site review request

So, you want to design your page which most people will have to scroll
horizontally to see all your information?

Remember, majority of people are not as computer savvy as we are.

I know. It's a good point to remember. But often certain "rules of good
design" are bandied about in ciwas like edicts. (Look at "Beauregard T.
Shagnasty"'s remark - he curtly commands that I "redesign (my) template to
eliminate it".) Did Mr. Shagnasty stop a moment to reflect on whether or not
it matters, in every case, that a website be designed to fit the 800x600
viewport? I'm not sure it's important in my case. I'm not sure the added
grief is worth my effort. And I would sooner tell the CSS violator of the
800x600 dimension, that it's happening and nothing more (or perhaps profer a
work-around that will preserve the same effect).

Now, Brian's remark (also curt) about me force-feeding people like him my
font-size preferences - that's excellent advice. Maybe he was curt (if he
even remembers) because I (seemingly) ignored him the first time. But he's
convinced me that his issue is one with which I've got to concern myself.
And he's made me hell-bent on pleasing people like him.

It's a fine line to walk you Shagnasty's of the world.

Brian

It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.

If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
off your site and reduce the noise.

Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us if
he didn't write his daily poetry?

Maybe you should stick to technical advice.

Thanks. I conducted a little test and set the font-style to 'sans serif'
and
the font-size to 100%. I'm not disappointed by what I see... but I do
have a
couple questions.

That's good. Do understand that your visitors will most likely *not* have
their computers and monitors (and browser window sizes) the same as yours.

(1) What should I set the line-height to? or does it not matter?

Leave it to the default, except in the most unusual circumstances.

Ok.

(2) I generally keep my IE text size setting set to "medium". With
font-size
set to 100%, when the IE text size is set to anything larger than medium
the
text immediately gets bolded. I don't like that. Should I care?

100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)

Ok. I use IE as my baseline because that's how most people exerience the
web.

The main GALTSVALLEY.COM overflows an 800x600 window. A horizontal
scrollbar is present. Redesign your template to eliminate it.

If the CSS for that "banner" was set at some number of em, it wouldn't
overflow.


Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm
at
a loss here. What decade are we in?

The object here is to design for... no size. Make it float so that in my
740px window, I still don't need scrollbars. Monitor resolution is not
equal to browser window size. Most people with high resolution screens do
not browse with the window maximized.

http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Here's a site of mine. Note how you can change your font to any size, and
make the browser window whatever size you care to, and it all still fits.
http://www.freezeblock.com/ No scrollbars necessary.

You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago. Thanks for the
thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
800x600 matters to me.

Brian

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
<snip>

100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)

Ok. I use IE as my baseline because that's how most people exerience the
web.

OT: this may change, as more people learn that the next version of IE
isn't due until 2006 - and then you'll have to buy the entire OS.

<snip>

The object here is to design for... no size. Make it float so that in my
740px window, I still don't need scrollbars. Monitor resolution is not
equal to browser window size. Most people with high resolution screens do
not browse with the window maximized.

http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

Here's a site of mine. Note how you can change your font to any size, and
make the browser window whatever size you care to, and it all still fits.
http://www.freezeblock.com/ No scrollbars necessary.


You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago.

Not a problem. Most answers in these groups are "curt." If we all had time
to write lengthy flowing stories... Besides, I'm trying to watch the Cubs
whack the Braves.

Thanks for the
thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
800x600 matters to me.

Except for p3nis spam, size doesn't matter <g>.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote

100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)

If most users don't know how to change their resolution and end up
discovering that a higher resolution is, in fact, preferred, then how can
you assume that the default font size is the user's preference? Maybe they
just haven't figured out how to change it yet.

Jonathan


--
http://www.snook.ca/

Jonathan Snook pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote in message
news:TBqeb.24198$oa4.21432 (AT) twister (DOT) nyroc.rr.com...
100% is the visitor's default (and preferred) size. If they have vision
problems, they may be at "Larger" and prefer that. Personally, I have IE
set at "Smaller." (Though I rarely *use* IE.)

If most users don't know how to change their resolution and end up
discovering that a higher resolution is, in fact, preferred, then how can
you assume that the default font size is the user's preference? Maybe they
just haven't figured out how to change it yet.

Quite right, but even the clueless user is still in charge. Better that
than an author forcing something they *may* not know they don't like. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

You've made me regret my post of a few minutes ago.

Not a problem. Most answers in these groups are "curt." If we all had time
to write lengthy flowing stories... Besides, I'm trying to watch the Cubs
whack the Braves.

Thanks for the
thoughtful answer. It's an attempt, at least, to help me understand why
800x600 matters to me.

Except for p3nis spam, size doesn't matter <g>.

And maybe mine was a non-argument from the start. Maybe a little thinking on
the subject (of 800x600)was all that stood between me and realizing I should
take a look at it.

The big issue, for me, is how to achieve the size of GALTSVALLEY.COM (as you
see under non-restrictive screen res) without resorting to an image. Your
FreezeBlock.com site header is an image; the letters are about the same size
of the letters in GALTSVALLEY.COM (at my screen res). The question: How can
I reproduce the same effect already achieved (in plain text) but that would
render fine in 800x600?

testing...

For example, changing the font-size from 80px to 475% recreates the effect
at my screen res. Is it as simple as that?

testing...

No. Changing my screen res to 800x600 shows the 'M' in ".COM" just goes off
the RHS of the page.

Is the solution that I would just have to settle for smaller letters?

Brian

B McDonald pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
<snip>

And maybe mine was a non-argument from the start. Maybe a little thinking on
the subject (of 800x600)was all that stood between me and realizing I should
take a look at it.

Hey, we're getting somewhere! <g> Think fluid.

The big issue, for me, is how to achieve the size of GALTSVALLEY.COM (as you
see under non-restrictive screen res) without resorting to an image. Your
FreezeBlock.com site header is an image;

...supplied by the client who had a neighborhood kid make it before I was
called to do the site. It isn't a particularly good one either, so I
couldn't mess with it with my limited graphics capabilities. The kid
actually did the first version of the site, and *everything* was a
graphic.

the letters are about the same size
of the letters in GALTSVALLEY.COM (at my screen res). The question: How can
I reproduce the same effect already achieved (in plain text) but that would
render fine in 800x600?

testing...

For example, changing the font-size from 80px to 475% recreates the effect
at my screen res. Is it as simple as that?

Probably. IMO the banner would look better if it was about 2/3 browser
width at 800x600. Maybe around 300% ? Some number of em?

testing...

No. Changing my screen res to 800x600 shows the 'M' in ".COM" just goes off
the RHS of the page.

Instead of changing your resolution to test, put this bit of JavaScript in
a local page:

<a href="javascript:resizeTo(640,480)">640x480</a> /
<a href="javascript:resizeTo(800,600)">800x600</a> /
<a href="javascript:resizeTo(1004,728)">1024x768</a>

The last is a bit smaller to allow for my taskbar.

Is the solution that I would just have to settle for smaller letters?

They are pretty large. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

"B McDonald" <no (AT) spam (DOT) com> exclaimed in <4Fpeb.1713$sU3.143 (AT) newssvr17 (DOT) news.prodigy.com>:

Can someone please tell me why anyone designs for an 800x600 window? I'm at
a loss here. What decade are we in?

We're in the "Noone knows what resolutions are in use, and it doesn't
matter if we did" decade - but alot of designers haven't caught on
yet.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

"B McDonald" <no (AT) spam (DOT) com> exclaimed in <nLqeb.1723$C84.339 (AT) newssvr17 (DOT) news.prodigy.com>:

It is way too constricting. I mean, unless I'm selling pantyhose
to the masses - or some other mass-market item - there's no point.

If you're not writing for "the masses," then why write at all? Shut
off your site and reduce the noise.


Huh? Pablo Neruda wrote for himself. Where would that put the rest of us if
he didn't write his daily poetry?

Well, if he wrote only for himself, then we'd be neither better nor worse
off, since none of us would read it.

But perhaps he DID write for others, too ?

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905