Critique CSS layout (issues addressed)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:07:33 +0100, Martin Bialasinski
<agr30+news (AT) uni-koeln (DOT) de> wrote:

How do I make a tab in Firefox smaller while leaving the other tabs
at the old size?

Dunno. How?

I also don't know. It does not seem possible. This rises the question,
if "let the user adjust" is practically feasibly.

But we're discussing width of paragraphs. Your comment is a non-sequitor.

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

But we're discussing width of paragraphs. Your comment is a
non-sequitor.

Is it? The webpage originally in question has a nav column on the left
and the main text on the rest of the width.

If you argue, that the main text should not have a max-width set
but the user should adjust it himself, I am interested on how to do
this.

In Firefox, I do not seem to be able to resize the tabs
independently. If this is really the case, this approach is not
feasible IMHO.

Martin Bialasinski <agr30+news (AT) uni-koeln (DOT) de> writes:

Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote:
Because setting a max-width for p allows for the total window size
to be as large as the user wants without sacrificing readability.

Except in cases where there's a large image or large table on the
page, what does this gain except lots of whitespace in a column
somewhere? If someone is running at a large resolution and has their
browser maximised or nearly so I assume they like it that way, even if
the majority of people would find it less readable.

This reason is only valid, as long as you hold the results of hundreds
of years of typography and the research done in this field as soundly
founded valid.

There's a slight problem with setting a max-width in em, though (not
that the problems with other units aren't even worse), which is that
depending on the font, an em-set width may allow considerably
different words/line ratios.

--
Chris

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Chris Morris wrote:

If someone is running at a large resolution and has their
browser maximised or nearly so I assume they like it that way, even if
the majority of people would find it less readable.

I suspect we have different scenarios in mind here. If you're
accustomed to reading pages that are cluttered with large numbers of
unrelated bits of detail, in the popular multi-column format, then
maybe you tend to set a rather wide window - and then when you visit a
page that's basically plain text with modest margins, the lines of
text do tend to get far too wide for reading comfort.

As a "back-stop", it seems to me quite reasonable to set a *max*
width in em or ex units, on the basis that most readers will be
unaffected by it, while a few might find it a benefit.

There's a slight problem with setting a max-width in em, though (not
that the problems with other units aren't even worse), which is that
depending on the font, an em-set width may allow considerably
different words/line ratios.

I don't disagree, but - as a backstop, it's still arguable that it's
better than nothing. And far, far better than a fixed width in
pixels - but I don't expect you to argue with that ;-)

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, brucie wrote:

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Christoph Paeper said:

Users shouldn't be forced to resize their window to get a comfortable
line length when authors can make a suggestion.

ACK, after all knowledgable people can overwrite the 'max-width'
*suggestion* in their user stylesheet.

user stylesheet are only practical in a very limited way such as font
sizes. using them for much of anything else risks screwing up many sites
just to accommodate one. site by site styles are only practical if you
use the site often.

I have overriden max-width for P for 3 years, never seen where it would
not work nicely, exeption being of course when my window / max-width etc
just is not wide enaugh. Totally different, if you override some other
max-widths.

I would say, that one should never set max-width for stuff that don't
directly contain text. That is because overriding such elements is hard.
This is also reson I don't like people using their P element to contain
whatever.

So you don't believe in ergonomy studies at all? They tell us there's a
maximum useful line width, depending on certain other typographic
properties.

i'm surprised it took so long for someone to mention "the studies". i
don't disagree with them. what i disagree with is people using them to
justify one size to fit all.

IIRC, I saw some time ago a study, which said that readers prefer
somewhat short lines, but people still read much longer lines just as
fast.

Anyway, IMHO, authotr set max-width should be wider than 32em, I think
something like 80-100ex would be good. Some people use windows that are
not as high (me, I use 60ex and 800*1150 window...), and then optimally
short lines are pain, as it requires much more scrolling.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Chris Morris wrote:

Martin Bialasinski <agr30+news (AT) uni-koeln (DOT) de> writes:
Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote:
Because setting a max-width for p allows for the total window size
to be as large as the user wants without sacrificing readability.

Except in cases where there's a large image or large table on the
page, what does this gain except lots of whitespace in a column
somewhere? If someone is running at a large resolution and has their
browser maximised or nearly so I assume they like it that way, even if
the majority of people would find it less readable.

I run my browser sometimes fullscreen. That is only way to look at some
image galleries as they have 1600*1200 images...

If site has much text (descriptions of those images in gallerypage), I
certainly can't read it, unless width of text is limited, or if
extreamily big line height is used.... And if line-height is 2 or 3, it
will look horrible when looked on smaller window.

This reason is only valid, as long as you hold the results of hundreds
of years of typography and the research done in this field as soundly
founded valid.

There's a slight problem with setting a max-width in em, though (not
that the problems with other units aren't even worse), which is that
depending on the font, an em-set width may allow considerably
different words/line ratios.

That's why I use ex. Not that it is much better. But this is mostly
irrelevant, unless someone uses Verdana. And using Verdana is bad idea in
first place. (any other font with diffent ratio is irrelevant as it don't
work on web either...)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin Bialasinski wrote:

"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <rijk (AT) operaremovethiz (DOT) com> wrote:

Btw, min-width isn't going to work for limiting width.

That's what the original 60% width rule was for.

But using both a minimum and a maximum width makes more sense.

Hmm. With max-width as a percentage, this is not that good.

I did a test with min-width: 40em; max-width: 60% and then made the
window smaller.

Min-width of 40em is too big IMHO. I use font big enaugh to make it
overflow my window sometimes. Something like min-width: 15em makes
sence, as text is very hard to read if shorter

In Opera, when 40em got larger than 60%, there was quite some reflow
and you have to scroll horizontally, which is a major no-go IMHO.
Firefox disregards max-width, when 40em got larger than 60% and kept
the linewidth at 40em, which ultimately caused the scrollbar.

As per spec. It is unfortunate that there is no way to make max-width
more important than min-width.

I do not see min-width as useful here.

You use too big value for it. It is useful, when there is only one word
on line.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

Lauri Raittila <lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net> wrote:

And using Verdana is bad idea in first place.

Why is that so?

"kchayka" wrote in message ...

lime wrote:
"rf" wrote in message ...
lime wrote:

http://www.limelightstudio.com.au/iss/8/

Why do you waste about 20% if my canvas, on the right hand side.

For you it may be wastage (such a pessimist aren't you ;o)) for me it was
limiting the length of text for readability.

You must be assuming a certain window size and/or text size. Don't.

With smaller windows, 60% width for the content area can make for
too-short lines of text, which is also a readability problem. Ditto with
larger text sizes. BTW, your body text size is still much too small.

True - you have a point.

"Neal" wrote in message :

lime wrote:
"rf" wrote
Why do you waste about 20% if my canvas, on the right hand side.
For you it may be wastage ... for me it was
limiting the length of text for readability.

Ok. How about your user. What's their viewport size? Hmm?

Answer: You dunno.

True.

So what?

put it back to normal...