|
|
Posted by tshad on 11/03/11 11:16
"Mark Parnell" <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
news:10b6qno9eoe2k.1321zjtg2kr3n$.mark@markparnell.com.au...
> Previously in alt.html, tshad <tscheiderich@ftsolutions.com> said:
>> "kchayka" <usenet@c-net.us> wrote in message
>> news:3ev320F561lrU1@individual.net...
>>> Hmmm... I don't see where you've indicated that readability has any
>>> importance at all, only that you maintain a particular layout.
>>
>> Actually, that is the point. I am trying to make as readable to as many
>> people as possible.
>
> As many people as possible = 100%
So you program for Netscape 1 or 2 or 3 and IE 2 or 3 and all the Javascript
and Jscript differences?
>
>> If this works for 90% of the people, I am not going to
>> try to make it work for the other 10%.
>
> Then you are not achieving your aim as stated above.
I guess not. Possible is defined as reasonable, in my perception (obviously
not yours)
>
>> Would be counter productive.
>
> How so?
As I mentioned above, trying to get every possible Browser (and versions),
scripts (and versions) - would be difficult. Even trying to get it right
for all the variations between just the current Browsers with the different
Doctypes (strict, Transitional, loose etc). When, as people have pointed
here, browsers tend to follow some standards but not others, etc.
>
>> Just as many people don't try to build their sites to handle every
>> possible
>> version of every possible web Browser.
>
> Learn from the lemmings. ;-)
>
>>> Perhaps you haven't heard... web != paper
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I use the Web as another way to accommodate my clients. It is another
>> tool
>> to allow people better access to our services. The fact that is NOT
>> paper,
>> doesn't mean I can't make it as pallatable as well as interesting to my
>> clients as possible.
>
> No one is saying that at all. What kchayka *is* saying is that trying to
> impose the limits of one medium (paper) onto another completely
> different medium (the web) is doomed to failure.
>
I agree. But that doesn't mean you have to toss it out altogether.
>>> If it is so important to have an exact, particular layout, HTML is a
>>> poor choice. PDF is much better suited to that task.
>>
>> You obviously haven't dealt with PDF for forms on the Web much. I can
>> tell
>> you from many that I have talked to, it is very frustrating. It is fine
>> if
>> you are just trying to print some forms. But it is quite a different
>> matter
>> if you are trying to set up an interactive page using PDF.
>
> kchayka is talking about reproducing a paper layout in HTML. It simply
> cannot be done. So you can either use PDF to recreate that layout, or
> you can use HTML and it will look however it looks according to the
> settings on your visitor's browser. You can't have it both ways.
>
Probably true.
>>>Regardless, a web version of a paper form does not have to look identical
>>>to the original.
>>
>> It does, if the client wants it that way.
>
> Then PDF is the best tool for the job. If it needs to be done in HTML,
> it is your job to explain to the client that it won't look identical to
> the paper version.
>
If you don't have the interactive version of adobe, as most people don't (at
least not that I know of), how do you do interactive forms in PDF?
Tom
> --
> Mark Parnell
> http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
> alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|