Text 1560, 188 rader
Skriven 2005-05-14 01:11:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY J. TELLASON
Ärende: Freebies
================

123c5fc3e406
tech



Hello Roy - 

--8<--cut 

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

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

Those who write browsers have also missed the point. All
browsers do not display the same code in the same manner - even
now. 

--8<--cut 

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

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

I have one of those IBM monitors and it really was a puzzlement
to me for awhile. :-) 

--8<--cut 

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

RJT> Regarding menus, how the heck many do we need? I've seen
RJT> stuff with one across the top, one down the left side, and
RJT> then the same links spread throughout the text. 

Very little research has been released regarding the "user
interface". Microsoft did some research awhile back that
claimed people didn't adapt well to more than seven menu
choices but I've found little else written by any experts.
There are many 'opinions' but no definitive answers regarding
menu placement or numbers of menus per page. 

RJT> Regarding ads, I am liking the "adblock" and "remove this
RJT> object" features in firefox more and more as time goes by,
RJT> excepting every once in a while when I go a step too far.
RJT> :-) 

I updated last night to the latest FF and Mozilla suite then
tried to add adblock to the Mozilla suite and it told me it's
already 'inside' but I've not found out yet. :-( 

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

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

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

Apple 'invented' hypertext links if that's what you are
referring to. 

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

CA> > :-) 

RJT> Ah. 

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

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

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. 

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

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

Trying to place the menu in specific location usually within a
'box' using a table tag or a div tag locks you in to a certain
amount of space which can then be violated by those who want to
enlarge the text. When a top/down menu listing wraps the items
become quite strange and often confusing. 

--8<--cut 

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

RJT> > :-) 

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

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

I can't say. I wasn't intrested enough to review what the
latest exploits were other than that just loading a webpage can
initiate them I really don't know what the exploits can do to
each OS. 

--8<--cut 

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

RJT> >> :-) 

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,
RJT>> like flash, etc. Your pages are definitely not the ones
RJT>> I'm griping about. 

RJT> > :-) 

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

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

The pages should be there as long as I am here. :-) 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      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)