Two Minor Issues - Fourth Try at Posting (now via Google)

Duende <xxxspam (AT) wipkip (DOT) biz> wrote

While sitting in a puddle Toby A Inkster scribbled in the mud:

Bonnie Granat wrote:

Thanks, Toby. But you knew, didn't you, that I'd now ask, "Were the
other sites really so bad?"

They weren't so bad, but I think this one is much better.


Very diplomatic response.

I don't want diplomacy. I want truth. ; ) So, Toby, if you were
holding your tongue, please answer the question again honestly.

Bonnie

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

Bullets should be moved left in:
copyediting.html left column
technicalwriting.html left column

I thought having them on the left with all that space to the right
looked bad, but maybe I will move them to the left anyway. ; )

resume.html looks silly as two columns

Not here, it doesn't. If you use huge type, maybe. I make my site
readable in larger type sizes, but it looks best and most people use
in medium, smaller, and smallest (IE categories).

Sometimes I had to compromise to accommodate browsers. The writing
samples on samples.html, where I have Sample 1, Sample, 2, and
Sample 3, is odd, I know, but it cannot be helped, I don't think.

The sample1/2/3 should be expanded to fill the content area. The
narrow columns are... um, bad. The images should be larger, too.

You mean the samples themselves? No, I'm not having text more than
four inches horizontally on the screen.

I don't know how to address that issue, though, unless I don't go
below the "fold," but then in small type sizes and high
resolutions, the page looks ridiculous.

Consider that your "fold" may be higher than my "fold." I may have
extra toolbars and a shorter viewport.

No, I think you have it backwards. I use high resolution and small
type. Therefore, my "fold" is below someone who uses low resolution
and large type.

..and still didn't 'cause it will change in twenty minutes. <g> The
menu went from links to flyspecks in the previous hour.

You either have a lousy monitor or bad eyesight. They're very clear,
and they're bullets that color-code the menu items.

Also, I haven't posted here in a while, so why don't you stop
badgering me for being productive?

And, thanks!

Bonnie

Els <els.aGEENSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl.invalid> wrote

Yeah, 'cause I decided to dump the thing and do it another way. ; )

I don't think you should put those icons on your page. The
page looks good as it is, and those icons only make it look
tacky. (imnsho)

I took 'em out, thinking exactly that. Tacky. Why do I do it? LOL.
Thanks!
Bonnie

leo (AT) greatbasin (DOT) com (Leonard Blaisdell) wrote in message news:<leo-> Unfortunately, validation does not guarantee browser behavior. Perhaps

someone else with a setup like mine can either confirm or debunk what I am
saying. Well ... they can debunk it in a universal sense but not a
particular instance. It does freeze my old Mac with IE5. I access it just
fine with Mozilla.

And the validator itself is screwy. The red caret it uses to point to
errors often point to the wrong place. Over and over the validator
pointed to the ">" in </html> and said something was missing.

Jake showed me how to make the page accessible to page readers, so I
feel as if I have done something good. ; )

Yay, Jake!

B.

kchayka <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote


Thanks. I have to look more closely at what you're saying.

My ISP tells me it's the worm/virus/whatever that's been wreaking havoc all over.

Thanks.

B.

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

If you are, don't use small type sizes.

If people can't read a newspaper, they put on glasses. With computers,
there's a range of sizes for type. I use the smallest size for my own
browsing. That's comfortable to me. I don't read newspapers that are
printed in 14-point text, and I don't read text on the computer that
size. Do you know of any newspapers with 14-point text?

So, I am going to -- like millions of others -- use small type sizes.
Low-vision readers can adjust their browsers, but it's impossible to
design for such large type, and I'm not even going to try, because the
result in high resolution with small type sizes is ugly and
disgusting.

I also think that people with low vision should not impose their needs
on others to the degree that is done in this newsgroup. I am all for
making my page accessible and making it readable in large type, but I
don't care what it looks like at those sizes. I intend to keep my
sanity.

Bonnie



B.

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> wrote

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

If you are, don't use small type sizes.


If people can't read a newspaper, they put on glasses. With computers,
there's a range of sizes for type. I use the smallest size for my own
browsing. That's comfortable to me. I don't read newspapers that are
printed in 14-point text, and I don't read text on the computer that
size. Do you know of any newspapers with 14-point text?

I do. There are special newspapers printed for poorly sighted children.

So, I am going to -- like millions of others -- use small type sizes.

What a pity.

If every author did *not* specify font sizes then all viewers would get to
read web pages at their desired default font size.

It is only when authors interfeer that problems arise.

I like my font set to about 14 points. You come along and specify 95%. What
happens. I have to nudge *my* size up to compensate, having totally ignored
your suggestion.

Then I visit another site where 110% is specified. I once again have to
adjust *my* size back to what I like.

It's like listening to a radio station where each song is played at a
different volume.

Low-vision readers can adjust their browsers, but it's impossible to
design for such large type,

Wrong. Designing for any font size is as easy as designing for any canvas
size. Your particular site, unlike many, *is* immune to font size changes.

and I'm not even going to try, because the
result in high resolution with small type sizes is ugly and
disgusting.

In your opinion. I would rather be able to read something even if it is ugly
than not be able to read something that is pretty.

I also think that people with low vision should not impose their needs
on others to the degree that is done in this newsgroup.

Did you build this site for yourself? No you did not. You build it for your
viewers so that hopefully they will give you money for your services.

If you intentionally discriminate against the very large proportion of
visually impaired people out there then it is exactly the same as throwing a
proportion of your profits in the creek.

I am all for
making my page accessible and making it readable in large type, but I
don't care what it looks like at those sizes.

It looks fine in large sizes.

I intend to keep my
sanity.

Find. It's your site and your business and your sanity.

Cheers
Richard.

Quoth the raven named rf:

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:71c7825b.0402091834.4c5bb01a (AT) posting (DOT) google.com...

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

If you are, don't use small type sizes.

If people can't read a newspaper, ...

I do. There are special newspapers

Richard, you said exactly what I was composing in my head when I
noticed you had answered. So, I'll just post this so Bonnie knows "my
answer" too. <g> Thanks.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

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

Quoth the raven named rf:

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:71c7825b.0402091834.4c5bb01a (AT) posting (DOT) google.com...

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

If you are, don't use small type sizes.

If people can't read a newspaper, ...

I do. There are special newspapers

Richard, you said exactly what I was composing in my head when I
noticed you had answered. So, I'll just post this so Bonnie knows "my
answer" too. <g> Thanks.

<grin/>
You're supposed to say it like this:

<aol>me too</aol>

Cheers
Richard.

Quoth the raven named Bonnie Granat:

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

Bullets should be moved left in: copyediting.html left column
technicalwriting.html left column

I thought having them on the left with all that space to the right
looked bad, but maybe I will move them to the left anyway. ; )

Thanks.

resume.html looks silly as two columns

Not here, it doesn't. If you use huge type, maybe. I make my site
readable in larger type sizes, but it looks best and most people
use in medium, smaller, and smallest (IE categories).

I use Smaller in IE and your type-size is ok. That's not the issue.
Readability is the issue. Very few people are going to read two
columns at once, so will have to read / scroll down / read / scroll
back up / switch columns / read / scroll down ...

Two of us have mentioned this now. Content in two columns is fine for
a newspaper where only your eyes need to scroll back to the beginning
for the next column.

If I were a business looking for your services, I would see the
resume, read a few lines, and probably leave. I have a friend in
Kansas City who is also a professional writer, Ph.D. and all that, who
does resumes as a sideline, and she would never produce one in two
columns. Paper or web.

She did mine for me a number of years ago. There is one narrow band on
the left with section headings, and the content column which is about
3/4 or more of the width of the paper. Roughly equivalent to your menu
column and your content column.

Sometimes I had to compromise to accommodate browsers. The
writing samples on samples.html, where I have Sample 1, Sample,
2, and Sample 3, is odd, I know, but it cannot be helped, I
don't think.

The sample1/2/3 should be expanded to fill the content area. The
narrow columns are... um, bad. The images should be larger, too.

You mean the samples themselves? No, I'm not having text more than
four inches horizontally on the screen.

No, I mean the long, skinny column with the whitespace in the right.
Ah, I've discovered something. At 1024x768, there are two columns on
the Sample1 page. At 800x600, the right column floats down under the
left column. That's bad, because the one column is very narrow. Your
graphics on these pages are too small on my 17" 1024 monitor, at any
size browser window.

I don't know how to address that issue, though, unless I don't
go below the "fold," but then in small type sizes and high
resolutions, the page looks ridiculous.

Consider that your "fold" may be higher than my "fold." I may
have extra toolbars and a shorter viewport.

No, I think you have it backwards. I use high resolution and small
type. Therefore, my "fold" is below someone who uses low resolution
and large type.

Let me rephrase my comment:

Consider that your "fold" may be [*taller*] than my "fold." I may
have extra toolbars and a shorter viewport.

My "fold" occurs somewhere around 500 pixels from the top of your
page. This is about where any 800x600 visitor with a couple toolbars
is going to find the "fold."

What the size is on your monitor? Doesn't matter.

..and still didn't 'cause it will change in twenty minutes. <g
The menu went from links to flyspecks in the previous hour.

The menu links are still too small. The text should be within 5% of
the content, and they look smaller than that. As I said, you changed
them and made them too small between one view (when you first started
this thread) and the second time I looked just a short while later.

You either have a lousy monitor or bad eyesight. They're very
clear, and they're bullets that color-code the menu items.

No, actually I have quite good eyesight, with my glasses, and a rather
reasonably good monitor. The little widgets next to the links are too
small to discern what they are supposed to be. If I look really close,
I can tell they are little squares and tiny red x's.

You need to wander to a friend's house, the library or somewhere else
to see your site not on your monitor.

Also, I haven't posted here in a while, so why don't you stop
badgering me for being productive?

<lol>

And, thanks!

Keep at it... :-)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.