"Usability"

K

kchayka

Edward said:
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.

Is there some reason you believe everybody using higher resolutions uses
full-size browser windows? I would think that's the exception rather
than the rule.
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Edward said:
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.

I usually browse at full-screen 1280x1024, but I like that. I know lines
will be lines will long, and that's what I want.
 
E

Edward Alfert

Is there some reason you believe everybody using higher resolutions
uses full-size browser windows? I would think that's the exception
rather than the rule.

I guess I'm going by personal experience. I have a 21" monitor set at
1600x1200 and browse fullscreen. I designed my site to use two columns in
order to cut length of text lines, but then the site doesn't always flow
correctly at lower resolutions. I tried limiting my site to 1 column but
then it looked horrible at my full screen with my resolution. I ended up
choosing a layout that isn't the best, but it was a compromise. I would
love to find a better solution like what was mentioned in another post,
max-width of css, but then I found out it is not supported by IE. !@#$!@
 
B

Bob

On 2 Jan 2004 02:20:16 GMT, Edward Alfert <[email protected]>
wrote:

<snip back to topic>

The original site is terrible. Too bad the replacements:
http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/#winners aren't
any better.

Did someone forget to teach these "designers" about structure,
organization, and hyperlinks ? Those replacement sites are worse
than CNN in information overload.

No... I take it back, CNN is much better organized and structured.
 
C

Chuck

I guess I'm going by personal experience. I have a 21" monitor set at
1600x1200 and browse fullscreen. I designed my site to use two columns in
order to cut length of text lines, but then the site doesn't always flow
correctly at lower resolutions. I tried limiting my site to 1 column but
then it looked horrible at my full screen with my resolution. I ended up
choosing a layout that isn't the best, but it was a compromise. I would
love to find a better solution like what was mentioned in another post,
max-width of css, but then I found out it is not supported by IE. !@#$!@

Detect the screen resolution and then use PHP to change templates
based on the screen resolution.

I asked a while back how to use PHP to format a TXT file. I use that
great help to make a site that has the content separated into TXT
files and the layout in the PHP file. (and the style in the CSS file)
The PHP page then calls the content when it needs it.

You could use JavaScript to detect the screen size and then direct the
user to a PHP file with the layout designed for that resolution. Since
all the PHP files call the same TXT source for the content, you don't
have to edit the individual files to update the content, you just
update the shared TXT file.

***
My site /www.wormspeaker.com/isl/ has the Menu to the left and the
Content to the right stored in separate TXT files. This means I can
add a new link in the Menu to all the pages in the site with the
editing of a single TXT file rather than individually to what will
eventually grow to be more than 40 pages. Since I use the same basic
layout for the entire site, I should have included the layout in a
third TXT file, so I could update the layout of the whole site in a
single go. It's a learning process, I'll do that next time.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross
 
B

brucie

Detect the screen resolution and then use PHP to change templates
based on the screen resolution.

i cant believe people continue to spew forth such bad advice. there is
no reliable way to determine what the resolution is and even if you
could it has nothing to do with the size of the available canvas area
(which you cant reliably determine either).

if we did all live in some fantasy land where it was possible what
happens if the visitor resizes their browser? changes the rez on the
monitor the browser is on? moves the browser to a monitor with a
different rez? turns on a browser side bar? turns off a side bar? etc.
etc.

design the site to automatically adjust/work through a reasonable
variation of canvas sizes. simple. no majic required.
 
B

Barry Pearson

Edward said:
<snip>

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



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

Chuckle!

Did you check the other 2 in "work in progress"? (And I have some more partly
Photoshopped).
 
A

Andrew Cameron

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

Ah, sorry about that. Still, I think you'll agree that the home page is
pretty damned important! It's the only page with any slight bit of layout,
and it uses tables for that - not good.
So what is it about the text on useit.com that makes the text less
readable than the text on any other web site?
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?

I can read your site just fine - you have a border, and a decent amount of
padding on the body. You use line breaks, pictures and headings to break up
the text, and this means that you're not hitting the edges of my screen with
every line. It's a good amount of readable. I expect useit.com would be
fine for me if it would reduce to 85% or so.

People viewing in 1600x1200 with maximised browsers have chosen that
resolution for a reason, but they may have to realise that they are a
minority and that lines of text on the web will be smaller. However, I'm
browsing at 1024x768, so I'm in the majority - the site should look good for
me at the very least.

Also, I dislike the colours on the front page of useit.com - they look
washed out and it reminds me of companies who try to make business papers
interesting by adding colour, and end up using washed-out saturation levels
and whacking text all over the place. Even putting a small black border
around the yellow and blue table cells would be a good first step - possibly
even a gap between the two cells, too. This would break it up and be more
friendly at first glance.
Most people find black on white acceptable to read, though black on
off-white is widely considered to be easier on the eye.


When I build sites, I make the body background #eee by default, then I work
from there.
Exactly my point.
You should have already picked a window size that gives you sensible
line lengths.

For every other site that I visit, it does.
But instead you have picked a window size that makes it difficult for
you to read the text.

Only on Jakob's site - does that not indicate a problem that is not to do
with my settings? I shouldn't have to resize my browser just to view his
site (it really really is just his site)!
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?

He shouldn't force anything - he should add a bit of border, a bit of
padding and less lame colours.
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.

I don't need a user stylesheet for any other site.
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.

That's a whole lotta ifs and maybes. I'm not saying it can't be done ever,
but most companies aren't going to change their server software just so
their employees can surf the web more comfortably.
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.
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.

It wouldn't be that hard to change it - just a simple database.

TABLE categories:
categoryID (int)
categoryName (string)

TABLE articles:
articleID (int)
categoryID (int)
articleName (string)
articleLocation (url as string)

We then set up an SSI/PHP/ASP/whatever menu div displaying the results of a
"select * from categories" query, each option linking to a page which
displays the results of a "select articleName, articleLocation from articles
where categoryID='x'" query.

A few hours of data entry later, and we're done, all set up for the future.
 
B

Barry Pearson

Daniel said:
Re: http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/


And they pay you to take those photos?

Not those! I pay for the session. I then sell my photographs if I can.
You're a lucky, lucky man :)

Chuckle! You would think so, wouldn't you?

In fact, facing a young woman who is wearing few if any clothes and is acting
totally self-confident is an unnerving experience. That is why I use
professional models. One of us needs to be thinking coherently, and it isn't
me.
 
C

Chuck

i cant believe people continue to spew forth such bad advice. there is
no reliable way to determine what the resolution is and even if you
could it has nothing to do with the size of the available canvas area
(which you cant reliably determine either).

Give the user a choice of layout from a dropdown list. Have the
default set automatically, and let the user change it if they want.
You already have the different layouts, so if the automatic system
does not pick the right one, they can change it.

The main part of the advice was making a system where you could have
interchangeable layouts using the same source content. If it can't be
done automatically with reliability, then make your best effort to do
it automatically and if that fails have a backup manual option.
design the site to automatically adjust/work through a reasonable
variation of canvas sizes. simple. no majic required.

Why be satisfied with a less than optimal layout that only works with
a "reasonable" variation of canvas sizes, when you can make a layout
that is exactly what you want for each canvas size you feel like
including.

Another option would be to use scripting to adjust the sizing values
of your layout. A drop down box, or even a field where the user can
type the exact canvas size they are using.

I'm not saying that this is the optimal solution for everyone, just an
option.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross
 
M

Michael Fesser

Steve said:
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.

Even IE supports user stylesheets.

Micha
 
S

Steve Pugh

Michael Fesser said:
Even IE supports user stylesheets.

Yes it does. But it doesn't support a lot of the CSS selectors and
properties that make user stylesheets useful.

Steve
 
B

Bob

Yes it does. But it doesn't support a lot of the CSS selectors and
properties that make user stylesheets useful.

That would be a good reason not to use those portions of CSS.
 
B

Bob

Excellent.

Well, they could have been excellent, but the second one selected
a smaller than normal font size for me so I had to go elsewhere
without reading it.

:)
 
S

Steve Pugh

Bob said:
That would be a good reason not to use those portions of CSS.

Yes, putting those parts of CSS into a user stylesheet if you use IE
would be fairly stupid.

At the moment most user stylesheets are written by one person to be
used in the preferred browser. But we hope that one day people will
download user stylesheets off the web the same way they download media
player skins.

As a user stylesheet can't make use of class or id identifiers it
really needs the full range on contextual and attribute selectors to
do anything beyond the very basic, but IE simply doen't support them.
It doesn't even support basic things like child selectors (foo > bar).

MS have to be applauded, IE was one of the first browsers to support
user stylesheets, but compared with what you can do with them in Opera
or Mozilla it is now sorely lacking.

Steve
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top