newbie: css width and height

On 2007/12/18 08:22 (GMT) Ruth apparently typed:

Right. So therefore it's a matter of finding a balance between having a site
that looks right (and not too large!) for the majority of users and having
something accessible, and I think the ability to resize the page would
probably cover another sizable group, many of whom (who?), to be fair, are
used to having to make some adjustments to surf the web. I'm not trying to
be unkind or insensitive, only I don't want my website to look oversized,
I'd rather provide the ability to adjust it.

They already adjusted before they got there, possibly leaving no more
adjustment range available to compensate for your rudeness. IE only allows 5
size choices, including normal and two sizes smaller than normal. If they've
already gone up in size two steps and you knock it down, they can't get back
to where they need to be. They shouldn't have to do it again on every site
that thinks the visitor default is wrong. Your own default is wrong if you
think it doesn't look right. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html
--
" Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
the government of any other." John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

"Felix Miata" <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote

On 2007/12/18 08:22 (GMT) Ruth apparently typed:

<snip>

They already adjusted before they got there, possibly leaving no more
adjustment range available to compensate for your rudeness. IE only allows
5
size choices, including normal and two sizes smaller than normal. If
they've
already gone up in size two steps and you knock it down, they can't get
back
to where they need to be. They shouldn't have to do it again on every site
that thinks the visitor default is wrong. Your own default is wrong if you
think it doesn't look right.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

man, you're late, i've already changed it.

by the way your link points to a web page where the lines span the full
width of the browser, which is even harder to read and i like my browser
being full screen. This irritates me so much that i don't have the patience
to read it right now.

but thank you for your wise words, i will look at it when i'm back in work
mode.

happy holidays!

--
" Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
the government of any other." John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

"Felix Miata" <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote

On 2007/12/18 00:28 (GMT) Ruth apparently typed:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in message:

If your visitors can't use it, what difference does the design matter?
You are dispensing information, not fluff.

Ok, you've made your point. Anyway, come on, what percentage of users
can't
see it AT ALL?

What's the point of telling your customers they are wrong? That's what
you're
doing by deviating the text size from the size they prefer, as set in
their
browsers. http://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art2.htm

Ah.....Ha, why do I want to learn web design then, if it means I have to
stop being right...? Graphic designers make a living telling customers that
they don't know anything but we do it in a really nice way.

By the way, there IS a time to tell customers they are wrong. Like when they
want flashing things. Scripty headlines, all in capitals. and bright yellow
text on a red background. Oooh, and ugly pictures....

I removed all your font sizing except the 90% on the right links, and on
the headers. It becomes legible. That multiple-red menu box near the top
was flyspecks prior to that. I also increased your max width from 48em
to 60em.

Ah, but 60em (as amended) has horizontal scrolling if someone is viewing
the
site at 800 x 600. So we can't have it all ways.

That depends how big their default text size is. Not all ems are created
equal, and in px, fewer are required to get legible text on the
anachronistic
800x600. http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/December/res.php

correct, but i don't understand it well enough. i definitely have to learn
more about ems and sizing before i can hope to have an objective
conversation here. but i'm here to learn!

Ruth

--
" Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
the government of any other." John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

Ruth wrote:

"Felix Miata" <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote in message

That depends how big their default text size is. Not all ems are created
equal, and in px, fewer are required to get legible text on the
anachronistic
800x600. http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/December/res.php

correct, but i don't understand it well enough. i definitely have to learn
more about ems and sizing before i can hope to have an objective
conversation here. but i'm here to learn!

The above link can give a misleading impression. I gives the statistic
of 1024x768 being the the most popular *screen resolution* on the web
but that does not mean that 1024x768 or another dimensions represent the
actually *viewport* by which the webpages are being viewed. My screen
resolution is currently 1280x960 but my browser(s) are rarely maximized.
In fact I'd wager the larger the monitor the less likely the browser
will be maximized.

Bottom line, do not design for any fixed viewport.

--
Take care,

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

On 2007/12/23 15:08 (GMT-0500) Ruth apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

by the way your link points to a web page where the lines span the full
width of the browser, which is even harder to read and i like my browser
being full screen. This irritates me so much that i don't have the patience
to read it right now.

One mouse click will switch most browsers between fullscreen and something
less. Would you rather the lines be too short, something about which to
correct one is virtually helpless? One has the option of making long lines
short by sizing the window narrower.

On this particular page in my browser, thanks to CSS3, the paragraph lines
are only about 50 characters long, about 15cm or 9-10 words, even though my
browser is about 90% of the width of my 16" wide screen. Maybe you could try
a different browser, one that behaves the same as mine. There are at least
two browsers I know of that do it. Both are free downloads, either or both of
which are a proper part of a good web designer's toolbox.
--
Jesus Christ, the reason for the season.

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

"Felix Miata" <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote

On 2007/12/23 15:08 (GMT-0500) Ruth apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

by the way your link points to a web page where the lines span the full
width of the browser, which is even harder to read and i like my
browser
being full screen. This irritates me so much that i don't have the
patience
to read it right now.

One mouse click will switch most browsers between fullscreen and something
less. Would you rather the lines be too short, something about which to
correct one is virtually helpless? One has the option of making long lines
short by sizing the window narrower.

On this particular page in my browser, thanks to CSS3, the paragraph lines
are only about 50 characters long, about 15cm or 9-10 words, even though
my
browser is about 90% of the width of my 16" wide screen. Maybe you could
try
a different browser, one that behaves the same as mine. There are at least
two browsers I know of that do it. Both are free downloads, either or both
of
which are a proper part of a good web designer's toolbox.

I have a number of browsers installed, hactually.

But anyway, suggesting that I change my browser? How does that fit into your
"let the user choose" axiom?

Hope you had a nice Xmas!


R

--
Jesus Christ, the reason for the season.

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On 2007/12/27 09:54 (GMT) Ruth apparently typed:

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

I have a number of browsers installed, hactually.

Good.

But anyway, suggesting that I change my browser? How does that fit into your
"let the user choose" axiom?

In the web design business, testing in multiple browsers is a necessity. When
surfing, multiple shouldn't be necessary, but sometimes your choice on some
particular page makes a BIG difference. Because of the CSS3 on the page, this
is one of those cases. ;-)

Hope you had a nice Xmas!

Just fine thank you!. Hope you did too. :-)
--
Jesus Christ, the reason for the season.

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/