|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222899 on 06/02/06 14:50
Chris Gunn wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 09:35:11 -0600, rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> >There are other reasons why you should avoid useing fixxed widths.
> >The main one is that the design will get mangled if text is re-sized.
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'm sorry, but this is a confession that you have never spent the time to
> polish your skills. If you cannot use percentages and create balanced
> compositions that are attractive at all screen widths, you should not try to
> call yourself a web designer.
I would say that it has more to do with the auto margions then useing
Percentages. Besides, the design will get stretched at hisher
resolutions anyway.
> If you know the history of HTML, it was intended to allow flexibility so
> that all browsers and computer platforms could render tha pages
> attractively. It *IS NOT* a typesetting language like WordPerfect.
Yes I know, hence why I siad what I did regarding fixxed widths.
>
> >You should also not specify fonts in PX eather as they can't be
> >re-sized (easyily) in IE.
>
> This is also silly. It only applies to sites set with text that is too
> small to read comfortably to start with. If people have to change their
> font sizes to accomodate the web coder's bad attitudes, what does that tell
> you?
It tells me that you have not read the web accessibility guidelines set
out by the W3C. There valid reasons for having text re-sizeable mainly
concerning people who need to use a larger text size.
>
> >Oh, while I think of it, you should really use proper headings, H1 to
> >H6 and Validate your HTML code, http://validator.w3.org as it will help
> >with compadability between browsers.
>
> And also have you correcting items that are quite okay. Last time I
> checked, these W3 folks validator still didn't know the difference between
> HTML 3.2 and the other versions set in the DOC line. It lumps all pages in
> what they think everyone should be using. Very biased group.
>
> It also has nothing to do with compatibility between browsers. Perfectly
> validated pages can look fine in IExplorer and have problems in Firefox and
> be worse in Netscrap. Did you know that </TD> is optional according to the
> specifications? However, don't leave any out except with IExplorer.
The difference in the way browsers render pages has nothing to do with
the guidelines, well it does, but each browser applies them slightly
differently, if they all applied the standards then their would not be
any problems. Oh and it's useually the other way around, as FireFox
does apply the standards correctly, well more so then IE.
>
> I fully agree that Validation is extremely important. Drop by
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com and get a real one. It will teach you far more
> than you'll find anywhere else. Not to mention it will let you correct the
> web page errors as you go.
Why would I bother when I can use the official and free W3C one at
http://validator.w3.org
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|