Opinion: Do web standards matter?

T

Travis Newbury

kchayka said:
What's the point of having a full-size window if you aren't going to use it?

Because I prefer it that way, and it is my browser. And don't you
always say leave my browser preferences alone? Or does that only
include the preferences you think are important (say pop-ups or your
scroll bar)?

(please don't take this as argumentative It is not meant that way)
 
S

Steve Pugh

c.thornquist said:
Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes.

I predict that you used px or pt for the font size in your CSS, am I
right? Despite the daily advice in these newsgroups not to do so.
Did everyone know that about style tags?

Almost everyone knows about this shortcoming in Windows IE.
How does CSS address font sizing by the user's browser?

Very well, so long as (a) the user isn't using Windows IE; OR (b) the
author isn't using px or pt for the fon-size.
Now I'm wishing I had never started using style tags (or whatever they are called.
Embedded CSS?)

External CSS is preferable for other reasons but this particular
problem has nothing to do with how your CSS is attached to your HTML.
I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.

URL? FF will resize any font (allowing for the user's minimum font
size setting). Sure the others weren't images? ;-)

Steve
 
T

Travis Newbury

Els said:
a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
be able to fit a fixed width document in it.

You can have what ever size you want, you might have to scroll, but the
content is there for you. Your fluid design makes it hard for me to
read. I see no difference.
b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
use 500px wide windows for instance.

Fluid design is only as fluid small as the smallest image.
So, you have the option to
a) use a narrower window
b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;margin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)

I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.
In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.

I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way.
 
E

Els

Travis said:
You can have what ever size you want, you might have to scroll, but the
content is there for you. Your fluid design makes it hard for me to
read. I see no difference.

I find it harder to read a 1000px wide page in a 500px wide window
(horizontal scrolling for each line) than to read really long
sentences.
Fluid design is only as fluid small as the smallest image.

Correct, when using fluid design, one should take image size into
account.
I can repeat those same (more or less) options to you with fixed width.

No, with fixed width:
a) you don't have the option to make your window narrower than that
fixed width. Not without serious usability problems (horizontal
scrolling for each line you want to read).
b) setting a max-width that suits you will break the layout. Unless
the author of the fixed width page has made it fluid underneath the
fixed width. Most fixed width authors don't do that.

Yup, c) is an option for every Windows user.
I don't. I like full screen, and your content is hard to read that way.

You don't like full screen then, you like large empty spaces.
The thing is, that I want my pages to be accessible by everyone. Not
just you.
My Dad browses full screen too. On 800x600. To cater for him and use
fixed width, I'd have to set the fixed with to 750px. (he uses IE
without a favourites bar open or something).
Now there are people who prefer a larger font-size. For them, the
fixed width of 750px means that the menu takes up half the space, and
the text contains lines of 3 or 4 words. Very hard to read. And very
silly, if they bought an expensive 22inch screen to accommodate their
bad eyesight! All that wasted space...

Now - tell me again that I should use fixed width because /you/ like
to use your browser full screen on a large resolution?
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser
& go.

That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.
Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to
adjust things under the hood depending on my destination

Indeed. That's why browsers install in windowing mode, IMHO.
(stole that analogy from
the 'webmasters newsgroup). So, what's "windowing"?

It's normal operation on X Windows as well as in MS Windows, in my
experience. It's strange that things seem so different for you.
What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768?

Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.
Most sites look fine at that setting.

Not to me. Oh, my 19" monitor is set at 1280x1024, but that's not
such a big issue. There's currently about 20 windows on it
(overlapping, of course). A browser window (there's only three of
those just now) rarely gets more than half the screen width.
The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running all the way across
the screen.

"The" CSS sites?
It makes reading tiring.

No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but
still, 4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is
comfortable in print.

No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display. I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.
 
N

Nick Kew

Travis said:
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."

You have that choice.
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."

You might have that choice. But it lacks the flexibility to adapt,
and deprives many users of that choice.
 
N

Nick Kew

c.thornquist said:
I want to get in my car & drive without having to adjust
things under the hood depending on my destination (stole that analogy
from the 'webmasters newsgroup).

But don't you also want flexibility? Like the ability to carry a
passenger and/or your luggage? And indeed the flexibility to adjust
your seat, mirror, etc to where you're comfortable?
So, what's "windowing"?

It makes it easy to do more than one thing. To take the desktop
analogy, I have a computer on my desk. But it doesn't take all
the space. I also have pen&paper, telephone, and a pint mug of tea.
At other times, I have other things there.

I value them all, and I value being able to have all of them to
hand at the same time, so for exampleI can use the computer while
speaking on the phone. I'd *hate* it if someone tried to impose
on me a computer so big I had no space for the other things.
Though when I have a more limited overall space (like when on a
busy train) I accept reduced convenience.

The same applies to my screen. Any modern desktop or mainstream
laptop is big enough to accommodate many different things on the
screen. I value that convenience. In more limited circumstances,
like a 'phone display, I'd accept reduced convenience.
 
P

Peter1968

Alan said:
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.

Laugh if you like, but the latest Windows binary of Amaya opened
full-screen for me. I could argue that was its best feature, but that's
another story for another day...

So, there's one for you that did.
 
M

me

[snip]
It's a
well-established principle of web design that the final decision about
the presentation is taken by the reader;...

Whoops-e-daisy, "well-established" breaks down to "achieved widespread use"
in most people's parlance. The reality is that millions of successful sites
that enjoy great popularity
use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
...the author can only make what
seem to be appropriate proposals.

Then we are in agreement and you should have no objections if I as an author
propose in the code of my pages that the layout and the font be of a fixed
size.
Signed,
me
 
M

me

Alan J. Flavell said:
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before.

If full screen means maximized then you're talking about a decision made by
the software author or the OS. Since you embrace the paradigm that default
equals best can we assume that your Windows machine with IE still has MSN as
the home page?
They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.

Would that extra effort be clicking maximize?
Indeed. That's why browsers install in windowing mode, IMHO.

See above.
Signed,
me
 
M

me

Lauri Raittila said:
Hurts my eyes and is very bad indeed.


Unfortunaltely can hardly be called good example of CSS layout.

From a purely astethic point of view I find it to be one of the best if not
*the* best CSS positioned designs I have seen too date (I won't say YMMV
because it's woefully inadequate).
The good
thing about CSS is that you can do lots of things with it that you can't
do with table layouts. The bad thing is the same.

Show him and yourself this screen cap:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/crap/screen.png

Congratulations, you found a way to break her design.
To fix it so that design don't break I had to:
- disable my general userstylesheet (line-height 1.5)
- disable my current font size userstylesheet (was something like 16px)
- disable my min font size thingy (it was 12px)
especially the last one I never use normally, I'm in user mode before
that.

User stylesheet YIKES!
Anyway, the problem is in sites coding. (the 3col layout is IMO stupid
idea anyway) It would be possible, of course, to make it not break, even
using current CSS.

Three columns are stupid? IMO you have issues about design.
Signed,
me
 
C

c.thornquist

Alan J. Flavell said:
That's very odd. I've never met a browser which installs to open in
fullscreen mode before. They all installed to open in a fairly
reasonable sized window, and needed extra effort to get them to be
fullscreen.

I just opened IE & it opened at 100%. I never changed the settings, so it
must be IE's default? Oh, you mean the "Restore Down/Maximize" button in IE
in the top right corner. Yeah, I probably set it to Maximize long ago. I
like my browser & all applications at 100%. Empty space is OK with me. It
gives your eyes a rest. So, I realize & accept that most sites are built for
800x600 and there will be some empty space. Visually, I prefer that to
filling my screen with text & banner ads.
Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.

Not if the author broke up the text into columns;)
"The" CSS sites?

Those built using CSS that are typical of w3.org's, I should have said.

No disagreement there. So tell the W3C to use max-width (specified in
em units, for example). CSS problem sorted. If the browser doesn't
honour max-width, get a better browser. Or if you insist on using a
less-capable browser, adjust the window.

I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.
No, "print" to me means 600dpi or better, and that has quite different
readability properties than the typical screen display.

I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.
I'd suggest
proposing for appropriate text elements, a max line-length in em
units. The optimum physical size will be different for different
readers.

What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)

Carla
 
S

Steve Pugh

c.thornquist said:
I want to be able to open any browser to fill my screen without the text
spreading across it.

Then do as Alan suggests and use a stylesheet with max-width in it.
Then all the sites you're complaining about will be restricted to your
max-width. That way you get exactly your preferred width, not the
authors preferred width or some average preferred width based on the
half dozen people the author spoke to when building the site.
I'm not referring to dpi, I meant slap a ruler up on your monitor and 4
inches is what's comfortable. Not 12 or 15 inches for one line of text.

4" wide at what font size? With which font and leading? How far away
from the screen are you sitting? For me 4" would be much too narrow.

Studies have shown that narrow columns with wide margins are nearly as
bad as wide columns with narrow margins. Medium-to-wide columns with
moderate margins seem best but of course it also depends on font size,
etc.
What would 420 pixels equal in em units? Just curious:)

420px divided by your font size in pixels

So for me 420px is 30em but for you it will likely be different. (I
have my font size set smaller than the factory default.)

Steve
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Alan said:
Are you deliberately taking the mickey, or are you really so
clue-impaired?

How about a test? <g>

..pxunit { width: 420px; }
..emunit { width: <numberofchoicehere>em; }

<p class="pxunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>
<p class="emunit">A long paragraph of text here...</p>

Then experiment by changing the text size in your various browsers.
 
M

me

Toby Inkster said:

No they don't look the same to me but (please don't be offended) they don't
excite me and I doubt they'd excite the people I know but that's purely a
matter of personal taste. By the way, what's up with arrow.gif, why does it
keep trying to download whenever I pass my cursor over the links? It took a
while for bg_home.jpg to download on dialup of course it's in the cache but
my cache is deleted when I close IE. I also have a batch file to delete
cookies/temp files/IEdat files every time I boot so my system stays squeaky.

I like these! But due to the BG image, fixed layout and fixed font size it's
not a fluid design so no joy there for the militant fluid fanatics (not that
I have any problem with fixed fonts and non-fluid designs I prefer them
myself).
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.

There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!

Yes you do have a choice of maximum size but not minmum size, not at:
http://www.csszengarden.com/. In IE6 on Windows I see a horizontal scrollbar
if the resolution is below 1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear). Some
here might be enraged with a site that doesn't flow to fit any device (not
me mind you, I believe in the right layout for the right device/media).
Loading a new page to change the look is not exactly a new idea. Nice site
though except for the manifesto (again this is my personal preferance, no
offense intended).
Signed,
me
 
M

me

Travis Newbury said:
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.


So now you are telling me how to use my browser?

You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."

How are these different?


But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"

They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?

Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a huge space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.

Truer words were never spoken. My name is *me* and I officially endorse Mr.
Newbury's message.
Signed,
me
 
M

me

Uncle Pirate said:
I can't speak for Toby, but I see that both can be flexible to a point.
As a developer, I must make the decision of what will be a max size
and a minumum size. My reasoning of not using table layout is that it
is more difficult to work with than simple headings and paragraphs for
text, and all the fancy stuff separated with divs.

I disagree with your last statement in that the designer/developer isn't
deciding how you use your browser; he/she is deciding a max and min
*ideal* viewing size. It's still up to you (in either type of page)
whether to view it within the ideal conditions.

I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either. They will
most always close one before opening another. Teaching HTML and CSS, I
sometimes have a hard time getting students to have a browser window
open and a text editor saving the file and then refreshing the browser
to instantly see your changes. And that process is a whole lot easier
with windows that you can see parts of at the same time. I very rarely
ever have any application full screen as I usually have many things
going at once switching from one to another.

The efficacy of cascading multiple windows is dependant on your chosen
resolution. I prefer to use alt+tab or the taskbar YMMV.
Signed,
me
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

me said:
Yes you do have a choice of maximum size but not minmum size, not
at: http://www.csszengarden.com/. In IE6 on Windows I see a
horizontal scrollbar if the resolution [window size] is below
1024x768 (I like 800x600 just to be clear).

This must be something peculiar to your setup. I don't see a
horizontal scrollbar at csszengarden in a window size of ~800 pixels
wide. IE6, or numerous other browsers with Win2K.

The one previously mentioned link - style sheet 153 - gets a scrollbar
at about ~850 and below, but the rest of the choices do not.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,479
Members
44,900
Latest member
Nell636132

Latest Threads

Top