Re: How to define a HTML page not allow scroll bars and resize?

PTM wrote:

That's not always true. Often users get frustrated or annoyed by windows
that are far too big or small for the content. Sometimes it's preferable
(user wise) for the window size to be dictated by the developer.

No, never.

Simply because the developer doesn't _know_ what the best window size
is. That's dependent on run-time combinations of font and available
space.

The best thing to work these sizes out is usually the browser, right at
the last minute. Second best is the user. Developer's guesses are a
far-behind third place.

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote

PTM wrote:

That's not always true. Often users get frustrated or annoyed by windows
that are far too big or small for the content. Sometimes it's preferable
(user wise) for the window size to be dictated by the developer.

No, never.

Simply because the developer doesn't _know_ what the best window size
is. That's dependent on run-time combinations of font and available
space.

The best thing to work these sizes out is usually the browser, right at
the last minute. Second best is the user. Developer's guesses are a
far-behind third place.

But if you have a fixed size, fixed face font, with a fixed number of
characters, taking up a fixed height and width, or a pop-up of a larger
image or something, then why not fix the window size?

PTM wrote:

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1154013938.604496.326280 (AT) s13g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
PTM wrote:

That's not always true. Often users get frustrated or annoyed by
windows that are far too big or small for the content. Sometimes
it's preferable (user wise) for the window size to be dictated by
the developer.
No, never.

Simply because the developer doesn't _know_ what the best window
size is. That's dependent on run-time combinations of font and
available space.

The best thing to work these sizes out is usually the browser,
right at the last minute. Second best is the user. Developer's
guesses are a far-behind third place.


But if you have a fixed size, fixed face font, with a fixed number of
characters, taking up a fixed height and width, or a pop-up of a
larger image or something, then why not fix the window size?

Well *you* may have that font; but the user may not have it, or they may
not be able to read it, and so they may have set an override.

You can't count on your type taking up a box of some particular
dimensions, even if the font you have specified is being displayed by
the user's browser. I'm not sure what you mean by "pop-up" in this
context; but many browsers allow people to zoom images.

I'm afraid you made a weak argument there; you could have made a
stronger one, but I don't feel like arguing over these details. The
principle is that the user should be in control, where GUIs are
concerned; and webpages are GUIs. If a GUI designer thinks that a user
shouldn't be in control, then either he has to argue against this
accepted principle, or he has to make a special-case argument.

I don't deny that there are special cases; but to qualify, a case has
to be special.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

PTM wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:
snip
The best thing to work these sizes out is usually the browser, right
at the last minute. Second best is the user. Developer's guesses
are a far-behind third place.

But if you have a fixed size, fixed face font, with a fixed number of
characters, taking up a fixed height and width, or a pop-up of a larger
image or something, then why not fix the window size?

"But if you have" is only a worthwhile consideration if you do (or
could) have, and you don't. You cannot fix the font size (even on IE 6
as it allows user style sheets to override all author provided CSS),
you cannot know the font face (but can be fairly certain that it will
not be a font face that is not installed on the machine running the
browser) and strictly you cannot know the number of characters as a
user style sheet may insert something extra (though it is massively
unlikely that they would). So you cannot know the width and height of
any displayed text with certainty.

Images seem to offer more potential, particularly when loaded directly
rather than displayed in an HTML page (to which some CSS may alter the
size of the image), but even when an image is displayed directly in a
browser it is actually being displayed in a browser created (x?)HTML
page, and that page will be just as susceptible to user style sheets as
any other (including various applications of borders margins and
padding and directly setting the size of the IMG elements).

Richard.

"Jack" <mrdemeanour (AT) nospam (DOT) jackpot.uk.net> wrote

PTM wrote:
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1154013938.604496.326280 (AT) s13g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
PTM wrote:

That's not always true. Often users get frustrated or annoyed by
windows that are far too big or small for the content. Sometimes
it's preferable (user wise) for the window size to be dictated by
the developer.
No, never.

Simply because the developer doesn't _know_ what the best window
size is. That's dependent on run-time combinations of font and
available space.

The best thing to work these sizes out is usually the browser,
right at the last minute. Second best is the user. Developer's
guesses are a far-behind third place.


But if you have a fixed size, fixed face font, with a fixed number of
characters, taking up a fixed height and width, or a pop-up of a
larger image or something, then why not fix the window size?

Well *you* may have that font; but the user may not have it, or they may
not be able to read it, and so they may have set an override.

You can't count on your type taking up a box of some particular
dimensions, even if the font you have specified is being displayed by
the user's browser. I'm not sure what you mean by "pop-up" in this
context; but many browsers allow people to zoom images.

I'm afraid you made a weak argument there; you could have made a
stronger one, but I don't feel like arguing over these details. The
principle is that the user should be in control, where GUIs are
concerned; and webpages are GUIs. If a GUI designer thinks that a user
shouldn't be in control, then either he has to argue against this
accepted principle, or he has to make a special-case argument.

I don't deny that there are special cases; but to qualify, a case has
to be special.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

I didn't make a weak argument. My initial comment was "Sometimes it's
preferable" emphasis on sometimes, to which you actually end up agreeing,
"special cases".
We should just all give up with this because everyone has their own
preference and no-one is ever going to win.

PTM wrote:

I'm afraid you made a weak argument there; you could have made a
stronger one, but I don't feel like arguing over these details. The
principle is that the user should be in control, where GUIs are
concerned; and webpages are GUIs. If a GUI designer thinks that a
user shouldn't be in control, then either he has to argue against
this accepted principle, or he has to make a special-case argument.


I don't deny that there are special cases; but to qualify, a case
has to be special.

I didn't make a weak argument. My initial comment was "Sometimes it's
preferable" emphasis on sometimes, to which you actually end up
agreeing, "special cases".

Yes; but you failed to plead a special case. Your case consisted of
nothing more than that it's possible to construct a fixed-spacing dialog
(which it isn't). You didn't produce any kind of special-case reason why
one might need to do that.

We should just all give up with this because everyone has their own
preference and no-one is ever going to win.

Oh, really? My view is that the argument was won a long time ago (long
before this thread started). But I'm glad you now acknowledge that the
user's preference trumps all other arguments!

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, PTM wrote:
[f'ups suggested. Feel free to override if you insist.]

We should just all give up with this

With what "this"?

because everyone has their own preference and no-one is ever going
to win.

On the contrary: any author can win, once they have taken on board
the principles of proposing a desired visual appearance which responds
gracefully to user choices. The user also wins, which is nice.

"Jack" <mrdemeanour (AT) nospam (DOT) jackpot.uk.net> wrote

PTM wrote:

I'm afraid you made a weak argument there; you could have made a
stronger one, but I don't feel like arguing over these details. The
principle is that the user should be in control, where GUIs are
concerned; and webpages are GUIs. If a GUI designer thinks that a
user shouldn't be in control, then either he has to argue against
this accepted principle, or he has to make a special-case argument.


I don't deny that there are special cases; but to qualify, a case
has to be special.

I didn't make a weak argument. My initial comment was "Sometimes it's
preferable" emphasis on sometimes, to which you actually end up
agreeing, "special cases".

Yes; but you failed to plead a special case. Your case consisted of
nothing more than that it's possible to construct a fixed-spacing dialog
(which it isn't). You didn't produce any kind of special-case reason why
one might need to do that.

We should just all give up with this because everyone has their own
preference and no-one is ever going to win.

Oh, really? My view is that the argument was won a long time ago (long
before this thread started). But I'm glad you now acknowledge that the
user's preference trumps all other arguments!

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

I don't recall having agreed that USER preference triumphs. I do recall
saying 'everyone has their own' which does include the developer as well as
the companies and individuals they develop for.

PTM wrote:

We should just all give up with this because everyone has their
own preference and no-one is ever going to win.

Oh, really? My view is that the argument was won a long time ago
(long before this thread started). But I'm glad you now acknowledge
that the user's preference trumps all other arguments!

[snipped my sig - how come your newsreader includes it in your quote?]

[Aaah - you don't have a newsreader :-)]

I don't recall having agreed that USER preference triumphs. I do
recall saying 'everyone has their own' which does include the
developer as well as the companies and individuals they develop for.

Yeah, well I was joking (but my jokes are usually serious).

My point was meant to be that the user has already triumphed; he is in
control of his computer and his browser, most of the time, and despite
the efforts of some kinds of murketers and their lackeys.

And that's the way that most users would like it; the web is not like
TV, where the "user" either takes the content the way it is delivered,
or finds another channel. On the web, the user chooses what they are
going to see, in what order, and with which accompaniment. This is the
world that web designers have to deal with. "Accompaniment" includes
ads, video, style, and music. You can cram all of that stuff down
peoples' throats on TV, but it won't wash on the web.

The designer's "preference" is of course more than the "suggestion" that
many folks here would relegate it to. The designer's preference, as
expressed in her stylesheets, will be accepted by most users, even if it
doesn't suit them; most users don't know how to apply their own
preferences. We all know that. But it's still not a very good idea to
rely on that fact as a guiding principle for page-design. If users _can_
override the designer's "suggestions", then designers should design with
that fact in mind. Is this not obvious?
--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:32:20 +0000, PTM wrote:

"Jack" <mrdemeanour (AT) nospam (DOT) jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:eaavpm$6q7$1$8302bc10 (AT) news (DOT) demon.co.uk...
PTM wrote:

I'm afraid you made a weak argument there; you could have made a
stronger one, but I don't feel like arguing over these details. The
principle is that the user should be in control, where GUIs are
concerned; and webpages are GUIs. If a GUI designer thinks that a
user shouldn't be in control, then either he has to argue against
this accepted principle, or he has to make a special-case argument.

I don't deny that there are special cases; but to qualify, a case has
to be special.

I didn't make a weak argument. My initial comment was "Sometimes it's
preferable" emphasis on sometimes, to which you actually end up
agreeing, "special cases".

Yes; but you failed to plead a special case. Your case consisted of
nothing more than that it's possible to construct a fixed-spacing
dialog (which it isn't). You didn't produce any kind of special-case
reason why one might need to do that.

We should just all give up with this because everyone has their own
preference and no-one is ever going to win.

Oh, really? My view is that the argument was won a long time ago (long
before this thread started). But I'm glad you now acknowledge that the
user's preference trumps all other arguments!

I don't recall having agreed that USER preference triumphs. I do recall
saying 'everyone has their own' which does include the developer as well
as the companies and individuals they develop for.

Unfortunately.

One of our client companies once sent us instructions for setting up
access to one of their web application... it walked the reader through the
process of accepting ANY active-X component from ANYWHERE.

Needless to say I didn't set it up that way.

--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.