canals & Rivers
bubles
about the new web site www.canalsandrivers.co.uk ?
Greg Chapman
"bubles" <bi...@aemorgan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142527520.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone seen the latest issue of Canals & Rivers what do you think
> about the new web site www.canalsandrivers.co.uk ?
I hate any web site that demands horizontal scrolling or viewing at at least
1024px wide.
I also hate web site that throw excessive numbers of adverts at me.
I don't like sites designed by graphic artists who appear to be more used to
printed media and are more concerned with getting the text to wrap round the
pictures in the way they choose than the ability of visitors to read it.
You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
stuff!
I could go on....
But I doubt that I shall revisit until someone tells me its changed.
Greg
Mike Kolling
actually read it.
"bubles" <bi...@aemorgan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142527520.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
David Mack
Greg Chapman wrote:
> "bubles" <bi...@aemorgan.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1142527520.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Has anyone seen the latest issue of Canals & Rivers what do you think
> > about the new web site www.canalsandrivers.co.uk ?
>
> I hate any web site that demands horizontal scrolling or viewing at at least
> 1024px wide.
>
> I also hate web site that throw excessive numbers of adverts at me.
>
> I don't like sites designed by graphic artists who appear to be more used to
> printed media and are more concerned with getting the text to wrap round the
> pictures in the way they choose than the ability of visitors to read it.
> You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
> stuff!
My screen is set to 1024 x 768 so width isn't a problem for me. But If
I reset to 640 x 480 the main articles are readable without using the
horizontal scroll bar, the text and pictures are larger, and all those
adverts have disappeared off the right hand side of the screen!
David Mack
Martin Clark
>You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
>stuff!
You can in Firefox. (Ctrl and +)
--
Martin Clark
Internet Boaters' Database http://www.boaterweb.co.uk
Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Greg Chapman wrote...
>>You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
>>stuff!
>
>You can in Firefox. (Ctrl and +)
And of course Opera (9 TP2) Fot to Window Width. Not that that's any
excuse for the designers.
bjg
Greg Chapman
"David Mack" <d.m...@sdgworld.net> wrote in message
news:1142531338.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My screen is set to 1024 x 768 so width isn't a problem for me. But If
> I reset to 640 x 480 the main articles are readable without using the
> horizontal scroll bar, the text and pictures are larger, and all those
> adverts have disappeared off the right hand side of the screen!
Ah! So that's how to get rid of them! :-)
However, I think you misunderstand my general point. I have a machine with
a monitor set at 1024x768, but I never run my browser maximised, unless
forced to by poor site design.
On most sites, if I do run maximised, it just means that unless I use the
button on the toolbar to increase font size to the point where the number of
words per line is reduced to around 12, the lines of text become too long to
read comfortably and you suffer "line skip" when your eyes move to the
beginning of the next line.
Greg
Greg Chapman
"Martin Clark" <mar...@spl.at> wrote in message
news:ziZWs9W4...@no.spam.please...
> Greg Chapman wrote...
>>You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
>>stuff!
>
> You can in Firefox. (Ctrl and +)
But like the man says, in FireFox/Mozilla, that just destroys the menus.
Greg
Greg Chapman
"Greg Chapman" <greg.ea...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:4419f3ef$0$3595$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
I should have added... Strange!
Is it a case of an MSIE fixation by the author, or does this disprove the
theory that open source software always means good software. Anyone know
about this?:
<meta name="Generator" content="Joomla! - Copyright (C) 2005 Open Source
Matters. All rights reserved." />
Martin Clark
>>>You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
>>>stuff!
>>
>> You can in Firefox. (Ctrl and +)
>
>But like the man says, in FireFox/Mozilla, that just destroys the menus.
>
on Firefox here.
Greg Chapman
> Greg Chapman wrote...
>>"Martin Clark" <mar...@spl.at> wrote in message
>>> Greg Chapman wrote...
>>>>You can't re-size the text so it is near impossible for me to read this
>>>>stuff!
>>>
>>> You can in Firefox. (Ctrl and +)
>>
>>But like the man says, in FireFox/Mozilla, that just destroys the menus.
>>
> Perhaps the man has javascript disabled. The menus seemed to work okay on
> Firefox here.
I'll confess that actually I am running Mozilla 1.7, straight "out of the
box".
Strange! This morning I have no problem. Yesterday the top google-ads
banner was superimposed over the menubar and things were going
semi-transparent.
Greg
Ron Jones
> "David Mack" <d.m...@sdgworld.net> wrote in message
> news:1142531338.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> My screen is set to 1024 x 768 so width isn't a problem for me. But
>> If I reset to 640 x 480 the main articles are readable without using
>> the horizontal scroll bar, the text and pictures are larger, and all
>> those adverts have disappeared off the right hand side of the screen!
>
> Ah! So that's how to get rid of them! :-)
>
> However, I think you misunderstand my general point. I have a
> machine with a monitor set at 1024x768, but I never run my browser
> maximised, unless forced to by poor site design.
>
Looking at the source, it's obviuos it's been made by some sort of WYSIWYG
system - more tage than you could throw you hat at. Lean and mean it is
not. I guess they have fixed the width because of the top menu - if you
allow the page width to float, then how can the menu work - that's why you
see a lot of sites [mine included - I tried it all ways ;-) ] with the
vertical menu on the left - works just fine whatever the width [The width
of my sidebar is 145 pixels - all the rest is content]
--
Ron Jones
Process Safety & Development, Alfa Aesar Avocado Lancaster UK
Don't repeat history, see unreported near misses in chemical lab/plant
at http://www.crhf.org.uk
Only two things are certain: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not certain about the universe. ~ Albert Einstein
Martin Clark
>
>Looking at the source, it's obviuos it's been made by some sort of WYSIWYG
>system - more tage than you could throw you hat at. Lean and mean it is
>not. I guess they have fixed the width because of the top menu - if you
>allow the page width to float, then how can the menu work - that's why you
>see a lot of sites [mine included - I tried it all ways ;-) ] with the
>vertical menu on the left - works just fine whatever the width [The width
>of my sidebar is 145 pixels - all the rest is content]
>
screen width. It's called fluid wotsit, innit?
Ron Jones
> Ron Jones wrote...
>>
>> Looking at the source, it's obviuos it's been made by some sort of
>> WYSIWYG system - more tage than you could throw you hat at. Lean
>> and mean it is not. I guess they have fixed the width because of
>> the top menu - if you allow the page width to float, then how can
>> the menu work - that's why you see a lot of sites [mine included - I
>> tried it all ways ;-) ] with the vertical menu on the left - works
>> just fine whatever the width [The width of my sidebar is 145 pixels
>> - all the rest is content]
> My sites all have horizontal menus and they all work at whatever the
> screen width. It's called fluid wotsit, innit?
Oh no they don't!
<panto mode off>
Your http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk starts losing items at <600 pixels
wide. Mine's still usable at 450 pixels, Nah! :-p
Martin
Clark" <mar...@spl.at> wrote:
> Ron Jones wrote...
>>
>> Looking at the source, it's obviuos it's been made by some sort of WYSIWYG
>> system - more tage than you could throw you hat at. Lean and mean it is
>> not. I guess they have fixed the width because of the top menu - if you
>> allow the page width to float, then how can the menu work - that's why you
>> see a lot of sites [mine included - I tried it all ways ;-) ] with the
>> vertical menu on the left - works just fine whatever the width [The width
>> of my sidebar is 145 pixels - all the rest is content]
>>
> My sites all have horizontal menus and they all work at whatever the
> screen width. It's called fluid wotsit, innit?
I prefer the dropdown to horizontal menus but a previous poster had it
right, and I'm no expert. The HTML is a right mess. I'd have thought that a
more considered use of CSS would have simplified things and would have
allowed the various divs to float.
BTW, Firefox and Safari both show the page as it was probably intended on my
screen (1280x960), but then they should, the text is readable and FF does
resize as advertised. Is Joomla just responsible for the Google Ads or the
whole mess?
Martin Clark
>Martin Clark wrote:
>> Ron Jones wrote...
>>>
>>> Looking at the source, it's obviuos it's been made by some sort of
>>> WYSIWYG system - more tage than you could throw you hat at. Lean
>>> and mean it is not. I guess they have fixed the width because of
>>> the top menu - if you allow the page width to float, then how can
>>> the menu work - that's why you see a lot of sites [mine included - I
>>> tried it all ways ;-) ] with the vertical menu on the left - works
>>> just fine whatever the width [The width of my sidebar is 145 pixels
>>> - all the rest is content]
>> My sites all have horizontal menus and they all work at whatever the
>> screen width. It's called fluid wotsit, innit?
><panto mode on>
>Oh no they don't!
><panto mode off>
>
>Your http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk starts losing items at <600 pixels
>wide. Mine's still usable at 450 pixels, Nah! :-p
>
yourself!
Martin Clark
>On 3/17/06 11:58 AM, in article jKaSWVH0...@no.spam.please, "Martin
>Clark" <mar...@spl.at> wrote:
>>>
>> My sites all have horizontal menus and they all work at whatever the
>> screen width. It's called fluid wotsit, innit?
>I prefer the dropdown to horizontal menus but a previous poster had it
>right, and I'm no expert.
But, but... surely dropdown menus are usually horizontal, such as the
one on the site in question (http://www.canalsandrivers.co.uk/)?
Dropdown menus being ones where part of the menu appears below when you
hover the mouse over part of it.
The biggest problem with that site is that the designer has set it at a
fixed width which looks alright on his 1024x768 screen but has forgotten
that many people will be seeing it on an 800x600 screen. As Greg says,
that's the sort of thing that happens when graphic artists start
wandering into the web medium.
Nick Atty
<greg.ea...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Is it a case of an MSIE fixation by the author, or does this disprove the
>theory that open source software always means good software. Anyone know
>about this?:
Open source software doesn't mean good software. What it does mean is
that you can fix it yourself if you have to.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
Greg Chapman
"Nick Atty" <nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mg3o129uea3n6jem4...@4ax.com...
> Open source software doesn't mean good software. What it does mean is
> that you can fix it yourself if you have to.
I know that really! :-)
Greg