Michael Venables wrote:
RE: <http://ronin-group.org/> Michael, My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will... > On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote: >> >> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html 4.01 >> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a >> good idea. > If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. > "application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that > covered. There's a bit about it on my colophon page: > > http://ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon#mime > > And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better > informed. 404 > >> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note >> the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a >> "short window." > This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I > don't really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up > being that I haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x 600 > in so long that it's just not an issue. Granted. Nevertheless, as a simple example, on a 1680/116.5dpi MacBook Pro @1024 with a full-sidebar will yield a 640 "content" window... > > On the other hand, if you're seeing clipping at 1024 x 768, that > worries me. Was there a particular page giving you problems, or was > that a general resolution comment? It is a general comment --no big deal-- just something to be aware of. Regardless of a users native resolution, a short-window may make the fp sidebar problematic. > >> 3/ Should the navigation links in the left column be larger, the same >> size, or smaller than the primary content in the right column? > Obviously, I thought they should be larger. =] > This was done for a couple of reasons: 1) to increase visibility, 2) > to give them a certain scale in the sidebar and not have them > surrounded by white space. > > I don't know if these are *good* reasons, but they were the ones that > drove my decision. > > What are the operational or aesthetic theories behind the other > schools of thought? Dunno. Some say /content'/ rules the roost. > >> 4/ If, for whatever reason, a user might scale the fonts, do you want >> the navigation links to horizontally cross-over and overlap the >> primary content? > That doesn't happen on any browser I've tested. IE6 -- though > essentially irrelevant -- wraps the text as it grows bigger. IE7 and > Firefox 3 both scale the width of the sidebar along with the fonts. (I > tried to make sure that widths are specified in ems so that this > contingency is covered.) I do get carried away with pushing the envelope :-) . A well placed soft-hyphen (s) on the long-words such as "Recommended" in the sidebar will keep compliant-browser power users off your back. > >> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have >> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer? > No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll > look into them. FWIW, here's one... <http://juicystudio.com/article/colour-contrast-analyser-firefox-extension.php> > > Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. I really appreciate you > taking the time. > > michael > > > > OK. Best, ~d ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
