|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 04/05/07 21:27
David Segall wrote :
> GΓ©rard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>
>> Schizan wrote :
>>> what size is the area for webcontent in IE on XP when you have a
>>> maximized window whithout the statusfield, adressbar and
>>> navigationbuttons etc.
>>> The screenresolution is 1024 x 768
>>>
>>> Thankyou
>>> Llonas
>> IE 7 users can force the presence of the address bar, IE 6 SP2 users can
>> force the presence of the status bar. For usability and accessibility
>> reasons, all IE6+ users can customize the width/height of scrollbars,
>> window borders, height of titlebar, etc.. There is no reliable way to
>> figure out the content area before actually loading a document. And it
>> is foolish and wrong to try to design according to a precise, defined
>> area since window can be resized, toolbars can be added or removed,
>> etc.. Best policy is to design in a flexible manner, with scalable,
>> fluid design.
>>
>> Liquid Web Design: Build it right and it will work no matter what the
>> container.
>> http://www.digital-web.com/articles/liquid_web_design/
> I find it extraordinary that anybody can argue in favour of "build it
> right and it will work no matter what the container" and fail to
> produce a single web site that meets that specification.
You are confusing Nick Finck who wrote that article in 1999 with the
owners and webmaster of http://www.digital-web.com/ . Nick Finck does
not own digital-web.com . And the owners and webmaster of
http://www.digital-web.com/ do not necessarly understand and see what
would be in their best (commercial and web authoring) interests.
Note also that Nick Fink originally wrote that article in 1999. And in
1999, many web browsers had huge amount of HTML 4 and CSS bugs,
implementation bugs, incomplete support.
The
> referenced web site is designed for 800x600 and shows nothing but
> white space on the right of even a 1024x768 screen. Two of the three
> sites that Digital Web admire as "liquid design"
> <http://www.builder.com> and <http://www.falkondesign.com> are 800x600
> layouts centered in the screen to distribute the white space on both
> sides. The third example <http://www.alistapart.com/stories/noblue/>
> no longer exists but their error page is strictly 1024x768.
Please consider what the message of the article is about. For examples,
I can find a lot of articles promoting valid markup code, using web
standards, etc.. which have considerably a lot of validation errors.
Just visit microsoft.com for starters: the microsoft.com website has
been claiming to support approved W3C web standards for years and you'll
find that 99.999% of all their webpages fail to pass markup and CSS
validation. That's unfortunate, contradictory but the message should
still be heard: use valid markup code and valid CSS code and design
according to W3C web standards.
>> Alt.html FAQ
>> What is flexible, fluid or liquid design?
>> http://www.html-faq.com/webdesign/?flexibledesign
> At least this site does practice what it preaches however, on my "wide
> screen" monitor, their solution to the problem leaves the bottom half
> of the screen blank. I don't think this is any better than leaving the
> right hand side blank. Of the four sites they reference only one
> <http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/1999/10/desi/> attempts "fluid
> design" and it illustrates why the concept fails.
Written in october 1999 at a time where browsers (MSIE 4, MSIE 5.x, NS
4.x) had tons of CSS bugs, faulty implementation, incomplete support, etc.
> The text is far too
> wide to read comfortably and the menu at the top of the page is
> designed exclusively for a 1024 pixel wide monitor.
>> Alt.html FAQ
>> What are the disadvantages of fixed-width design?
>> http://www.html-faq.com/webdesign/?fixedwidth
>>
>> WDG Web Authoring FAQ: Web Design
>> For what screen size should I write?
>> http://htmlhelp.com/faq/html/design.html#screen-size
>
> These two both use the full width of the screen but neither are
> satisfactory at the relatively modest "extremes" of 800x600 and
> 1680x1050 that I have used to test them. Their is ample evidence that
> there is a comfortable width for a line of text
"Confortable width for a line of text" can be very relative to several
parameters which are outside the control of web designers. Hence more
reasons to not try to rigidly constraints the webpage design.
People should view Web sites the way they wish to view them, not the way
the web author expects people to view them, with the same screen
resolution, with the same monitor screen, with the same browser, medium,
etc..
and the print media
> solve the problem by using columns. There is no comparable browser
> compatible solution that fits within a strict topic definition of this
> Usenet group.
Meeting a specific, particular defined screen resolution should never be
a goal by itself; scalable design, fluid, flexible design should always
be prefered, an on-going continuous goal.
HTML should be device-independent and media-independent. HTML is not a
formating language and never was designed to be device-dependent and
media-dependent. That does not mean one can not or should not set/define
max-width, max-height, min-width and min-height *_when and where_* it
makes sense (ie. for the screen media). Rendering a webpage on a 21 inch
monitor screen is quite different from a 14 inch one.
For mobile and small screen rendering/medium (SSR), styling via a proper
stylesheet should be defined for that media (mobile).
Bottom line is: Yes, CSS is a formating language. No HTML is not a
formating language.
Your post is worthy for pointing out that a multi-media, multi-device
friendly website is difficult to achieve. I can testify on this. E.g. at
mozilla.org and developer.mozilla.org, the website are not mobile or SSR
friendly. We've certainly discussed this issue (with Doug Turner, main
Minimo project manager).
GΓ©rard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Dec. 2006)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|