|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/08/07 22:23
In article <18t0nzlifooys.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> > But fluid does not mean that all the cells of a page must expand
> > to fill any size monitor. It may (sort of) mean that it should be
> > able to be seen in 800 x 600. But there is no point at all in
> > designing so that all the elements of a page make like marks on
> > the outside of a balloon or like stars in an expanding universe,
> > getting further and further away from each other.
> >
> This is possibly where we differ most.
> You would have me create pages which never gets bigger than size X x Y and
> would appear in the top left of any browser screen that opens it?
> (That's a question)
Not saying that at all. I know it sounds boring, but too much of
one thing or the other can be bad. The fluid I have in mind is
this, *allow* a page to be squashed up a bit so that those with
small screens get as much as possible without having to scroll
(especially horizontally) but don't let it go so far the other
way *merely* to fill a screen. It seems to me paying lip service
to fluidity to let things blow out no matter what the size of the
screen is.
It requires some judgement, the figures I supply below are mere
stabs. With a big spread sheet page, many cols, much info, there
would be real advantage in *not* setting a max width. But even
here, width: 100% is not really needed because of what I have
referred to as the magic of tables, their inbuilt tendencies to
grow to fit the natural content. You need a good reason to
inhibit or control this natural process.
But it all depends! In the above paragraph, I have in mind a
table with info like stock numbers, sizes, web addresses,
price... not cells full of discursive text. If there is a spiel
in a cell, an essay even, then the game changes. With text, it is
uncomfortable to read lines that are very very wide, so here it
makes sense not to let the table do its natural thing, ie. to
grow as wide as it can before wrapping is forced. Magic is like
that, one sometimes does not get quite one wishes for when
unthinkingly talking to the genie.
> My own starting point has always been to fill the allotted space
>
It seems a most odd assumption when one considers the size and
resolution of some modern screens. Sometimes one simply does not
have enough material to do this effectively. Spreading a few
crumbs out just for the sake of "using" the space seems not
sensible to me. Greedy would-be miners rush out into greenfields
to grab as much as possible. But we know the reason for this. <g>
> > There are a few devices to stop this sort of needless expansion
> > happening that I can mention immediately. First, do use the
> > excellent facility of such as
> >
> > #wrapper {max-width: 1000px;}
> I have never met #wrapper and why 1000px?
> (Pages with wide empty right hand margins really bug me)
Consider this carefully. If you do not like something, it is not
always sensible to do whatever it takes to avoid it. You can make
things even worse. I take a different attitude completely. If an
author has a little bit of material, I prefer to see it neatly
organised and read or look at it without having to cope with the
authors need to do the expanding. I prefer for my mouse to travel
the shortest distance, the eyes too. It is all a matter of
judging. I would say to you not to start with some absolute
requirement to fill the void at all costs!
In any case, if you do have a thing about empty space, there are
things you can do to make it seem more natural to your eye. I
won't go into this here but you are welcome to raise the issue.
> > One thing I do recall though very vividly though is that you have
> > far too much inline css. If it is maintenance and updating you
> > are wanting, templating and all that in a busy site, get the
> > whole lot off the html page and put it into css sheets, use
> > inline only sparingly and mostly tactically in development.
>
> This, you see is where I have my difficulty ie the jargon.
> "Inline css": does this refer to a line like this
> <td valign="bottom" style="text-align: left">
This is what I am referring to. In the head is fine enough in
your circumstances, at least it is all together there!
> or something that refers to some style eg style1 created in the header?
> If it is the latter then it is one which has been created by Expression Web
> and I have missed it as I try not to let that happen.
> OR perhaps I should let EW do that, but call it something more meaningful.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|