Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience... 800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen resolution (window width not mentioned). ... These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and 1000 wide layout. In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class and that ruins it for everyone else. -kevin mcmonagle *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
For what it's worth, I often get irritated with 1024x768-mimum layouts, even though my screen is a wopping 1600x1200. There's obviously such a thing as incredibly long lines, but even in cases like the wonderful alistapart.com, I'm irritated that the screen should necessarily be so wide. I actually want my viewport smaller than that without having supposedly useful things hidden. The problem is that a lot of 800x600 designs will look awful once stretched. Ultimately you can't make everyone happy unless you use a trick akin to volkan ozcelik's switching layouts [sarmal.com]. But for a large part it's knowing how to design well that'll get you out of the pickle. Chose 800x600 and get it looking fantastic on 1024x768 too. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Unless this is an Intranet application, the screen resolution that your client uses is totally immaterial. Try telling my client that! I've tried! You don't mention whether or not it is single/multi column and how the navigation is sited. Maybe providing an URL will help?. In certain circumstances There are still merits in using a single column fixed with (tad below 800px) design... http://www.westernwebdesign.com.au/truth/index2.html I'm thinking of moving the nav to the side and she wants the picture of the book enlarged ! Thanks for reply Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
I'm guessing you are using a liquid layout yeah?? Its not so much the width that worries me- its the height. The page currently stops halfway down. She apparently has no problems with my personal site at her resolution so perhaps I will switch her layout to the same as mine to see if that improves the look. If you want a quick fix you could also consider setting a fixed width for your site, its less elastic but it would be quick. I have already gone down that route and it is even worse - so much border I think I'll try a different layout - I'll change my resolution to 1280x1024 and check out some samples. Thanks for reply. Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Lyn If it's a fluid design, surely height and width are inextricably linked. As the width narrows, the height increases. From your description, maybe your client seems to be lacking in web content, which cannot be cured by means of design alone. If they're obsessed with having so few words, maybe make the font larger. -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 01/06/07, Lyn Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm guessing you are using a liquid layout yeah?? Its not so much the width that worries me- its the height. The page currently stops halfway down. She apparently has no problems with my personal site at her resolution so perhaps I will switch her layout to the same as mine to see if that improves the look. If you want a quick fix you could also consider setting a fixed width for your site, its less elastic but it would be quick. I have already gone down that route and it is even worse - so much border I think I'll try a different layout - I'll change my resolution to 1280x1024 and check out some samples. Thanks for reply. Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: So you're saying that someone using an 800-pixel-wide monitor probably wouldn't know what it's like to see the same page with a 1000-pixel-wide monitor? A user that has they're screen resolution set to 800x600 is well used to scrolling. The school analogy wasn't appropriate-but i think that using 800 as a base width is an extreme view. It depends on the content. Lately Ive been fixing page width anywere between 800 and 950- don't like to go all the way 1024. If im doing a tourism/lodging site and the page is overloaded with content I will go closer to 1000 but keep all navigation and critical content in the fold. Some busy sites can be easier to read if the content is given room to breath even if it takes a little scrolling from 2.5% of users. no harm. -best kevin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Hi there Tim, From the stats (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp) I would say go for 1024x768 but, with that said, whenever possible (often determined by client requirements and likes/dislikes :) ) go for a liquid layout that would enable your site to expand and contract based on the browser size. I think what a lot of people forget is that even though the users screen resolution might be 1024x768 or even higher, this does not mean that the user has their browser window maximized to the full height/width. I know especially on Mac this is very true. So to my mind, go for 1024x768 but keep the above in mind and go for liquid when at all possible. Kind Regards Schalk Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Screen resolution issue
I design sites in 1024-768 and make sure they look good at 800x600x. Have just done a design for a client who is using a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and the site looks awful - it stops halfway down the page and everything looks so spread out. I must say I have never had this problem before and not sure how to resolve it. The client is not happy so I have to fix this quickly. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Lyn Lyn Patterson www.westernwebdesign.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Lyn Unless this is an Intranet application, the screen resolution that your client uses is totally immaterial. It is the screen res, used by the users of the site you need to worry about. I recognise that fluid designs aren't always the answer, IE not obeying max-width etc... means that line lenghts of text etc can look strange when viewed full screen at high resolution. I would factor into any thoughts that viewing full screen at 1280 x 1024 (or higher) using IE is a minority interest :0) You don't mention whether or not it is single/multi column and how the navigation is sited. Maybe providing an URL will help?. In certain circumstances There are still merits in using a single column fixed with (tad below 800px) design... -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 01/06/07, Lyn Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I design sites in 1024-768 and make sure they look good at 800x600x. Have just done a design for a client who is using a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and the site looks awful - it stops halfway down the page and everything looks so spread out. I must say I have never had this problem before and not sure how to resolve it. The client is not happy so I have to fix this quickly. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Lyn Lyn Patterson www.westernwebdesign.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
I'm guessing you are using a liquid layout yeah?? If so then I'd look into implemeting some sort of maxWidth on your page so that things don't spread out so far on high resolution displays. Surprising enough there are problems doing this in IE due to its lack of proper support for the maxWidth property but there are ways around this - check out google and there is loads of good stuff out there. If you want a quick fix you could also consider setting a fixed width for your site, its less elastic but it would be quick. - Original Message From: Lyn Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, 1 June, 2007 10:03:02 AM Subject: [WSG] Screen resolution issue I design sites in 1024-768 and make sure they look good at 800x600x. Have just done a design for a client who is using a screen resolution of 1280x1024 and the site looks awful - it stops halfway down the page and everything looks so spread out. I must say I have never had this problem before and not sure how to resolve it. The client is not happy so I have to fix this quickly. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Lyn Lyn Patterson www.westernwebdesign.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ___ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Lyn Having seen it, doesn't look too (hmm..) bad at 1280 x 1024 full screen. What else could expected with so little front page content I would be tempted to maybe centre the content by menas of giving the whole lot 15% margin left and right, upping the size of the text, and adding more words. How about some google juice in terms of headings, and a tad more content. Think Editorial ang SEO as well as design -- Regards - Rob Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton On 01/06/07, Lyn Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless this is an Intranet application, the screen resolution that your client uses is totally immaterial. Try telling my client that! I've tried! You don't mention whether or not it is single/multi column and how the navigation is sited. Maybe providing an URL will help?. In certain circumstances There are still merits in using a single column fixed with (tad below 800px) design... http://www.westernwebdesign.com.au/truth/index2.html I'm thinking of moving the nav to the side and she wants the picture of the book enlarged ! Thanks for reply Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
If it's a fluid design, surely height and width are inextricably linked. As the width narrows, the height increases. From your description, maybe your client seems to be lacking in web content, which cannot be cured by means of design alone. If they're obsessed with having so few words, maybe make the font larger. Yes, lack of content is the real problem. Thanks, Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Having seen it, doesn't look too (hmm..) bad at 1280 x 1024 full screen. What else could expected with so little front page content Exactly! I would be tempted to maybe centre the content by menas of giving the whole lot 15% margin left and right, upping the size of the text, and adding more words. How about some google juice in terms of headings, and a tad more content. Think Editorial ang SEO as well as design Thanks for the ideas Rob - very useful. Will get to work! Lyn *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Paul Novitski wrote: Every 40th visitor, on average, will have a bad experience... 800x600: 2.5% = 100/2.5 = one in 40 visitors uses 800px-wide screen resolution (window width not mentioned). ... At 5/31/2007 11:32 PM, kevin mcmonagle wrote: These visitors probably wouldnt notice the difference between an 800 and 1000 wide layout. So you're saying that someone using an 800-pixel-wide monitor probably wouldn't know what it's like to see the same page with a 1000-pixel-wide monitor? And therefore they don't deserve to see a decent page? What's your logic, and where's your compassion? In school the teacher has to teach for the dumbest kids in the class and that ruins it for everyone else. Oh, I see. So from your perspective life is really like an elementary school classroom, and we're really like little ten-year-olds pouting because we're too spoiled and lazy to advance ourselves when the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Oh my god. You're advocating a paradigm in which we can win only if someone else loses. There ain't enuf pixels on this ranch fer the two of us, Jethro! *Pow!* *pow!* *splat!* Unless, of course, it's possible that intelligent design can provide a decent page for everyone. That, however, requires a real winner. It takes the motivation to make everyone succeed and the intelligence to figure out how to make it work, the compassion to care about people different from ourselves and the brilliance to find solutions where others have failed. Are you up for the challenge? Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Firefox bug with legend tag
Hi, I am working on a form layout that utilize fieldset and legend and I need to take care of presentation as well as screen reader needs. The legend tag has a rounded corners background image, Safari and Opera have no issue with positioning and width but I am finding Firefox (all Gecko browsers actually) doesn't recognizing width element (haven't check on IE yet but I figure it's buggy too). Did a google search on Firefox bugs and found this: http://marc.baffl.co.uk/bugs.php Here is the screen shot of the result from above mentioned browsers. http://project.lotusseedsdesign.com/legend.gif The background image has to stay, I guess my last option will be removing the legend, and use p tag instead, but this is really not desirable because the page has two forms, one for newsletter, the other for personal info submission. Consider I need to take care of screen reader's users, the legend should stay too. Or am I still able to make the form accessible without legend? I am inclined to sacrifice the presentation needs however it's not my call. Client hasn't see the layout, but I know he wants to keep both. Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Screen resolution issue
Lyn Patterson wrote: I'm guessing you are using a liquid layout yeah?? Its not so much the width that worries me- its the height. The page currently stops halfway down. She apparently has no problems with my personal site at her resolution so perhaps I will switch her layout to the same as mine to see if that improves the look. If you want a quick fix you could also consider setting a fixed width for your site, its less elastic but it would be quick. I have already gone down that route and it is even worse - so much border I think I'll try a different layout - I'll change my resolution to 1280x1024 and check out some samples. Thanks for reply. Lyn Hi Lyn, Have a look at www.marscovista.co.uk - a site of mine with very little on the opening page, but everything in balance so the design maintains credibility. If you dislike that approach (some folk have no taste :-) ) have you considered adding an 'interesting' background to the body? Many sites on zen garden do this. Just a thought. -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Firefox bug with legend tag
Hi Tee, I wrote something about styling legends a while ago which might help: http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/legends-of-style/ On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:12:59 +1000, Tee G. Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am working on a form layout that utilize fieldset and legend and I need to take care of presentation as well as screen reader needs. The legend tag has a rounded corners background image, Safari and Opera have no issue with positioning and width but I am finding Firefox (all Gecko browsers actually) doesn't recognizing width element (haven't check on IE yet but I figure it's buggy too). Did a google search on Firefox bugs and found this: http://marc.baffl.co.uk/bugs.php Here is the screen shot of the result from above mentioned browsers. http://project.lotusseedsdesign.com/legend.gif The background image has to stay, I guess my last option will be removing the legend, and use p tag instead, but this is really not desirable because the page has two forms, one for newsletter, the other for personal info submission. Consider I need to take care of screen reader's users, the legend should stay too. Or am I still able to make the form accessible without legend? I am inclined to sacrifice the presentation needs however it's not my call. Client hasn't see the layout, but I know he wants to keep both. Thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
This going anywhere? Bruce Prochnau bkdesign - Original Message - From: Chris Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size ...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Hrm. As a crippled kid and possibly even a stupid kid I am greatful that I got any attention. Good to know there are a few people left in the world that believe only they have a right to be anything. Are you sure you should have left Germany circa 1939? Greg Hacke [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: IM greghacke There is no right. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage) That sounds right: design for 1024, accommodate 800 and try to tolerate 640 Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Recommended screen size
I've come by the axiom that there is no wrong. This means sometimes we have to not be compliant on some standards issues. I know, it's tough but if the client says I WILL HAVE X then you do it. Sure, you try and get them to change their mind, show them valid approaches, etc. but in the end - they own the site in question. I try and build to spec. If there is a need for a specific size, we do it. Personally, I start at 1024 but insure compatability at 800 as well and that it doesn't swim at high res. Greg Hacke Idle Hands Press :: idlehandspress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: IM greghacke *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Back in my eCommerce days, I ran a very high-tech oriented eStore where higher resolutions were the norm. Where I work now on my governmental site which services a very large rural area, I'm pushing closer to 20% at 800x600. Looking at my stats I see lots of visitors using old an OS and old browsers too. I really think you must design the resolution of your site to fit your target market. My target market now still has a huge % of visitors on 800x600 so the site must look good for them. I'm hoping to move the design into a more fluid layout, but for now, 800x600 is the base for me. -- Kevin Murphy Webmaster: Information and Marketing Services Western Nevada College www.wnc.edu 775-445-3326 On May 31, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Thomler, Craig wrote: I still regard 800x600 as a necessary minimum (for government sites) as it accounts for approximately 10% of the viewing audience. Many sites now treat 1024x768 as the minimum based on their website traffic. If you can pull this data out of your own logs this may guide whether you still need to cater for 800x600. Cheers, Craig - Craig Thomler Online Marketing Manager | Communication Strategy and Services External Relations | Child Support Agency P 02 627 28681 | F 02 627 28898 W csa.gov.au | E [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Offenstein Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 13:31 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Recommended screen size Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? Thanks in advance. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** College of Applied Health Sciences *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services Web Specialist *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any unauthorised use of this information by other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this email in error please notify the Privacy Contact Officer of the Child Support Agency, telephone 02 6272 8346 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
list etiquette [WAS: Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size]
At 6/1/2007 07:38 AM, Chris Williams wrote: ...the teacher is paying attention to the stupid, mute, blind, and crippled kids. Well, Mr. Compassion for the User... stupid, mute, blind, crippled? Nice choice of words... Yes, I chose those offensive words deliberately to point up the attitude of the person to whom I was replying, who wrote, ...the dumbest kids in the class However, I apologize to Kevin and to the list for posting such inflammatory sarcasm. I'm glad that folks are ignoring it and getting on with business. Warm regards, Paul *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Firefox bug with legend tag
On Behalf Of Tee G. Peng Hi, I am working on a form layout that utilize fieldset and legend and I need to take care of presentation as well as screen reader needs. The legend tag has a rounded corners background image, Safari and Opera have no issue with positioning and width but I am finding Firefox (all Gecko browsers actually) doesn't recognizing width element (haven't check on IE yet but I figure it's buggy too). Did a google search on Firefox bugs and found this: Hi Tee, You may find this usefull: http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/how_to_position_the_legend_element.asp --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On 2007/06/01 11:01 (GMT-0400) Andrew Maben apparently typed: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:08 AM, Lea de Groot wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:31:28 -0500, Tim Offenstein wrote: Anyone have a recommendation on what size screen to use as a baseline when designing for a new site? 800x600 or 1024x768 or something else? I do base designs for 1024, but I make sure the final implementation doesn't actually break at 800x, although I ignore it being a little crowded (I usually also check 600x, but I only fix really bad breakage) That sounds right: design for 1024, accommodate 800 and try to tolerate 640 Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. -- The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Just wanted to add Ithat 've been waiting 10 years for the defacto standard to be 1024x768. I remember back then being over joyed that I had just moved from 640x480 to 800x600 as the standard resolution. I stupidly thought that 1024 was just around the corner. 10 years later and I'm still starting at 800x600 and make sure the site works at other resolution. If it doesn't fit 800x600 it doesn't go in. I'm just glad to have options of fluid or static design with css. Trevor *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? If I'm missing your point, I'd love to see some clarifying examples. Meanwhile, whilst I do indeed embrace the variability, there are literally infinite possible variations to the size and proportion of the browser viewport. I humbly suggest that it is unreasonable to expect, and frankly, impossible to achieve a design that will be uniformly brilliant in every case. While of course the variety of possible modes of final presentation have to be kept in mind, the initial design work is going to have to take place on a fixed-size canvas. If one sets what I think is the reasonable aim of producing a design that will look as good as possible in any presentation mode, then it follows that there are presentation modes in which it will look better than others. Hence it makes sense to attempt to find some congruence between looking better and the probability of any particular presentation mode. I'm not advocating, and I don't believe Lea was either, that the ideal is to create a design that is in some abstract and necessarily highly subjective sense perfect for one particular window size and screen resolution and progressively worse in any other environment, but rather to look as good as possible in the widest possible range of environments while accepting that some environments are going to be more common, and that right now a screen resolution of 1024x768 is perhaps the most common. I think this an honest and honorable goal, and there are many options at our disposal in our attempts to achieve it, one, but only one, of which is certainly relative sizing. Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Firefox bug with legend tag
On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:36 AM, John Faulds wrote:
Hi Tee,
I wrote something about styling legends a while ago which might
help: http://www.tyssendesign.com.au/articles/css/legends-of-style/
Hi John, Thanks for the article. After reading it, I went visit one
of the site I did last year that the form was styled with fieldset
because I remember I didn't have trouble getting Firefox to work (IE
doesn't look nice though), and the legend has background color.
Looking at the fieldset and legend elements in the form style sheet,
I can't however remember whether it's my code though because it's
just too weird I would have coded it this way (repeating fieldset). I
have little reason to believe the in house designer who took over the
website after the template is done, messing with my CSS because last
time I talked to him, he hadn't been able to make a simple CSS page.
fieldset {
padding: 15px 10px;
margin: 20px 0;
border: 5px solid #eee;
background-color: #fff;
overflow: auto;
}
fieldset fieldset {
border: 1px solid #ccc;
background-color:#424242;
}
legend {background: #369;
padding: 10px;
color: #fff;
border: 1px double #ddd;
font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: 1px;
}
fieldset fieldset legend {
font-size: 95%;
}
and here is the link
http://decorsit.com.my/enquiry.html
The problem I am having is the background image (as oppose to
background color) doesn't work for Firefox and IE ( the bugger maybe
able to tame using conditional comments?!), I see that the 'width'
and height are not recognized by Firefox. If I make padding top and
right values larger than the actual background image dimension, it
seems to compensate the problem Firefox has issue with. However IE
still not playing nice.
Can't post the actual page but the code:
#f-left fieldset legend {
padding:5px 20px 44px 10px;
font-size:0.9em;
font-weight:bold;
color:#C09;
width:205px;
height:39px; background:url(../images/paper_catalog.gif) no-repeat
left top;
text-transform:uppercase;}
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
At 6/1/2007 10:09 AM, Andrew Maben wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? If I'm missing your point, I'd love to see some clarifying examples. Meanwhile, whilst I do indeed embrace the variability, there are literally infinite possible variations to the size and proportion of the browser viewport. I humbly suggest that it is unreasonable to expect, and frankly, impossible to achieve a design that will be uniformly brilliant in every case. While of course the variety of possible modes of final presentation have to be kept in mind, the initial design work is going to have to take place on a fixed-size canvas. If one sets what I think is the reasonable aim of producing a design that will look as good as possible in any presentation mode, then it follows that there are presentation modes in which it will look better than others. Hence it makes sense to attempt to find some congruence between looking better and the probability of any particular presentation mode. I'm not advocating, and I don't believe Lea was either, that the ideal is to create a design that is in some abstract and necessarily highly subjective sense perfect for one particular window size and screen resolution and progressively worse in any other environment, but rather to look as good as possible in the widest possible range of environments while accepting that some environments are going to be more common, and that right now a screen resolution of 1024x768 is perhaps the most common. I think this an honest and honorable goal, and there are many options at our disposal in our attempts to achieve it, one, but only one, of which is certainly relative sizing. Very well stated, Andrew. In my experience on the markup/styling/programming side of website production, one of the problems I've had working with graphic designers (which nearly always means print designers) is that they come up with one single page design and figure their job is done. When I translate that to the web I often have to do the rest of the design job -- primarily, figuring out how the design will morph when text and window sizes change. I'm handed a single still-frame and asked to produce the movie, and often hear complaints when every other frame of the movie looks different from the first. Well, that's just the reality of the medium. I prioritize the various aspects of the original design so that, as it changes, the mutated forms carry the most aspects of the designer's vision to the user. Here's the kind of priority list I'm talking about, assuming a typical web page of text and images: - The text on the page must be readable as text size increases. This is my bottom line: if you can't read the text, the page has failed in its fundamental transaction with the viewer and loses its reason for existing. - The page layout should survive to the greatest extent possible. These days I like to size block widths in ems so that the whole page enlarges with the font, preserving the proportions of the design. (Whether the images should resize along with their containers differs from one job to the next.) I halt enlargement at window width so that folks with weak vision aren't forced to scroll horizontally (that would merely drive most people away). This means that the blocks on the page maintain their proportions and positional relationships until we reach the window width, then they start distorting, stretching vertically. - When the page contains two or more columns of text (true of nearly all pages I'm given to produce), a couple of things can happen: a) The layout stops expanding horizontally at window width, becoming in practical terms a fixed-width layout; continued text enlargement will eventually cause text to spill out of its containers, overlap, and become unreadable. The hope is that by allowing the layout to expand to window width before halting, the user will have had a chance to enlarge the font so much that they'll be able to read it before spill-over occurs. b) The columns can be floated next to one another so that when the horizontal space can no longer contain them they begin to drop down from a horizontal sequence to a vertical sequence. Both of these scenarios dramatically alter the original graphic
Re: [WSG] Firefox bug with legend tag
Hi Thierry, http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/ how_to_position_the_legend_element.asp Definitely will take a look and pass it to client. Many thanks! tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Andrew Maben wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Or, quit thinking like a print designer. Embrace the variability that is a browser viewport. Size relatively, which can work for 200x400 and all the way up as high as high gets. With respect, I think this is a rather over simplistic response, at least if I'm correctly interpreting your intent. You seem to be suggesting that a design or layout should be conceived as a rectangle with arbitrary relative dimensions, and that those dimensions should be preserved at all resolutions through relative sizing? Sorry, but that sounds like print thinking to me, and in that case how small is the text going to be at 200x400 if it's presentable at 800x600? Wow, this discussion is incredibly reactive for such a group. The proactive stance accepts and understands the web's craziness. It accepts that currently the majority of the access comes through the desktop/laptop computer. However, the proactive stances also accepts that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change, with the advent of mobile devices with access to the internet. The iPhone will have a huge impact, not just because it can access the internet, but because it can access the internet with Safari, a HTML browser. And of course, the iPod have shown us just how 'cool' Apple gadgets are, and how quickly they are adopted. I think the base recommendation now is to ensure that your data is marked up semantically. This way, no matter which stance you take, it's probably not that hard to change. From there, you need to decide how long this particular design is going to last. If it is going to last less than 3 years, then your target audience is probably the desktop/laptop (the reactive stance). After three to five years, you're going to need to be reactive again, and re-design the site, again. However, many sites now aim for some long term consistency and stability (eg. eBay, Amazon). In that case, you should research mobile devices as they will play a huge role (the pro-active stance). [It's well known that a pro-active stance, in any area, leads to better success than a reactive. Reactive is usually about playing 'catch-up'] Yes, this includes the forever-joked about Internet fridge. All these devices will have access. The question isn't so much about discrimination against the users, because it will be them discriminating against *you* because of your site that's not mobile-ready. Do you want to cut yourself off from that market? How will you explain that to your employer/client in a few years time? Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
At 6/1/2007 07:29 PM, Katrina wrote: However, the proactive stances also accepts that position is about to undergo a 360 degree change, with the advent of mobile devices with access to the internet. The iPhone will have a huge impact, not just because it can access the internet, but because it can access the internet with Safari, a HTML browser. And of course, the iPod have shown us just how 'cool' Apple gadgets are, and how quickly they are adopted. Kat, I appreciate your comments on proactive vs. reactive web engineering. Fortunately we can aim stylesheets specifically at handheld devices, at least. It's that enormous spectrum of larger monitors that are lumped together as one (media type screen) that give designers such headaches. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
