On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:28 +0200, Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote: > Hi, > > I fully agree with you. > Sidebar is browser dependent and is generally made to be > automatically and frequently refreshed - just as CNN sidebar does, > dispaying the titles of the recent news... > I think I started this thread, so allow me to close it. > > Sidebar is not a good idea. (This discussion opened my eyes) > > The only thing I keep in mind is the idea to generate a PDA site > with a specific output plugin... >
You may consider to write a viewHelper implementation for pda. ;-) I will helping you the best I can with it. salu2 > Regards, > Cyriaque, > > Mark Eggers a écrit : > > >I apologize for joining this discussion late. > > > >--- Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I think it would be great to have optional support > >>>for advanced features of smarter browsers. Though > >>>that means you would have to support several > >>> > >>> > >access > > > > > >>>options (smart and dumb) for the same browser. > >>> > >>> > > > >While I like the idea of exploring advanced features > >of some of the browsers, I do think it should be > >optional. > > > >This does create an extra burden for the site > >administrator. That person would have to keep up two > >sets of style sheets (or sites!) as well as having a > >pretty good set of selection rules to distinguish > >between all the browsers. > > > > > > > >>>second permanent window area to support all kinds > >>>of extra info see > >>> > >>> > > > >www.granneman.com/webdev/browsers/mozillafirefoxnetscape/sidebars.htm. > > > >I really don't like the sidebar and will only use it > >occasionally for history searches. In general when I > >put together or read web pages, I like as much screen > >real estate as possible. > > > > > > > >>I wouldn't put navigation in the side bar, that is > >>not really what it is for. > >> > >> > > > >I agree with this. The sidebar information in the web > >site example has nothing to do with the page being > >viewed. > > > > > > > >>The user has full control over when a side bar is > >>viewed and therefore if you put something critical > >> > >> > >to > > > > > >>your page in there (like navigation) your page may > >>appear broken to the user. > >> > >> > > > >I agree with this. What happens when a user makes > >consistent use of the sidebar, as in the Scott > >Granneman example? Does the Forrest sidebar overwrite > >the user's sidebar? Do you end up with two sidebars > >and half the screen real estate gone? This second > >option might be manageable if Forrest's structure was > >more liquid. > > > >My real problem with this is that it strays quite far > >from standards, and thus accessibility. I think it's > >not safe to have critical parts of a web site depend > >on optional (flash, shockwave, java, javascript) or > >browser-specific (ActiveZ, rounded corners in CSS, > >sidebars) functionality. > > > >Just my two cents . . . . > > > >/mde/ > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
