Opinion: Do web standards matter?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

My FF is gone. Several days ago it started downloading to my hard
drive automatically. I thought it was strange, since it didn't say
that it was an update. It was downloading a complete & newer
version. Anyway, I've been downloading games for my kids & checked
ADD/REMOVE programs & found two FF programs. So I deleted the older
version. Now I have none that'll work. I'll grab it again, but each
said about 14MB. What happened? (I'll try to check that site in FF
after I grab it again)

Firefox needs to be uninstalled via Add/Remove Programs before
installing a newer version. This necessity will be corrected in a
coming version, soon. Meantime, you should already have the latest
1.0.2 file you downloaded; where did you save it?

Just rerun it.

Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.

 

[c.thornquist]

After looking at Google's code today & setting my IE text size to large
(it worked!), I thought I should drop defined font size completely & use
+1 and -1. For other sizes specify in the style.

<snip>

I meant "fixed" not "defined" font size. Still learning to communicate

Carla

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Every site is different, and should be treated as such. If the visitor
is truly the most important part of the website, then research them, and
give them what they want.

Bingo! And realize that there may be several audiences and ease of use
needs to be factored in for each audience. I'm talking about content
now; making it easy for a user to find what they are looking for.

--
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]

Is that a start?

Sure, that's a start. There's three ways (maybe more?) to do CSS. 1)
Inline as a style attribute: <p style="font-size:large"> 2) As the
content of a style element as you showed. 3) In a seperate file
referenced from any page that needs that style (great for sites; if the
HTML is done well, change one file to change the site).

I ran a page through the validator today under many DOC TYPES. It went from
one error in transitional to 93 errors in 3.2 and 233 errors in 2.0 (hope I
remembered that right). Made me think it'll take quite a while to learn the
new rules.

Try HTML 4.01 strict. It really enforces separation of content and
layout by not allowing (counts as error) the deprecated layout type
elements such as <center>.

--
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

 

[Toby Inkster]

Why is that silly? Even on a 14" monitor that's a foot of text to read
across at a stretch.

A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide. Taking account of a scroll
bar and a little margin around the edge of the page, it's probably
slightly under 10", but let's call it ten as it's an easier calculation.

Assume some naviagation with a width of about 28% of the page and a 2%
gutter and you have left a 7" column of text to read, which is narrower
than a typical A4 sheet of paper. Few people have problems reading
letters printed on A4.

Besides which, it is not really the physical size of the text area that is
important. (Do you find giant 30 foot advertisement posters hard to read?)

It is the number of words per line that effects readability. That is
controlled a combination of font size and text area -- so a user can
increase/decrease the number of words per line by changing font size, or
by changing browser width.

By explicitly setting a font size and page width, you do not allow the
visitor to adjust the number of words per line, so decrease the
readability of your pages.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

I was referring to before the server decides and what the server
uses to decide.

That's OK as long as -you- know what you're talking about. But as I
say, these server-internal details are of no concern to the HTTP
interworking interface, and other folks who are reading your stuff
may heed help to put such extraneous detail out of their minds when
they're looking at the HTTP protocol transaction itself.

I mean, consider (to take just a very simple example), a server on
which .rpm is used to name RedHat packages, as against a client which
uses .rpm to name realplayer media files. Normal retrieval stands or
falls by whether the server describes them correctly in its HTTP
Content-type: header. The filename extension is not helpful in any
way, as far as /this/ part of the machinery is concerned.

Or to put it more generally: the way to solve complex problems is to
package them into neat portions, with well-defined interfaces between
them, and to avoid unnecessary leakage of the internal details across
the interworking interfaces. Object Oriented programming is another
area which tries to capitalise on this valuable principle.

have fun

 

[=?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1ngel?=]

That's it, I beleive. I know that I am no designer. So, in the
upcoming redesign of the large website I manage (http://alamo.nmsu.edu),
the design will be created by a committee consisting of people from our

Please do not allow the person who had the idea of adding the animated
gif behind the address to join in to the committee

 

[Travis Newbury]

Bingo! And realize that there may be several audiences and ease of use
needs to be factored in for each audience. I'm talking about content
now; making it easy for a user to find what they are looking for.

I agree, but will word it differently. You can only have one audience.
But, the key is to understand that, that audience may have a wide
variety of needs. These needs fall into two categories. Content needs,
and accessibility needs. The smart web designer takes both into
consideration when designing a web site. (Not putting words in your
mouth, I believe that is the exact same thing you said worded a little
differently.)

 

[Travis Newbury]

By explicitly setting a font size and page width, you do not allow the
visitor to adjust the number of words per line, so decrease the
readability of your pages.

I think the main reason a lot of people have fixed width (and good or
bad, this is the exact reason we do) is the logo and page header image.
Rather than having the text continue past the logo/header, (which
many think looks bad esthetically) they fix the width.

 

[Travis Newbury]

A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide...

I don't know about anyone else, but this has to be about the best thread
on this issue I have read. There has been no flaming, no name calling,
everyone is just stating their case.

What have we become!

 

[Travis Newbury]

Please do not allow the person who had the idea of adding the animated
gif behind the address to join in to the committee

Yea, everyone knows they could do it much better with Flash.... (0_o)

 

[Toby Inkster]

I think the main reason a lot of people have fixed width (and good or
bad, this is the exact reason we do) is the logo and page header image.
Rather than having the text continue past the logo/header, (which
many think looks bad esthetically) they fix the width.

I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width. A mimimum
width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any reasonably large
images. A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.

However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the max-width,
usually for no good reason.

Even graphically-rich header areas are not always an excuse. The header
can be designed in such a way that it will scale to the visitor's browser
size. Here is such an example[1]:

http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/sliding-banner/example

It scale quite nicely from just under 800px width to about 1400px width,
after which it starts to look a little strained.

The classics have never been so colourful. ;-)

____
1. Credits:
Images stolen from http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.php?speakerid=314
Text from Cicero and H Rackham, via http://www.lipsum.com/
Design by Toby Inkster with some modifications by (I think) Dylan Parry

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width.

max-width, yes. min-width, possibly.

A mimimum width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any
reasonably large images.

So try another way. If you have "reasonably large" images, they
themselves will impose some minimum width, without the author going
and over-specifying something additionally. And if the images can be
laid out flexibly, without a pre-determined number of columns, they'll
be more readily accessible on display areas of limited size - or by
sight-impaired users who have to magnify everything onto their
normal-sized display. And so on.

A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.

Indeed. What a pity that the widely-used operating systems component
that imagines itself to be a web browser, disdains to support such a
useful feature of CSS.

However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the
max-width, usually for no good reason.

amen to that

 

[Travis Newbury]

I can certainly see the need for a max-width and a min-width. A mimimum
width is needed if you're using multi-columns of any reasonably large
images. A maximum width may be a good idea for reasons of readability.

And if only IE had thought about this... Maybe with the next version...
Na, never happen...

However, a fixed width design equates the min-width and the max-width,
usually for no good reason.
Even graphically-rich header areas are not always an excuse. The header
can be designed in such a way that it will scale to the visitor's browser
size. Here is such an example[1]:
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/sliding-banner/example
It scale quite nicely from just under 800px width to about 1400px width,
after which it starts to look a little strained.

Very nice example. Now if we could just get the graphics people to
listen. And I completely agree that adherence to the min and max width
would solve a very good portion of the issues discussed in this thread.

ps, I will eventually find the cat.

 

[c.thornquist]

c.thornquist wrote:

Oh, Firefox is less than 5MB.

My Add/Remove programs says Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is 15.80MB. Can't
remember where FF was saving to, but I'll find it.

Thanks.

Carla

 

[Toby Inkster]

And if only IE had thought about this... Maybe with the next version...

I don't necessarily mean the CSS "max-width" and "min-width" properties,
though it certainly would be handy if IE/win supported those.

There are other ways impose a minimum and maximum width on a design. An
example of an imposed miminum width (though one that I would by no means
recommend) would be:

<table>
<tr>
<td>
<h1>
<img src="header" alt="My Site" width=600 height=80>
</h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<!-- Content goes here. -->
</td>
</tr>
</table>

The width of the graphic stops the table from shrinking to less than
600px, but there is nothing to stop it growing to more than 600px.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

My Add/Remove programs says Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is 15.80MB.
Can't remember where FF was saving to, but I'll find it.

That is the installed/expanded size of the program, not the download
file size. My Win2K installation says 15.6MB.

Search for: Firefox Setup 1.0.2.exe (yeah, with spaces)

 

[c.thornquist]

A typical 14" (diagonal) monitor is 10.5" wide. Taking account of a scroll
bar and a little margin around the edge of the page, it's probably
slightly under 10", but let's call it ten as it's an easier calculation.

An example is at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

The text is just over a foot across in my 19" monitor at 1024x768.
Statistically, people are moving toward, not away from, larger monitors.
Just as they are moving toward 1024x768, from 800x600. And, since the
majority of visitors do not want to have to make any adjustments, it makes
sense to keep the text at a reasonable width.

It's not a trivial matter. I read constantly on the WWW and find it tiresome
to have to read such long blocks of text. Also, I need glasses for reading,
yet even without my glasses, I find the text at w3.org's site too large.
Most of us read a newspaper daily. And books. And look up numbers in phone
books occasionally. We're accustomed to a much smaller font & more narrow
blocks of text. (W3.org's font size looks typical of a childrens book.) Why
should websites be so different?

Newspaper publishers don't provide several versions of the daily paper to
all customers routinely. It would cost too much. Likewise, I'm not paid
enough to build multiple versions of the same website for different
resolutions & monitor sizes. Most people purchase eyeglasses if they have
trouble reading their newspaper or phone book.

I want my sites to be accessible, comfortable to read, easy to navigate and
visually appealing. Common sense dictates, to me, that we have to draw the
line somewhere.

Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

There are other ways impose a minimum and maximum width on a design. An
example of an imposed miminum width (though one that I would by no means
recommend) would be:

The width of the graphic stops the table from shrinking to less than
600px, but there is nothing to stop it growing to more than 600px.

What if your top header or banner just won't work visually with anything
other than its width, say 650 pixels? Does CSS allow you to to keep that
width throughout the page w/o using tables?

Carla

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

The text is just over a foot across in my 19" monitor at 1024x768.
Statistically, people are moving toward, not away from, larger
monitors.

Statistically, presentation situations for web pages are getting *more
diverse*. That's the chief lesson we have to take from these
discussions, IMHO.

Another lesson is that people are moving from CRTs to panels - and the
latter have an inherent resolution in pixels. Getting the kind of
resolution that we were already using with CRTs years ago (1600x1200
would not be uncommon) is prohibitively expensive with panels, so some
of our users are taking a hit on that - just the opposite of what you
claimed.

Just as they are moving toward 1024x768, from 800x600. And, since
the majority of visitors do not want to have to make any
adjustments, it makes sense to keep the text at a reasonable width.

If you believe that the majority of users don't want to make any
adjustments, they'll presumably be working at the browser's
installation default window size.

I want my sites to be accessible, comfortable to read, easy to
navigate and visually appealing. Common sense dictates, to me, that
we have to draw the line somewhere.

Indeed, and I draw that line at people who will insist on making an
absurd choice and then complaining about the consequences. Those who
use a handheld display, or who have sight impairment, or who have
browsing requirements which are unusual in other ways, might not have
much choice in the matter. But those who can casually tell us how
easy it is to change from the installation default display (a
reasonably-sized window) to something else (fullscreen display) surely
cannot tell us that it's impossibly hard to change back again when the
need arises. I'm happy to specify a max-width, as I already said; but
I'm not prepared to show much sympathy for those who need max-width
but choose a browser without it.