Re: Eureka! How to create or get rid of scrollbars in Netscape

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Ben, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. Ben

    Ben Guest

    My Liege wrote:
    > I know I get upset when I bookmark a page only to come back and find I
    > have to press the button exposing the site menu again.


    What about when you want to send the url to someone else - how will they
    know what to click on?

    regards,
    Ben


    --
    BTW. I can be contacted at Username:newsgroup4.replies.benaltw
    Domain:xoxy.net
     
    Ben, Jul 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ben

    My Liege Guest

    Ben <> wrote in news:bg8hka$lesdt$-
    berlin.de:

    > My Liege wrote:
    >> I know I get upset when I bookmark a page only to come back and find I
    >> have to press the button exposing the site menu again.

    >
    > What about when you want to send the url to someone else - how will they
    > know what to click on?
    >
    > regards,
    > Ben
    >
    >


    Why would someone only want to send the "news" links, or the "references"
    links, etc.? I guess if the person recieving the link is into men's rights,
    they'll click on the button or buttons that seems to appeal to them most.
     
    My Liege, Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ben

    Sam Hughes Guest

    My Liege <> wrote in
    news:Xns93C8AFEEB8919HombreVIIIyahoocom@204.127.199.17:

    > Ben <> wrote in news:bg8hka$lesdt$-
    > berlin.de:
    >
    >> My Liege wrote:
    >>> I know I get upset when I bookmark a page only to come back and find
    >>> I have to press the button exposing the site menu again.

    >>
    >> What about when you want to send the url to someone else - how will
    >> they know what to click on?
    >>
    >> regards,
    >> Ben
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Why would someone only want to send the "news" links, or the
    > "references" links, etc.? I guess if the person recieving the link is
    > into men's rights, they'll click on the button or buttons that seems
    > to appeal to them most.


    Did it ever occur to you that they might want to let a friend of theirs
    see specific information from your site? I ask that because the answer
    is obvious -- no.

    Your statement is on the level with somebody rationalizing software that
    automatically downloads updates itself. "Why would anybody _not_ want an
    update to our software on their computer?" The answer to that is this:
    The user wants to have control over how they use their computers. Your
    website has the problem of it taking away that control. The user wants
    to view your web site in a weird viewing environment that you didn't plan
    for? Well, your attitude is "tough shit."

    The idea that getting rid of the scrollbar on a web site so that it looks
    exactly the way you want it a lot of the time is more important than
    creating a source of information that visitors can use easily and use
    well is preposterous.

    There is a reason that Google is the number one search engine, and it is
    not from hiding scrollbars or presenting content how the company wants to
    see it. It is number one because it makes _using_ it as easy as
    possible. Take, for example, Google Groups. When viewing a thread, you
    do not get one frame forced to a certain width. Instead, the frame is
    resizable. And you can remove the frame. You can remove the frame with
    the Google Image Search, too.

    What you happen to be doing is creating a resource that is available on
    the World Wide Web. If you make yours for the purpose of being "art,"
    then that's fine. However, visitors like web sites to be Web sites.
    They also like their web sites to work. I have looked at yours, and it
    does not work.
     
    Sam Hughes, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Ben

    My Liege Guest

    Sam Hughes <> wrote in
    news:Xns93C8E54E6B078samreid@130.133.1.4:

    > My Liege <> wrote in
    > news:Xns93C8AFEEB8919HombreVIIIyahoocom@204.127.199.17:
    >
    >> Ben <> wrote in news:bg8hka$lesdt$-
    >> berlin.de:
    >>
    >>> My Liege wrote:
    >>>> I know I get upset when I bookmark a page only to come back and
    >>>> find I have to press the button exposing the site menu again.
    >>>
    >>> What about when you want to send the url to someone else - how will
    >>> they know what to click on?
    >>>
    >>> regards,
    >>> Ben
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Why would someone only want to send the "news" links, or the
    >> "references" links, etc.? I guess if the person recieving the link is
    >> into men's rights, they'll click on the button or buttons that seems
    >> to appeal to them most.

    >
    > Did it ever occur to you that they might want to let a friend of
    > theirs see specific information from your site? I ask that because
    > the answer is obvious -- no.



    Well, since you're about the third person to mention it, yes in fact it
    has occured to me. The information isn't hard to get to, and I've
    described the trade-off I made several times. User clicks one more button
    if an extremely unlikely situation comes up -- user has to click back
    through a bunch of pages to get where they were before coming to the
    links page and put up with a new page download each set of links. The
    first option is the better one.


    >
    > Your statement is on the level with somebody rationalizing software
    > that automatically downloads updates itself. "Why would anybody _not_
    > want an update to our software on their computer?"



    Your analogy lacks key points of similarity. Namely, I'm not installing
    anything on anyone's computer and would never consider doing it against
    their will, and I'm really not making the information hard to access.


    > The answer to that
    > is this: The user wants to have control over how they use their
    > computers. Your website has the problem of it taking away that
    > control.



    Not really, my site causes the mozilla browser to render the page in the
    *same* way it normally does by default. The content does not actually
    extend beyond the page, but gecko browsers can't figure that out.


    > The user wants to view your web site in a weird viewing
    > environment that you didn't plan for? Well, your attitude is "tough
    > shit."



    Not really. I'm trying to improve its usability. The "tough shit"
    attitude is reserved for people who offered unsolicited pretentiously
    phrased criticism unrelated to the intended topic of the thread and won't
    even put together a decent argument about it.


    >
    > The idea that getting rid of the scrollbar on a web site so that it
    > looks exactly the way you want it a lot of the time is more important
    > than creating a source of information that visitors can use easily and
    > use well is preposterous.



    But the scrollbar *hinders* the page being used well and used easily. Try
    it without the frame in mozilla to see for yourself.
    http://www.mfnbc.com/links/inframe.htm#top

    The first thing that springs to mind is "That scrollbar shouldn't be
    there".


    >
    > There is a reason that Google is the number one search engine,



    Because there's lots of google search boxes all over the web? Last I
    checked Yahoo and MSN were winning the Search Engine wars.


    > and it
    > is not from hiding scrollbars or presenting content how the company
    > wants to see it. It is number one because it makes _using_ it as easy
    > as possible. Take, for example, Google Groups. When viewing a
    > thread, you do not get one frame forced to a certain width. Instead,
    > the frame is resizable. And you can remove the frame. You can remove
    > the frame with the Google Image Search, too.



    Google has a good site, I'll give 'em that.


    >
    > What you happen to be doing is creating a resource that is available
    > on the World Wide Web. If you make yours for the purpose of being
    > "art," then that's fine. However, visitors like web sites to be Web
    > sites.



    Its both.


    > They also like their web sites to work. I have looked at
    > yours, and it does not work.



    For the overwhelming majority, my site works just fine. Yes, there are
    things that need to be improved, and I am working on learning how to do
    that. No, that isn't on topic for this thread.
     
    My Liege, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. Ben

    Steve Pugh Guest

    My Liege <> wrote:

    >Not really, my site causes the mozilla browser to render the page in the
    >*same* way it normally does by default. The content does not actually
    >extend beyond the page, but gecko browsers can't figure that out.


    You're wrong and Gecko is right.

    Your page is actually some 800 pixels tall. But because you don't
    understand how position: relative works you can't see this.

    Here's a hint. When you move something by assigning position:
    relative; the space that the element took up in the original document
    is not eliminated.

    <div style="height: 100px;"></div>
    <div style="position: realative; top: -100px; height: 100px"></div>
    <div style="position: realative; top: -200px; height: 100px"></div>
    <div style="position: realative; top: -300px; height: 100px"></div>
    <div style="position: realative; top: -400px; height: 100px"></div>

    The above is still 500px tall not 100px, despite the fact that all
    five divs are positioned on top of each other.

    >Not really. I'm trying to improve its usability.


    First rule os web site usability: user spend 99% of their time on
    other sites. So don't make your site different to use than all the
    other sites out there.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. Ben

    My Liege Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote in
    news::

    > My Liege <> wrote:
    >
    >>Not really, my site causes the mozilla browser to render the page in

    the
    >>*same* way it normally does by default. The content does not actually
    >>extend beyond the page, but gecko browsers can't figure that out.

    >
    > You're wrong and Gecko is right.



    No, the content didn't extend beyond the page. You saw it, you scrolled,
    there was nothing down there.


    >
    > Your page is actually some 800 pixels tall. But because you don't
    > understand how position: relative works you can't see this.



    In the gecko browser's mind it might have been that tall, but to anyone
    looking at the content it really was not beyond the page.


    >
    > Here's a hint. When you move something by assigning position:
    > relative; the space that the element took up in the original document
    > is not eliminated.
    >
    > <div style="height: 100px;"></div>
    > <div style="position: realative; top: -100px; height: 100px"></div>
    > <div style="position: realative; top: -200px; height: 100px"></div>
    > <div style="position: realative; top: -300px; height: 100px"></div>
    > <div style="position: realative; top: -400px; height: 100px"></div>
    >
    > The above is still 500px tall not 100px, despite the fact that all
    > five divs are positioned on top of each other.



    Thanks.


    >
    >>Not really. I'm trying to improve its usability.

    >
    > First rule os web site usability: user spend 99% of their time on
    > other sites. So don't make your site different to use than all the
    > other sites out there.



    Different at all? Should I just cut and paste the code from Google's
    site?

    Obviously there needs to be some differences, but the differences should
    not cause the user to not be able to easily use the site. I don't think
    that's the case with my site.


    >
    > Steve
    >
     
    My Liege, Jul 31, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. My Liege
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    378
    Steve Pugh
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. rf
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    346
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  3. Steve Pugh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    394
    Steve Pugh
    Aug 1, 2003
  4. Hywel Jenkins
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    406
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  5. EightNineThree
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    393
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page