Text 1558, 191 rader
Skriven 2005-05-13 20:06:00 av Roy J. Tellason (1:270/615.0)
   Kommentar till text 1555 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: Freebies
================
CHARLES ANGELICH wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON:

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

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

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

Agreed.  It's funny (not) how often that turns out not to be the case,  though.
 Seems like there's just an awful lot of people out there that have somehow
missed this point...

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

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

Nor is everybody using 800x600.  I still have monitors (the one I'm looking at
as I type this included) that won't go beyond 640x480.  Then there's that odd
IBM model that has that and 1024x768 but which won't do 800x600.

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

Could be...

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

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

Regarding menus,  how the heck many do we need?  I've seen stuff with one
across the top,  one down the left side,  and then the same links spread
throughout the text.  Regarding ads,  I am liking the "adblock" and "remove
this object" features in firefox more and more as time goes by,  excepting
every once in a while when I go a step too far.  :-)

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

CA> The original 'point' of HTML was to allow college professors to
CA> setup spreadsheet type displays with columns of data that had 
CA> headers for each column etc. HTML _became_ a way to layout graphics 
CA> and other things in spite of vigorous protest from college types 
CA> and the W3C.

I thought that the original point was being able to link documents to each
other.

CA> Now that they lost _that_ argument the W3C is busy trying to 
CA> reinvent webpage design in a format that _they_ can control and 
CA> influence.  It's not going to be better, just under W3C control. :-)

Ah.

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

All depends on what you're trying to do,  I guess.

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

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

Links which each appear on their own line courtesy of a <br> should be easy
enough,  no?

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

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

CA>>> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into those menus 
CA>>> intentionally with no intent to use text at 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 visually
CA>> impaired to allow their screen readers to read the ALT tags aloud. 

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

Pay or get ads...

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

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

How would one of those "exploits" (and I have seen references to them
elsewhere) get in to my system in the first place?  I suspect that the
vulnerabilities may be more a matter of messing up the operation of the browser
or getting further in windoze systems than on my linux boxes.

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

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

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

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

Some people,  anyhow.

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

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

RJT>> Exactly my point.

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

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

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

RJT> :-) 

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

I should get back in there and take another look one of these days,  but with
all the other stuff I have going on I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

--- 
 * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-838-8539 (1:270/615)