min-height property

[David Graham]

Hi
I'm following a tutorial at:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/csslayout/2-
col/

Scroll down to the bit:
"3. On to the main containers"

and you will see the author uses min-width: 750px and he mentions that IE6
needs to be in standard mode for it to work.

Does IE 5.5 have a standard mode as well as a quirk mode?
I think IE5.0 and IE4.0 is always quirk regardless of doctype - is that
correct?

Is it really necessary for this tutorial to start using a property which
only works in some versions of IE in standard mode?

I was really enjoying this simple straight forward tutorial on how to
produce a nice simple straight forward 2 column layout but min-width has
muddied the waters for me. Any opinions and advice please.

 

[David Graham]

slip up, meant min-width in subject

 

[David Graham]

Hi
I'm following a tutorial at:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/lab/developing_with_web_standards/csslayout/2-
col/

Scroll down to the bit:
"3. On to the main containers"

and you will see the author uses min-width: 750px and he mentions that IE6
needs to be in standard mode for it to work.

Does IE 5.5 have a standard mode as well as a quirk mode?
I think IE5.0 and IE4.0 is always quirk regardless of doctype - is that
correct?

Is it really necessary for this tutorial to start using a property which
only works in some versions of IE in standard mode?

Also, does the use of width: 750px on the wrap div mean the fluid design is
lost?

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Does IE 5.5 have a standard mode as well as a quirk mode?
I think IE5.0 and IE4.0 is always quirk regardless of doctype - is that
correct?

If only due to security concerns, IE users seem to be well above
average in updating to the latest version of the browser. Those who
choose to stay with an even more obsolete browser version than IE6
presumably get accustomed to living with its shortcomings on other
folks' sites, so they'd have no particular reason to be upset by
yours, I'd have thought.

Is it really necessary for this tutorial to start using a property which
only works in some versions of IE in standard mode?

CSS is optional by design, so it's "working" in either case - unless
the browser crashes or otherwise misbehaves instead of simply
disregarding things that it doesn't understand. CSS also does what
it's intended to do (i.e in that case "nothing at all") on Lynx -
which is perhaps as well, since Lynx is a character cell browser and
wouldn't know what to do with all those pixel-exact specifications.
There's rarely a stylesheet that can't be improved by re-engineering
most of the px units into em units (with the exception of borders, and
some instances of margins and padding).

I was really enjoying this simple straight forward tutorial on how
to produce a nice simple straight forward 2 column layout but
min-width has muddied the waters for me. Any opinions and advice
please.

Without specific reference to the tutorial cited, I would make the
following general remarks...

min-width and max-width, if used carefully by an author, can extend
the range of browser window sizes over which pleasant results can be
achieved, on consenting browsers. Those which haven't chosen to
implement the feature, may benefit from the user adjusting the window
width for themselves.

But as for this particular tutorial:

body {
min-width:750px;
}

is plain rude. I'd prefer a browser which ignored that! The design
would otherwise have worked fine in my usual browser window, but the
pesky author insisted on throwing a pointless and useless left/right
scrollbar, something which users are well known to dislike - me
included.

IMHO and YMMV

 

[David Graham]

Could I press you or someone else for specific answers to the 2 questions
above.

But as for this particular tutorial:

body {
min-width:750px;
}

is plain rude. I'd prefer a browser which ignored that! The design
would otherwise have worked fine in my usual browser window, but the
pesky author insisted on throwing a pointless and useless left/right
scrollbar, something which users are well known to dislike - me
included.

So, I can drop the above rule? - the author states something about it being
wise to have because there can be trouble in some browsers when the wrap div
width is greater than the browser screen. Do you have any details on this
please.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Could I press you or someone else for specific answers to the 2 questions
above.

I'd recommend bookmarking a couple of URLs that I've found to be
reliable sources of information on such topics:

http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/

These also include links to authoritative pages at the various
vendors' sites, including MS.

Based on what I read there, my interpretation is that for Win IE, the
doctype "switch" was new with IE6. But Mac IE is a completely
different implementation, and followed its own development path (for
as long as it was being developed, which no longer seems to be the
case).

Sorry, I'd better re-word that. The design, as it stands, wouldn't
simply work by taking out that one setting, because there are other
fixed px specifications in there which would militate against fluid
behaviour...

So, I can drop the above rule? - the author states something about
it being wise to have because there can be trouble in some browsers
when the wrap div width is greater than the browser screen.

Seems plausible - so "don't do that". I can see some justification
(no pun intended) for wanting to specify a minimum width for the
sidebar (although if I were doing that, I'd use em units). But I
can't see any justification for not allowing the main content to fit
itself into the (remaining width of the) browser window which the user
has made available. Attempts to fight the user are at odds with the
general web principle that the user has the last word. Some of the
more discerning readers may be able to overrule the author - the rest
may just get crabby and leave.

For my taste, there's far too much setting of fixed widths in px units
going on in the tutorial page that you were citing. Just seeing those
is enough to discourage me from taking it as any kind of role model,
to be honest.

And it might be that in a particularly narrow browser window, or with
a particularly large font zoom (e.g sight-impaired readers), a
preferable behaviour would be to have the sidebar float below (or
above, depending on priorities) the main content. Judicious use of
floating can achieve that, without impairing the results for those
whose browser window width is adequate for the intended 2-col layout.

If you're going to ask "do I have a concrete stylesheet to use instead
of the one at the cited URL?", I'm going to have to say no, sorry; but
I'm pretty sure one could be done along the principles I've suggested.

Take a look at e.g
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/layout2.html
for a somewhat more complex example. I've found this author to be a
useful source of ideas for fluid design.

hope you find it useful.

 

[David Graham]

I'd recommend bookmarking a couple of URLs that I've found to be
reliable sources of information on such topics:

http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/

These also include links to authoritative pages at the various
vendors' sites, including MS.

Based on what I read there, my interpretation is that for Win IE, the
doctype "switch" was new with IE6. But Mac IE is a completely
different implementation, and followed its own development path (for
as long as it was being developed, which no longer seems to be the
case).


Sorry, I'd better re-word that. The design, as it stands, wouldn't
simply work by taking out that one setting, because there are other
fixed px specifications in there which would militate against fluid
behaviour...


Seems plausible - so "don't do that". I can see some justification
(no pun intended) for wanting to specify a minimum width for the
sidebar (although if I were doing that, I'd use em units). But I
can't see any justification for not allowing the main content to fit
itself into the (remaining width of the) browser window which the user
has made available. Attempts to fight the user are at odds with the
general web principle that the user has the last word. Some of the
more discerning readers may be able to overrule the author - the rest
may just get crabby and leave.

For my taste, there's far too much setting of fixed widths in px units
going on in the tutorial page that you were citing. Just seeing those
is enough to discourage me from taking it as any kind of role model,
to be honest.

And it might be that in a particularly narrow browser window, or with
a particularly large font zoom (e.g sight-impaired readers), a
preferable behaviour would be to have the sidebar float below (or
above, depending on priorities) the main content. Judicious use of
floating can achieve that, without impairing the results for those
whose browser window width is adequate for the intended 2-col layout.

If you're going to ask "do I have a concrete stylesheet to use instead
of the one at the cited URL?", I'm going to have to say no, sorry; but
I'm pretty sure one could be done along the principles I've suggested.

Take a look at e.g
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/layout2.html
for a somewhat more complex example. I've found this author to be a
useful source of ideas for fluid design.

hope you find it useful.

Thanks for the link and the advice. I didn't like the fixed pixel dimensions
either.