Text 1555, 191 rader
Skriven 2005-05-11 21:57:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY J. TELLASON
Ärende: Freebies
================

123c5f98b4c9
tech



Hello Roy - 

--8<--cut 

CA>>> The established practice is to specify three different
CA>>> fonts just in case your preferred font is unavailable on
CA>>> a particular machine. 

RJT>> Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages
RJT>> unnecessarily. Why not let me decide what font I want to
RJT>> use here? 

CA>> To a degree 'fit' is a consideration. Some fonts aren't
CA>> kerned to the degree that others are and text may or may
CA>> not fit within the allocated spaces if the font type
CA>> changes. 

RJT> Yeah. But the whole "allocated spaces" thing assumes that
RJT> a page is going to render at the end user's machine in the
RJT> same exact way that it renders at the page author's
RJT> machine, which is probably a big mistake. 

It should _always_ be the intent of a web design that it display
the 'same' on all machines using all browsers. The designs are not
intended to be random nor are there multiple designs hidden away
somewhere.

RJT> I see a lot of that, where they painstakingly lay stuff
RJT> out assuming some particular screen resolution, 800x600
RJT> being a common one, and I'm viewing it at 1024x768, so
RJT> there's a big empty space on the right side... 

Until recently people had small monitors and are now, again,
using smaller monitors with the popularity of laptops. Everyone
is not using 1024x768 even though the popular notion is that
they are.

I guess those who do not _read_ much of anything on their
computers like more pixels for their pr0n collection to
display with or those listening to MP3s just need room for
dancing graphics displays?

RJT> Or someone else who is a bit more visually impaired is
RJT> viewing at 640x480, and has to scroll horizontally. 

It is possible to design a webpage that 'cuts off' the
righthand side at a distinguishable boundary so that scrolling
to see the remaining portion is optional (usually it's a menu
or advertisement anyhow).

RJT> The whole point of HTML is that the person viewing it
RJT> should have their browser rendering the page optimally for
RJT> their situation. 

The original 'point' of HTML was to allow college professors to
setup spreadsheet type displays with columns of data that had
headers for each column etc. HTML _became_ a way to layout
graphics and other things in spite of vigorous protest from
college types and the W3C. Now that they lost _that_ argument
the W3C is busy trying to reinvent webpage design in a format
that _they_ can control and influence.  It's not going to be
better, just under W3C control. :-)

Simple HTML is not unlike ice cubes in a hot tray. The tray
being the browser window. Everything 'slides around' if any
item expands or contracts. It's a bit tricky trying to allow
this sliding around to appear 'ordered' within different sizes
of 'trays' (browser windows). All of my webpages will allow for
resizing of the window but I admit that a few of my pages are
'locked' at one size and will not resize for different window
sizes because I am unable to maintain any semblance of order
when they resize and I felt the information on the page was
worth a sacrifice in flexibility.

RJT>>> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that
RJT>>> word!) on a lot of sites is to load a graphic to
RJT>>> substitute. This is _OFTEN_ done for menu items,
RJT>>> typically going down the left side of the page. 

The 'sliding around' I mentioned adds some difficulty when
trying to create a good looking menu using text in various
window sizes. Using the graphic locks that portion in as a
'standard' that is easier for users to learn to use for
navigation. 

CA>>> I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a
CA>>> font is not available. 

RJT>> They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the
RJT>> "ALT=" tag to say some text if you didn't get the
RJT>> graphic. Sometimes I feel like I'd be better off viewing
RJT>> these pages in text-only mode... 

CA>>> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into
CA>>> those menus intentionally with no intent to use text at
CA>>> any time. 

RJT>> Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are
RJT>> visually-impaired ferinstance. 

CA>> The "ALT" tag you mention is intended as an aide to the
CA>> visually  impaired to allow their screen readers to read
CA>> the ALT tags aloud. 

RJT>>> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really
RJT>>> like the feature of firefox where you can hit a single
RJT>>> keystroke and make the type get bigger. But when the
RJT>>> menus and such are all graphics rather than words, this
RJT>>> doesn't work. Which makes it hard for me to view those
RJT>>> sites. 

CA>>> Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for
CA>>> you.  :-)

RJT>> Payware, ain't it? :-) 

CA>> There is a version that is adware supported (free) if I
CA>> remember  correctly. 

RJT> I think I'll stick with firefox, with the adblock plugin... 
RJT> :-)

I don't sell OPERA but I _think_ right now there are fewer
exploits for OPERA than for FF. 

RJT>>> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... 

RJT>>> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that
RJT>>> choice, maybe they'll wake up. 

CA>>> Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that
CA>>> choice which is why many take the time to learn how to
CA>>> code the most generic code possible considering the
CA>>> variety of browser support for various code. They test
CA>>> with multiple browsers or have others test for them. 

RJT>> All too often this isn't the case, though. The most
RJT>> concession people seem to be willing to make is IE or
RJT>> Netscape... 

CA>>> Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older'
CA>>> software, the  webmaster will eventually decide that
CA>>> such-and-such a browser has outlived it's useful lifespan
CA>>> and stop making concessions for that browser's problem
CA>>> areas. 

CA>>> Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or
CA>>> ignorance write webpages that only one browser can
CA>>> accomodate and those who do their work in that fashion
CA>>> are helping no one, not even themselves. 

RJT>> Exactly my point. 

RJT>> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar
RJT>> pages. :-)

CA>> My own webpages at my 'tech' website are 'any-browser'
CA>> compatible but I also have another website that requires
CA>> minimal javascripting to be fully appreciated. All pages
CA>> will _display_ properly but something will be lost on
CA>> _certain_ pages without javascripting at the
CA>> 'entertainment' website. 

RJT> Which is still way better than them saying that I *NEED*
RJT> all this miscellaneous stuff they want me to install, like
RJT> flash, etc. Your pages are definitely not the ones I'm
RJT> griping about. 

RJT> :-) 

I knew you weren't aiming at me and it's nice of you to say so.
I am confident that my websites will not offend nor exclude
anyone using any browser from text-only and up to the
latest/greatest. :-) 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)