Posted by David Segall on 07/05/07 06:42

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

>David Segall wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> David Segall wrote:
>>>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>>>
>>> http://www.freezeblock.com/
>>
>> At 800x600 <http://www.freezeblock.com/homeowner.php> looks fine
>> except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
>> error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4).
>
>What is the error you see, and what told you of the error?
When the link spans more than one line the box breaks and the first
and second line overlap.
> Neither the
>W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.

>
>> At 1680x1050 I think the line length of the first two lines is far too
>> long although I like the way you have used the illustrations and the
>> boxed testimonials to limit the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem
>> to have given up on <http://www.freezeblock.com/install.php> so it
>> looks like a fixed width page except that the heading looks centered
>> at 800x600 and right justified at 1680x1050.
>
>Do you really use your browser window maximized? <g>
Usually. I'm not good at managing multiple windows on one screen and I
have a second small monitor if I want to keep some reference data
visible.
>
>>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>>
>> You were very brave to include a table
>> <http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/stuff/flmodels.php> in your candidate
>> site.
>
>How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
>This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.
>
>> It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
>> the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
>> maximimum width.
>
>The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.
>
>>> A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line
>>> length, but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
>>
>> I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
>> 320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
>
>I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
>rather well.
>
>> that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
>> number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
>> how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
>> how to achieve it.
>
>I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
No. You were _not_ pious. Unlike the post I responded to you were
careful to specify "within reason" and I assumed that you do not think
that expecting a site to work on a mobile phone and a wide screen
monitor was within reason.

[Back to original message]