Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

5 views
Skip to first unread message

eholz1

unread,
Nov 16, 2007, 10:54:14 PM11/16/07
to
Hello Styleists!

I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
List Apart.

URL: http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html

This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
using Firefox, all is well -
the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!

When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
gone! I discovered this by accident, when I was using the page above
(example_1.htm) as a template for one of my pages, where I have some
roll over image buttons for navigation on the left side, and all was
ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

Would some one take a look at the url above, using ie 7 and give me a
hint about fixing this?

Thanks,

eholz1

Bergamot

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 12:50:07 AM11/17/07
to
eholz1 wrote:
>
> ok with my page (more or less) with Firefox. Then I check the page
> with IE 7, and all my pretty buttons are gone!

Put your test page on the web somewhere and post the URL. Do not post
code here. Before you do this, however, validate both your HTML and CSS
to make sure there aren't any syntax errors causing the problem.

--
Berg

rf

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 4:33:12 AM11/17/07
to

"Bergamot" <berg...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:5q7dopF...@mid.individual.net...

Er, he/she did, or more to the point he/she doesn't need to.

It seems the page at alistapart:
http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
is broken when viewed with IE7. Indeed, the left hand column is simply
missing.

I'm not too keen on alistapart examples so I won't bother diagnosing the
problem.

--
Richard.


VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 5:39:31 AM11/17/07
to
On Nov 17, 6:54 am, eholz1 <ewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Styleists!
>
> I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
> List Apart.
>
> URL:http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
>
> This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
> using Firefox, all is well -
> the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
> is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
> three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!
>
> When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
> gone!

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
From CSS for #left column: margin-left: -100%;

See
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/
Bug #39

The second thing you never should use is negative margin value unless
you are Ok with part of your content disappearing for 80%-95% of your
visitors (IE users). btw on the demo for bug #39 under IE 6 SP1 we are
having the same peekaboo effect ("X" is not on the page) - despite the
bug is claimed only for IE7.

P.S. The first thing one should never use is div layout - unless it is
a demo page showing the power and benefits of such layout. If it is a
paid commercial solution then always use the standard table layout,
otherwise soon you'll get a reputation of a unreliable producer. No
matter how much UA-specific patches you will apply, the re will be
always a high chance that some amount of visitors will not be able to
see your page at all or a part of it. Only table layout eliminates
this danger.
That is not an order of course :-) - just a friendly advise.

rf

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 5:47:20 AM11/17/07
to

"VK" <school...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a626f7f7-78a0-41fb...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Er, what?

> matter how much UA-specific patches you will apply, the re will be
> always a high chance that some amount of visitors will not be able to
> see your page at all or a part of it. Only table layout eliminates
> this danger.

Er, what again?

> That is not an order of course :-) - just a friendly advise.

And totally incorrect :-)

BTW VK did you not notice that the page the OP cited is not his own but from
alistapart?

--
Richard.


VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 6:52:22 AM11/17/07
to
>> Only table layout eliminates this danger.
>
> Er, what again?

Again (as it's very important for commercial developers): only table
layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by all
visitors using graphics UAs. If one wants to be stable paid for his
solutions, table layout is the only option.
Earlier this year I explained that div layouts still remain what they
were 10 years ago: a sophisticated hack of the existing model; and as
any hack, especially so sophisticated and relaying on most fine and
dark aspects of the model, this hack will never be something to
expected working everywhere.
CSS model was made by W3C as a tool to make *HTML equivalents of PDF*.
"Now you can make each element of your page pixel-exact!" - that was
the slogan of the first CSS specs (conveniently forgotten now by W3C).
The Holy Grail of the model are position:absolute and pixel value for
all positions and sizes.
"float" property was only and exclusively introduced as a replacement
for <img align="left/right", "clear" was only and exclusively
introduced as a replacement for <br clear="left,right,all",
position:relative was only and exclusively introduced as a replacement
for NN's <ilayer>. Alas the model has been made greedy so one could
apply new attributes to all other elements including external
containers: something what was completely missed while making the
model. The current CSS simply doesn't have a right positioning
mechanics to reliable substitute the table layout. For that it needs a
new attribute for allocation by joiner points, something like
/* bogus non-possible style rule! */
#center {
position: joiner(top-left, #left, top-right, 1em, right);
}
so no matter what and why but the top-left corner of #center block
will be always 1em to the right from the top-right corner of #left.

On IE it is rather easy to make such reliable div layouts because
since IE5.5 Microsoft has compensated the limitations of CSS via
behaviors (and now bindings on Gecko) but it doesn't help too much for
an universal run. And I wouldn't expect the inclusion of such feature
right into CSS model because if widely used then it will most probably
kill the rest of the aggressive rendering. The aggressive rendering is
already "one leg in the tomb" on div layouts and such new feature as I
described will do the rest. Don't take my words for true, check it
yourself: load a complex page with the standard table layout and the
same page made on div layouts over a slow connection. Check out when
will you see anything in your browser in either case.

> BTW VK did you not notice that the page the OP cited is not his own but from
> alistapart?

Yes, and I also noticed that this page is called "Holy Grail layout"
or something and positioned as a perfect substitution of the three
columns table layout - that is the reason why OP is trying to get it
working for his own site. That is also the reason why I dared to write
all these personal advises.


rf

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 7:04:06 AM11/17/07
to

"VK" <school...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba632b8d-1689-4e4d...@b36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>>> Only table layout eliminates this danger.
>>
>> Er, what again?

<snip drivel>

No further comment required.

--
Richard.


VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 7:24:10 AM11/17/07
to
On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>> Only table layout eliminates this danger.

> No further comment required.

Oh? So what is _your_ professional advise will be to OP? "IE users
will not see one third of your page and hell on them, who cares"? Or
do you have another "really working" three columns div layout to
suggest? If the first, then no comments of course, if the last then
I'm anxious to see one.

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 11:48:57 AM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:
> On Nov 17, 3:04 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Only table layout eliminates this danger.
>
>> No further comment required.
>
> Oh? So what is _your_ professional advise will be to OP? "IE users

Can't speak for Richard, but MY advise would be to learn how to do CSS
layouts properly.

> will not see one third of your page and hell on them, who cares"? Or
> do you have another "really working" three columns div layout to
> suggest? If the first, then no comments of course, if the last then
> I'm anxious to see one.

How about a couple of layouts that mix from 1 to 4 columns?

http://beta.ksscholl.com/nbuy/rx/template.html
http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php

It's not THAT difficult, certainly not so difficult as to depend on
table structures when they are not necessary. Not to mention your
documents will be far more semantically correct.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 12:01:01 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 17, 7:48 pm, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
> How about a couple of layouts that mix from 1 to 4 columns?
>
> http://beta.ksscholl.com/nbuy/rx/template.html
> http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php

Nice design on both sites, but irrelevant to the subject. We are
talking about the three columns (not rows) layout with any kind of
content in left, center and -possibly- right column which is indeed is
the Holy Grail of layouts.
The linked samples are horizontal divs with content staying for a
fixed value from left and right border in each container. That is
indeed a trivia.

A note to possible readers: please do not start on "we can have a
harrow palmtop/cellphone screen so the three column layout shouldn't
be never blah-blah-blah in the Internet". Don't make another funny
illustration for the immortal "The Fox and the Grapes" of Aesop ;-)

> It's not THAT difficult

I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
template for the most used page structure?

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 12:36:58 PM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:
> On Nov 17, 7:48 pm, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
>> How about a couple of layouts that mix from 1 to 4 columns?
>>
>> http://beta.ksscholl.com/nbuy/rx/template.html
>> http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php
>
> Nice design on both sites, but irrelevant to the subject. We are
> talking about the three columns (not rows) layout with any kind of

Yes, we are talking about multiple COLUMNS, which each of those layouts
displays. Therefore they are not irrelevant to the discussion.

> content in left, center and -possibly- right column which is indeed is
> the Holy Grail of layouts.

Three columns could be done just as the four columns I show in those
examples. Simply remove the fourth column.

Since you note a POSSIBLE right column, I assume that you question the
validity of two-column CSS layouts as well. If that be the case, by all
means take a look any of the following, none of which use tables for layout:

http://www.bethanyccdoc.com/
http://www.recycle4va.org/Home.php
- http://review3.ksscholl.com/Home.php (functional improvement beta)
http://shoshintech.com/
http://www.waterbuds.com/

Each of these could similarly be made into three-column layouts with
relative ease.

> The linked samples are horizontal divs with content staying for a
> fixed value from left and right border in each container. That is
> indeed a trivia.

So a columnar layout within a container div doesn't meet your criteria?
That seems rather odd; the columns could be applied to the entire page
just as easily.

> A note to possible readers: please do not start on "we can have a
> harrow palmtop/cellphone screen so the three column layout shouldn't
> be never blah-blah-blah in the Internet". Don't make another funny
> illustration for the immortal "The Fox and the Grapes" of Aesop ;-)

I would agree with that sentiment, especially since a three-column
layout, if arranged properly from a semantic standpoint, would remain
usable even on a narrow screen.

>> It's not THAT difficult
>
> I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
> template for the most used page structure?

Though I write my own code for each project, you might start here:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

Gus Richter

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 12:37:35 PM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:
>
> I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
> template for the most used page structure?

First of all, there is more than one way to skin a cat and the example
from alistapart.com is one which worked at the time for all, including
IE 6. IE 7 breaks it and now it needs to be redone. In my opinion, it
should be completely redone, since it is unnecessarily complex. It
requires simply to float CL left, float CR right and permit CC to flow
between the two. All browsers are happy with it. Here are changes needed
for the example presented:

Rearrange the markup such that the order is: div id="left", div
id="right" and then div id="center"

Then replace under the /*** The Essential Code ***/ with:
body { }
#container { }
#container .column { }
#left { float:left; width: 200px; /* LC width */ }
#center { margin-left:200px; margin-right:150px; /* to prevent
shrinkwrapping left & right */ }
#right { float:right; width: 150px; /* RC width */ }

/*** IE6 (or IE7) Fix ***/
/* none needed */

#footer { clear: both; }

Very clean, very simple and works everywhere.

--
Gus

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 12:55:20 PM11/17/07
to

Indeed.

I would suggest increasing the margins on #center in order to (1) create
some gutter between the columns, and (2) alleviate the IE6 3-pixel jog bug.

Gregor Kofler

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 2:18:59 PM11/17/07
to
VK meinte:

>>> Only table layout eliminates this danger.
>> Er, what again?
>
> Again (as it's very important for commercial developers): only table
> layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by all
> visitors using graphics UAs. If one wants to be stable paid for his
> solutions, table layout is the only option.

Jeez... Utter crap. Randy Webb was right with his assessment of yours on
clj.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 3:37:08 PM11/17/07
to

So may I see a working example (not necessary yours) of this Nth
attempt?

Sorry, but over the last 4 years I've got a strong - though possibly
utterly wrong - impression that ciwas got occupied by a very timed
team of classical "air sellers": so they declare a non-existing
product as the only one way to reach the Alleluia, themselves as the
only persons having the secret to use the product, and all failed
attempt to get to the Alleluia as a result of i) a wrong use of the
product because of a misunderstanding by the customer of the very
clearly spelled guideline or ii) because of mental limitations
preventing the user from strictly following such guideline.

So:

<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td width="15%">Menu</td>
<td width="70%">Main</td>
<td width="15%">Blank/Splash</td>
</tr>
</table>

Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
- or stop cheating people, please.

Note: sorry exuses of the kind "different solutions require different
approaches" are dismissed in advance: I do not put any such
restriction in my sample, so please avoid them in yours.

dorayme

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 3:48:34 PM11/17/07
to
In article <oO-dnduYXYzmh6La...@comcast.com>,
Kevin Scholl <ksc...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:

> http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php
>
> It's not THAT difficult, certainly not so difficult as to depend on
> table structures when they are not necessary. Not to mention your
> documents will be far more semantically correct.

That last link looks very nice indeed Kevin. Well done. (I have
not looked at the code much but I took a quick peek... is there
any particular reason not to use 4.01 Strict? After minor />
adjustments and removable of border="0" from the img tags?

--
dorayme

Jonathan N. Little

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 5:07:08 PM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:


> <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
> <tr>
> <td width="15%">Menu</td>
> <td width="70%">Main</td>
> <td width="15%">Blank/Splash</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
> - or stop cheating people, please.
>
> Note: sorry exuses of the kind "different solutions require different
> approaches" are dismissed in advance: I do not put any such
> restriction in my sample, so please avoid them in yours.

except that:

<ul class="menu">
<li>...
</ul>

<div class="content">
...
</div>

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

VK

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 5:42:35 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:

> <ul class="menu">
> <li>...
> </ul>
>
> <div class="content">
> ...
> </div>
>
> It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
> presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
> horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
> it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
> stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)

From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,
what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully
selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?
What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)

dorayme

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 6:12:57 PM11/17/07
to
In article
<8c4ff23a-9765-4f22...@w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
> annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
> sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
> http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215

VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is. Using tables for layout is one thing, But using them
without an eye out for the simplest fluidity criteria is bad,
surely? So, without mentioning anything else, can you trust the
judgement of those who made up this list?

Please make your challenge as clear as possible. Your "only table


layout guarantees that the page can be viewed in all its parts by

all visitors using graphics UAs" is simply wrong. If you turn off
the stylesheet of a semantically well made html page, there are
no modern graphical browsers which will not display the page and
bar anyone from its content. So you are meaning something else.
Please spell it out well, it is an interesting claim but you need
to describe what it is much better.

--
dorayme

eholz1

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 8:36:40 PM11/17/07
to
On Nov 17, 9:36 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
> VK wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 7:48 pm, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
> >> How about a couple of layouts that mix from 1 to 4 columns?
>
> >>http://beta.ksscholl.com/nbuy/rx/template.html
> >>http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php
>
> > Nice design on both sites, but irrelevant to the subject. We are
> > talking about the three columns (not rows) layout with any kind of
>
> Yes, we are talking about multiple COLUMNS, which each of those layouts
> displays. Therefore they are not irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> > content in left, center and -possibly- right column which is indeed is
> > the Holy Grail of layouts.
>
> Three columns could be done just as the four columns I show in those
> examples. Simply remove the fourth column.
>
> Since you note a POSSIBLE right column, I assume that you question the
> validity of two-column CSS layouts as well. If that be the case, by all
> means take a look any of the following, none of which use tables for layout:
>
> http://www.bethanyccdoc.com/http://www.recycle4va.org/Home.php
> -http://review3.ksscholl.com/Home.php(functional improvement beta)http://shoshintech.com/http://www.waterbuds.com/

>
> Each of these could similarly be made into three-column layouts with
> relative ease.
>
> > The linked samples are horizontal divs with content staying for a
> > fixed value from left and right border in each container. That is
> > indeed a trivia.
>
> So a columnar layout within a container div doesn't meet your criteria?
> That seems rather odd; the columns could be applied to the entire page
> just as easily.
>
> > A note to possible readers: please do not start on "we can have a
> > harrow palmtop/cellphone screen so the three column layout shouldn't
> > be never blah-blah-blah in the Internet". Don't make another funny
> > illustration for the immortal "The Fox and the Grapes" of Aesop ;-)
>
> I would agree with that sentiment, especially since a three-column
> layout, if arranged properly from a semantic standpoint, would remain
> usable even on a narrow screen.
>
> >> It's not THAT difficult
>
> > I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
> > template for the most used page structure?
>
> Though I write my own code for each project, you might start here:http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts
>
> --
>
> Kevin Schollhttp://www.ksscholl.com/

Hello All!!!

Seems I have started a war without showing my own page! This is both
good and bad. There was (is) too much to read, but
I will say, the web page urls show some very nice web sites. I just
need to find one to steal! When I get my page to work in both IE7 and
Firefox, I will be satisfied. The info on a negative margin (-100%)
seems to make sense to me. So I will review its use. I am a neophyte
at this, and still am thinking that CSS and divs (done properly,
which I still have to learn!) are slightly more "modern" than using
tables. I could do it all easy (relatively speaking) with tables.
But would like to use CSS. I will read the rest of the posts, and
check a few more sites.

Thanks All (I think),

eholz1 aka eric

Gus Richter

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 8:40:26 PM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:
>
> <table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
> <tr>
> <td width="15%">Menu</td>
> <td width="70%">Main</td>
> <td width="15%">Blank/Splash</td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> Either an equivalent of this standard table layout in some div layout
> - or stop cheating people, please.

<div style="width:15%;float:left;">Menu</div>
<div style="width:70%;float:left;">Main</div>
<div style="width:15%;float:left;">Blank/Splash</div>

--
Gus

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 11:03:04 PM11/17/07
to

Thanks ... that site was a very rapid development, so I'm sure that
you'll find a lot that could be refined and/or cleaned up.

To be honest, the primary reason for the doctype was that that site was
put together before I started going to Strict a few projects back. I
tend, however, to use XHTML; at work, many of my prototypes are
converted to true XML for use with Java Faces, so providing XHTML gives
the developers a head start. And personally, I like the defined
characteristics it has to offer, so I just go with it in my own projects
as well.

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 17, 2007, 11:12:22 PM11/17/07
to
VK wrote:
> On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> wrote:
>> <ul class="menu">
>> <li>...
>> </ul>
>>
>> <div class="content">
>> ...
>> </div>
>>
>> It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
>> presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
>> horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
>> it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
>> stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.
>
> Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
> on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
> that" :-)

You need to open your mind a bit. You're stuck in a one-track thought
process.

> From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
> horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
> of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,

Extensibility is hardly "too far...to bother about".

> what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
> solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
> post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

You've been provided several examples by myself and others. Open your
eyes (and your mind)!

> P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
> annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
> sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
> http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
> Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
> except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully

Reads like your own self description there.

> selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
> the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
> H&H ;-)
> Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
> prominent corporate sites in the list?
> Why do you think it is so?

Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Just sayin'...

> What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
> An intensive homework to do :-)

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

VK

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 9:16:53 AM11/18/07
to
On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
> > Why do you think it is so?
>
> Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
> are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
> status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song
are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.


VK

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 9:45:58 AM11/18/07
to
On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
> one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
> page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
> it is.

I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page". Any page can
(better say "must") be as wide or as narrow as it is needed for the
chosen design. Maybe it is a contamination of text line width
requirements? Indeed for a single column text of the regular 12pt size
the line width should not exceed 6 inches nor be shorter than 2.5
inches. If ported to some lesser exact but more universal form:
"For a single column text the line width should not exceed 50
characters in total and should not be shorter than 20 characters in
total".
Any bigger or smaller value impact the readability = usability.
With longer lines eyes starting to "get lost", so going to the next
line one arrives higher or lower than needed.
With shorter lines eyes have to jump to often to the next line, so
getting more tired.

> Please make your challenge as clear as possible.

I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least. So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.

<table width="90%" border="0"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3">Header</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tfoot>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="3">Footer</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="20%">Menu</td>
<td width="60%">Content</td>
<td width="20%">Splash zone</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 10:15:44 AM11/18/07
to
VK wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch...@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
>>> Why do you think it is so?
>> Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
>> are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
>> status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?
>
> Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

Twelve years of experience and evolution dictates otherwise.

> An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song

As I do not meet the above criteria, it is (as you say) irrelevant.

> are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
> any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
> of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
> graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
> monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Again, you make suppositions based on limited old-school thinking.

> Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
> explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
> companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
> their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
> vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
> sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
> visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.

You continue to display your narrow-mindedness. A well-built site
doesn't need "special blocks of code on pages for visitors with vision
and hearing impairments". A well-built site will cater to the regular
visitor AND those with accessibility concerns.

dorayme

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 3:05:14 PM11/18/07
to
In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
> > one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
> > page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
> > it is.
>
> I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page".

Surely you are aware of this, it is plain commonsense and does
not have to be written down somewhere in some rule book. If a
webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise to
require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary. Full stop.
What is unnecessary or of no help to anyone is bad whether it be
written or not.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 3:08:12 PM11/18/07
to
In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Please make your challenge as clear as possible.
>
> I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
> the basic template construct at least.

What does this mean, sorry?


> So I would like to see some
> equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
> semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
>

What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

--
dorayme

VK

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 4:10:45 PM11/18/07
to
On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > I guess my challenge would be
> > to do not have any challenge - not with
> > the basic template construct at least.
>
> What does this mean, sorry?

It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.

Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.

> > So I would like to see some
> > equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
> > semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
>
> What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
> clearer.

"New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
free download.

"Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"

"Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
officially discontinued by the producer.

IE sample:
New browser - IE7
Old browser - IE6
Very old browser - IE5.5

FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x

You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
very old browsers".


GTalbot

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 4:26:57 PM11/18/07
to
On 17 nov, 05:39, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 6:54 am, eholz1 <ewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Styleists!
>
> > I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
> > List Apart.
>
> > URL:http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
>
> > This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
> > using Firefox, all is well -
> > the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
> > is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
> > three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!
>
> > When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
> > gone!
>
> http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
> From CSS for #left column: margin-left: -100%;
>
> Seehttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/
> Bug #39
>

Exactly. I was going to post on this but you were faster than me.

> The second thing you never should use is negative margin value unless
> you are Ok with part of your content disappearing for 80%-95% of your
> visitors (IE users). btw on the demo for bug #39 under IE 6 SP1 we are
> having the same peekaboo effect ("X" is not on the page) - despite the
> bug is claimed only for IE7.

I am going to update this very shortly. VK, your remark is noted and
appreciated.

Regards, Gérard

VK

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 4:47:01 PM11/18/07
to
On Nov 18, 11:05 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
> to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.

I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?

dorayme

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 5:25:05 PM11/18/07
to
In article
<11c981b3-81ec-4f07...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > I guess my challenge would be
> > > to do not have any challenge - not with
> > > the basic template construct at least.
> >
> > What does this mean, sorry?
>
> It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
> learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
> From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
> with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
> - at least not to me.
>

Are you saying you found it easy to write with a pen in your
mouth? <g>

If you are saying it is challenging to write good html and css,
yes it is. If you are saying it is easy to write good tables
html, how come it is so badly done all the time? Perhaps the
things that are difficult to achieve are more worthwhile.

> Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
> endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
> the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
> wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
> achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
> us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
> is closed.
>

It depends on what you mean by "context independent and reliable
way". What context? A blind person with a screen reader? No? OK,
a person with a pda or mobile phone? No? A person with a 17"
screen with at least 800px across spare and Windows, Linux or
Mac.

And what are you including in the output of the table?
Differently coloured equi-length columns? This one is harder to
do, especially when trying to satisfy IE, without table layout.
But why would you want to able to duplicate everything that a
table layout can achieve? Perhaps some things are not so worth
achieving.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 5:27:05 PM11/18/07
to
In article
<6ae8ba8e-20ea-4fe7...@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The first on the list.

--
dorayme

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 8:21:24 PM11/18/07
to

If this be your criteria, then, solutions have already been presented.
Several times over, in fact. You simply don't want to accept them.

Jonathan N. Little

unread,
Nov 18, 2007, 8:58:31 PM11/18/07
to
VK wrote:
> On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> I guess my challenge would be
>>> to do not have any challenge - not with
>>> the basic template construct at least.
>> What does this mean, sorry?
>
> It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
> learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
> From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
> with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
> - at least not to me.

Challenging or overwhelming, (for you)? I am sorry but I don't think the
analogy is quite correct. It is more like updating practices, why should
I go to a mechanic that only works with carburetors when all modern cars
nowadays are fuel-injected with computerized fuel controls? As with any
"trade" you have to keep up with the technology. I'd worry about the
surgeon who is still working with ether, bone-saw and sulfur-powder!

>
> Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,

Then you don't know what you are doing... Dividitus and classitus is
just as bad as nested tables and pages riddled with FONT elements.

> endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
> the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me.

You don't. Any anyway if you do need a UA fix it's for IE.

> But if I'm
> wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
> achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
> us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
> is closed.
>
>>> So I would like to see some
>>> equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
>>> semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.
>> What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
>> clearer.

As long as the page will ALWAYS be three columns...

>
> "New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
> free download.
>
> "Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"
>
> "Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
> officially discontinued by the producer.
>
> IE sample:
> New browser - IE7

should be "New browser[ sort'a ]"


> Old browser - IE6
Some folks have no choice, I was a very happy camper on Win2K.

> Very old browser - IE5.5

No one has reason to use this and stats will show they don't <1%

>
> FF sample:
> New browser - 2.0.0.9
> Old browser - 2.0.0.8
> Very old browser - 1.5.x

Browser updates why would anyone use this, FF2.x works even on Win98! I
guess a few folks with OS8 or 9 But look at your Safari stats these Mac
folks are going to be to somewhere near the Netscape4.x and IE3 crowd!

>
> You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
> development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
> list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
> very old browsers".

With CSS your page should still be legible without any stylesheet! So
these ancient browser should be able to view the page, not in your
glorious styling, but still viewable.

VK

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 9:50:32 AM11/20/07
to

> >> It's not THAT difficult
>
> > I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
> > template for the most used page structure?
>
> Though I write my own code for each project, you might start here: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

Why exactly here? Because "Holy Grail" from http://www.alistapart.com
is already proven to suck by OP? OK, let's try the new hope. I remind
the standard table layout we are trying to replace (width of each
column is project-dependent of course):

<table width="90%" border="0"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3">Header</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tfoot>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="3">Footer</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="20%">Menu</td>
<td width="60%">Content</td>
<td width="20%">Splash zone</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

So let's see http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts
...
Actually: thank you - that is a perfect page to use as a proof of the
statements I have made in this thread. If anyone wonders why, just
follow this link and compare with the posted table layout.

Thank you again.

VK

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 9:56:11 AM11/20/07
to
> > > If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
> > > to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.
>
> > I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
> > to?
>
> The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

I do not see any horizontal scroll bar neither in Firefox nor in IE6.
What browser and what monitor are you using?

dorayme

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 2:44:11 PM11/20/07
to
In article
<93f4c874-982c-49be...@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I guess you are replying to something I said. You using a browser
and google for newsgroup? You do not quote context.

Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide. What material in
the page justifies it? It is no use saying that the author has
desingned it so, the question is why. How can something as
annoying as this be put at the *top* of a good web design
ranking? Does it mean nothing to these rankers that people have
smaller screens, that even people with bigger screens like to
view not at fullscreen? Is the cost for viewing at less than
1000px wide going to be scrollbars? Why is there *this* cost for
the *actual* material on this site?

--
dorayme

VK

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 3:12:38 PM11/20/07
to
On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
> develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.

Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger and because
the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout rather
than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
visitor. It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO. We
may discuss this im more details at
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design because this question is OT
to the original subject (table layout VS div layout) and truthfully is
out of competence of ciwas. I am not saying that there are not
adequate specialists in here, but tools to get the desired design and
the choice of the design itself are quite different topics, and for
each topic - the most appropriate NG, this is the rule of the
Usenet ;-)

> I guess you are replying to something I said.
> You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
> You do not quote context.

It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed. In
the previous message I quoted:

-------------------------------


> > > If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
> > > to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.

> > I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
> > to?

> The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

-------------------------------

The amount of information and >>>/>>/> marks are right enough to get
onto the subject for any outside reader, even if he/she did not follow
the whole thread. IMHO

dorayme

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 3:55:15 PM11/20/07
to
In article
<33ce16d9-2250-4edf...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
> > develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.
>
> Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger

Given my question, this is a surprising thing to say. I was
asking how a page that simply does not have the material in it to
justify scrollbars coming on at just under 1000px could be ranked
first in a list of good web design. The context, I remind you is
you cited (right here on this usenet group) this ranking page as
an authority and I am pointing to something that shakes the
confidence in this.

> and because
> the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout

If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths. If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath? Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)

> rather
> than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
> visitor.

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

> It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?



> > I guess you are replying to something I said.
> > You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
> > You do not quote context.
>
> It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
> participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed.

But that is what I was mildly hinting at, that you were not
following best practice. Do you know, for example, that some
newsreaders are just online readers and they do not store the
thread. Sometimes threads can be seen by various not wholly
convenient methods, including of course, going to Google Groups.

--
dorayme

VK

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 4:49:03 PM11/20/07
to
On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
> freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
> shrink fit better at lesser widths.

No, it is a common mistake to think and especially to make a page
layout where forming blocks either "collapse" into some bag pack or
"extends" to the density of stars on the night sky at the bad weather:
all following the available size.
A too crowded design is irritating to eyes, so the same for a design
where your eyes have to navigate across huge empty areas from one
block to another. If asked what is the worst from two I would be
really hesitating what to say. There is some min-width you don't want
to go below in any case: user has to either scroll, or to extend the
browser window, or to buy a descent monitor, or to go to hell
whatsoever ("Webpunks are not welcome!", remember ;-) Same there is
some max-width you don't want to exceed.

> If it is viewed at 900 or 800
> or less than how does it actually breath?

Why asking me? Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.

> Is it a sort of
> counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
> horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
> there, bit by bit....)

See atop ;-)

> See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
> "less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

> > It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.
>
> I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
> say that it is the chosen model?

For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others. Of course can be and should
be a number of dorayme, Dick and Stanley who dislike it. But this is
also what is paid to H&H by the company - and H&H prices are not low
at all - this is the guarantee that this last category of visitors
will be safe to disregard, both by possible income loss criterion and
by legal responsibility criterion.

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 5:41:00 PM11/20/07
to
VK wrote:
>>>> It's not THAT difficult
>>> I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
>>> template for the most used page structure?
>> Though I write my own code for each project, you might start here: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts
>
> Why exactly here?

Ideas and concepts. You know, the things on which innovation and
technological thrive.

> Because "Holy Grail" from http://www.alistapart.com
> is already proven to suck by OP? OK, let's try the new hope. I remind
> the standard table layout we are trying to replace (width of each
> column is project-dependent of course):
>
> <table width="90%" border="0"
> cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
> <thead>
> <tr>
> <th colspan="3">Header</th>
> </tr>
> </thead>
> <tfoot>
> <tr align="center">
> <td colspan="3">Footer</td>
> </tr>
> </tfoot>
> <tbody>
> <tr>
> <td width="20%">Menu</td>
> <td width="60%">Content</td>
> <td width="20%">Splash zone</td>
> </tr>
> </tbody>
> </table>

And I remind you, examples and samples have been presented previously in
the thread.

> So let's see http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts
> ...
> Actually: thank you - that is a perfect page to use as a proof of the
> statements I have made in this thread. If anyone wonders why, just
> follow this link and compare with the posted table layout.

Proof? Of what? Your narrow-mindedness?

Kevin Scholl

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 5:44:01 PM11/20/07
to
Kevin Scholl wrote:

> Ideas and concepts. You know, the things on which innovation and
> technological thrive.

Meant to say "technological advancement" there...

dorayme

unread,
Nov 20, 2007, 5:51:59 PM11/20/07
to
In article
<b0ae8782-1eec-4325...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.co

m>,
VK <school...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
> > freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
> > shrink fit better at lesser widths.
>

> No, ...

No?

You were saying that it is designed for the majority of people
who view at more than 800. Lets say 1280 (you claim this is the
author's model, ok.). At 1280 it "breathes" to use your term. So
why the "no"? If it is viewed at less than 900, it develops
scroll bars and you start not being able to view it as a whole.
There is no breathing that is relevant here any more. It is a
potential breathing, not an actual breathing, it is a breathing
that cannot be actually appreciated. Having to scroll with
material that will easily compress rather spoils the enjoyment of
this breathing.

>
> > If it is viewed at 900 or 800
> > or less than how does it actually breath?
>
> Why asking me?

You were the one that made the claim that it has this "breathing"
quality. I was the one who accepted this concept but could not
(after looking) see it usefully operating at 800.

> Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
> blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
> other options a bit atop.
>

Why would blocks "collapse on each other" at 900 or 800 or 700
unless there was incompetence on the part of the designer? Why
would there not be a min width of a reasonable kind, and just
under 1000 is hardly reasonable for the material in hand here.


> > See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
> > "less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?
>
> 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
> with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
> 800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
> "being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
> what else should I reduce your complain?


I really cannot see you getting my meaning. What have these
quantum sizes got to do with the issue? Many people size their
browsers to their convenience at any one time in between all
these sizes. At least many Mac users do that. Perhaps there is a
tendency for Windows users to view everything at full screen and
use the minimizing bar under to manage more than one task at a
time. But many people have more than one thing or program open on
the same window. In this first ranked site, it has this bad fault
that it plays nuisance when below 1000 (we are not talking pda or
mobile phones or people with ancient tiny monitors here, we are
talking modern user convenience).


Before you jump to reminding me how there was some sort of poll
of users to so rank this site, I know nothing about how the
candidates were chosen in the first place. If the votes were
collected from folk who could see a fair variety of sites, the
results might have been very different. If the sites that somehow
came to the attention of the voters did not include well designed
sites of the highest quality, then you are being seriously
misled. Big companies that are important to people are obviously
going to come to the attention of the voters in any multiple
choice questi