting an "at most" width sounds like fixed width to me. > The author's general width metric was to restrain the content to 60 - 80 > characters per line. That is a reasonable textual readability metric. I agree with th 60-80 characters for a line of text. Which, interestingly enough, is exactly why I don't enjoy most flexible width sites. My browser is full screen always, and flexible makes the text way too long to enjoyably read. And before you say it, I don't want to change the size of my browsers window any more than someone that has to change it because a fixed width site doesn't look good to them. In article <04dbbdbd-b2ec-4974-91d9-0cd42939f1ab@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > That is not what it says. "At most" is not "fixed at". The advice sounds > > like what is typically espoused in alt.html. > > Well since Max width doesn't work (for the most part, or is rarely > used), setting an "at most" width sounds like fixed width to me. IE6 is not over 50% of the market anymore so this is not true. The concept of max-width is tricky I guess, but in case any of the non regulars happen to see your post and fail to realise the difference... The big difference of a max-widthed page to a fixed-width one is that the former will flex to less wide whereas a fixed one requires scrollbars and user intervention to read. <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/width.html> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/maxWidth.html> > > The author's general width metric was to restrain the content to 60 - 80 > > characters per line. That is a reasonable textual readability metric. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > has to change it because a fixed width site doesn't look good to > them. This is a misunderstanding of the position of flexible design. It is a straw man. Only a poor designer would make a line of body text that runs for lines so wide. Having a page 50 or 60ems wide does not entail having lines of txt that wide. The page might have columns. It was a perfectly sane survey by Chris F.A. Johnson. But it is no surprise that perfectly sane does not get perfectly sane reactions on this newsgroup, judging by this thread (there are honourable exceptions, of course). Signaturedorayme > This is a misunderstanding of the position of flexible design. It is a > straw man. Only a poor designer would make a line of body text that runs > for lines so wide. Then there are plenty of poor designers in the flexible world too apparently. Gee Who would have thought? In article <46758056-77aa-4d3b-ad05-35c257469a23@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > This is a misunderstanding of the position of flexible design. It is a > > straw man. Only a poor designer would make a line of body text that runs > > for lines so wide. > > Then there are plenty of poor designers in the flexible world too > apparently. Gee Who would have thought? You seem wrongly to suppose that advocacy of good flexible design is advocacy of all flexible design. It is scarcely to be believed but you show every sign of thinking this. Signaturedorayme > You seem wrongly to suppose that advocacy of good flexible design is > advocacy of all flexible design. Funny, it seems to me that you and others suppose that advocacy of fixed design or Flash is advocacy of all fixed design or Flash. In article <e6317704-913d-4eea-8f99-061ada166391@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, > > You seem wrongly to suppose that advocacy of good flexible design is > > advocacy of all flexible design. > > Funny, it seems to me that you and others suppose that advocacy of > fixed design or Flash is advocacy of all fixed design or Flash. I have never thought or said anything that should suggest any such thing to any reasonable person. I think there are many very presentable fixed width sites. And there are a lot that are too hopeless for words. Signaturedorayme > I think there are many very presentable fixed > width sites. And there are a lot that are too hopeless for words. I believe the same. I also believe the same with flexible sites, and Flash sites, and text sites, and well, you get the picture. There are good and bad sites of all flavors. In article <61656425-3594-4edf-8fb8-70eaf34e9b5d@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > I think there are many very presentable fixed > > width sites. And there are a lot that are too hopeless for words. > > I believe the same. I also believe the same with flexible sites, and > Flash sites, and text sites, and well, you get the picture. There are > good and bad sites of all flavors. Usenet is a rather wondrous thing, it is built to take everything out of context. You take great delight in using it to its fullest advantage, always coming back to your motherhood choruses whenever you need to duck for cover. Signaturedorayme > Usenet is a rather wondrous thing, it is built to take everything out of > context. You take great delight in using it to its fullest advantage, > always coming back to your motherhood choruses whenever you need to duck > for cover. Ahhh, so it is ok for you to say that, but not me. Ok In article <943b211e-6ee2-496f-b013-391f4e30a549@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > Usenet is a rather wondrous thing, it is built to take ev |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message