|
|
Posted by Jose on 12/10/99 11:46
> I essentially designed my site for 800x600 px screensize and up, using a
> <div align=center> container which keeps everything relative to the screen.
> I've checked out some award-winning websites and this is technique seems
> common. So the absolute positioning is only relative to the container not
> the screen.
This goes to show that awards are not useful indicators of website
"goodness". By forcing your visitors to use up 800x600 of their screen
in order to see your site, you are doing them a disservice. Sadly, on
the web people are getting inured to disservice, but nonetheless,
somebody has to stick up for the cattl... customers. :)
Do not design for an 800x600 viewport. Design for an arbitrary
viewport, and let your design flow smoothly whatever size of screen your
visitor has, or deigns to release to you.
> However, a picture = 1K words. Can you give me a URL for a site that uses
> only relative positioning so I can study it?
I could do that, but then I'd have to kill you.
The site I run uses only relative positioning. However I commit other
sins, so keep that in mind.
http://www.flying20club.org
I do not use CSS (I don't know it yet - I just recently rescued this
site from a previous webmaster who used FrontPlague), and I do use
tables for layout (although I do very little that requires layout).
There are other sins of which I am aware and I doubt the site validates;
this is an interim solution. Further, since I don't have control over
the account, I don't have the tools to set some things up properly (such
as .php and server side scripting). The site is not "sophisticated" at
all, but there is nothing on the site that wants sophistication, and
misplaced sophistication is a Bad Thing.
However, I have endeavored to make the site fluid, so that any viewport
size would work, and I have endeavored to respect user preferences.
Sometime in the future I intend to learn how to do .php so that
maintanance is easier, and I will be looking into CSS (though I've seen
so much bad CSS done I enter with trepidation).
> Otherwise, the definition of good design simply becomes any website
> simple enough that it doesn't break...
My definition is one that
1: respects the user's preferences
2: accomplishes the goal of the USER (not the necessarily the webmaster)
3: is easy to use and not distracting
4: is not more sophisticated than necessary.
Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|