Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Patrick Mannix wrote:
...I have tentatively decided that the fluid (?) design seen at
http://www.mhcug.org/members.htm which seems to fit my requirements
the best.
I think that layout-method is best described as 'proportional', as it
isn't really fluid.
Thanks, I was searching for a better term.
This proportional linking is overriding everything, so I'm
seriously in doubt whether this "proportional layout" is doing any good
for ordinary visitors, or if it just suits web designers wish for
predictable results. Proportional pages don't break--they just become
less accessible.
Good point. Accessibility is highest among my priorities. I did like the
"not breaking" part though.
Should be obvious from the above that I prefer real fluid designs
My advise is to test even more across browser-land, and look at other
solutions / combinations.
Georg,
I am very pleased that you took the time to thoughtfully respond to my
post. You certainly have provided much appreciated "food for thought."
It had been some months since I spent a great deal of time on your
website. It provided much inspiration at the time, and my revisit today,
particularly to your "simple web pages"
<http://www.gunlaug.no/homesite/main_7.html> is sure to inspire even more!
While my current approach met my requirements for simplicity,
cross-browser compatibility with no hacks, and usability -- you pointed
out accessibility issues I failed to consider. I thought I had covered
that by testing among a group of seniors (our user group has a
significant representation of retirees) and at least one blind tester
(who used a screen reader, which doesn't reveal the issues you pointed
out). So, I will take your advice and look for other solutions and test
and test again!
Regards,
Pat
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
