Subj : Freebies To : ROY J. TELLASON From : CHARLES ANGELICH Date : Sat May 14 2005 02:11 am 123c5fc3e406 tech Hello Roy - --8<--cut CA>> It should _always_ be the intent of a web design that it CA>> display the 'same' on all machines using all browsers. The CA>> designs are not intended to be random nor are there CA>> multiple designs hidden away somewhere. RJT> Agreed. It's funny (not) how often that turns out not to RJT> be the case, though. Seems like there's just an awful lot RJT> of people out there that have somehow missed this point... Those who write browsers have also missed the point. All browsers do not display the same code in the same manner - even now. --8<--cut CA>> Until recently people had small monitors and are now, CA>> again, using smaller monitors with the popularity of CA>> laptops. Everyone is not using 1024x768 even though the CA>> popular notion is that they are. RJT> Nor is everybody using 800x600. I still have monitors (the RJT> one I'm looking at as I type this included) that won't go RJT> beyond 640x480. Then there's that odd IBM model that has RJT> that and 1024x768 but which won't do 800x600. I have one of those IBM monitors and it really was a puzzlement to me for awhile. :-) --8<--cut CA>> It is possible to design a webpage that 'cuts off' the CA>> righthand side at a distinguishable boundary so that CA>> scrolling to see the remaining portion is optional CA>> (usually it's a menu or advertisement anyhow). RJT> Regarding menus, how the heck many do we need? I've seen RJT> stuff with one across the top, one down the left side, and RJT> then the same links spread throughout the text. Very little research has been released regarding the "user interface". Microsoft did some research awhile back that claimed people didn't adapt well to more than seven menu choices but I've found little else written by any experts. There are many 'opinions' but no definitive answers regarding menu placement or numbers of menus per page. RJT> Regarding ads, I am liking the "adblock" and "remove this RJT> object" features in firefox more and more as time goes by, RJT> excepting every once in a while when I go a step too far. RJT> :-) I updated last night to the latest FF and Mozilla suite then tried to add adblock to the Mozilla suite and it told me it's already 'inside' but I've not found out yet. :-( RJT>> The whole point of HTML is that the person viewing it RJT>> should have their browser rendering the page optimally RJT>> for their situation. CA>> The original 'point' of HTML was to allow college CA>> professors to setup spreadsheet type displays with columns CA>> of data that had headers for each column etc. HTML CA>> _became_ a way to layout graphics and other things in CA>> spite of vigorous protest from college types and the W3C. RJT> I thought that the original point was being able to link RJT> documents to each other. Apple 'invented' hypertext links if that's what you are referring to. CA>> Now that they lost _that_ argument the W3C is busy trying CA>> to reinvent webpage design in a format that _they_ can CA>> control and influence. It's not going to be better, just CA>> under W3C control. CA> > :-) RJT> Ah. CA>> Simple HTML is not unlike ice cubes in a hot tray. The CA>> tray being the browser window. Everything 'slides around' CA>> if any item expands or contracts. It's a bit tricky trying CA>> to allow this sliding around to appear 'ordered' within CA>> different sizes of 'trays' (browser windows). All of my CA>> webpages will allow for resizing of the window but I admit CA>> that a few of my pages are 'locked' at one size and will CA>> not resize for different window sizes because I am unable CA>> to maintain any semblance of order when they resize and I CA>> felt the information on the page was worth a sacrifice in CA>> flexibility. RJT> All depends on what you're trying to do, I guess. 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. CA>> The 'sliding around' I mentioned adds some difficulty when CA>> trying to create a good looking menu using text in various CA>> window sizes. Using the graphic locks that portion in as a CA>> 'standard' that is easier for users to learn to use for CA>> navigation. RJT> Links which each appear on their own line courtesy of a RJT>
should be easy enough, no? Trying to place the menu in specific location usually within a 'box' using a table tag or a div tag locks you in to a certain amount of space which can then be violated by those who want to enlarge the text. When a top/down menu listing wraps the items become quite strange and often confusing. --8<--cut RJT>> I think I'll stick with firefox, with the adblock RJT>> plugin... RJT> > :-) CA>> I don't sell OPERA but I _think_ right now there are fewer CA>> exploits for OPERA than for FF. RJT> How would one of those "exploits" (and I have seen RJT> references to them elsewhere) get in to my system in the RJT> first place? I suspect that the vulnerabilities may be RJT> more a matter of messing up the operation of the browser RJT> or getting further in windoze systems than on my linux RJT> boxes. I can't say. I wasn't intrested enough to review what the latest exploits were other than that just loading a webpage can initiate them I really don't know what the exploits can do to each OS. --8<--cut RJT>>> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar RJT>>> pages. RJT> >> :-) 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, RJT>> like flash, etc. Your pages are definitely not the ones RJT>> I'm griping about. RJT> > :-) CA>> I knew you weren't aiming at me and it's nice of you to CA>> say so. I am confident that my websites will not offend CA>> nor exclude anyone using any browser from text-only and up CA>> to the latest/greatest. :-) RJT> I should get back in there and take another look one of RJT> these days, but with all the other stuff I have going on I RJT> just haven't gotten around to it yet. The pages should be there as long as I am here. :-) > > , , > 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) .