|
|
Posted by fred.haab@gmail.com on 06/02/06 21:23
mbstevens wrote:
> fred.haab@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, that's great... but what is the reasonable maximum?
>
> With the method I presented a good maximum is not hard to find except
> for pathologically odd text or window size. Under those circumstances
> the rendering is not as pretty, but is easy to use and accessible, and
> would render on hand held devices and specialized devices in a way that
> would not confuse any of them.
It's not hard to find if you do scripting (either client or server
side). Why should you have to do that? Besides, I've experimented
with your method, the longest line had 56 characters on it... the ideal
"em" width was less than 20. So what's the formula? #characters/3?
That doesn't sound right... it might have something to do with the fact
that em doesn't even represent the current font size, it represents the
parent font size!
And I don't think the case has to be pathological, either... all you
need is a simple case where the one line is nearly the size of a large
window... and then shrink the window from, say, 1280 to 800... unless
you pick your maximum to fit within 800, at which point you might have
wrapped lines even though you have a lot of white space.
What you've given me is fine - I'll probably use it the way it is to
avoid using a table for markup, but it is NOT as good for presentation,
in this case, as a table would be.
> > simply to avoid using "table" for presentation because
> > someone else decided it was bad, and you'll be ridiculed on
> > alt.html.critique because,
> > regardless of how good your page looks, even
> > when resized and font-zoomed for the visually impaired, people will
> > mock you because you used a table for presentation.
>
> That is misrepresentation of the worst sort.
Maybe. I probably shouldn't have said it, but after seeing people
ripping other sites that look quite good to your casual observer just
because it had a table was pissing me off...
> Some of us actually see the _value_ of semantic markup.
I see it, it just isn't working ideally for presentation in this case.
> > I want to see it, I really do. I don't want to be a troll
>
> That's the second time you've written that.
> Methinks the gent protestith too much.
> Perhaps you should stop misrepresenting others' motivations before
> making the claim again?
No, I keep saying that because, on another group, I had a problem that
turned out to be an IE flaw (unbeknownst to me at the time), and was
promptly accused of being a troll against MS... so yes, I feel the need
to say it when I complain about something, especially in this case
where it seems like I'm beating a dead horse...
But the fact is that no one has presented a generic alternative that
works as well. That's OK, in the specific cases I'm using, I just
think it's a CSS flaw... a presentation layer that let's you ideally
center some things and not others.
One thing that bothers me was you use of words... that tables
"seemingly" rendered a special case better... but, WHEW!!! Turns out it
wasn't the case!
But, actually, it was. CSS has flaws, that's the bottom line... some
people jump to it's defense like it can do no wrong, but it's not
perfect. Using tables certainly isn't perfect - but it solves an
immediate problem (as I see it).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|