Subj : Freebies To : ROY J. TELLASON From : CHARLES ANGELICH Date : Wed May 11 2005 10:57 pm 123c5f98b4c9 tech Hello Roy - --8<--cut CA>>> The established practice is to specify three different CA>>> fonts just in case your preferred font is unavailable on CA>>> a particular machine. RJT>> Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages RJT>> unnecessarily. Why not let me decide what font I want to RJT>> use here? CA>> To a degree 'fit' is a consideration. Some fonts aren't CA>> kerned to the degree that others are and text may or may CA>> not fit within the allocated spaces if the font type CA>> changes. RJT> Yeah. But the whole "allocated spaces" thing assumes that RJT> a page is going to render at the end user's machine in the RJT> same exact way that it renders at the page author's RJT> machine, which is probably a big mistake. It should _always_ be the intent of a web design that it display the 'same' on all machines using all browsers. The designs are not intended to be random nor are there multiple designs hidden away somewhere. RJT> I see a lot of that, where they painstakingly lay stuff RJT> out assuming some particular screen resolution, 800x600 RJT> being a common one, and I'm viewing it at 1024x768, so RJT> there's a big empty space on the right side... Until recently people had small monitors and are now, again, using smaller monitors with the popularity of laptops. Everyone is not using 1024x768 even though the popular notion is that they are. I guess those who do not _read_ much of anything on their computers like more pixels for their pr0n collection to display with or those listening to MP3s just need room for dancing graphics displays? RJT> Or someone else who is a bit more visually impaired is RJT> viewing at 640x480, and has to scroll horizontally. It is possible to design a webpage that 'cuts off' the righthand side at a distinguishable boundary so that scrolling to see the remaining portion is optional (usually it's a menu or advertisement anyhow). RJT> The whole point of HTML is that the person viewing it RJT> should have their browser rendering the page optimally for RJT> their situation. The original 'point' of HTML was to allow college professors to setup spreadsheet type displays with columns of data that had headers for each column etc. HTML _became_ a way to layout graphics and other things in spite of vigorous protest from college types and the W3C. Now that they lost _that_ argument the W3C is busy trying to reinvent webpage design in a format that _they_ can control and influence. It's not going to be better, just under W3C control. :-) Simple HTML is not unlike ice cubes in a hot tray. The tray being the browser window. Everything 'slides around' if any item expands or contracts. It's a bit tricky trying to allow this sliding around to appear 'ordered' within different sizes of 'trays' (browser windows). All of my webpages will allow for resizing of the window but I admit that a few of my pages are 'locked' at one size and will not resize for different window sizes because I am unable to maintain any semblance of order when they resize and I felt the information on the page was worth a sacrifice in flexibility. RJT>>> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that RJT>>> word!) on a lot of sites is to load a graphic to RJT>>> substitute. This is _OFTEN_ done for menu items, RJT>>> typically going down the left side of the page. The 'sliding around' I mentioned adds some difficulty when trying to create a good looking menu using text in various window sizes. Using the graphic locks that portion in as a 'standard' that is easier for users to learn to use for navigation. CA>>> I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a CA>>> font is not available. RJT>> They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the RJT>> "ALT=" tag to say some text if you didn't get the RJT>> graphic. Sometimes I feel like I'd be better off viewing RJT>> these pages in text-only mode... CA>>> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into CA>>> those menus intentionally with no intent to use text at CA>>> any time. RJT>> Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are RJT>> visually-impaired ferinstance. CA>> The "ALT" tag you mention is intended as an aide to the CA>> visually impaired to allow their screen readers to read CA>> the ALT tags aloud. RJT>>> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really RJT>>> like the feature of firefox where you can hit a single RJT>>> keystroke and make the type get bigger. But when the RJT>>> menus and such are all graphics rather than words, this RJT>>> doesn't work. Which makes it hard for me to view those RJT>>> sites. CA>>> Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for CA>>> you. :-) RJT>> Payware, ain't it? :-) CA>> There is a version that is adware supported (free) if I CA>> remember correctly. RJT> I think I'll stick with firefox, with the adblock plugin... RJT> :-) I don't sell OPERA but I _think_ right now there are fewer exploits for OPERA than for FF. RJT>>> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... RJT>>> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that RJT>>> choice, maybe they'll wake up. CA>>> Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that CA>>> choice which is why many take the time to learn how to CA>>> code the most generic code possible considering the CA>>> variety of browser support for various code. They test CA>>> with multiple browsers or have others test for them. RJT>> All too often this isn't the case, though. The most RJT>> concession people seem to be willing to make is IE or RJT>> Netscape... CA>>> Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older' CA>>> software, the webmaster will eventually decide that CA>>> such-and-such a browser has outlived it's useful lifespan CA>>> and stop making concessions for that browser's problem CA>>> areas. CA>>> Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or CA>>> ignorance write webpages that only one browser can CA>>> accomodate and those who do their work in that fashion CA>>> are helping no one, not even themselves. RJT>> Exactly my point. RJT>> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar RJT>> pages. :-) CA>> My own webpages at my 'tech' website are 'any-browser' CA>> compatible but I also have another website that requires CA>> minimal javascripting to be fully appreciated. All pages CA>> will _display_ properly but something will be lost on CA>> _certain_ pages without javascripting at the CA>> 'entertainment' website. RJT> Which is still way better than them saying that I *NEED* RJT> all this miscellaneous stuff they want me to install, like RJT> flash, etc. Your pages are definitely not the ones I'm RJT> griping about. RJT> :-) I knew you weren't aiming at me and it's nice of you to say so. I am confident that my websites will not offend nor exclude anyone using any browser from text-only and up to the latest/greatest. :-) > > , , > o/ Charles.Angelich \o , > <| |> __o/ > / > USA, MI < \ __\__ --- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * .... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/ * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140) .