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

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Steve Pugh, Jul 30, 2003.

  1. Steve Pugh

    Steve Pugh Guest

    My Liege <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >> My Liege <> wrote:
    >>>Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Make your window small enough
    >>>
    >>>and no page is usable.

    >>
    >> Pages with scrollbars are.

    >
    >Not if you make the window small enough.


    If you make it smaller than a single character of text then perhaps.
    But otherwise a well designed and coded page will always work so long
    as the user can scroll to see all the content. Certainly I would not
    expect to encounter problems until the page dimensions were down in
    the low hundreds of pixels.

    Obviously it is better to avoid _horizontal_ scrolling where possible.
    Only content with inherhent width (images, tables with lots of
    columns) should need to scroll horizontrally.

    >>>> Of course the problems with your page start at much larger window
    >>>
    >>>Unfortunate, but a stylistic choice. Any buttons would overlap at some
    >>>point,

    >>
    >> No, they could wrap instead.

    >
    >Can that be done with CSS?


    It can be done with plain HTML. CSS can make it look nicer, of course.

    >...and then when they eventually click on the bookmark they're at the
    >original page with the friendly message "Click any of the above buttons
    >to show links for that category.", along with the words "Men's Rights
    >Links" in the title bar. Then they click the resources button. Where
    >exactly is the harm in all of this?


    The bookmark doesn't take them to where they think it does.
    They have to make two clicks instead of one to reach where they want
    to be.

    >I take it you aren't a big fan of layers.


    Layers the Netscape 4 only element that isn't supported by any other
    browser?
    Or layers the Macromedia buzzword for CSS positioning?

    The first has no place on the modern web. CSS positioning has a place,
    but the stuff extruded by Dreamweaver isn't of a very good standard,
    and in general CSS-P is over used for things that could be better done
    with floats and margins.

    >Those "small amounts of content" don't add any wait time for the page, as
    >they aren't downloaded until you click the buttons.


    No they are downloaded as soon as the .js file containing them is
    downloaded when the page is first loaded.

    >lso, those same
    >"small amounts of content" you were talking about above as seperate pages
    >of information. Which is it?


    Huh? Separate pages containing the small amounts of information.

    >I'll try turning the map into a gif, and depending on the results I might
    >continue to use it or I might sub the small gif I have as background for
    >the rest of the pages.


    The GIF will probably be larger. In this case a more compressed JPEG
    would probably be the best choice. One way to reduce the file size
    whilst adding to the antique feel would be to add a layer of 60%
    opacity orange-brown over the top. I doubt you'll be able to get the
    image much below 80kb no matter what you do.

    >>>I figured I always book the index pages anyway, rather than each
    >>>individual page inside them.

    >>
    >> Wheras other people bookmark the pages they are actually interested
    >> in.

    >
    >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 are you talking about? What button? What site menu?

    Just because there's some site out there that makes the poor users
    press a button before they see any navigation doesn't mean that the
    whole concept of bookmarking is useless.

    If you bookmark a page presumably you want to go back to _that_ page,
    not some other page on the same site. If you want to quickly access
    various pages on the site then bookmark the sitemap or navigation
    page.

    >>>> In Opera the background image starts near the bottom of the page.
    >>>
    >>>Who cares, nobody uses Opera.

    >>
    >> Oh good argument. I use Opera.

    >
    >What makes you think I owe you an argument as to why my page doesn't
    >render in your pet browser?


    You've gone out of your way to remove the scrollbars in as many
    browsers as you can. So why not make the effort to make more important
    aspects of your site work in as many browsers as you can?

    >Instead of acting all high and mighty why
    >don't you do something useful like explain how I might fix it so it does
    >render properly in Opera.


    As you asked so nicely.

    background-position: 0 35; is an invalid style. Make it valid and it
    will work in Opera.

    >You seem to like to give unasked for criticism,
    >how about making some of it constructive?


    Here's some constructive criticism:
    Drop the frame.
    Redesign the page so that it works at all browser window sizes.
    Make sure that the page works when JS is disabled.
    Make sure that your code validates.
    Aim to have the total page weight including images below 50kb.

    If you still have problems after you've done all that then by all
    means come back and ask for more help.

    >> The alt attribute should replace the image. If the logo
    >> tells you the name of the company then the alt attribute should be
    >> alt="name of company" not alt="logo".

    >
    >All of the offsite logos have tags with the name of the site, with the
    >exception of a few I added the other day I forgot to make Alt tags for.


    So are you saying that you're using some program that puts in
    alt="logo" automatically unless you put in something else? Something
    had to put that there.
    There are at least three instances of alt="logo" amongst your links.

    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 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Pugh

    My Liege Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote in
    news::

    > My Liege <> wrote:
    >>Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >>> My Liege <> wrote:
    >>>>Steve Pugh <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Make your window small enough
    >>>>
    >>>>and no page is usable.
    >>>
    >>> Pages with scrollbars are.

    >>
    >>Not if you make the window small enough.

    >
    > If you make it smaller than a single character of text then perhaps.
    > But otherwise a well designed and coded page will always work so long
    > as the user can scroll to see all the content. Certainly I would not
    > expect to encounter problems until the page dimensions were down in
    > the low hundreds of pixels.



    I'll look into making the buttons wrap, but if the choice is between
    getting the page to look how I'd like it to on a large window only versus
    not at all, I'm picking the former.


    >
    > Obviously it is better to avoid _horizontal_ scrolling where possible.
    > Only content with inherhent width (images, tables with lots of
    > columns) should need to scroll horizontrally.
    >
    >>>>> Of course the problems with your page start at much larger window
    >>>>
    >>>>Unfortunate, but a stylistic choice. Any buttons would overlap at
    >>>>some point,
    >>>
    >>> No, they could wrap instead.

    >>
    >>Can that be done with CSS?

    >
    > It can be done with plain HTML. CSS can make it look nicer, of course.
    >
    >>...and then when they eventually click on the bookmark they're at the
    >>original page with the friendly message "Click any of the above
    >>buttons to show links for that category.", along with the words "Men's
    >>Rights Links" in the title bar. Then they click the resources button.
    >>Where exactly is the harm in all of this?

    >
    > The bookmark doesn't take them to where they think it does.
    > They have to make two clicks instead of one to reach where they want
    > to be.



    You do understand you're talking about what is probably a very unlikely
    occurance, (someone wanting to bookmark that page *specifically* with the
    resources or whichever tab open), with a very minor difficulty, (they
    might have to click once more than they expected to). Even in that case,
    they may prefer not having to load a new page with each button they
    press.


    >
    >>I take it you aren't a big fan of layers.

    >
    > Layers the Netscape 4 only element that isn't supported by any other
    > browser?



    Obviously not.


    > Or layers the Macromedia buzzword for CSS positioning?



    Quite a few people refer to CSS z-index positioning with the term layers.

    http://www.echoecho.com/csslayers.htm
    http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/10/index1a_page4.html
    http://css.somepeople.net/?page=zindex
    http://endo.ch/javascript/tutorial_b.html
    http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/8823/layer.html


    >
    > The first has no place on the modern web.



    Duh.


    > CSS positioning has a place,
    > but the stuff extruded by Dreamweaver




    I don't use Dreamweaver.


    > isn't of a very good standard,
    > and in general CSS-P is over used for things that could be better done
    > with floats and margins.
    >
    >>Those "small amounts of content" don't add any wait time for the page,
    >>as they aren't downloaded until you click the buttons.

    >
    > No they are downloaded as soon as the .js file containing them is
    > downloaded when the page is first loaded.



    Hmmm, then why is there a wait time to download the image links when you
    click a button after having finished downloading the site?


    >
    >>lso, those same
    >>"small amounts of content" you were talking about above as seperate
    >>pages of information. Which is it?

    >
    > Huh? Separate pages containing the small amounts of information.
    >
    >>I'll try turning the map into a gif, and depending on the results I
    >>might continue to use it or I might sub the small gif I have as
    >>background for the rest of the pages.

    >
    > The GIF will probably be larger.



    It was.


    > In this case a more compressed JPEG
    > would probably be the best choice. One way to reduce the file size
    > whilst adding to the antique feel would be to add a layer of 60%
    > opacity orange-brown over the top.



    I'll give that a try.


    > I doubt you'll be able to get the
    > image much below 80kb no matter what you do.
    >
    >>>>I figured I always book the index pages anyway, rather than each
    >>>>individual page inside them.
    >>>
    >>> Wheras other people bookmark the pages they are actually interested
    >>> in.

    >>
    >>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 are you talking about? What button? What site menu?



    A hypothetical, but if you've got javascript turned on, you can see an
    example of an open and closeable site menu on my site.


    >
    > Just because there's some site out there that makes the poor users
    > press a button before they see any navigation doesn't mean that the
    > whole concept of bookmarking is useless.



    You guys really need to get some perspective here. We're talking about
    clicking a button.


    >
    > If you bookmark a page presumably you want to go back to _that_ page,
    > not some other page on the same site. If you want to quickly access
    > various pages on the site then bookmark the sitemap or navigation
    > page.



    Again its a trade off. Either my users can't bookmark a seperate page
    with the link button already clicked or they have to download a different
    page for each button which they also have to wade through with the back
    button if they wish to return to the former page. I choose what I as a
    surfer would prefer, and also what I think most visitors to my site would
    prefer, as I think very few of them would give any thought at all as to
    whether the site was bookmarked with the link pre-clicked or not, much
    less care about it. Your argument for the other side seems highly based
    on the fact that that's how you guys in here normally do it.


    >
    >>>>> In Opera the background image starts near the bottom of the page.
    >>>>
    >>>>Who cares, nobody uses Opera.
    >>>
    >>> Oh good argument. I use Opera.

    >>
    >>What makes you think I owe you an argument as to why my page doesn't
    >>render in your pet browser?

    >
    > You've gone out of your way to remove the scrollbars in as many
    > browsers as you can.



    Muhuhahaha! My first step in taking over the world!


    > So why not make the effort to make more important
    > aspects of your site work in as many browsers as you can?



    What makes you think I hadn't planned to? Just because I haven't done it
    yet, when I'm obviously still trying to get the page to render properly
    in Mozilla doesn't mean I have no plans to do it eventually.


    >
    >>Instead of acting all high and mighty why
    >>don't you do something useful like explain how I might fix it so it
    >>does render properly in Opera.

    >
    > As you asked so nicely.



    When you start by being rude and arrogant what do you expect?


    >
    > background-position: 0 35; is an invalid style. Make it valid and it
    > will work in Opera.



    Thank you. That didn't actually explain how to make it work in Opera, but
    I'll be able to do a web search and figure it out from there.


    >
    >>You seem to like to give unasked for criticism,
    >>how about making some of it constructive?

    >
    > Here's some constructive criticism:
    > Drop the frame.
    > Redesign the page so that it works at all browser window sizes.



    Obviously not *all*, but I am looking for ways to make the page work
    better in *more* window sizes. Leaving the scrollbar in Netscape that
    just moves the buttons off the top isn't an acceptable option though.


    > Make sure that the page works when JS is disabled.



    I'm not sure if that's possible. I might have to do a redirect if they've
    got it disabled.


    > Make sure that your code validates.



    Since I mentioned that in the very first post in this thread I don't see
    why you assume I don't know I need to do that.


    > Aim to have the total page weight including images below 50kb.



    Again, not sure if that's possible.


    >
    > If you still have problems after you've done all that then by all
    > means come back and ask for more help.



    But you see, I didn't come here to ask for help in the first place.
    Everything that you mentioned above, with the exception of the
    javascript, I've already considered. The trick I came in here to share
    *is* an attempt to improve browser compatibility. Also, I notice the
    original trick *still* hasn't been shown to have any problems, and
    instead you've all opted to attack other aspects of my site that I was
    already working on anyway or are just plain trivial. I've yet to hear how
    any of you would even know the frame was there without looking at the
    code or the status bar.


    >
    >>> The alt attribute should replace the image. If the logo
    >>> tells you the name of the company then the alt attribute should be
    >>> alt="name of company" not alt="logo".

    >>
    >>All of the offsite logos have tags with the name of the site, with the
    >>exception of a few I added the other day I forgot to make Alt tags
    >>for.

    >
    > So are you saying that you're using some program that puts in
    > alt="logo" automatically unless you put in something else?



    No, I'm saying you're just plain wrong about it. I posted all the code
    used by that page in this thread. Show me where these three alt="logo"
    tags are. Now with images turned off in Opera, I get "Image" which is the
    default when there's no alt tag there 3 times. Perhaps you've configured
    your browser funny, but the alt="logo" simply doesn't exist.


    > Something
    > had to put that there.
    > There are at least three instances of alt="logo" amongst your links.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    My Liege, Jul 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve Pugh

    Steve Pugh Guest

    My Liege <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh <> wrote :
    >> My Liege <> wrote:


    >>>Those "small amounts of content" don't add any wait time for the page,
    >>>as they aren't downloaded until you click the buttons.

    >>
    >> No they are downloaded as soon as the .js file containing them is
    >> downloaded when the page is first loaded.

    >
    >Hmmm, then why is there a wait time to download the image links when you
    >click a button after having finished downloading the site?


    Because the images have to download. The content is in the file
    links.js and, if JS is enabled, is downloaded when the page first
    loads. But as you haven't preloaded the images they're only downloaded
    later.

    >>>Instead of acting all high and mighty why
    >>>don't you do something useful like explain how I might fix it so it
    >>>does render properly in Opera.

    >>
    >> As you asked so nicely.

    >
    >When you start by being rude and arrogant what do you expect?


    I'm sorry are you talking to yourself here? You've been far ruder than
    I have.

    >> background-position: 0 35; is an invalid style. Make it valid and it
    >> will work in Opera.

    >
    >Thank you. That didn't actually explain how to make it work in Opera,


    To anyone who knows even the basics of CSS it's a honking great clue.

    >> Make sure that the page works when JS is disabled.

    >
    >I'm not sure if that's possible.


    Of course it is. Take all the content out of the .js file and put it
    into the main HTML. Now with JS disabled all the content is visible at
    once and the links at the top of the page can simply serve to take the
    user to the specific anchor lower down the page. This is your basic
    page and is what you should have started with.

    Then, and only as an enhancement, add JavaScript to change the style
    properties of the various blocks of content. Instead of using the
    visibility style use the display style so that when you change the
    display to none the hidden content will no longer take up any space on
    the page. Really all you've got here is a trivial variation on the
    old collapsing/expanding menu script.

    > I might have to do a redirect if they've got it disabled.


    Yeah whatever, build multiple versions of the page to make up for the
    fact that you don't know how to build one version that works for
    everyone.

    >But you see, I didn't come here to ask for help in the first place.
    >Everything that you mentioned above, with the exception of the
    >javascript, I've already considered. The trick I came in here to share
    >*is* an attempt to improve browser compatibility.


    No, it's an attempt to work around what you perceive to be a problem
    that's been caused by your attempt to re-invent the wheel and write
    some JavaScript that's already been written better a hundred times.

    >Show me where these three alt="logo" tags are.


    Three out of four of the images in the References section has
    alt="logo" yesterday. You have changed it since then and are now
    claiming that it's always been correct. Do you want me to pull a
    version out of my cache?

    > the alt="logo" simply doesn't exist.


    It did yesterday. Stop pretending otherwise.

    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
    #3
  4. Steve Pugh

    Steve Pugh Guest

    My Liege <> wrote:


    >>>> Make sure that the page works when JS is disabled.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not sure if that's possible.

    >>
    >> Of course it is. Take all the content out of the .js file and put it
    >> into the main HTML.

    >
    >Wasn't it obvious that I meant without redesigning the page?


    The page can look exactly as it does now. No need to redesign it.
    Personally I think your design is ugly, but that's not what we are
    dicsussing. I haven't made any comments on the design just on the
    usability and accessibility problems that the technology you've used
    to implement it have caused.

    >> Now with JS disabled all the content is visible at
    >> once and the links at the top of the page can simply serve to take the
    >> user to the specific anchor lower down the page. This is your basic
    >> page and is what you should have started with.

    >
    >That is actually what I started with, sans the buttons. I thought it was
    >ugly and wanted to make it look nicer. Also, having all the different
    >images load up at the start was slowing download time a lot.


    The small logos from the linked sites should not be more than 3 or 4kb
    in size. If they are then don't use them. Remember you're linking to
    their site, you are doing them a favour, why do them another favour
    and display their logo unless they can provide one that isn't a waste
    of your bandwidth. Fixing the size of your own images, as has already
    been discussed, is a much more pressing need.

    >> Then, and only as an enhancement, add JavaScript to change the style
    >> properties of the various blocks of content.


    >>> I might have to do a redirect if they've got it disabled.

    >>
    >> Yeah whatever, build multiple versions of the page to make up for the
    >> fact that you don't know how to build one version that works for
    >> everyone.

    >
    >I do know how to build one that works for everyone.


    Then why not do so? Ah...

    >Just a list of URLs, no images, background, effects, or personality.


    Hey a Straw Man Argument.
    The page I described above could look exactly like your current one,
    but when JS is disabled would display all the links at once. It would
    still have the images and background (and presumably whatever olde
    worlde personality you were aiming for).

    The background image for the Links 'box' could be done in CSS instead,
    daving bandwidth and allowing it to expand to the size of its
    contents.

    >But that isn't what I'm
    >going for. I want an attractive, fun design that takes advantage of
    >technologies such as javascript to create a highly interactive page.


    Interactive means more than just pressing buttons. Add a search
    functioality so that it presents links in accordance with the user's
    specific topic requirements and it would be interactive.

    But if you want to have this "interactivity" then go ahead and have
    it, as an enhancement on top of a fully working web page.

    Presumably these sites you're linking to are ones you like and want
    other people to visit? By putting the links to them in the HTML rather
    than in the JavaScript you'll improve those sites' ranking in Google.

    > If I need to create a seperate page for the non-JS users


    You don't. Trust me.

    >There's no shame in that
    >regardless of your derision. If I can find a way to do it all in one
    >page, even better.


    Of course you can find a way to do it, you can follow the advice
    that's been given here.

    Just the same as you have done with regards to the visibility/display
    issue, the Opera background issue and the alt attrbute issue.

    For someone who spent so much time being so rude to the people here
    and who he came here just to show off his frames rather than to ask a
    question you've sure learnt a lot.

    >YHBT


    Ah not seen that in a while. Yes, you are a troll and a liar and a
    hypocrite. And I think anyone reading this thread can see that.

    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, Aug 1, 2003
    #4
    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:
    365
    Steve Pugh
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. rf
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    332
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  3. Ben
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    446
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
  4. Hywel Jenkins
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    399
    My Liege
    Jul 30, 2003
  5. EightNineThree
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    379
    My Liege
    Jul 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page