Opinions On This Site?

[Travis Newbury]

A flexible-width site will accommodate these people, as well as those
who use full-screen browsers. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is "wrong" with that, he stated he "preferred" fixed width.
There is also nothing "wrong" with that either.

I hate sites that "force" cursor focus like that; sometimes I'm
starting to type in the address bar or a form field before the site has
finished loading, and then it's annoying when the cursor suddenly jumps
somewhere else due to some idiot JavaScript.

So you "prefer" sites that don't do that. Interesting how there are so
many different preferences among web users.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Nothing is "wrong" with that, he stated he "preferred" fixed width.
There is also nothing "wrong" with that either.

If _you_ prefer layouts with a width of 800 pixels, why don't you make
_your_ browser window 800 pixels wide?

 

[Travis Newbury]

If _you_ prefer layouts with a width of 800 pixels, why don't you make
_your_ browser window 800 pixels wide?

Because it is my browser and I don't want to.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Because it is my browser and I don't want to.

Then why do you want Web pages to be of a fixed width? Why in the heck
would you want a wider-than-you-actually-want browser window?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Then why do you want Web pages to be of a fixed width? Why in the heck
would you want a wider-than-you-actually-want browser window?

Because I prefer it that way. Just as you (obviously) don't

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Because I prefer it that way. Just as you (obviously) don't

Mind explaining why you want entirely useless wasted space, or is your
preference entirely irrational?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Mind explaining why you want entirely useless wasted space, or is your
preference entirely irrational?

Having multiple windows/appliations open while surfing seems a bit
distracting to me. I like to concentrate on the task at hand.

Even more important is the fact that it is more pleasing to me that
way. It is alright for me to make browsing pleasing to me isn't it?

 

[Els]

Having multiple windows/appliations open while surfing seems a bit
distracting to me. I like to concentrate on the task at hand.

Even more important is the fact that it is more pleasing to me that
way. It is alright for me to make browsing pleasing to me isn't it?

Just a tip: have a user stylesheet with
html,body{max-width:1024px;margin:auto;} - that way you can have a
fixed width look at a flexible design in a maximised window

 

[Travis Newbury]

it?
Just a tip: have a user stylesheet with
html,body{max-width:1024px;margin:auto;} - that way you can have a
fixed width look at a flexible design in a maximised window

Good tip for looking at [IMHO crappy] flexible designs.

 

[Els]

it?
Just a tip: have a user stylesheet with
html,body{max-width:1024px;margin:auto;} - that way you can have a
fixed width look at a flexible design in a maximised window

Good tip for looking at [IMHO crappy] flexible designs.

That's what I meant
(except for the crappy bit :\ )

 

[Travis Newbury]

Good tip for looking at [IMHO crappy] flexible designs.

That's what I meant
(except for the crappy bit :\ )

Your tip is a good one. I think flexible or fixed width is just a
personal like or dislike. For what ever reason, I happen to like fixed
width better, others think it stinks. I don't think there is a real
accessibility issue either way. Yea someone (in both cases) might have
to scroll, or change their prefered window size, but hell, if something
that insignificant causes someone so much pain that they whine about
it, then I can only ask them the question, "does your pussy hurt
too..."

(Appoligies to all women for that obviously sexist comment...)

 

[kchayka]

So you "prefer" sites that don't do that. Interesting how there are so
many different preferences among web users.

Does this mean you think some people *like it* when the focus is
automatically put somewhere they don't want to be? Masochists, maybe.

 

[kchayka]

I think flexible or fixed width is just a
personal like or dislike. For what ever reason, I happen to like fixed
width better, others think it stinks. I don't think there is a real
accessibility issue either way.

Accessibility is not the issue, usability is. Fixed-width layouts are
inherently less usable than flexible designs simply because they do not
adapt (well) to the visitor's browsing environment. In a worst-case
scenerio, they can become unusable altogether.

Why don't you get this?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Accessibility is not the issue, usability is. Fixed-width layouts are
inherently less usable than flexible designs simply because they do not
adapt (well) to the visitor's browsing environment. In a worst-case
scenerio, they can become unusable altogether.

Oh horseshit.

Why don't you get this?

Why don't you get it that not everyone agrees with that.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Does this mean you think some people *like it* when the focus is
automatically put somewhere they don't want to be? Masochists, maybe.

You are making the assumption that everyone thinks it should not be
there. When I go to a page that requires input I like the focus to be
in the right field so I can just start typing.

 

[kchayka]

Oh horseshit.

It's not, but no matter. I already know you're pretty clueless on this
count and you don't *want* to become enlightened.

Just don't throw accessibility into the mix when it's not warranted. If
you don't know the difference between accessibility and usability, then
you should go find out before you bring it up again.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Just don't throw accessibility into the mix when it's not warranted. If
you don't know the difference between accessibility and usability, then
you should go find out before you bring it up again.

In my post I was commenting that there is no ACCESSIBILITY issues
between the two design types. And there ISN'T. YOU mentioned usability
because you don't like fixed with. But since you bring it up there are
an equal number of usability issues with fixed with and fluid. Which
has more depends on which you prefer, and how you use your browser..

So if you want to comment on something I said, make sure it is indeed
something I said.

 

[dorayme]

: Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?:

Yes, the site looks fine by me and no doubt also for those who arrive there
looking for shoes.

Just a further thought about this site (the shoe one). Some things are done
well enough to merit the following rule of respect: serious criticism (like
"it's too crowded" or "my eye does not know where to focus" should not be
taken too seriously unless it is clear what an alternative design that
addresses these criticisms would look like and which do not raise additional
disadvantages. This is not the point that it is beyond criticism.

Just think what the maker of this site had to cope with, the info he or she
or they organised. There is a great deal of order and intelligence in it.
Sure, nothing is perfect. But this is so competent an effort that I at least
want to say: think hard of a whole alternative that copes with all the
problems the designer faced. In this case, individual criticism which would
require quite a rewrite, while intelligent enough, are too "easy" to make.

dorayme

 

[Mark Parnell]

You are making the assumption that everyone thinks it should not be
there. When I go to a page that requires input I like the focus to be
in the right field so I can just start typing.

I hardly think that a search box "requires" input. If that's the first
thing they expect every visitor to the site to use, the site structure
needs rethinking (unless they are a search engine, of course).

 

[Travis Newbury]

I hardly think that a search box "requires" input. If that's the first
thing they expect every visitor to the site to use, the site structure
needs rethinking (unless they are a search engine, of course).

Well to each their own, I don't think it is a page killer. I guess I am
just easier going than most around here