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

In message <71c7825b.0402101230.e7f0f13 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, Bonnie
Granat <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> writes

Thanks for your thoughts, Eric. You bring up very good points.

I have thought about it all and created the following, which I'd like
comments on:

http://www.granatedit.com/testdevelopmentalediting.html

I think most major problems will be solved with this, but maybe not. I
have gotten rid of the menu issue entirely, although in large sizes,
the menu isn't as nice as in small sizes. But in large sizes, you can
resize the window and not lose content (I think). At least that's the
way it looks here.

Thanks.

Bonnie

It looked better as it was.

If you want to use a horizontal menu, you'll need to replace the
'bullet' <img> between each menu entry with "|" to prevent the words
running into each other.

But the original's better.

regards

BTW. The original body text looked just fine in my browser on my
monitor:
IE at 800x600, Text-->"Medium", 17" screen (15.3/4" diagonal)
--
Jake

kchayka <kcha-un-yka (AT) sihope (DOT) com> wrote in
news:4029406e$0$29595$39cecf19 (AT) news (DOT) twtelecom.net:

Bonnie Granat wrote:

http://www.granatedit.com/testdevelopmentalediting.html

I think most major problems will be solved with this, but maybe not.

Long horizontal menus like this are hard to read, and even harder to
find any one particular menu item. It's much more legible as a vertical
list.

Seconded. My personal preference is that if you use a horizontal menu at
all, it should list a *few* (at most 5 or 6) broad general sections of the
entire site (with the same selections listed on all pages of the site) and
anything more specific should be listed on a "sidebar" vertical menu (with
selections changing according to the specific section the page is in). My
other preference would be a vertical sidebar menu alone, with indentation
for subcategories (if it becomes large, I also like to see client-side
scripting used to make the subcategories collapsible, though the default
state in the absence of adequate scripting support *must* be for all
categories to be expanded).

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

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

Wouldn't that be <grin />

--
Duende
Recommended hosting
www.hostingforabuck.net
www.affordablehost.com

While sitting in a puddle Bonnie Granat scribbled in the mud:

Thanks for your thoughts, Eric. You bring up very good points.

I have thought about it all and created the following, which I'd like
comments on:

http://www.granatedit.com/testdevelopmentalediting.html

I think most major problems will be solved with this, but maybe not. I
have gotten rid of the menu issue entirely, although in large sizes,
the menu isn't as nice as in small sizes. But in large sizes, you can
resize the window and not lose content (I think). At least that's the
way it looks here.

Thanks.

Bonnie

Haw did you do that? I get a horzintal svroll bar at anything WIDER than
940px but thay go away at less then that. I've never seen that happen
before. Using IE. Doesn't do it in Netscape.

--
Duende
Recommended hosting
www.hostingforabuck.net
www.affordablehost.com

On 10 Feb 2004 21:06:48 GMT, Duende <xxxspam (AT) wipkip (DOT) biz> declared in
alt.html.critique:

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

grin/
Wouldn't that be <grin /

Only for backward compatibility.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Duende wrote:

While sitting in a puddle Bonnie Granat scribbled in the mud:


Thanks for your thoughts, Eric. You bring up very good points.

I have thought about it all and created the following, which I'd like
comments on:

http://www.granatedit.com/testdevelopmentalediting.html

I think most major problems will be solved with this, but maybe not. I
have gotten rid of the menu issue entirely, although in large sizes,
the menu isn't as nice as in small sizes. But in large sizes, you can
resize the window and not lose content (I think). At least that's the
way it looks here.

Thanks.
Bonnie

Haw did you do that? I get a horzintal svroll bar at anything WIDER than
940px but thay go away at less then that. I've never seen that happen
before. Using IE. Doesn't do it in Netscape.

Uh, I don't get a horzintal svrol bar at anything *wider* or *small*
than 940px. Tested with FB, IE.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
http://www.semi-conductor.nl/ Links to Semiconductors sites
http://www.evandervaart.nl/ Under construction

While sitting in a puddle picayunish scribbled in the mud:

Uh, I don't get a horzintal svrol bar at anything *wider* or *small*
than 940px. Tested with FB, IE.

I don't either now. Must have been just a qurk of the moment. Guess I
should have done a screen shot.


--
Duende
Recommended hosting
www.hostingforabuck.net
www.affordablehost.com

While sitting in a puddle picayunish scribbled in the mud:

Haw did you do that? I get a horzintal svroll bar at anything WIDER
than 940px but thay go away at less then that. I've never seen that
happen before. Using IE. Doesn't do it in Netscape.

Uh, I don't get a horzintal svrol bar at anything *wider* or *small*
than 940px. Tested with FB, IE.

Page has been changed.

--
Duende
Recommended hosting
www.hostingforabuck.net
www.affordablehost.com

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

Richard,

I am testing now whether I can delete all font-size: <x> statements
from my CSS.

You don't have to do that to see what your page will look like without any
font size specifications. Simply go to the IE accessibility options and
choose "ignore font sizes specified on web pages".

You have also fallen into the Verdana trap. Verdana is, by default, about
10% larger than any other font you might expect to find on a system. So,
authors who use it tend to automatically specify font-size: 90% to
compensate. Anybody without Verdana installed will probably fall back to
Arial, with smaller than usual fonts.

Check the archives for Verdana. There has been much written about how bad it
is and why it should not be used.

I seem to recall that
sometimes the spectrum of sizes in IE doesn't allow me to make the
type small enough on some pages. Now, perhaps you're saying that's
because a percentage was specified and the spectrum takes you only 5%
or 10% in each direction, thus limiting the possible smallness (or
largeness).

Er, yes, er, no. IE has only a small variation available. Smallest is about
60% of normal, Largest is about 160%, where normal is what you have
specified. That is if you don't run into the IE bug where smallest is
invisible and largest is bigger than the screen.

Is that what you're saying? If it is, perhaps tutorials could say
something like this:

If you want to ensure that your visitors can make the text large
enough or small enough to read comfortably, do not specify the font
size FOR ANY STYLE in your style sheet.

Yes. *I* might think the font is just right at largest. If *you* think the
font is too small at smallest and specify 90% then it will be 10% too small
for me, and I have run out of adjustment.

Of course, if this happens I will use that accessibilty option above and
ignore your font size, or use a proper browser like Mozilla.

OK, Richard, I just deleted all the font-size: <x> statements in a

Er, they are properties :-)

And here is another thing, you seem to have three different font sizes (or
had), body, navbar and copyright. Why do you have so many font-size:
properties. You should have specified font size in exactly three places.
This is probably why your CSS file is so big and cluttered. You are not
using inheritance correctly.

style sheet here and I'm viewing the page on my browser. It looks no
different than it did before to me, and when I choose Larger (in IE),
that size looks the same as it did before. Are you saying that other
browsers have more choices in making larger or smaller than the ones
IE offers -- Smallest, Smaller, Medium, Larger, Largest?

Fire up Mozilla. You can make the text any size from 2 pixels high to what
looks like about 500 pixels high.

Speaking of Mozilla, it does not have that IE bug where specifying font size
in px or pt effectively locks the size (unless I use my accessibility
options). I can fiddle with the font size at will. So, no matter what you
specify (or what *you* like :-) ) I can always make the font size what *I*
want. Your laboriously coded font size properties are wasted on me.

There is one glaring exception, a page that also specifies line-height (IE):
or tries to fit the text into pretty background graphics (IE and Mozilla)
[1]. Then when I make my font size larger it either flows together or runs
all over the graphics. In the former case I simply use Mozilla which resizes
line height as well. The latter: I have to turn off background graphics to
use the site.

[1] http://www.tennisaustralia.com.au - Use IE and make your font larger or
largest. Drill down to the score card and admire the text all over the
backgrounds.

I guess the bottom line is: don't specify anything regarding text
size/layout unless you have a Very Good Reason for doing so. Specifying
font-size: 90% for a copyright notice is such a reason. Don't ever try to
fit text into a fixed size background. It will break. But, you don't do that
anyway :-) Well, yes you do, your left hand nav bar has a width in pixels.
If I make the font largest then at least one of the cells breaks out of the
nav bar box and some of the others word wrap. You really should specify the
width of that nav bar in ems so it scales with the font size.

Cheers
Richard.

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

Bonnie Granat wrote:

http://www.granatedit.com/testdevelopmentalediting.html

I think most major problems will be solved with this, but maybe not.

Long horizontal menus like this are hard to read, and even harder to
find any one particular menu item. It's much more legible as a vertical
list.

But the menu winds up being so wide as to cause the problems you all
complained about before! LOL. I got rid of the graphic, but the menu
will still cause the other divs to go beneath it when the window is
made smaller, won't it?

Bonnie