Re: dt dd inline but dt clear left?

In article <1fd5f$4999bd75$cef88ba3$32541 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-16, Ben C wrote:

It set an important precedent for the idea that nobody is above the law,
not even the King.

No, that precedent was set in 1205, with the signing of the Magna
Carta. Charles I was beheaded in 1649.

Ben is not wrong. A 1215 (not 1205) precedent of sorts maybe. But, in
practice, it was not so easy to discern its effect on some of the
English monarchs. I can assure you that the image of a monarch's
unattached head rolling on the floor - below the height of all the law
books and scrolls - was a powerful meme.

--
dorayme

In article <Xvcml.21186$cu.20364 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-02-16, rf <rf@z.invalid> wrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <heaml.21144$cu.11378 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@z.invalid> wrote:

Who is this Charlie bloke and who chopped his head off and more
importantly did he deserve it?. Was it in duel? And why talk about
it? I'd keep mum on the matter myself. Second best and all of that.

He was a King of England, who was found guilty of treason by a court
set up by Parliament who then sentenced him and cut his head off.

He refused to take the trial seriously, very much in the manner of
Saddam Hussein, because he still thought of himself as the legitimate
tyrant.

It set an important precedent for the idea that nobody is above the
law, not even the King.

Ah, I see. dorayme, and your good self are more up than I on olde english
histery. However for my part I am descendant (in part) from one of the poor
bloody buggers shipped out here for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his
starving family and as such I have a slight mistrust of the "commonwealth"
:-(

You wild colonial! (btw, it was not just a loaf of bread in your
family's case. I looked it up and it explains everything! Naturally the
refined English in me prevents the revelation of the salacious details.
But, because it was not your fault, I will see if I can pass the 'at
around to send you to a decent finishing school to knock off those rough
edges.) <g>

--
dorayme

amygdala wrote:

If so many websites are broken, wouldn't it be time to start using 'zoom
whole page', in stead of the font-size option.

Why? It only causes excessive horizontal scrolling and does not make it
any more usable than with zoomed text. A properly designed site adapts
to my settings just fine, and plenty do. It's the poorly designed sites
that can't handle it and fall apart.

In my decade of web programming I haven't heard a single remark from
clients (nor from their clients, and my clients would communicate it to
me if their clients had) about how they are unable to view the whole
contents.

It's a well known fact that people aren't likely to bother telling you
when something is wrong. They'll either just go find another site that
is more accommodating, or suffer silently with the crap you give them.

Only from collegues in the field who want to be smart about
what options they are able to find in a webbrowser. If you're smart
enough to find that option, your smart enough to find the option to zoom
the whole page too, no?

It's not your decision how I use my browser. To me, page zoom is an
inferior substitute for text zoom and I don't give a rat's arse about
preserving your precious pixel-perfect layout, or anyone else's. I just
want to be able to read the bloody text. Don't you get that?

--
Berg

On 2009-02-16, amygdala wrote:
....

If so many websites are broken, wouldn't it be time to start using 'zoom
whole page', in stead of the font-size option.

Zooming the whole page usually introduces horizontal scrolling...
from the frying pan into the fire.

....

Absolutely, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a reason
that text in print is usually about 10-12 words in width. And a lot of
fluid designs don't accomodate for this.

Just because it is fluid doesn't automatically make it good. If it
is not fluid, there's a much greater chance that it will be bad.

And some techniques possible WITH THE WEB web don't WORK FOR THE WEB
either. Just because you CAN technically do different things with the
web, doesn't mean you should. Animated flash intro's / or 'welcome'
splash pages where a big hit in the 90's. But we don't use them anymore
do we? There's a reason: they suck.

Just like fixed-width design.

....

So are the majority of fluid layout websites. It really annoys the hell
out of me to have to resize my window, or adjust my font size for
readability.

Fluid websites are the one for which you *don't* have to resize
your window.

Now, who do you think the majority is on the internet? People with
default font-sizes or smart-ass techies that know how to find every
option? If there was such a huge crowd like yourself, why is a popular
website like youtube <insert any hugely popular site> not fluid? And why
are they still popular?

Because people are prepared to put up with crap for the content
they want.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Warning: I haven't had my coffee yet, and my pet peeve is off the leash!

In article <4998b9da$0$7933$9a622dc7 (AT) news (DOT) kpnplanet.nl>,
amygdala <example (AT) example (DOT) com> wrote:
[snip]

Yes, and seeing you know so much about web media, you are well aware of
the fact that a huge amount of websites don't accommodate you in this
^^^^^^

NUMBER. "...a huge NUMBER of web sites" "Amount" is for something
measured (lake mass, distance, time) while "number" is for something
counted.

<*Grumble...

amygdala wrote:

Yes, I get it, you want to be a whiny pr*ck. And act as the moral
police, just to make a point. I know about fluid design, and I chose to
ignore it. Deal with it. And disable CSS if you don't give a rats arse
about precious layout. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

The point is that if approached in the right way you can satisfy *both*
aspects, graphically stylish layout *and* flexible layout for the
device-independent web. Not easily, but it is what makes an accomplished
*web* designer.

--
Take care,

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

amygdala wrote:

Jonathan N. Little schreef:
amygdala wrote:

Yes, I get it, you want to be a whiny pr*ck. And act as the moral
police, just to make a point. I know about fluid design, and I chose
to ignore it. Deal with it. And disable CSS if you don't give a rats
arse about precious layout. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

The point is that if approached in the right way you can satisfy
*both* aspects, graphically stylish layout *and* flexible layout for
the device-independent web. Not easily, but it is what makes an
accomplished *web* designer.


Yes, and I see you are a fine one at that:

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

You just demonstrated my point that quite a few 'fluid' design
evangalists, don't have a clue about readabily/usabilty (or design, or
typography for that matter) either.

Look, I'm not saying fluid design is total crap. And I know quite a few
of my arguments don't hold up. (I even knew this up front, I don't know
why I even bothered to throw em in). But... but, but, but! Really:

If you think your fluid website is the summum of userfriendlyness
because your text stretches along with my window (a whole 1680px wide
maximized, minus your +/- 100px menu), and you can throw in the
nerdie/techie argument: "Look man, I can make fluid sites: they adjust
to your window size, kewl!!!": think again!

1) this is a legacy site, new version in process is dumping the
"bouncing betty" menu, but that said the old girl still allows a wide
range of text sizes and window sizes what a users form a PDA to
widescreen desktop can access without HORIZONTAL scrolling.

And too often do I see this with you fluid evangalists. You don't have a
clue about readability. Why would I want to read full story with lines
of about 30 - 35 words long? Again: there is a reason why books,
newspapers or any other printed long copy usually have around, say, 8 -
12 words per line. Or websites with some sense make it so that columns
only allow to around 8 - 10 words per line:

Readability.

True, I know what you are saying. I have a graphic background and a Fine
Arts degree. 8 - 10 words per line is best, however that rule apply to
*paper*. With paper the designer has absolute control of the canvas, the
font and the colors. This is *absolutely* not the case with a web page.

But quite a few of you evengalists don't have a clue why this is do you?
Ever wondered why you easily get tired/bored with reading such texts?
Your eyes/head easily get tired from having to scan horizontally too
much, and losing track of the next line you're about to read, because
you don't have a good overview of the vertical position of the next line
anymore.

You can make block of text have max widths in ems that would help on the
8 - 10 words per line legibility. But IE -=6 will complicate this
approach. You cannot do newspaper columns effectively on the web,
remember with paper on just move your eyes to scan from column to column
but with the web you have the glaucoma-ish "viewport" of the browser.
For usability it is the nature of the medium to scroll up and down
within the horizontal limits of the browser window. For paper the
horizontal limit is the comfortable span of your arms.

So, before you start acting like you have a clue about useability, I
suggest you adjust your site to accomodate readers who don't like to
break their neck reading.

So stop designing webpages at if they are printed on paper and design
for the flexible media that is currently is the web.

BTW as the technology develops the design criteria will most likely
change as well. (In 1996 there were no 300px PDAs accessing your website)


--
Take care,

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

In article <499ace36$0$7933$9a622dc7 (AT) news (DOT) kpnplanet.nl>,
amygdala <example (AT) example (DOT) com> wrote:

Jonathan N. Little schreef:
amygdala wrote:

Yes, I get it, you want to be a whiny pr*ck. And act as the moral
police, just to make a point. I know about fluid design, and I chose
to ignore it. Deal with it. And disable CSS if you don't give a rats
arse about precious layout. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.

The point is that if approached in the right way you can satisfy *both*
aspects, graphically stylish layout *and* flexible layout for the
device-independent web. Not easily, but it is what makes an accomplished
*web* designer.


Yes, and I see you are a fine one at that:

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

You just demonstrated my point that quite a few 'fluid' design
evangalists, don't have a clue about readabily/usabilty (or design, or
typography for that matter) either.

Look, I'm not saying fluid design is total crap. And I know quite a few
of my arguments don't hold up.

Step back mate, you are sounding crazy. That is my job around here. <g>

All this ad hominem stuff gets us nowhere, the concepts of fluid design
do not involve having to have long lines of text. There are ways to
limit them. That does not make design less fluid in any more meaningful
way than to say a skyscraper is very short because its first floor is
only a few metres high.

Do not confuse fluidity with accessibility. It is totally irrelevant
that JL has some site somewhere that could be better in some respect or
other. Who hasn't?

--
dorayme

amygdala wrote:

Bergamot schreef:

It's not your decision how I use my browser.
I just
want to be able to read the bloody text. Don't you get that?

Yes, I get it, you want to be a whiny pr*ck.

No, I don't. I just get so infuriated with people that have an attitude
like yours. It makes the web a crappy place to be for people like me,
and it's so damn unnecessary.

It gives us gems like msnbc.com, which is completely unusable no matter
what I do.

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

It gives us gems like msnbc.com, which is completely unusable no matter
what I do.

Gee I wonder which part was the offending party, the MS or the NBC ;-)

--
Take care,

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