Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Tech Geekers and their Style

Harlan Messinger wrote:

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/

With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.


It isn't either basic or (obviously, since the world is still turning
after all these years without it) necessary.

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html>

--
Gus

kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:
This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html

"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.

Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most (if
not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN. Not
down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could resort
to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a Web page
to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to failure. And,
in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is this sensible
marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate every
reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for some
narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and tick
off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Ed Mullen wrote:

kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html



"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.


Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most (if
not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN. Not
down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could resort
to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a Web page
to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to failure. And,
in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is this sensible
marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate every
reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for some
narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and tick
off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.

All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.

--
Gus

Xah Lee Wrote:
«Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.

A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/
»


Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html
»

Thanks! Very neat!

Way to go FireFox!

Recently i got the Web Developer tool bar for firefox. I loved it,
especially the Outline Tables feature, which can give one a quick
overview of the site's layout that is otherwise extremely time
consuming to see.

Xah
xah (AT) xahlee (DOT) org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

Xah Lee wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:
« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html
»

Thanks! Very neat!

Way to go FireFox!

It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.

--
Gus

kchayka wrote:

All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.

As a user, I guess I'll "not use it" by boycotting sites that use this
silly thing, eh?

Your choice and your opinion.
You were also one of those knocking CSS a few years ago, yes?

--
Gus

kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html

It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.


Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?

Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is aesthetically
superior.

--
Gus

Gus Richter wrote:

Ed Mullen wrote:
kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html



"Works pretty well" is in the eye of the beholder.

This does show one of the major problems with multi-columns on-screen -
what happens when there is more content than can fit in the viewport.
It's just plain stoopid to scroll down to read one column then have to
scroll back to the top to continue reading the same article, maybe even
the same sentence. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks this is a good
thing.

If you want to prevent long lines of text, set a paragraph max-width and
be done with it. You don't need these silly columns to accomplish it.


Very nice assessment. I don't know about anyone else but this person
reads left to right and then top to bottom. It's an Internet page
viewed on a browser window of my choice, meaning I can override most
(if not all) of the author's settings. It is NOT a newspaper. It's a
different media: What? The designers never heard of Marshall MacLuhan?

If it won't fit in MY view screen I just want to keep reading DOWN.
Not down and then up and the left and then right and ... ok? I could
resort to invective but just let me say that anyone trying to design a
Web page to force me to view it "as you want me to" is doomed to
failure. And, in the process, you will alienate your audience. Is
this sensible marketing?

No.

It's stupid marketing. Let it flow, design it so you accommodate
every reader. And then /most/ readers will thank you. Design it for
some narrow market segment and you'll satisfy that narrow segment and
tick off everyone else.

As for the Int'l Herald, I could care less if they appeal to anyone or
no one.


All I can say to you two is that you are free to ingnore and not use it.

My original post wasn't meant to deride anything standards efforts or

clever design. I appreciate this much the same way I might appreciate
the design of a car that runs on recovered restaurant grease as fuel.
It's academically interesting, admirable from an intellectual
standpoint, but I'm not about to try to convert my BMW just because it's
a "cool idea." It's not practical and, to me, makes no sense from a
useage standpoint. That's what I was trying to say.

If I ranted a bit and made offense, I apologize. But I stand by my
assessment that this is only intellectually interesting: That is, it
makes no sense in the real world, in the way that real people read. I
may admire the cleverness involved in solving the academic problem, I
may admire the elegance of the solution, but I disagree with the notion
that this was a problem in need of a solution. It, still, simply doesn't
make any sense from a human factors standpoint.

So, I admire, I apologize, and I still will shy away from
implementations of this "solution." Kay? No harm, no foul? ;-)


--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Gus Richter wrote:

kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html

It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.

Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?

Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is aesthetically
superior.

ROFL! As though this exact question--whether full or left-only

justification is better for readability--hadn't already been studied
exhaustively. It's a fact that for the most part people are better able
to navigate visually from one line to the next, without winding up on
the wrong line, when the right margin is ragged. As for esthetic
factors, they are often at odds with usability.

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

kchayka wrote:

Gus Richter wrote:

« This page works pretty well with Fx 1.5:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/a...18_for_we.html



It looks way better when text-align:justify is applied.


Left aligned text is much easier to read. You do care about usability,
don't you?


Sadly, it's your opinion without trying it. Apply it and see the
difference. I find it easier to read when justified and is
aesthetically superior.

ROFL! As though this exact question--whether full or left-only
justification is better for readability--hadn't already been studied
exhaustively. It's a fact that for the most part people are better able
to navigate visually from one line to the next, without winding up on
the wrong line, when the right margin is ragged. As for esthetic
factors, they are often at odds with usability.

ROFLMAO! Another one that did not try to apply it as suggested.
Although this may be true for long lines (questionable studies, since I
find line to line navigation equally bothersome when ragged-right), the
subject example is using narrow columns. One would have to be cross-eyed
not to be able to follow line by line. With ragged-right, it confuses as
to where the column ends if the gutter between columns is not wide
enough and if there is no visual separator. Stand in the corner with the
other two.

--
Gus