Optimal Page Width?

[Neal]

I have a feeling he was joking. At least I hope he was.

One could make it clearer that one is joking, eh? Still, I don't get any
joking on a reread...

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Lay out the text any way yee want.

I hear thee.

Then, when yee import the GIF, select custom size, and there yee will have the option
to make it 100% of the screen width. (and 100% of the height) regardless
of how large the user's browser window is.

Yes, and wee all know how well browsers scale images. Can ye say
"pixelated"? Thou thoughtest so.

 

[WebcastMaker]

Yes, and wee all know how well browsers scale images. Can ye say
"pixelated"? Thou thoughtest so.

I vote this into the funniest replies this week. Not the content I agree
with that, but the presentation.

 

[Day Brown]

I hear thee.




Yes, and wee all know how well browsers scale images. Can ye say
"pixelated"? Thou thoughtest so.

Hey look. Its just text right? But he wants to control it so it dont run
all the way across past the screen edge. What other choice does he have?

If, as suggested 960 pixels is a reasonable minimum number for most
browser windows, its still half again more than the original 640 std
VGA, and I remember reading that all right. If yer text uses the default
IBM font, it'll prolly be more readable, cause the IBM boys sweated some
over the design of something to be seen on this screen rather than ink
on white paper.

It looks to me like a glaring ommission in functionality of the html
format not to be able to shrink or expand text to fit whatever the
browser window leaves. I dont havta defend the html standard, just make
do as well as I can with it. And if yee have some other way of fitting
text on the screen, I'd appreciate the clue.

It is kinda odd when yee think about it, that rite now, the words of
this message are all scrunched over here on the left side of the screen
by Moozilla firebird. I still have DOS software that would let yee see
text on the left side of the page while yee could compose comments on
the right, and that with plain vanilla VGA text mode.

as to the format, double ee is easier to type than ou in combination
with the initial y. I found it convenient too in doing string searches
for my own comments. People love to throw yer own words back at yee.

 

[Neal]

Hey look. Its just text right?

I can't read any further. Dude, the text is the #1 way we deliver content.
Content is king, so the usability of the text is the top priority in any
decent web design.

 

[Sam Hughes]

Hey look. Its just text right? But he wants to control it so it dont
run all the way across past the screen edge. What other choice does he
have?

He can stop wanting that, obviously. Making the text size resize to
unreadability is not an option, unless you have a sadistic pleasure in
discriminating against people with disabilities.

If, as suggested 960 pixels is a reasonable minimum number for most
browser windows,

That is rather reasonable, considering that a 960-pixel viewing area is
something around 32 pixels high by 30 pixels wide, typically. Unless you
are referring to units of length, for which 960 pixels is a totally
unreasonable minimum.

It looks to me like a glaring ommission in functionality of the html
format not to be able to shrink or expand text to fit whatever the
browser window leaves.

HTML is by nature not a presentational language.

I dont havta defend the html standard, just
make do as well as I can with it. And if yee have some other way of
fitting text on the screen, I'd appreciate the clue.

Demonstration!:

<p>See text run. Run text, run! Jane sees text run. See text wrap. Wrap
text, wrap! Jane sees text wrap.</p>

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Hey look. Its just text right? But he wants to control it so it dont run
all the way across past the screen edge.

Um. Last time I checked, <p> did an admirable job of keeping text within
the width of the canvas. Really, it's difficult to make text run off the
edge of the screen unless you *try* to make it.

What other choice does he have?
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

It looks to me like a glaring ommission in functionality of the html
format not to be able to shrink or expand text to fit whatever the
browser window leaves.

If I have a tall, narrow browser window, you can safely bet that I don't
want tall, narrow characters. I want the page to wrap nicely and ease
itself into the available space.

as to the format, double ee is easier to type than ou in combination
with the initial y.

Kind of a false efficiency. For the many people who will be reading your
posts for years and years to come, how much cumulative time do you think
their minds will spend trying to adjust to your personal rules of
English? Should we all follow suite? Will that ultimately help people to
communicate better?

 

[Day Brown]

Kind of a false efficiency. For the many people who will be reading your
posts for years and years to come, how much cumulative time do you think
their minds will spend trying to adjust to your personal rules of
English? Should we all follow suite? Will that ultimately help people to
communicate better?

LOL. The postings are already full of jargon and novel usage. Yee dont havta
read me, or any of it. However, there are still a few billion on this
planet that have not yet become proficient. One of the things we could
do for them is improve the consistency.
1st person singlular: me
1st person plural: we
2nd person singlular yee
2nd person plural thee
3rd person singlular he, she, zie
3rd person plural men, women, they.
1st person possessive my
2nd person posessive yer
3rd person posessive their
More consistency mite be yer=yy, and their=thy

I've seen proposals for the verbs too. Proto-Indo-European, Sanskrit,
and Tocharian, all have more, more explicit verbs. They used 'was', but
another form for 'was which is no more', another for 'was which still
is', 'was which will continue to be', and another class which includes
ambiguity. 'mite of been', 'mite still be', and various combinations of
what mite, with what is, or will be. Seems rather picky till yee
consider that the phrase 'It depends on what the meaning of is, is.'
would not have worked. They always knew what they were talking about.

Likewise, I am one of those looking to improve the content on this
screen as text. I may be odd; I got a comp sci minor in 1971, and have
been using the CLI a damn long time. The reference to Poe is indicative,
that there are still luddites who want more text content, even at the
expense of graphics, because they place more value in the mind's eye.

If I design a piece of art that takes up the entire screen, leaving no
room for the GUI interface, people mite think it strange until they
realize that this is what full motion video computer games do. If I try
to do this for the avid reader, the gamers dont see why I bother. But
there is also a purely functional aspect in replacing those gowdawful
..PDF user manuals with something that split the screen vertically, so
yee could scroll one side against the other, or use both columns to see
both facing pages of what would be hardcopy.

Ever since the codex was invented, authors have made reference to the
'facing page'. But I aint seen any way to use HTML to make a facing
page. I cant control the number of lines on the screen, so I dont know
where the text should flow to the top of the right hand page.

Yee see the problem all the time when posters respond to a paragaraph,
but then further down its obvious that the point was already dealt with,
making them look even more like retards. That would happen less often if
the rants had two columns and thinner toolbars at the top. I have the
dos tools to display an ASCII text in two 46 char wide columns and 60
lines, with only the 60th line for a toolbar. Clearly, if yee have 99%
of the screen area, yee can maximize the size, and therefore the
readability, of the text.

Is there an HTML command to hide all the GUI menus, leaving the entire
screen to display the webmaster's work? Java? The reason that BBS ANSI
logon screens were so cute was that the sysop had 100% of the screen at
his disposal. No spam, no popups, no banners, no other schitt. Everyone
that logged on saw exactly the same image, usually on a 12-13" screen.
I see the screens are getting larger, so I can see that smaller fonts
mite become more common, so I cant advocate 960 pixels or whatever; its
a moving target.

People tell me about 'content', which would certainly be a priority for
those who are being paid to create screens that represent the economic
interests. But I dont have that problem; I'm thinking more in terms of
the artist wanting to use this screen as zie would a presenter, but
making the presentation available online.

So far, the only way I see to do that, is to put a PC online as a BBS,
let people logon and download the terminal communications software, and
then logon again to view the screens as the artist intended, with no GUI
interference possible. And again, he can completely eliminate sabotage
software and intrusive entrepeneurial display interruptions. Would yee
want IM if yee were in the middle of a challenging video game? Why would
anyone who wants to take on Aristotle? We seem to have some value
disagreements on what 'content' is.

 

[Toby Inkster]

2nd person singlular yee
2nd person plural thee

Should be the other way around:
2nd person singular subject: thou
2nd person singular object: thee
2nd person plural subject: you
2nd person plural object: ye

2nd person posessive yer

2nd person singular possessive: thy/thine
2nd person plural possessive: your/yours

If thou insist on using archaic English then please make an effort to get
thy grammar correct.

The reason that people have stopped using the singular "thou" form is that
(as with French, German et al.) the plural "you" form may be used
referring to the singular to convey respect. The English, being thoroughly
respectful people thus dropped the more familiar "thou" in favour of "you".

q.v.:
http://www.google.com/[email protected]

 

[Day Brown]

I dont have a dog in which way grammer should work; I'm just
experimenting, just as folks try new things with the html, which results
in a pelthora of functionality which works with some browsers, dont with
others. In both cases, it is confusing.

Folks trying to learn English are confused by the erratic spelling, but
I thot the simplifications seen in email were headed in the rite
direction. Whatever the relationship between thou and yee are in archaic
english, more to the point would be how similar either is to most of the
other Indo European languages. Which I guess is where the propsed use of
'zie' comes from, to designate a sentient being without reference to
sex. Beats the hell out of he/she in the postings.

"It depends on what the meaning of is, is." is another clue that verb
usage could be more explicit. Then too, we have the problem this thread
started with, of how to present text in a more readable format. The
development seen here and elsewhere has to do with multimedia, which is
ok with me, if that's what most folks want. But there remains that small
portion interested in the context of text and the communication of
ideas, which even tho are but a tiny part of the audience, nevertheless,
still totals in the millions on a global scale.

 

[Neal]

I dont have a dog in which way grammer should work; I'm just
experimenting,

Point still is that non-native speakers won't have a clue what you're
saying.

 

[Daniel R. Tobias]

Should be the other way around:
2nd person singular subject: thou
2nd person singular object: thee
2nd person plural subject: you
2nd person plural object: ye

Actually, "you" was an object and "ye" a subject, as inconsistent as
this may seem (language isn't always logical).

More info:
http://dan.tobias.name/frivolity/archaic-grammar.html