How to break a long page into multi pages

[noauth]

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only a
little past a screen resolution of 1024x768, do I have to break the text
manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of simple
HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

 

[Ari Heino]

noauth kirjoitti seuraavasti:

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only a
little past a screen resolution of 1024x768, do I have to break the text
manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of simple
HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

What do you mean by "page length"? There is no pages in web as there are
in books. As said googolplexian times, web != printed media.

In css there are some attributes (or whatever was the right word) you
could control html when printed, but the browsers' support for those is
next to nothing.

 

[freemont]

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only a
little past a screen resolution of 1024x768, do I have to break the text
manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of simple
HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

Sure, just break it into separate pages. You really only have to make one
page at first, then cut-n-paste the sections into the bodies of the other
pages. Link to the pages from each other.

<h1>First Page</h1>
<p>...........</p>
<p>...........</p>
<p>...........</p>
<p style="text-align:center;font-weight:bold"><a href="page2.htm">page 2</
a><a href="page3.htm">page 3</a></p>

<h1>Second Page</h1>
<p>...........</p>
<p>...........</p>
<p>...........</p>
<p style="text-align:center;font-weight:bold"><a href="page1.htm">page 1</
a><a href="page3.htm">page 3</a></p>

And so on. You get the idea.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only
a little past a screen resolution of 1024x768, do I have to break the
text manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of
simple HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

And what of my monitor, with a higher resolution? Do you write
fixed-width pages? What will you expect to see on a wide-screen
monitor?

Remember, there are two things that even the most rank novice knows how
to do in a browser: hit the Back Button, and scroll vertically.

That said, if you don't use any kind of server-side processing, yes, you
would have to break manually, and futz with <-Previous and Next->
buttons or links.

To me, reading a few paragraphs, then having to switch to a new page is
counter-productive to the "flow" of an article. My mouse wheel works
just fine.

 

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only a
little past a screen resolution of 1024x768,

Obviously you have missed the entire point of HTML.

do I have to break the text
manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of simple
HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

Tidy will break pages on H2 Nothing will do it on word count, screen size,
or any other nonsense stemming from the thought that every browser is just
like mine running on a computer just like mine.

 

[John Hosking]

Followup-To set to alt.html

If I am writing a long article and want to have a page length of only a
little past a screen resolution of 1024x768, do I have to break the text
manually, and then manually start a new page? I'm speaking of simple
HTML coding, nothing fancy. I'm having enough problems with
not-so-fancy. )

Eew. Well, okay, I'll play along...

If you really want to set the content to fit on one or more pages,
constrained by displayed length (which I advise against), and you really
believe that you can achieve some certain, predictable length (which you
can't), then why are you trying for a length just *over* the screen length.
Why not aim (in your quixotic way) for a length that might fit entirely on
the screen (assuming maximized browser, few toolbars, etc.) without any
vertical scroll bar?

I mean, as long as you're dreaming, why not dream something worthwhile?

 

[noauth]

Do you mean similar to the way the large, amusing, article at
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/29/aboxalypse_now/> has been
spanned across five pages?

No. I'm not that clever. )

I just was wondering if reading one loooonnnng page would bug some people.

Probably the easiest way to achieve this is to manually break it up.

But you might want to ask yourself why you wish to do so. I suspect
it's often done to increase ad revenue.

Exactly what I noticed on many sites. Those sites are a pain, and I
usually avoid them when I come across them. They are frustrating and
ridiculous.

snip.

Oh, and don't forget that not everyone uses a screen resolution of
1024x768 - wide screen monitors, for example, are quite common now.
And even those use a resolution of 1024x768 may use a smaller or
larger font size than you and have additional screen furniture.

I am aware those problems.

I guess I'll just make a single page of any article. It's simpler.

Thanks for answering my post.

(Thanks to all others who answered, too.)

 

[Harlan Messinger]

No. I'm not that clever. )

I just was wondering if reading one loooonnnng page would bug some people.

If it would bug them to read it, then it will bug them more if they have
to keep clicking links to read more of it. Why would it bug them less?
And having it all on one page makes it easier to scan the article, or to
go back and refer to a part one has already read.

 

[dorayme]

If it would bug them to read it, then it will bug them more if they have
to keep clicking links to read more of it. Why would it bug them less?
And having it all on one page makes it easier to scan the article, or to
go back and refer to a part one has already read.

And to search it with Command F or whatever the Windows and other OS
equivalents are.

The OP might consider the nature of the article or presentation. For
example, no matter how long an article like:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

was, within reason, it is probably best in one HTML doc. "Within reason"
is a caveat, and it requires a little judgement here, for file size. If
it has no pictures, it can be *quite long* without being a burden to
even dial up.

But if it so very big that it becomes download nuisance or if it has a
menu with internal links and distinctive parts, there might be
advantages in splitting it up.

One advantage would be for a user to be able to open up different
sections easily in tabs or windows simultaneously. Another would be to
be able to refer people to a pertinent part, a simple URL doing directly.

It all depends!

 

[Justin]

noauth wrote on [Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:55:45 +0200 (CEST)]:

No. I'm not that clever. )

I just was wondering if reading one loooonnnng page would bug some people.


Exactly what I noticed on many sites. Those sites are a pain, and I
usually avoid them when I come across them. They are frustrating and
ridiculous.

Exactly! You're wanting to do the same thing.

IME, most reasons to split an article up like this are to increase
hitcount or ad views.

 

[John Hosking]

Followup-To set to alt.html

And to search it with Command F or whatever the Windows and other OS
equivalents are.

(Windows: Ctrl+F)

And to print the article with a minimum of wasted paper (like half-empty
sheets at the end of each part).

 

[dorayme]

And to search it with Command F or whatever the Windows and other OS
equivalents are.

(Windows: Ctrl+F)

And to print the article with a minimum of wasted paper (like half-empty
sheets at the end of each part).[/QUOTE]

Indeed

(Sheets that have no useful info - printed because there is still the
copyright notice or some ad to go that could not quite fit on the
previous page... - go to my pile of blank used A4s eventually to be
printed with things like Sudoku grids (two to a page) on a *very old*
bubblejet which is kept only because I happen to have a few years worth
of cartridges for... seems a shame to throw it all out just because it
is not the finest quality... )