|
|
Posted by dorayme on 06/02/06 22:43
In article <Pine.WNT.4.64.0606022023570.1540@ZORIN>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, dorayme wrote:
>
> > What are your or anyone's favourite examples of serious
> > commercial
>
> Well, aside from Google (whose HTML is dreadful, even though it does
> the job), I don't off-hand have a commercial example to offer, but, of
> the various pages that I use professionally, I must say the ones based
> on Mediawiki behave very nicely,
>
Yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page behaves nicely enough
at well under 800px considering the amount of stuff on it ... And
does take advantage of bigger screens for more than the simple
reason that you can see things bigger. The source indicates a lot
of inline styles, tables and... well, not sure I would like to
maintain it!
> > (with much product and complexity, need for photos)
>
> Excuse me, but cramming-in the maximum amount of stuff per page is
> *not* the sign of a designer who understands the web.
Well, hang on... you have jumped to an over pessimistic thought
from my "with much product and complexity, need for photos". You
will probably understand that there is a thing of trying to avoid
too many levels of directories, something that can also confuse
the punters. So the distribution of the material and photos needs
to avaoid both over crowding individual pages and confusing the
user with too many "easy to view" individual pages.
Again, be good to ground all this talk in concrete examples. I
was particularly interested in that subset that might not need
horiz scrolling at under 800px...
> Having to deal with various commercial sites, there seem to be
> basically two kinds:
>
> * those where the site is better navigated using google
>
> * those which contrive to prevent google from indexing them
>
> You can probably work out what I think about that, hmmm?
>
er... yes, sort of... "not much"? It is easier to make academic
sites where there are not commercial pressures to more ideal
standards (generally). The former tend to involve more text and
less pics, the latter typically want folks to see what they want
to flog.
I say, easier, I don't say more than this. I do not think
commercial sites have to be hard to navigate, irritating to
scroll or lack a goodly many pics both big and small.
> > webpages that enable some folk to enjoy the benefits of their big
> > screens (normal landscape/approx.4:3) while avoiding irritating
> > those with a 700px limit?
>
> "limit" wouldn't be accurate. When the content - in and of itself -
> calls for a big screen, then I'll use it. Such as 1024 on the laptop,
> or 2 x 1280 on the desk. But when I'm merely browsing around, then
> I'll have other things going on elsewhere on the screen, and I don't
> want the browser window hogging all the width.
....
O! You are sensibly flexible. Pity, I had this funny image of you
schlepping your laptop around the campus, avoiding smoking
students, and grumpily looking at sites too big for your
screen... O well, images come and go. I will lose this one now.
> > Yes, all is a trade off.
>
> No disagreement there.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|