Re: Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths.

No, it is a common mistake to think and especially to make a page
layout where forming blocks either "collapse" into some bag pack or
"extends" to the density of stars on the night sky at the bad weather:
all following the available size.
A too crowded design is irritating to eyes, so the same for a design
where your eyes have to navigate across huge empty areas from one
block to another. If asked what is the worst from two I would be
really hesitating what to say. There is some min-width you don't want
to go below in any case: user has to either scroll, or to extend the
browser window, or to buy a descent monitor, or to go to hell
whatsoever ("Webpunks are not welcome!", remember ;-) Same there is
some max-width you don't want to exceed.

If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath?

Why asking me? Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.

Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)

See atop ;-)

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?

For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others. Of course can be and should
be a number of dorayme, Dick and Stanley who dislike it. But this is
also what is paid to H&H by the company - and H&H prices are not low
at all - this is the guarantee that this last category of visitors
will be safe to disregard, both by possible income loss criterion and
by legal responsibility criterion.

In article
<b0ae8782-1eec-4325-ad87-4b174b8f2321 (AT) e23g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths.

No, ...

No?

You were saying that it is designed for the majority of people
who view at more than 800. Lets say 1280 (you claim this is the
author's model, ok.). At 1280 it "breathes" to use your term. So
why the "no"? If it is viewed at less than 900, it develops
scroll bars and you start not being able to view it as a whole.
There is no breathing that is relevant here any more. It is a
potential breathing, not an actual breathing, it is a breathing
that cannot be actually appreciated. Having to scroll with
material that will easily compress rather spoils the enjoyment of
this breathing.

If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath?

Why asking me?

You were the one that made the claim that it has this "breathing"
quality. I was the one who accepted this concept but could not
(after looking) see it usefully operating at 800.

Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.

Why would blocks "collapse on each other" at 900 or 800 or 700

unless there was incompetence on the part of the designer? Why
would there not be a min width of a reasonable kind, and just
under 1000 is hardly reasonable for the material in hand here.

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

I really cannot see you getting my meaning. What have these
quantum sizes got to do with the issue? Many people size their
browsers to their convenience at any one time in between all
these sizes. At least many Mac users do that. Perhaps there is a
tendency for Windows users to view everything at full screen and
use the minimizing bar under to manage more than one task at a
time. But many people have more than one thing or program open on
the same window. In this first ranked site, it has this bad fault
that it plays nuisance when below 1000 (we are not talking pda or
mobile phones or people with ancient tiny monitors here, we are
talking modern user convenience).


Before you jump to reminding me how there was some sort of poll
of users to so rank this site, I know nothing about how the
candidates were chosen in the first place. If the votes were
collected from folk who could see a fair variety of sites, the
results might have been very different. If the sites that somehow
came to the attention of the voters did not include well designed
sites of the highest quality, then you are being seriously
misled. Big companies that are important to people are obviously
going to come to the attention of the voters in any multiple
choice question they form for themselves. That is not the only
criterion to conduct a fair test of quality of sites. Many many
big companies have rotten sites and the best among a bad bunch is
nothing to be bragging about.

It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?

For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others.

We can go into all this but it still does not answer the question
we are focussing on. Were the voters presented with a site that
had many of the advantages of it and less of the disadvantages?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

I really cannot see you getting my meaning. What have these
quantum sizes got to do with the issue? Many people size their
browsers to their convenience at any one time in between all
these sizes. At least many Mac users do that. Perhaps there is a
tendency for Windows users to view everything at full screen and
use the minimizing bar under to manage more than one task at a
time. But many people have more than one thing or program open on
the same window. In this first ranked site, it has this bad fault
that it plays nuisance when below 1000 (we are not talking pda or
mobile phones or people with ancient tiny monitors here, we are
talking modern user convenience).

Or the fact that there are users which use Sidebars (Firefox & NS9),
Explorer Bars (IE), Panels (Opera), etc.

--
Gus