"Usability"

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Andrew Cameron, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. I've written some sites in my time. I've written good sites, and I've
    written very very bad sites. I have never, in the 8 years I'd had HTML as a
    hobby, written a site as unreadable and badly-designed as "usability guru"
    Jakob Nielsen's useit.com.

    He makes some very good points in his articles, and they make a good read,
    but I have seriously resorted to copying and pasting the text into Notepad
    to prevent my eyes from bleeding. His site may indeed be one of the most
    Lynx-friendly on the web, or very good with speech browsers, but it is the
    most ugly, too. A big problem is his 100% width... oh, look, TABLE which
    means that we get line lengths of a tiresome nature. This table "layout"
    also brings us the navbar, which doesn't let us really navigate anywhere.

    No page has the same links as another page - this makes the site confusing.
    As I mentioned above, he uses tables for layout, which is less than
    semantic. Another case of "do as I say...", I guess.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Jan 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <snip>
    > A big problem is his 100%
    > width... oh, look, TABLE which means that we get line lengths of a
    > tiresome nature.

    <snip>

    Good point,.. and my site also resizes to 100% no matter the width of the
    browser.

    Is there a way to set a maximum width without setting a minimum?

    For example. I would like to be able to design my site so that it is not
    wider than 800 but not force it to be 800. That way visitors with browsers
    set to 600 width or other width (because they have not set the window to
    full screen, or they are using webtv or some other browser with smaller
    viewable area) do not have to scroll horizontally.

    Is there such a possibility with HTML/CSS?

    --
    Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
    Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
    Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
    Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers
     
    Edward Alfert, Jan 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Cameron

    kayodeok Guest

    "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in
    news:bt1svn$2fs34$-berlin.de:

    > I've written some sites in my time. I've written good sites,
    > and I've written very very bad sites. I have never, in the 8
    > years I'd had HTML as a hobby, written a site as unreadable and
    > badly-designed as "usability guru" Jakob Nielsen's useit.com.


    There was a contest to redesign Jakob's site; it was
    called reuseit.

    Hopefully Jakob will be redesigning his site soon...

    Here's the URL for the contest:
    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/

    And here's the list of the first ten winners:

    http://www.mikepick.com/neilsen/
    http://www.enginegraphics.net/portfolio/reuseit/
    http://www.reh3.com/test/reUse/
    http://www.vizi.nl/reuseit/
    http://www.projetsurbain.com/projets/reuseit/iconic/
    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/entries/redux_reuseit_minimal_jakob/
    http://www.didenhover.org/design/useit/
    http://www.juleepearson.com/reuseit/
    http://www.technetworks.co.uk/useitnice/index.html
    http://www.ogston.com/reuseit/useitcleaned.html

    My Favorite is Minimal Jakob:
    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/entries/redux_reuseit_minimal_jakob/

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.uk/favorites/webdesign.htm
     
    kayodeok, Jan 1, 2004
    #3
  4. kayodeok wrote:
    > "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in
    > news:bt1svn$2fs34$-berlin.de:
    >
    >> I've written some sites in my time. I've written good sites,
    >> and I've written very very bad sites. I have never, in the 8
    >> years I'd had HTML as a hobby, written a site as unreadable and
    >> badly-designed as "usability guru" Jakob Nielsen's useit.com.

    >
    > There was a contest to redesign Jakob's site; it was
    > called reuseit.
    >
    > Hopefully Jakob will be redesigning his site soon...


    Hopefully...

    > Here's the URL for the contest:
    > http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/


    Thanks for the link - most interesting.

    > My Favorite is Minimal Jakob:
    >

    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/entries/redux_reuseit_minimal_jakob/

    Argh! He's always there! He's watching me read his site! Scary stuff.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Jan 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Edward Alfert wrote:

    > Is there a way to set a maximum width without setting a minimum?


    The CSS max-width property

    > For example. I would like to be able to design my site so that it is not
    > wider than 800 but not force it to be 800.


    800 what? Pixels? That's not a very good choice of unit. Try something
    relating to the font size, such as em - that way users get sensible line
    lengths whatever size font they like to use.

    --
    David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, Jan 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Andrew Cameron

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote:

    >I've written some sites in my time. I've written good sites, and I've
    >written very very bad sites. I have never, in the 8 years I'd had HTML as a
    >hobby, written a site as unreadable and badly-designed as "usability guru"
    >Jakob Nielsen's useit.com.


    I agree that it's a very plain site and it makes some design errors,
    but the problems you highlight below are not amongst them.

    It's also seems to me that his web site is rather low on Nielsen's
    list of priorities at the moment. Reading his column over the past few
    years has seen fewer and fewer interesting articles and more plugs for
    reports to be purchased.
    The design and coding of the site haven't changed in a long time,
    which is both good and bad for various reasons. Indeed people have
    even been inspired to redesign the bloomin' thing for him:
    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/

    >He makes some very good points in his articles, and they make a good read,
    >but I have seriously resorted to copying and pasting the text into Notepad
    >to prevent my eyes from bleeding.
    >A big problem is his 100% width... oh, look, TABLE which


    Um, no. Apart from the home page, the table only contains the navbar
    across the top. The content of the page is not contained inside a
    table at all.

    >means that we get line lengths of a tiresome nature.


    That's your fault not his.

    If you have your browser window set to a certain size then you should
    expect sites to fill that width.

    I find it very hard to believe that cutting and pasting text into
    Notepad is a better option than resizing your browser window, or if
    you like having whitespace down the side of every page for some
    reason, using a user stylesheet to restrict the width of the content.

    In a decent browser (sorry not IE) a user stylesheet with rules such
    as
    body>p {max-width: 40em;}
    will constrain the width of this and many other single column,
    no-frills, sites without interfering in the display of more 'designed'
    sites. (Add body>h1, body>ul, etc. to suit).

    >No page has the same links as another page - this makes the site confusing.


    I don't find that at all. Every page except the home has a breadcrumb
    trail at the top left (starting with a link back to the home page) and
    a link to the search page at the top right. Links relevant to the page
    contents go in the content or at the foot of the page. What else would
    you add?

    What I do feel is confusing is the way that many links lead off to the
    Nielsen Norman Group web site with no warning. Because of the close
    relationship between the content of the two sites it can seem that
    there is just a single site with inconsistent styling.

    >As I mentioned above, he uses tables for layout, which is less than
    >semantic. Another case of "do as I say...", I guess.


    Semantics and usability may sometimes walk hand in hand but they are
    not the same thing. Nielsen is a usability expert and will advocate
    the use of whatever tools makes a site the most usable, that may or
    may not be the same as using tools which give correct semantics.

    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, Jan 1, 2004
    #6
  7. Andrew Cameron

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Edward Alfert <> wrote:

    >Is there a way to set a maximum width without setting a minimum?
    >
    >For example. I would like to be able to design my site so that it is not
    >wider than 800 but not force it to be 800. That way visitors with browsers
    >set to 600 width or other width (because they have not set the window to
    >full screen, or they are using webtv or some other browser with smaller
    >viewable area) do not have to scroll horizontally.
    >
    >Is there such a possibility with HTML/CSS?


    There's the max-width property in CSS, but IE doesn't support it.

    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, Jan 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Andrew Cameron

    Steve Pugh Guest

    kayodeok <> wrote:

    >There was a contest to redesign Jakob's site; it was
    >called reuseit.
    >
    >My Favorite is Minimal Jakob:
    >http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/entries/redux_reuseit_minimal_jakob/


    Ooo, broken. The author assumes that everyone has their browser
    background colour set to white.

    Also runs foul of the IE bug with em-sized text. (Change the text size
    to Largest and stand back...)

    Nothing that couldn't be fixed in five minutes, but slightly the
    judges giving it 5 out of 5 for accessibility and cross browser
    compataibility indicates a certain lack of depth in the testing
    process.

    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, Jan 1, 2004
    #8
  9. <snip>
    >> Is there a way to set a maximum width without setting a minimum?

    >
    > The CSS max-width property


    Thanks. I'm on my way to research that property. It is easier to find out
    how to do something when you know what that something is called. Thanks.

    I just visited www.w3c.org (http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/)to do some re-
    learning, and what do I notice? They do the same thing that the OP
    mentions is way wrong. They also resize to full screen and create very
    long lines for reading.

    Additionally, following the link provided by another poster, the top 10
    winners of reuseit all design for 100% of the screen width.
    http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/index.php#winners

    Maybe it's the best compromise. Fill 100% of the screen but divide into
    atleast 2 columns in order to break up line length. The problem is the
    large difference in size between someone with a screen resolution of
    640x480 and someone at 1600x1200. It is very hard to design something that
    is 100% screen width and yet looks good at both ends of the spectrum.

    >> For example. I would like to be able to design my site so that it is
    >> not wider than 800 but not force it to be 800.

    >
    > 800 what? Pixels? That's not a very good choice of unit. Try something
    > relating to the font size, such as em - that way users get sensible
    > line lengths whatever size font they like to use.


    My mind still works in relation to pixels.

    What do you do when you not only have text but also graphics. You have to
    think in terms of pixels so that the images fit. For example: you have a
    header with a background image and you want the image to fill the entire
    width of your content.

    I can see if you only have small images scattered throughout the page.
    Then you would't have a problem designing around word line lengths since
    you do not have to worry about image widths.

    --
    Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
    Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
    Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
    Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers
     
    Edward Alfert, Jan 1, 2004
    #9
  10. <snip>
    > There's the max-width property in CSS, but IE doesn't support it.


    great! the solution is not supported by the vast majority of visitors.

    --
    Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
    Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
    Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
    Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers
     
    Edward Alfert, Jan 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Andrew Cameron

    Steve R. Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote in message ...
    > There's the max-width property in CSS, but IE doesn't support it.


    .... and with the majority of people viewing via 'IE', that's a darnation
    pity :~(

    .... but that's why tables are great for controlling width, specially when
    percentage figures are used, not pixel widths :~)

    Long live tables :~)
     
    Steve R., Jan 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Edward Alfert wrote:
    [snip]
    > What do you do when you not only have text but also graphics. You
    > have to think in terms of pixels so that the images fit. For
    > example: you have a header with a background image and you want the
    > image to fill the entire width of your content.

    [snip]

    You develop those graphics to suit the viewport sizes of your target audience.

    Then you do as you say - make other things match them.

    I personally currently make my photographs fit within 700 pixels x 500 pixels.
    There isn't an ideal size. That is my best compromise.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
    http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jan 1, 2004
    #12
  13. Edward Alfert wrote:
    [snip]
    > What do you do when you not only have text but also graphics. You
    > have to think in terms of pixels so that the images fit. For
    > example: you have a header with a background image and you want the
    > image to fill the entire width of your content.

    [snip]

    You develop those graphics to suit the viewport sizes of your target audience.

    Then you do as you say - make other things match them.

    I personally currently make my photographs fit within 700 pixels x 500 pixels.
    There isn't an ideal size. That is my best compromise.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
    http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
     
    Barry Pearson, Jan 1, 2004
    #13
  14. Andrew Cameron

    kayodeok Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote in
    news::

    > kayodeok <> wrote:
    >
    >>There was a contest to redesign Jakob's site; it was
    >>called reuseit.
    >>
    >>My Favorite is Minimal Jakob:
    >>http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/entries/redux_reuseit_mi
    >>nimal_jakob/

    >
    > Ooo, broken. The author assumes that everyone has their browser
    > background colour set to white.
    >
    > Also runs foul of the IE bug with em-sized text. (Change the
    > text size to Largest and stand back...)
    >
    > Nothing that couldn't be fixed in five minutes, but slightly the
    > judges giving it 5 out of 5 for accessibility and cross browser
    > compataibility indicates a certain lack of depth in the testing
    > process.
    >

    Thanks for pointing this out; I didn't think to enlarge the font
    though I was browsing with Firebird at the time. I have just
    increased the font in Firebird, IE6 and Opera and I see what you
    mean...I assume you are referring to the horizontal scrollbar?

    It's still my favorite though but thanks for pointing out the IE bug
    with em-sized text - I wasn't even aware of it (just as well I don't
    use em/px for font-sizes then).

    --
    Kayode Okeyode
    http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
    http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.uk/favorites/webdesign.htm
     
    kayodeok, Jan 1, 2004
    #14
  15. <snip>
    > That's your fault not his.
    >
    > If you have your browser window set to a certain size then you should
    > expect sites to fill that width.

    <snip>

    Sound reasonable... but it is very hard to education the world. It might
    be simpler to adopt a sub-optimal solution in order to conform to 90% (my
    guess) of visitors that browse with browser at full screen no matter what
    resolution they have their desktop set for.

    --
    Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
    Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
    Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
    Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers
     
    Edward Alfert, Jan 1, 2004
    #15
  16. <snip>
    > You develop those graphics to suit the viewport sizes of your target
    > audience.

    <snip>

    I guess I'll pick 800x600 and subtracting for common browser border. About
    740 width?

    <snip>
    > I personally currently make my photographs fit within 700 pixels x 500
    > pixels. There isn't an ideal size. That is my best compromise.


    They are all beautiful pictures... but somehow I was magically drawn to
    "Glamour and figure". :)

    --
    Edward Alfert - http://www.rootmode.com/
    Coupon Code (Recurring $5/month Discount): newsgroup
    Multiple Domain Hosting * Reseller Hosting
    Free IP Addresses * Private Label Nameservers
     
    Edward Alfert, Jan 1, 2004
    #16
  17. Steve Pugh wrote:
    > "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote:
    >> He makes some very good points in his articles, and they make a good
    >> read, but I have seriously resorted to copying and pasting the text
    >> into Notepad to prevent my eyes from bleeding.
    >> A big problem is his 100% width... oh, look, TABLE which

    >
    > Um, no. Apart from the home page, the table only contains the navbar
    > across the top. The content of the page is not contained inside a
    > table at all.


    Are you looking at a different useit.com to me?

    <h1><span class="useem">use</span>it.com: Jakob Nielsen's Website</h1>
    <table width="100%" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0">
    <tr>
    <td width="50%" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFDD">
    <h2>Permanent Content</h2>
    ....
    </td>
    <td width="50%" valign="top" bgcolor="#CCF6F6">
    <h2>News</h2>
    ....
    </td>
    </tr>
    </table>

    >> means that we get line lengths of a tiresome nature.

    >
    > That's your fault not his.
    >
    > If you have your browser window set to a certain size then you should
    > expect sites to fill that width.


    Designing to usability standards is about everyone being able to have the
    browser, window size, personal style sheet and whatever else that they want,
    and being able to view it in a pleasant way. I can't make a site for
    1024x768 and then tell people using 800x600 that it's their fault for having
    their resolution that small. Other sites manage to fill my browser and I
    can read them just fine - sometimes I even *like* the design and think that
    it's pretty.

    If any old site can be perfectly readable in my browser (IE6, maximised at
    1024x768 - yes, I'm in that 90%) than so should Jakob's. His choice of 100%
    width combined with the colours do not make for pretty reading.

    > I find it very hard to believe that cutting and pasting text into Notepad


    I meant Metapad (damned habits) - custom font and background colour set to
    my easiest-to-read choices - the same settings I use to do anything from
    long PHP coding down to a tiny bit of markup.

    > is a better option than resizing your browser window,


    I shouldn't have to in order to make a site look good.

    > or if
    > you like having whitespace down the side of every page for some
    > reason, using a user stylesheet to restrict the width of the content.


    Then this would mess up every other site on the net which manages to look
    good at 100%.

    > In a decent browser (sorry not IE)


    Well, that's kind of tough. Tell that to the millions of people who CANNOT
    use a different browser (access and firewall issues at work, for example, or
    people on slower machines) and they will just sigh and be forced not to view
    your site. I'm currently building a web application and much as I hate the
    idea, I'm having to design *for* IE5 and 6 since the router won't allow
    anything else to access http.

    Yes, it sucks, but that's just life ;-)

    >>No page has the same links as another page - this makes the site
    >> confusing.

    >
    > I don't find that at all. Every page except the home has a breadcrumb
    > trail at the top left (starting with a link back to the home page) and
    > a link to the search page at the top right. Links relevant to the page
    > contents go in the content or at the foot of the page. What else would
    > you add?


    A constant menu somewhere else on the page that you can always go to, that
    perhaps lists categories and within those you can browse further articles.
    If I'm reading an article that I'm not interested in, am I going to want to
    go to related links? Hell no, I want something different, but there's no
    option there other than trawling through from the front page. I want to be
    helped through the site since I am the visitor - I don't want to do all the
    work myself.

    >> As I mentioned above, he uses tables for layout, which is less than
    >> semantic. Another case of "do as I say...", I guess.

    >
    > Semantics and usability may sometimes walk hand in hand but they are
    > not the same thing. Nielsen is a usability expert and will advocate
    > the use of whatever tools makes a site the most usable, that may or
    > may not be the same as using tools which give correct semantics.


    Semantics help heavily in good usability. Jakob's ideas are nothing
    special, but he expresses them in a clear way - I just wish his site
    followed his advice - it's not very usable at all.

    --
    Andrew Cameron
    "Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
     
    Andrew Cameron, Jan 1, 2004
    #17
  18. Andrew Cameron

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >> "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> He makes some very good points in his articles, and they make a good
    >>> read, but I have seriously resorted to copying and pasting the text
    >>> into Notepad to prevent my eyes from bleeding.
    >>> A big problem is his 100% width... oh, look, TABLE which

    >>
    >> Um, no. Apart from the home page, the table only contains the navbar
    >> across the top. The content of the page is not contained inside a
    >> table at all.

    >
    >Are you looking at a different useit.com to me?


    Clearly. Or maybe you're not reading what I wrote:
    "Apart from the home page"

    >>> means that we get line lengths of a tiresome nature.

    >>
    >> That's your fault not his.
    >>
    >> If you have your browser window set to a certain size then you should
    >> expect sites to fill that width.

    >
    >Designing to usability standards is about everyone being able to have the
    >browser, window size, personal style sheet and whatever else that they want,
    >and being able to view it in a pleasant way.


    I agree 100%.

    > I can't make a site for
    >1024x768 and then tell people using 800x600 that it's their fault for having
    >their resolution that small.


    Nor should you. Good web sites will adapt to both sizes.

    >Other sites manage to fill my browser and I
    >can read them just fine - sometimes I even *like* the design and think that
    >it's pretty.


    So what is it about the text on useit.com that makes the text less
    readable than the text on any other web site?
    If the font size is the same (useit.com doesn't set a font size so
    your browser uses your chosen size ) and the window size is the same
    then the lines will be the same length, so why do you find these lines
    more difficult to read?

    Do you find my site at http://www.sfsfw.net/index.php equally hard to
    read? It also doesn't specify a font size, uses the full width of the
    window and uses black text on white. So is it equally hard to read?

    >If any old site can be perfectly readable in my browser (IE6, maximised at
    >1024x768 - yes, I'm in that 90%) than so should Jakob's. His choice of 100%
    >width combined with the colours do not make for pretty reading.


    The colours are black on white (again with the exception of the home
    page). As they're set in the CSS you can over ride them with your
    browser defaults of turning off CSS, or by using a user stylesheet.
    Most people find black on white acceptable to read, though black on
    off-white is widely considered to be easier on the eye.

    >> is a better option than resizing your browser window,

    >
    >I shouldn't have to in order to make a site look good.


    Exactly my point.
    You should have already picked a window size that gives you sensible
    line lengths.
    But instead you have picked a window size that makes it difficult for
    you to read the text.

    If your preferred line lengths are 800px long and mine are 1200px long
    and John Smith's are 400px long, what size should Nielsen force his
    site to be?

    >> or if
    >> you like having whitespace down the side of every page for some
    >> reason, using a user stylesheet to restrict the width of the content.

    >
    >Then this would mess up every other site on the net which manages to look
    >good at 100%.
    >
    >> In a decent browser (sorry not IE)

    >
    >Well, that's kind of tough.


    Yes it is. But, IE is simply out of date.

    In IE you need to do
    p {width: 40em;}
    which is much more likely to screw pages up, and as IE has a crap
    interface which makes it hard to toggle

    >Tell that to the millions of people who CANNOT
    >use a different browser (access and firewall issues at work, for example, or
    >people on slower machines) and they will just sigh and be forced not to view
    >your site.


    For most people, using a user stylesheet is not a requirement to view
    any site. It's a convenience to make sites conform to _your_ viewing
    preferences.

    If a user _needs_ to use a user stylesheet (for example to compensate
    for some disability) then they will use a browser that allows them to
    do so. And if an employer prevents them then that employer may find
    themselves at the wrong end of discrimination legislation.

    >>>No page has the same links as another page - this makes the site
    >>> confusing.

    >>
    >> I don't find that at all. Every page except the home has a breadcrumb
    >> trail at the top left (starting with a link back to the home page) and
    >> a link to the search page at the top right. Links relevant to the page
    >> contents go in the content or at the foot of the page. What else would
    >> you add?

    >
    >A constant menu somewhere else on the page that you can always go to, that
    >perhaps lists categories and within those you can browse further articles.


    Categorising the articles would be a good idea but that goes beyond
    simple design issues. The related links given at the foot of most
    articles go part of the way there.

    As I said earlier Nielsen doesn't seem to put much effort into his
    site and that sort of information architecture revamp, which as the
    site has grown at a steady pace over the past eight years is a shame.

    The sort of cross-referenced categorisation that I've done on
    http://www.sfsfw.net/a/genre.php was only possible because I did it
    from the very start.

    Now that is something that we can lambast Nielsen for, failing to
    forsee that his site might grow into a large resource and failing to
    orgnaise the content with that growth in mind is a classic usability
    gotcha.

    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, Jan 1, 2004
    #18
  19. Andrew Cameron

    Sam Hughes Guest

    "Andrew Cameron" <> wrote in
    news:bt22ks$2i9nd$-berlin.de:

    > I meant Metapad (damned habits) - custom font and background colour
    > set to my easiest-to-read choices - the same settings I use to do
    > anything from long PHP coding down to a tiny bit of markup.


    Thanks for mentioning this piece of software. I looked on Google and
    downloaded it; I love it!
     
    Sam Hughes, Jan 1, 2004
    #19
  20. Andrew Cameron

    Spartanicus Guest

    Andrew Cameron wrote:

    >A big problem is his 100% width... oh, look, TABLE which
    >means that we get line lengths of a tiresome nature.


    Your problem, not the site's. The point of flexible design is that it
    allows users to set a window width that *they* are comfortable with, the
    site will fit into that width.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 1, 2004
    #20
    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. George Durzi

    Usability of Multi-Select ListBox

    George Durzi, Jun 2, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,547
    George Durzi
    Jun 2, 2005
  2. Tim_Mac
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
    Tim_Mac
    Dec 15, 2005
  3. Alan Silver

    Big usability problem with validators

    Alan Silver, Feb 23, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    375
    Alan Silver
    Feb 27, 2006
  4. Okros Peter

    jboss usability

    Okros Peter, Aug 5, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    483
    Jon Martin Solaas
    Aug 5, 2005
  5. Thomas McCarthy

    javascript redirect usability

    Thomas McCarthy, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    502
    AndyEd
    Jul 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page