Re: Awesome use of CSS

Andy Mabbett wrote:

People often doubt that CSS- based, layout- table- free, valid and
accessible sites can look attractive.

End of argument:

http://www.csszengarden.com/

(Via Zeldman), new CSS designs this week:

http://6newslawrence.com/weather/

http://www.pga.com/openchampionship/
http://www.quark.com/
http://exp.hicksdesign.co.uk/
http://www.message.uk.com/




--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

Isofarro wrote:

Andy Mabbett wrote:

People often doubt that CSS- based, layout- table- free, valid and
accessible sites can look attractive.

(Via Zeldman), new CSS designs this week:

http://6newslawrence.com/weather/

Layout starts falling apart when I make the microfonts big enough to read.

http://www.quark.com/

Try looking at this site with js disabled. Yow

http://exp.hicksdesign.co.uk/

More microfonts, plus nasty scrolling divs, and horizontal scrolling to
boot. Particularly bad with small window sizes. The colors in the
alternate stylesheet hurt my eyes, so this site is best viewed with no
stylesheets at all. IMO

http://www.message.uk.com/

Fixed width that doesn't work at all in smaller window sizes, at least
not in mozilla. Ironic, considering their claim of building usable,
accessible sites.

My point? A CSS layout doesn't automatically mean it's any better than
a site that uses layout tables. It doesn't mean it's automatically more
accessible, for sure.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)ns(dash). Mail sent to the ns
address is automatically deleted and will not be read.

I tried the following with Mozilla Firebird (using Gecko/20030712).

Isofarro wrote:

http://www.pga.com/openchampionship/

I found this site to be unimpressive. The design doesn't scale as I size
the browser window horizontally and so I either waste space or I get an
annoying horizontal scrollbar.

http://www.quark.com/

Egad. I couldn't read this because all the text is on top of each other and
illegible.

http://exp.hicksdesign.co.uk/

This is not bad. It would be better if it collapsed more horizontally. The
minimum width for the page seems needlessly wide.

http://www.message.uk.com/

This is not bad either, but there is much wasted space on the webpage. I
don't understand the desire to make paragraphs tall and thin (and more
likely to induce vertical scrolling) rather than using all the horizontal
space available on the webpage. I don't care for it and to me it looks too
commonplace to be novel and interesting.

In article <3jt6fb.cf1.ln (AT) sidious (DOT) isolani.co.uk>, Isofarro
<spamblock (AT) spamdetector (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

(Via Zeldman), new CSS designs this week:

http://6newslawrence.com/weather/

http://www.pga.com/openchampionship/
http://www.quark.com/
http://exp.hicksdesign.co.uk/
http://www.message.uk.com/

Every last one of them has a horizontal scroll at 640x480 on MacMozilla
1.2.1 although the weather one almost doesn't. Where does any-size-design
start nowdays? I know I'm nearly the last person on Earth to use that
resolution daily, but still ...

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

"Leonard Blaisdell" <leo (AT) greatbasin (DOT) com> wrote

Every last one of them has a horizontal scroll at 640x480 on
MacMozilla
1.2.1 although the weather one almost doesn't. Where does
any-size-design
start nowdays? I know I'm nearly the last person on Earth to use that
resolution daily, but still ...

--
http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/

I'd wager it's 800x600, no less.

I like your deer photo and the rainbow photo. On your Q&A, the question
about "which Nevada county is smallest" (or some wording to that effect)
should be more specific: smallest in geographic size or smallest in
population? My first answer was "Esmeralda County" because I thought
you were referring to population.

Always nice to see a fellow Washoe County resident in the newsgroups.
=)

-- Richard

In article <%xTRa.10737$nO.3111638127 (AT) newssvr10 (DOT) news.prodigy.com>,
"Richard Barnet" <news (AT) richard-NOSPAM-barnet (DOT) com> wrote:

smallest in geographic size or smallest in
population? My first answer was "Esmeralda County" because I thought
you were referring to population.

I fixed the ambiguity :-)

Always nice to see a fellow Washoe County resident in the newsgroups.

Ditto!

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

Brian wrote:

Except that it can be more easily modified with user stylesheets. Not
worth the time for one-time visits, but if the site has good content,
and someone wants to read it regularly, (s)he could write a stylesheet,
especially if unique class-names and id's are used.

That's exactly why I always use <body id="sitename'> in my sites, so
users can always use their user stylesheet to change my style (I am not
_that_ good in making sites...


Kind regards,

Jeroen
http://www.jeroensangers.com/
http://www.fimcap.org/

'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress (AT) noplacereally (DOT) com> writes:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:09:29 +0200, Jeroen Sangers
That's exactly why I always use <body id="sitename'> in my sites, so
users can always use their user stylesheet to change my style (I am not
_that_ good in making sites...

Does anyone actually expect a significant number of users to do this
to a web site ?

Unlikely, for most values of significant. That said, I wouldn't mind
a web browser that let me set up *which* user stylesheet to apply on a
site-by-site basis.

--
Chris

'nuther Bob <yetanotherphonyaddress (AT) noplacereally (DOT) com> writes:

On 01 Aug 2003 09:19:35 +0100, Chris Morris <c.i.morris (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk
wrote:
Unlikely, for most values of significant. That said, I wouldn't mind
a web browser that let me set up *which* user stylesheet to apply on a

Sorry, which user stylesheet(s)

site-by-site basis.

I just see it as incredibly impractical to integrate a "user" style
sheet with anything beyond a very basic design and come out with

I wouldn't use it for layout, though, not unless the site had a
*really* bad layout.

something useable. I can see a user CSS with something that changes
basics like heading, para, and page colors or sizes, but I can't see
that looking better

I'm not so concerned with using them to make things look better, more
to make bad sites look readable.

on a site by site basis unless you spend some
significant time tailoring it.

I have a fairly large range of user stylesheets for various purposes.
If I had a browser that would let me selectively apply them to various
sites *and* remember which ones for which site that would be very
useful.

For example, if I have a stylesheet that drops most colour information
* { color: black; background: white; }
and a stylesheet that makes sensible link styles
a:link { color: #000099; background: white; text-decoration: underline; }
/* etc for :visited, and so on */

then it would be useful for me to be able to apply *and have the
browser remember that I have applied for the next time* the first
stylesheet *only* to sites with tasteless colour combinations and the
second *only* to sites with unclear link colours.

Maybe have a third stylesheet to do
* { font-family: sans-serif; }
for ones which pick obscure fonts that my computer matches to
unreadable ones.

At this point there's 8 combinations of stylesheet enable-disable,
which is getting impractical to switch around everytime I change site,
and I've not got anywhere near the extent of user stylesheets I might
find useful on a small percentage of sites.

So a browser that saved user stylesheet(s) settings on a site-by-site
basis would be quite useful.

--
Chris

Chris Morris wrote:

<snip> I wouldn't mind

a web browser that let me set up *which* user stylesheet to apply on a
site-by-site basis.

Me too.

James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/