on Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:55:44 +0100 George wrote:
> One type of building - mostly rigid ones, yes...
Well it seems now you are talking about an environment
that I know :) .
But no you are absolutely wrong. It does not matter If a
building is flexible or rigid, it will have a structure created
from columns,beams etc.
Same thing in here, even though I might not be an expert
in WWW but I have been working with computers
since when we used to work with cards to interact with
them back in I would say 1975 ! as just a simple user
and I have worked with DOS environment and dos based
editors and I have even passed some programming languages
like FORTRAN at the university.
I have produced three commercial training cds on windows xp
hacks and Tweak UI and I have innovated a most effective method
of copy protecting data cds. For more info please see my
portfolio.
I have been then working with internet as a user since late 1999
and started to work professionally since 2005.
> It seems like you're looking for definitions on how to create stable
> structures in the environments (media) we know, while I'm looking for
> openings out of the known environments (media) and into the unknown.
Continuing my above speech:
So no it does not seem that way, that is you seeing it that way :).
I know the environment very well, and I have transfered my stability
skills from civil engineering to web environment and there is nothing
wrong with that.
> The issue is important enough, but to me it looks more like another
> attempt on limiting the constant flow of changes.
Well, that is your idea which I respect, but it is not a fact.
No as i said it before purpose of a stable web environment
is not limiting anything rather it creates a more user friendly
environment to go with the flow of changes.
I just can not understand why you are ignoring the fact that
stability for web design increases the readability and usability
of web content. Do you disagree with this?
> I prefer an inherent "layout instability", which doesn't necessarily go...
But I prefer an inherent "layout stability", which does necessarily goes
in the way of what you are looking for which is providing a better
user experience.
>The differences at the moment seems to be one of "presenting a building
>structure (design) in a set environment" vs. "providing a flexible
>data-exchange
>vehicle (design) for whatever environment".
Well I believe you have misunderestood the definition of "layout stability" .
layout stability does not create a 100% rigid web content rather it creates a
flexible-rigid web content while increasing the readability and usability of
web content to provide a better user experience. My portfolio located at:
http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com is a sample of such a design .
Thus it provides a flexible-rigid data-exchange
vehicle (design) for the web environment.
> As the data-exchange format we know as 'the internet' is still in its
> infancy, at this moment in time I'm not occupied by the need for
> stability but rather for flexibility.
Again please see my above comment too. But Why not? Stability is not
against flexibility rather it helps to remove the defeciencies of flexibility.
How many times have you happened to open up different browser windows
on your monitor and you have resized your browser window and you have
encountered problem reading and using the web content because of
overlaps etc.?
How many times you think visually impaired individuals have tapped
on ctrl+ to increase the text size you think?
This is what I am trying to solve with layout stability.
> Known environments are limited and limiting, and defining rules
>for how to...
Even though I understand your point and agree with the fact
that we should not restrict ourselves and our environment but
sometimes by setting some rules we will have a more safe and
usable environement. As a sample we rule that to keep our computers
safe (no hackers or viruses) we need to install an internet security
suite in our computers (environment).
Purpose of layout stability is to providing a safe readable and usable
environment regardless of circumstances.
Come on give up now :) .
> ..., but I don't care one bit if it breaks a whole set of rules,
>definitions and "best practices" in order to be more flexible than
>required by known media.
Then you are ignoring those who need more readability,
Usability and a better user experience. My goal is to providing
a better environment for Human Computer Interaction or (HCI).
> - If I think a weak User Agent should be "supported", then I'll give it
> something on a level it can handle - without disturbing the better User
> Agents.
I agree.
>That's a natural part of an "inherently unstable" approach
> anyway, and doesn't yield worse results than any other approach.
Well not necessarily, It can be an "inherently stable" approach.
Regards,
davoud
_________________________________________________________________
Read what Santa`s been up to! For all the latest, Visit on the North Pole
visit asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com!
http://asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
