Type sizs on Mac and PC

[Mark Parnell]

vertical, yes. horizontal are a must not use.

Where possible, of course. So what happens to your site that is 800px
wide when someone visits with their available browser canvas (note: not
screen resolution, or even browser width) less than 800px? They get a
horizontal scrollbar. Hence the use of fluid designs.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Prey tell me what's so unfriendly about this?
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/linux-shot2

Easy peasy to use.

I don't know what that link is but it tried to download a file.

The Linux desktop is nowhere near as friendly. Plus there are plethora of
shells, none of which do as much as the Windows shell - yes I know that
GDI+ really sucks, but it's a standard of sorts and it works mostly, it's
fast enough and pretty flexible without having to have ANY tech knowledge.
Linux lacks so many drivers and a lot of the basic software that the
*average* user needs.

 

[Dylan Parry]

The Linux desktop is nowhere near as friendly. Plus there are plethora
of shells, none of which do as much as the Windows shell - yes I know
that GDI+ really sucks, but it's a standard of sorts and it works
mostly, it's fast enough and pretty flexible without having to have ANY
tech knowledge. Linux lacks so many drivers and a lot of the basic
software that the *average* user needs.

You've never used Linux have you?

 

[Mark Parnell]

okay, bad example. how about the TITLE attribute?

If the information is so important that it matters if someone can't read
it, then it should be in the visible copy on the page. If it isn't that
important - it is just an optional extra bit of information, then it
doesn't really matter in the first place.

The tooltip font can be set in the system display settings anyway.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

A site doesn't stop working when someone uses higher resolution, so what
does it matter?

When I have a *browser window size* much larger than a fixed-width site,
I get annoyed by the large blank spaces. I have my browser window that
big because I want to use it, not waste it.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I don't know what that link is but it tried to download a file.

So you don't know how to view an image in Windows? And Windows is easy?

The Linux desktop is nowhere near as friendly.

In 1999, perhaps it wasn't. It is now. When did you last use it?

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

It is limited. By the size of the screen.

Yes, the web has its own limitations. That doesn't mean we should limit
it in the same way as some other medium is limited.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Where possible, of course. So what happens to your site that is 800px
wide when someone visits with their available browser canvas (note: not
screen resolution, or even browser width) less than 800px? They get a
horizontal scrollbar. Hence the use of fluid designs.

I would hope they are not so stupid that they dont know how to make their
window bigger?

What if the user has their browser open a default 300 x 300? Should you
design it so that your site fits inside that too?

 

[Mark Parnell]

I would hope they are not so stupid that they dont know how to make their
window bigger?

Why should they make their window bigger when they already have it set
to the size they want?

What if the user has their browser open a default 300 x 300? Should you
design it so that your site fits inside that too?

Where possible, yes.

 

[SpaceGirl]

You've never used Linux have you?

Not seriously. But I constantly see inforums about drivers not being around
for X or Y. I'd also be worried about lack of software as a user - I'm aware
of programs like Open Office and GIMP, but do they offer the same tools and
flexibility as Office 2003 or PhotoShop CS? Perhaps they do. Do they offer
the same inter-program compatibility? I dont know, maybe again. If something
goes wrong in the subsystem, can it be fixed easily? If I want to video edit
on my MPEG card, will it work? Can I play all my games on it? What about my
graphics tablet. Will that work? What about my THX soundcard, and DVD
playback. I know that most of these things are sort of supported in Linux,
but is it reliable enough? There are too many questions surrounding
Linux. While a technicle person like myself could get to grips with it
fairly quickly, what about the average user?

 

[SpaceGirl]

Yes, the web has its own limitations. That doesn't mean we should limit
it in the same way as some other medium is limited.

Nobody is setting limits. My point was that some designs are suited for
fixed dimensions, while others aren't. Look at the BBC web site... it's
about the best out there for accessibility and cross-browser support. It's
also fixed at around 730 pixels wide. The only limits being set here are by
people like yourself saying we shouldn't design for fixed resolutions. Why
limit yourself like that?

 

[SpaceGirl]

Why should they make their window bigger when they already have it set
to the size they want?


Where possible, yes.

try that with the w3c site and see what happens. enjoy the scrolling.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

None of them have the widely support "shell" that Windows have, the
applications to run on it, the features that Windows offered. I'm sure they
could given the money that MS pours into Windows, but sadly this isn't the
case.

If all you'll settle for is the exact shell used by Windows, you'll be
using Windows forever (and what about Longhorn when the shell may be
replaced?). As for applications, some very nice replacments are
available. And what features are you talking about?

 

[William Tasso]

...
What if the user has their browser open a default 300 x 300? Should
you design it so that your site fits inside that too?

yep - well more specifically: it's up to you but it is a good design goal.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Yes, but by the time significant people have moved to that sort of
resolution, surely the site will have been updated too? These things don't
happen over night you know. Any good web site is regularly updated and
improved anyway.

Why not just get it right the first time? A good web site will
(probably, I can't predict the future) work in 5 years with no modification.

 

[SpaceGirl]

So you don't know how to view an image in Windows? And Windows is easy?


In 1999, perhaps it wasn't. It is now. When did you last use it?

Last year, but feel free to educate me. Feeling playful today

 

[SpaceGirl]

Why not just get it right the first time? A good web site will
(probably, I can't predict the future) work in 5 years with no

modification.


I would hope *not*. The technology will have changed so much in TWO years
why deisgn for 5 years away?

 

[William Tasso]

I meant, the same size relative to the other elements. I believe the
OP was complaining about how the larger font size messed up the
tables,

what tables? using tables for layout is sooo last century. if it is really
a table of related items, then ....

and if your tables are a pixel size and your font is a pixel
size,

which they shouldn't be - use a unit that works on the web, better still
don't use anything at all and let it flow.

then it won't.

quite

 

[SpaceGirl]

yep - well more specifically: it's up to you but it is a good design goal.

rrrrright. feel free to post links to ANY commercial sites that manage this

 

[Mark Parnell]

try that with the w3c site and see what happens. enjoy the scrolling.

The W3C site isn't great (and yes, there's a horizontal scrollbar at
300px wide), but it is better than most.

In many cases w3c.org is not a good example of what to do.