how does www.windowsupdate.com's layout works?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:52:32 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Gianni Rondinini wrote:

(of IE)
none of my local users know how to change font size

Well, it's not as if "View> Text Size" requires the white heat of
technology to find it (unlike IE's option to disable author-specified
fixed font sizes, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here).

At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
feature.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Jim Ley wrote:

At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
feature.

I fear we are drifting off the topic of this group, but if we're
going to discuss browsers, then I have to say I'm quite disappointed
at the limited range of features exposed in FF, and am much happier
with the Mozilla browser. But then, I'm not representative of an
ordinary user, so what would I know.

Jim Ley wrote:

At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
feature.

Front end customisability in Firefox is hidden away well enough to make
the plot of another Dan Brown novel. I had to ask the son of a 7th
grade Freemason before I found out where.

(You can make the Google search box a useful size too)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:19:36 GMT, jim (AT) jibbering (DOT) com (Jim Ley) wrote:

At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
feature.

right, there is no menu for that. i just found, just for luck, you can
change sizes of fonts in a webpage with <ctrl>+<scroll wheel>.
scrolling up increases size, scrolling down decreases it.

probably this was interesting for somebody else, too.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:52:32 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

Well, it's not as if "View> Text Size" requires the white heat of
technology to find it (unlike IE's option to disable author-specified

hey hey
don't overestimate my users too much
*believe me*: they don't know how to do it, nor why they would want
to. if they couldn't read something in a webpage, they would call me
and say "hey gianni, my pc is broken down, i can't read the text; can
you please check what's wrong?".

and i wasn't malicious enough to try to do it.

Some people *need* it - I must protest at the use of the term "malice"
in this context.

please, excuse my poor english. malicious was used to mean i didn't
think changing font size was possible --since i've never done it-- and
then that i should have tried it to see the effect on my webpage.
s/malicious/smart

I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here. I'm not making
any objection to the way that your kind of "web application" is
presented *in the situations in which you're describing them*. I'm

ok. i'm sorry i misunderstood you.

but i still miss the answer to my "concept" question: do you think
that having to scroll up the whole page to return to the links is the
best choice for the average website or do you think it's okay just
because there is no other way possible --w/out frames--?
i begin to understand there is no way to do what i'd like to do
without frames, then i'll wait for another couple of browsers'
releases hoping to be able to do it, but talking about concepts, does
anybody agree with me that having at least the most frequently used
links/actions/buttons *always* available on the screen would be better
than having to scroll for them?

range of *other situations*, some graphical, some maybe character
mode, and of which would not even be visual.

sure. i agree. the more your website is usable by, the better it is.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?

Gianni Rondinini <bugbarbeq (AT) icem (DOT) it> wrote:

but i still miss the answer to my "concept" question: do you think
that having to scroll up the whole page to return to the links is the
best choice for the average website

Yes. It's best if the page behaves normally, so users know what to expect.
That includes having all the content of the page (including navigation
links) scroll normally.

FWIW, most of the techniques I've seen for scrolling the content while
keeping everything else static break keyboard navigation.

If there are critical navigation links (e.g., "Home", "Contents",
"Glossary", "Copyright") that you think some users might want to be
accessible at all times, then use <link> elements. Those with modern
browsers can have access to these links at all times if they so desire.

Everyone else can view the content without losing screen real estate to
persistent navigation links.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew (AT) stanfordalumni (DOT) org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin (AT) htmlhelp (DOT) com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I've cut this board three times, and it's still too short!"

In article <4ldgi15vi9ipqbc7jb00n00o6iiqo53au8 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Gianni Rondinini <bugbarbeq (AT) icem (DOT) it> wrote:

[snip]
but talking about concepts, does
anybody agree with me that having at least the most frequently used
links/actions/buttons *always* available on the screen would be better
than having to scroll for them?

It depends how really frequently used they are. However, most of the
time that GUI designers have inflicted this upon me, I have resented
their wasting my screen space this way.

[snip]

--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian bachelor programmer

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Gianni Rondinini wrote:

does anybody agree with me that having at least the most frequently
used links/actions/buttons *always* available on the screen would be
better than having to scroll for them?

I have the impression that the links/actions/buttons that are *always*
available on the screen, on so many web sites, are the ones that the
author *wishes* that we would most frequently use, but in practice I
hardly ever do. As such, I find them a complete waste of space.
When I'm finished with the current page, I might be quite content to
consider them, but then I'd be at the top (if the page didn't interest
me), or at the bottom (if it did), which to me are (aside from the
much-underused "<link rel= ...>" navigation options) the logical
place(s) to find navigation. And I know how to get to them (Home or
End keys), and would favour teaching others to learn the same, rather
than cluttering up pages with superfluous "Back to Top" links as some
authors seem to do...

And as I (and, by the way, this seems to be true of our kind of
*user*, too, it's not just a personal weakness of mine) try to cram as
much as possible onto the screen (let's see, at the moment I have 15
windows open - though not all visible, admittedly - and I haven't even
got a videoconference going at the moment, which would typically
involve half a dozen more windows), we resent any waste of our
real-estate. Quite a few of our users indeed enable six logical
desktops, and switch often between them, to get enough room for
all the action.

(The most frequently used buttons around here being the browser's own
Back button, and the one that opens one's favoured search dialog).

Don't get me wrong, I've no objection to others making different
display choices - no objection at all - that's why I promote flexible
design, after all.

cheers

thanks to all of you for your replies.
they helped me figuring out a different point of view.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?