Opinion: Do web standards matter?

[Toby Inkster]

(not that I have any problem with fixed fonts and non-fluid designs I
prefer them myself).

I must ask... for what reason do you prefer the font size to be fixed?

Surely, unless you resize your fonts half-way through reading it, you
can't possibly even *know* whether the font size is fixed or not?

Ditto fluid designs. Unless you resize your browser half-way through
reading the page, you can't know whether it's fluid or not.

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Not if the author broke up the text into columns

Well, it seems that you may want to really grasp the fact that the WWW
is originally designed to provide the user with the ultimate final
control of presentation.

An analogy; if you find that a TV-show comes through with the sound set
too loud for your liking I would assume that you do /not/ call the TV
station to tell them to lower the volume?
You would do that locally on your own set, right?

Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.

Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...

<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

....it still illustrates most of today's www situation.

Now; some well known (so called) browser makes it very hard to exercise
that "users ultimate final control" but it seems unfair to blame that
"defect" on how correctly authored CSS sites are delivered.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No more so than table-based designs. After all, a table is a table -- a
grid of boxes.

But they use the grid (mistakenly) to hold their images which include
curves and shapes, etc... Not that this can not be done with css,but it
usually isn't. Again because the graphic artists have not embraced css
yet (key word being "yet")

 

[Travis Newbury]

Not at all; but if they insist on using a browser window that's
inappropriate for purpose, and their browser fails to apply any
relevant max-width suggestions, they might not get the best result
possible.

But that is just my point, That exact same argument can be made for a
fixed width. Let me Pseudo quote you:

"Not at all, but if you insist on having a browser window that's
inappropriate for my fixed width site you might not get the best results
possible."

See, virtually the exact same argument. You are telling me my size is
inappropriate to view your site, and I am saying the exact same thing.
(Mind you the you and I are generic and not you and I specifically)

Well, it wasn't me who was complaining about the results.

Sure you are, you are saying fixed width is wrong because you need to
change your browser window size right?

Making those proposals flexible, in the various ways which CSS allows,
can make a page which adapts itself more comfortably to variations in
the presentation situation. But if the reader takes that to extremes,
then the occasional sub-optimal result isn't so very surprising. At
least, to my way of thinking, it's better for the reader to have the
option of choice, as opposed to getting tiny fixed-size text cramped
into a narrow fixed-width column on an otherwise empty wide screen.
So which would *you* prefer?

I already said, I prefer a full screen browser.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

LOL! Like clicking the little box in the upper right corner.... Do
that once, and your set.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Still close by? Which campus? I believe they have a campus in El Paso
which is about 80 miles away from me.

I was in Japan (Camp Foster, Kadena, and Kinser mostly) It was by far
the most rewarding job I have ever had.

That's too bad. I cannot think of a single valid reason to ever require
JavaScript, Flash, cookies, etc. But, NMSU has done it too.

ADL (SCORM) did in fact need to require these things to make course ware
compatible with the most LMS's and LCMS's. It allowed the courses to be
launched from any web server, and speak to virtually LMS or LCMS. If
you read their reasoning it makes sense. Their goal was for the
courseware to be compatible with as many LMS/LCMS's as possible. In the
long run this really is to the benefit of the students until the
LMS/LCMS makers get their shit together. Not saying it is perfect, but
it is the best thing going right now.

I have several threads on the ADL website dedicated to the use of Flash
as the connection medium between the content and a LMS/LCMS that can
eliminate some of the requirements of IE. Flash is a perfect medium or
learning content.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

And that's why they call it personal preference...

 

[c.thornquist]

How about PAL or NTSC? If your television broadcast doesn't follow one
(the right one) of those standards, the user agents (television sets)
will probably not display it properly.

If you encode music on a small circular piece of metal without following
the standards set forth by Philips, the user agents (CD players) will
probably not display it properly.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

But aren't those standards very basic (referring to the # of lines, refresh
rate & color definition - from
http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/ntsc/95x4.htm ), like a
webpage requiring HTML, head & body tags? And saving your files with certain
extensions. That moves us to back-end development on the server. Web
designers work front-end, so the analogy should be with how TV content (what
we end up seeing on our TV screen) is developed. Right? I'm guessing there
are many ways of producing the content.

HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with an
organization impeding the creative process.

Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?

Carla

 

[kchayka]

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)?

Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.

I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.

I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.

 

[c.thornquist]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: [...]
What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768?
Too wide for comfortable reading at normal font sizes.

Not if the author broke up the text into columns

Well, it seems that you may want to really grasp the fact that the WWW
is originally designed to provide the user with the ultimate final
control of presentation.

An analogy; if you find that a TV-show comes through with the sound set
too loud for your liking I would assume that you do /not/ call the TV
station to tell them to lower the volume?
You would do that locally on your own set, right?

Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.

Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...

<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.

Now; some well known (so called) browser makes it very hard to exercise
that "users ultimate final control" but it seems unfair to blame that
"defect" on how correctly authored CSS sites are delivered.

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?

What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.

Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser
developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.

Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation. And the
Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.


Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

Write a stylesheet that you would like applied to all sites (pay
attention to section 6.4.1 of the CSS 2 spec to understand how your
styles and the authors styles will combine).

Thanks much

Carla

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:29:48 GMT, "c.thornquist"

And saving your files with certain extensions.

File name extensions has no relevance on the www.

FN-extensions are relics that has managed to survive, and totally
confuse web authors and users for all too long.

On the www the HTTP protocol defines an HTTP "Content-type" header that
is supposed to tell your browser what kind of content it is about to
receive.

Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.

Even MSIE understands at least the basics of that part.

 

[kchayka]

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

And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.

With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.

 

[Oli Filth]

Given correct server config, the all too common .html (or even worse,
the .htm) extension is totally redundant.

Well, except to tell the server that a given file should be sent with
Content-Type: text/html...

But yes, I guess you could set your server up to treat all files in a
given directory as HTML, removing the need for the .htm(l) extension.

 

[Jim Moe]

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some brushstrokes
or the colors I've used or the size of it, should you be allowed to
rearrange it to your liking?

You miss the point. A painting is a fixed format; you are in complete
control of size, color, shape, texture, etc. WWW is highly variable; you
control the content, color (usually), and general layout; no control over
size or shape. You are comparing apples with cars and claiming they are
the same thing.

Re the sound level on TV sets, enough people were annoyed with having to
make adjustments, that remote controls come with most TVs today. The browser

The viewer *still controls the volume*! You agree with us after all.

developers will do the same for websites & site visitors, because it's to
their benefit financially.

You are just joshing us, of course. Remote controls for font size? LOL

Re the length of text on a screen. It's analogous to newspapers, magazines
or books using one huge page with no columns. Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Now you are just being silly.

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Properly authored www pages will allow you to have that final control.

Major parts of the following was once written by a highly regarded CSS
designer...

<http://www.css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html>

...it still illustrates most of today's www situation.

[...]

If I create a painting & you don't like where I've placed some
brushstrokes or the colors I've used or the size of it, should
you be allowed to rearrange it to your liking?

No, of course not; the thought of that would not even cross my mind.

OTOH, would you like to "control" my viewing angle when I look at your
artwork? What if I'm very short or very tall? or if my eyes are skewed
so I need to stand at one or the other side to get _my_ best view.

It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges here.

The original idea, that later lead to the invention of the www, was to
find a method that would allow "global" access to information that was
available on basically incompatible systems.

Your painting canvas and my browsers view port are pretty good examples
of initially "incompatible" systems, but there is nothing in the
technology of the www that prohibits you from making your painting
available to me for viewing in my browsers view port.

The 'IMG' and 'OBJECT' elements stands at your service for that part,
still it shall be up to me to adjust my view port such as it gives me my
best possible view of your painting, right?

The basic "mistake" of so many www "designers" is to think of other
peoples browser view ports as "the designers own canvas" that can be
used at will to present some pixel perfect presentation of e.g. the
Waffle House food menu, or any other thought out design "dream".

But that is not the base of this media, the WWW is supposed to be a
"World Wide" accessible database that contains the, at any time, best
collection of acquired human knowledge, all relevantly linked together
with those hyperlinks that constitutes the threads in the "Web".

Just about anything can be housed inside such a concept, but it has to
be "housed" in a way that makes it widely accessible.

Feel free to present a painting or two to me over the www, but please
don't do it in a way that makes it obscure to me to get my best viewing
experience from it.

What if the canvas was stretched on a cheap, prefab from the five & dime
store. I didn't build it myself with high quality materials & excellent
workmanship. Still, the painting is spectacular. Imagine if it would not be
allowed in a juried show or to be viewed/sold in a gallery because of the
shoddy underside.

As I have tried to describe, the www is your free place to present
anything you want as you see fit.

But, the size of your possible target area will vary, all depending on
how clever you are to make your material accessible on a wide scale.

[...]

Re font size & how it's displayed, I haven't seen great variation.
And the Dollar Store sells reading glasses for $5.00.

Won't help me much some 20 years from now maybe. I have repeated cases
of glaucoma running in the family line and may have to look forward to
total blindness in the future (I'm 56 today).

Your lesson during that time period will be to figure out what
ALT-ernative www content you should give to any one of your paintings so
that they will still be accessible to me as a sound or tactile www
experience

There is at least initial provisions for that too, already built into
current www technology.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hmmm... You want a full-size browser window, but for some reason you
don't want to use all of the available space to show web pages? If
that's what you really want to do, fine, but it seems silly to me.

Doesn't seem silly to me. It is easier for me to read, and it lets
virtually all fixed width sites (the norm on the web right now) to fit
in my browser window with no changing. You on the other hand are
continually changing the size of your window to accommodate the vast
majority of the web (the fixed width sites you hate so much) So who is
silly?

I, as an author, would do my part to prevent excessively long lines of
text by setting a max-width on paragraphs (~40em), but if your browser
doesn't support that property, you're just out of luck. I am adamently
opposed to fixing the width just because some people use a deficient
browser. Sorry.

I use FF. (Full screen so I can easily accommodate everyone).

I also think it's unreasonable to expect a web author to fix the layout
width to accomodate a few people who do silly things with their browser.

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I am a realist. Right or wrong,
fixed width is the norm right now. My full screen browser assures that I
am not going to constantly be changing the size of my browser window
with every site I go to. So I may have a little empty space on the
right side, but I am never taking the time to resize my window. (Except
when I get to one of the very few flexible sites out there)

 

[Travis Newbury]

And I don't like fixed designs. I find them hard to read, mostly because
of too-short lines and broken layouts at my larger-than-average text size.

See the joys of personal preference.

With a flexible layout, I have a very good chance of making the page
comfortably readable, even if I have to adjust my browser window size a
bit to do it. With a fixed layout, I have very little chance of getting
a good result.

I always get a good result with full screen. And you know what, I can
only read one webpage at a time so I am not losing anything by not
having room on my screen for another window. And best of all, I never
have to change my window size unless I run into one of the few flexible
width sites. So, I guess, because of the current state of the web, I
feel I win in the long run.

 

[Uncle Pirate]

I have several threads on the ADL website dedicated to the use of Flash
as the connection medium between the content and a LMS/LCMS that can
eliminate some of the requirements of IE. Flash is a perfect medium or
learning content.

I guess I'll have to back off on "not a single reason" as I have seen a
demo of a flash learning tool. It is a cutaway of the mouth, throat,
and tongue showing the movements during sounds of speech. The demo I
saw was geared for a linguistics class. Very cool.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

 

[Uncle Pirate]

HTML is our paintbrush, our clay, our musical instrument. What you see in
your browser is our creation. Maybe that's why some of us take issue with an
organization impeding the creative process.

Maybe that's why so many who are aware of validation & the efforts of the
w3c, don't comply fully. What do you think?

I agree with much of what Travis has been saying. It's possible to
create some wonderful artistic sites using CSS, but most of us that use
it are techies rather than artists. You've mentioned that you are an
artist, create a masterpiece! The trick is having both sets of skills.
You've said you have the one. Here and ciwas is where you'll learn
the other. Ya gotta get a thicker skin though, some of us techies can
be kinda harsh sometimes.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein