Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Try <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1.html> instead. They are slightly more prepared for the future. Also, read them as 'dated' material, as 'search for better solutions' is the only constant you'll find on my site.
Thanks Georg. I have just begun to dive into all the goodies you present ...
... You must also try to find the point when you say "it's ridiculous to go any further at this stage", or else you'll never find solutions that are working in most cases.
To quote myself: "People who like to argue in length about lack of access for their preferred software, should be listen to--up to a point. If accommodating one small group, makes web pages less accessible for the larger groups, then "some" software should be fixed, not our web pages." See: <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03.html> for more. I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to which solutions are better or worse, as web design is a bunch of compromises. The further we can push the limits, the better it'll work, but there will always be limits. Some of these limits are 'standardized', and some are best described as 'trends without foundations' (someone's untested personal preferences that are being copied, without further testing). Good luck, and share any findings with the rest of us.
Frankly, I very much enjoy reading your perspectives on Web design (and cows, and gardens, and ...). In fact I agree with you on most everything. However I find myself overwhelmed with the complexity of your extremely innovative solutions. If one looks back to my earliest pages on the xps.org site you find a simple two column table that fit a 600 pixel wide browser window. Very simple, but sufficient to present the all-important content. I updated that "design" to present three columns in an 760 pixel browser window, using only CSS; but still very simple. The mhcug.org site is my "testbed" for further enhancing the design. Right now I'm satisfied that this design works in Windows 5, 5.5, and 6 through the full range of that browsers text sizes. It works plus or minus two size increments in Firefox. It does not pass the 200% zoom in Opera. My feeling at this point is that Opera represents a minority of my intended audience, so it is not a primary benchmark throughout the range of capabilities it offers. Don't misunderstand, I like Opera enough to have purchased my copy. I used it as my default browser for several months (since replacing it with Firefox).
You have convinced me to delay implementing the proportional approach on my xps.org site. I will seriously explore a fluid design with max width (with IE work-arounds); but only if it meets my notion of simplicity. Otherwise I may just stay with a fixed width presentation. Thanks again for helping me to firm up my own objectives.
Regards, Pat Patrick Mannix http://xps.org/ http://mhcug.org/ ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
