Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: Glutton for punishment ...

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Glutton for punishment ...

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> j wrote:
> > Ed Mullen<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Take a look at the site in my sig address. I just changed it to have
> >> both a fixed top header and fixed footer. Tested in all major browsers
> >> I know of and it seems to work just fine.
> >>

> >
> > When paging down using the spacebar, the next section is cut off at the
> > top (the amount corresponds to the height of the fixed header). So on
> > my monitor, the first viewable section ends at the 'contact / feedback'
> > green header. Page down, and the next viewable section starts half way
> > down the photo (your head's cut off!).
> >
> > Probably affects all browsers but certainly Mac Safari 3, Opera 10,
> > Camino 1.6.

>
> Uh oh! You're right. I never thought to check the spacebar advance
> function. Probably because I never use it in my browser, only my
> email/news client. Does the same thing in all the browsers I just
> tested. Crap! Another marginally interesting idea down the tubes!
>
> Thanks for this!


Why is this so surprising to you? The cutting off is part and parcel of
your 'fixing' and what does it really matter how the scrolling or paging
down is done?

I get the feeling you don't really 'get it' about the unintuitive feel.
For example, just putting a border like all the other borders on the
footer top does not really fix the "problem" I mentioned earlier. You
would be better off considering a quite different background to the
footer area.

Ed, what is so important about your footer that it needs to be there all
the time? Everyone knows you are the man!

I don't like this new development at all! The whole world has collapsed
for me. Very very upsetting!

If you want something to fiddle with on your site, consider strategies
to make the "ed mullen" image box right at the top not be so prone to
fuzziness on the now prevalent browser zoom functions. There are various
ways to do this.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> dorayme wrote:

....

> > The cutting off is part and parcel of
> > your 'fixing'

>
> How so? What in the HTML specs says so? I ask to be educated, not
> rhetorically.
>


If you fix boxes top and bottom and things scroll in between, what is
not visible looks cut off from the what is visible. That is what
scrolling does. That is what scrolling is about. It is a device to make
what is cut off come into view. This, everyone is used to when it is top
and bottom of browser window or well-defined frame or Iframe that does
the cutting off.

> > and what does it really matter how the scrolling or paging
> > down is done?

>
> Well, how it is done might lead me to understand how to treat it and
> make it behave in a way I might want it to.
>

I am miffed about what you do not understand about the different ways
people scroll or page down... ? How much scrolling or pages depends on
user, that is nothing you can control or guard against much?

> >
> > I get the feeling you don't really 'get it' about the unintuitive feel.

>
> Politely I ask: What the **** does that mean?
>


Now that is talk I understand:

Luigi Vincento, recently arrived in Sydney, asks for directions to a
street.

"Well mate," the local says, "you follow this road for a few blocks and
then there's a bit of a hill and you go down the hill and do a bit of a
bend to the left and you're there."

"What?" says the migrant.

The local patiently repeats, "you follow this road for a few blocks and
then there's a bit of a hill and you go down the hill and do a bit of a
bend to the left and you're there."

Once again, the migrant looks perplexed and asks for clarification.

"Bloody hell," says the local, "Look, you follow this bloody road for a
few bloody blocks and then there's a bit of a bloody hill and you go
down the bloody hill and do a bit of a bloody bend to the bloody left
and you're bloody well there."

"Ah-Ha!" says the migrant, comprehension lighting up his face, "Why
didn't you say that before?"

> > For example, just putting a border like all the other borders on the
> > footer top

>
> "footer top" ?
>

Oh for Chrisake! the top of the u footer or the bottom of the g element
before the footer or an hr between the f two. Are you seriously
suggesting I should actually look at your markup? I just thought it
would be rude of me to pry so far.

> > does not really fix the "problem" I mentioned earlier. You
> > would be better off considering a quite different background to the
> > footer area.

>
> Well, that would obviate the desired effect of ... how to describe it?
> ... the whole idea of the floating content area.
>


It depends on what the idea is! If it is to make it convenient to the
user, then it would increase this convenience by not bringing in
distracting issues mentioned previously. There is the top and the footer
and all all else is to be scrolled. Floating? You mean 'able to be
scrolled"?

If it is just some aesthetic idea, perhaps it needs obviating in favour
of intuitive utility. If you want more on intuitive utility, I can sell
you pages 81 to 193 of my Phd on the subject at a bargain basement price
for this week, $US18.50.


> Think of my long-standing site design.


Remind us with a URL how it was, I recall it being quite nice.

> > If you want something to fiddle with on your site, consider strategies
> > to make the "ed mullen" image box right at the top not be so prone to
> > fuzziness on the now prevalent browser zoom functions. There are various
> > ways to do this.

>
> I couldn't care less at this point. Image zoom is kinda like my fixed
> footer: Something to play with


It is not the least this. It something you have no control over. In
Opera for a long time, when you zoom, the pics go up in size. Many
browsers are working this way now and small pics with pic text in them
are prone to quite some deterioration. Why? Because people look at the
individual letters and letters are a small part of the whole. Zooming
works best for when details are not concentrated upon. So, when I
mentioned about the particular bit of your page, it is something that
would benefit from attention.

Not the end of the world. Stop having so many of those strong coffees at
Starbucks, drink more bourbon! <g>

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> >> dorayme wrote:


> > If it is just some aesthetic idea, perhaps it needs obviating in favour
> > of intuitive utility.

>
> Well, yes, it really was mostly an aesthetic exercise although partly
> one of trying a particular CSS technique. Again, I'm just playing
> around here.
>

Nothing wrong with experimenting! But no fixed anything in your
particular design is the least objectional on sheer looks for many
browsing situations. But I understand there may well be an argument on
utility grounds for having your menu (the drop down one at the top)
fixed. Can't say the same for the footer, here there is about as much
utility as dyeing a male cat's ears pink.

If there is a good advantage in doing something on utility grounds in a
webspage or site, the aesthetics should always 'fit in' to suit the
function. In other words, the aesthetics should not be some
independently judged matter that operates with uncomfortable tension to
the utility, looking nice in this browsing situation, bad in that... The
trick is to design to make it pleasant in all situations.

So, in a page where you want the header and footer fixed, don't design
the whole as if the fixed bits are an afterthought. To avoid this you
might have to play about quite a bit to get it right. You might have to
bite the bullet and be bold and have the header and footer quite
distinct in look and background in order to contrast boldly with the
scrolling content. This removes the tension I speak of. How good it then
looks is up to your skills in implementing it.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2009
On 22 Oct 2009, Ed Mullen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> A "tarn"
> is a
> mountain lake.


Nah, a "tarn" is a giant bird from another planet. Never heard of
"Tarnsman Of Gor"?

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Glutton for punishment ... Beauregard T. Shagnasty HTML 8 10-24-2009 01:25 AM
Re: Glutton for punishment ... Allodoxaphobia HTML 1 10-21-2009 08:38 PM
Re: Glutton for punishment ... dorayme HTML 2 10-21-2009 07:42 AM
Re: Glutton for punishment ... Neredbojias HTML 0 10-21-2009 06:44 AM
DVD Verdict reviews: DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE, PUNISHMENT PARK, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 01-26-2006 09:27 AM



Advertisments