«

On 17/08/2005 19:19, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Michael Winter wrote:

[snip]

>> Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. [...] It's 90kB.
>
> This should settle it, eh? <g>

Yeah.

> http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

[snip]

> HTML: 10740

I see. The Content-Length header reflects the compressed length of the
message body (which is 10kB with gzip) and this is what everything is
reporting.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

In article <>, lid
says...
> Once upon a time *Michael Winter* wrote:
>
> > On 17/08/2005 16:57, Arne wrote:
> >
> >> Once upon a time *Barbara de Zoete* wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> 1. It is nearly a 100kB whithout the external images that is. Just
> >>> the text and markup. That is waaaaaayy too much, believe me. Anyone
> >>> on dial-up could have told you so.
> >
> > As a dial-up user, I'd say that 100kB is fine, but that would be
> > everything, including images. As it is, the site is exceeding 200kB. Of
> > course, that's only if the document renders incrementally. Sitting
> > there, seeing only the start of a header for thirty seconds isn't
> > acceptable to me.
> >
> >> Where do you see those 100kB for text and markup? I see only 10,49kB
> >> (10741 bytes) [...]
> >
> > Mozilla isn't reporting the size correctly. Copy the source code, save
> > it, then look at the file size. It's 90kB.
> >
>
> You are absolutely right! Strange, not even the Web Page Analyzer
> report correctly and Mozilla report the same size as WPA. What's
> causing this?

The HTML is served up in compressed form.

--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/

With neither quill nor qualm, Leif K-Brooks quothed:

> Stimp wrote:
> > Most people can use the 800 x 600 layouts without a problem.
>
> Do you think I have a 1280px-wide browser window because I want to have
> 480px of wasted space?

I have the same screen width and, yes, get aggravated by those "skinny"
pages I occasionally run across. However, I find myself setting max-
width in some of my own pages because it can be difficult to craft an
appealing layout for all sizes 800x600 to 1600x1200 inclusive.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

> From:
>
> First I would like you to check the site I need help with...
>
> its on Croatian, but since I am concerned with the design that should
> not be a problem
>
> link: www.spreha.net
>
> now.... the site is about nightlife in my city, and some topics for
> young people... nothing fancy
>
> my question is... is the design a bit to static or boring?


No, it's nice. If you want a splash of movement, you *could*
put a *hint* of movement into the bands of light in
zena_lijevo.gif (animated gif would do it and could be seen
by those who don't turn anything off in their browsers).
Just a slight wave effect. Should not be too much trouble (I
see you are a master at fancy software like Dreamweaver and
wield a mean array of table code...)

dorayme

> From: Leif K-Brooks <>
>
> Stimp wrote:
>> Most people can use the 800 x 600 layouts without a problem.
>
> Do you think I have a 1280px-wide browser window because I want to have
> 480px of wasted space?
>

You have 1280px and by God you want them used to
the greatest effect every time. What is the good
of it if at any one moment for any particular
thing it is not being utilised to it's full
capacity... I too was outraged that he did not
make it possible for me to spread his site across
my 3 screens until I noticed how nice it was just
as he had it.

Someone else has made a different point about
people who want bigger fonts without having to
use scrollbars. Your point is more... er... um...
what is the word I need here ... ah yes:
agoraphobic.

dorayme

> From: "Barbara de Zoete" <>
>
> So? 'Sinning' against a good principle doesn't make the principle less good.
> It
> just means I'm a 'sinner'.
>

It only *might* just mean this. Still, what you said originally needed
saying.

I am on dial up and it was fine. The least groovy person on earth was
grooving along well before the rest loaded, in not so long a time actually.
I am easily irritated by fixed designs that are too wide for *any* of my
many screens. And I am also irritated by some designs that are not able to
use all my screen real estate. But not this one. I suspect because there was
something in its design to do with its shape and fixedness that was
attractive.

I suspect that most of the target audience, would be able to see the site
fine with their young eyes... And maybe this designer would be scratching
his head at having to ditch Dreamweaver and do things so right.

You can miss things by being too ideologically correct, so do not lightly
dismiss these observations as being irrelevant.

dorayme

"Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:55 GMT, Joel Shepherd <>
> wrote:

[Regarding writing non-fixed width pages...]

> > -- or think that it's even of value to
> > do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?
> >
>
> Well, 'can't'? It's not that I can't, although my pages don't show that at
> the moment. It's something I didn't.

So it boils down to "Do as I say, not as I do." If your choice to not
try to make a page fluid is defensible, surely so is anyone else's
choice to do the same.

> Through a search query I intended to let others speak.

Well, I guess the hope should be that their actions were speaking at
least as loud as their words. Otherwise, it seems clear why suggestions
to make designs more fluid are met with responses of "Why bother?"

> > in which case people having discouraged from
> > it deserve a bit of sympathy.
>
> No, not really. All depends on the whys, hows.

So, in this case, you can but you didn't. By choice. Do you deserve
anything less than harsh criticism then?

> Also some new problems are likely to emerge with that new design. They always
> do. Isn't life fun

Especially when the playing field is level.

--
Joel.

"Barbara de Zoete" <> wrote in
newspsvnvoquvx5vgts@zoete_b:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:14:55 GMT, Joel Shepherd
> <> wrote:

>> Why should a newbie think they have a decent chance of
>> pulling off a truly fluid design

Newbie or long timer: strive.

> What is a truly fluid design? You mean no restrictions (max or min
> width) what so ever?
> Mine flows between a min and a max width. The max is there because I
> don't want the lines with text to get too long in a wide viewport
> (or should I say: some of my visitors like it better this way; at
> least this is what they asked for when it wasn't there). The min is
> there because, hmm. I don't know. Because I experimented with it.
> My site is always an ongoing experiment. At least, the styles are.
>
>> -- or think that it's even of value to
>> do so -- if the person they look to for advice can't do it?
>>
>
> Well, 'can't'? It's not that I can't, although my pages don't show
> that at the moment. It's something I didn't. Besides that: I didn't
> refer to my site. I referred to a less involved party: Google.
> Through a search query I intended to let others speak.

Older pages? Learned since then? That's what I do all the time; learn
some neat things, then edit pages incorporating the change. I get
behind on doing that on some sites even though I might have content
changes ongoing.

>> Something is amiss. Maybe fluid design is not as easy as just
>> saying "make your design fluid",

Here's a couple that "work" at a good wide range: http://abateofnm.org/
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/computer/ Both are mostly text, with a small bit
of graphics. Tear them up and give me some ideas if you want. I hope
to have some time soon to work on the ABATE site to add some things but
design is not my best skill; my server management, and web development
skills are much better.

> No, not really. All depends on the whys, hows. I really believe that
> creating liquid pages should be the goal, especially if text is the
> main content and graphics are just there for decoration and looks.
> In experimenting I created a design for my private homepage that is
> only partially fluid, mainly because some users asked me to do so
> (at least the max width). It isn't said I agree with this or that
> I'll stick to it.

Going through my websites, you'll find some good and some bad. As I
learn more (and I learn a lot from reading this group), I'm constantly
tweaking the HTML, CSS, and server settings since I have my own servers
too. Some of my old stuff can be pretty bad. And on the school site,
I have counselors, secretaries, faculty (non cs), putting up web pages
created with NS Composer, versions 4.x - 7.2.

That's what I taught them years ago when I didn't know any better.
Thankfully, I didn't teach them FP.

> No, really. It's likely I will create some new look pretty soon
> (because I like to do that every once in a while). Then this
> problem is (hopefully) resolved. Also some new problems are likely
> to emerge with that new design. They always do. Isn't life fun
>

As the college's webmaster, I am chair of a committee that I and one of
the higher ups in administration have been working on all summer. Now
that everybody is back, the real work begins. Next week will be the
first meeting of the "layout and design" subcommittee. Debra and I
have chosen two people from the art department and a person responsible
for marketing the University to design the overall look and feel while
another subcommittee is working on some student surveys, business
surveys, community, etc. to gather information as to how people use our
website. That data will then be analyzed to try to work out best ways
of best presentation.

Yes, life can be fun if you will allow yourself to enjoy it and can
find your "niche." I've been at the University for 15 years following
technology as my limited budgets allowed moving from building networks,
implementing things on campus mostly unheard of at the time, like e-
mail, gopher, mosaic, www, and a campus website. It's been a blast.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.