B.... web designers

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Phstpok, Apr 22, 2005.

  1. Phstpok

    Phstpok Guest

    <rant>

    I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).

    I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    ease my aging eyes.

    Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.

    Maybe I should get back into the business, if the mugs people hire today
    to build pages have no respect for usability.

    </rant>

    Rob (anyone want a fast loading, multi-browser (no v4, too hard to work
    around and too low a user base now), user friendly page built?)

    Hmm, nested brackets. Gotta get over that habit.
    Phstpok, Apr 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phstpok

    Richard Guest

    Phstpok wrote:
    > <rant>
    >
    > I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    > width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >
    > I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    > ease my aging eyes.
    >
    > Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >
    > Maybe I should get back into the business, if the mugs people hire today
    > to build pages have no respect for usability.
    >
    > </rant>



    Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now, and that people dont like to have
    the content bunched together in the middle of the screen with 6" of whitespace
    on each side.
    Richard, Apr 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:33:19 +1200, Richard <> wrote:

    >Phstpok wrote:
    >> <rant>
    >>
    >> I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    >> width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >>
    >> I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    >> ease my aging eyes.
    >>
    >> Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >>
    >> Maybe I should get back into the business, if the mugs people hire today
    >> to build pages have no respect for usability.
    >>
    >> </rant>

    >
    >
    >Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now,


    bullshot

    800x600 is still the most common resolution
    the %age at 1024x768 is growing significantly and will eventually
    overtake this
    1152x854 is in NO way the norm
    FreedomChooser, Apr 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Phstpok

    Adam Cameron Guest

    > Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now,

    Our stats suggest about 50% 1024x768, 18% 1280x1024, 13% 800x600, and
    1152x864 came in at about 5%.

    As the OP suggested, it's really not much of a problem designing with any
    screen res in mind, though.
    --

    Adam
    Adam Cameron, Apr 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Phstpok

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "Phstpok" <> wrote in message
    news:d4ajnv$q2p$...
    > <rant>
    >
    > I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    > width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >
    > I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    > ease my aging eyes.
    >
    > Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >

    Like this one http://www.mircheetv.co.nz/What_doIsee/mircheeone.htm
    Craig Sutton, Apr 22, 2005
    #5
  6. Phstpok

    Phstpok Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > Phstpok wrote:
    >
    >> <rant>
    >>
    >> I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    >> width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >>
    >> I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    >> ease my aging eyes.
    >>
    >> Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >>
    >> Maybe I should get back into the business, if the mugs people hire
    >> today to build pages have no respect for usability.
    >>
    >> </rant>

    >
    >
    >
    > Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now, and that people dont like
    > to have the content bunched together in the middle of the screen with 6"
    > of whitespace on each side.

    That's why css to fit the page to 100% of window width. Dynamically
    adjusts to each viewer's resolution.
    Phstpok, Apr 22, 2005
    #6
  7. Phstpok

    Phstpok Guest

    Craig Sutton wrote:
    > "Phstpok" <> wrote in message
    > news:d4ajnv$q2p$...
    >
    >><rant>
    >>
    >>I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    >>width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >>
    >>I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    >>ease my aging eyes.
    >>
    >>Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >>

    >
    > Like this one http://www.mircheetv.co.nz/What_doIsee/mircheeone.htm
    >
    >
    >

    Sheesh. Built it with dreamweaver, sets outer table at 100% then nests
    an inner table at 1774.

    DW just about tells you in caps not to do this.
    Phstpok, Apr 22, 2005
    #7
  8. Phstpok

    Phstpok Guest

    Craig Sutton wrote:
    > "Phstpok" <> wrote in message
    > news:d4ajnv$q2p$...
    >
    >><rant>
    >>
    >>I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    >>width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    >>
    >>I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    >>ease my aging eyes.
    >>
    >>Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    >>

    >
    > Like this one http://www.mircheetv.co.nz/What_doIsee/mircheeone.htm
    >
    >
    >

    Just read what it is about, an Indian tv station starting in AK. Must
    have a lot of fat Indians in their choice of shows ;-}
    Phstpok, Apr 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Phstpok

    AD. Guest

    Phstpok wrote:

    >> Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now, and that people dont
    >> like to have the content bunched together in the middle of the screen
    >> with 6" of whitespace on each side.

    >
    > That's why css to fit the page to 100% of window width. Dynamically
    > adjusts to each viewer's resolution.


    Yep, along with not using points or pixels for font sizes, and trying to
    avoid using pixels for layout units (although making an exception when
    dealing with an image, is ok).

    Although IE as usual makes things a bit harder for the
    designer/developer - not impossible though.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Phstpok

    Craig Sutton Guest

    Mircheee Digital was Re: B.... web designers

    "Phstpok" <> wrote in message
    news:d4asdq$bas$...
    > Craig Sutton wrote:
    > > "Phstpok" <> wrote in message
    > > news:d4ajnv$q2p$...
    > >
    > >><rant>
    > >>
    > >>I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    > >>width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).
    > >>
    > >>I've recently changed my monitor back to 800 x 600 from 1024 x 768 to
    > >>ease my aging eyes.
    > >>
    > >>Now it seems every second page I get has a horizontal scroll bar.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Like this one http://www.mircheetv.co.nz/What_doIsee/mircheeone.htm
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > Just read what it is about, an Indian tv station starting in AK. Must
    > have a lot of fat Indians in their choice of shows ;-}


    Bit more to it than that. Mirchee Digital are using the ex Ihug DTV
    capacity, to beam from the Skytower and Waitarua transmitter site. Capacity
    for up to 50 channels, some ethinic pay channels, some FTA. Just point a
    Sky dish at the tower and use a FTA receiver. Actually NASA TV was suppose
    to be put on it last weekend.
    Craig Sutton, Apr 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Phstpok

    Peter Guest

    Phstpok wrote:
    > I've done a few web pages over the years, and I use css to adjust the
    > width of the page to 100% to avoid horizontal scroll bars (a pet hate).


    So what do you think of the w3 validator?
    http://validator.w3.org/
    Is this a good measure of how well a web page is coded?

    If not, what is a good objective measure?

    If a web page works with some browsers but not others, how can you
    objectively sort out if this is a fault with the web page coding or the
    broswer?

    TIA

    Peter
    Peter, Apr 23, 2005
    #11
  12. Phstpok

    Adam Cameron Guest

    > So what do you think of the w3 validator?
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    > Is this a good measure of how well a web page is coded?


    Yep. That's one of them. There are various other accessibility-compliance
    validators out there too, which are good to pay attention too.

    http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance
    http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

    > If a web page works with some browsers but not others, how can you
    > objectively sort out if this is a fault with the web page coding or the
    > broswer?


    The object of the exercise is to get people to use the website for
    [whatever purpose the company whose website it is had decided]. If the
    visitor doesn't have a satisfactory experience (site breaks, JS errors,
    horizontal scrollbars, inaccessible to the visitor for some reason), they
    might cut short their visit, or not re-visit the site in the future.

    Ensuring that doesn't happen is the yardstick you should use.

    To be honest, aiming to have the site look *exactly* the same on - say - IE
    and Firefox is probably a fool's errand. As long as it looks fine on both,
    and works on both... mission accomplished.

    --

    Adam
    Adam Cameron, Apr 23, 2005
    #12
  13. Adam Cameron wrote:

    > The object of the exercise is to get people to use the website for
    > [whatever purpose the company whose website it is had decided]. If the
    > visitor doesn't have a satisfactory experience (site breaks, JS errors,
    > horizontal scrollbars, inaccessible to the visitor for some reason), they
    > might cut short their visit, or not re-visit the site in the future.
    >
    > Ensuring that doesn't happen is the yardstick you should use.


    Completely agree. And at least two academic papers in the Dept of
    Computer Science at the University of Otago teach Web design exactly
    with that in mind :)

    > To be honest, aiming to have the site look *exactly* the same on - say - IE
    > and Firefox is probably a fool's errand. As long as it looks fine on both,
    > and works on both... mission accomplished.


    If layout of a document is critically important, then HTML (from
    original design intent) is not the right tool. HTML+CSS might be...but
    even that, compromise is inevitable.
    Stewart Fleming, Apr 23, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <6yvke4j0ewu7$>,
    says...
    >
    > The object of the exercise is to get people to use the website for
    > [whatever purpose the company whose website it is had decided]. If the
    > visitor doesn't have a satisfactory experience (site breaks, JS errors,
    > horizontal scrollbars, inaccessible to the visitor for some reason), they
    > might cut short their visit, or not re-visit the site in the future.
    >
    > Ensuring that doesn't happen is the yardstick you should use.


    Indeed. F'r instance any site that relies exclusively on a macromedia
    flash plugin to navigate only ever gets visited by me once, for about 10
    seconds. :)
    A site that has auto-expanding navigation menus in a frame, that only
    work in MSIE will not leave a favourable impression with me and will be
    shunned.

    I no longer try to point that out to pointy-headed webdesigners though,
    as I used to many years ago: there is just way too much stuff out there
    these days, way too much crap and way too many alternatives. So, if they
    don't get it right, it's their loss (inasmuch as they want hits on their
    site, that is).

    One thing that I see way too often is websites breaking because of
    illegal SQL operations and/or corrupt(ed) databases. Admittedly, SQL
    programming can be a bit ideosyncratic at times ( I only know it from
    the Delphi environment, mind) but a site that often crashes and only
    gives gibberish output is a pita.

    -P.
    Peter Huebner, Apr 24, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Peter Huebner <> wrote:

    >One thing that I see way too often is websites breaking because of
    >illegal SQL operations and/or corrupt(ed) databases. Admittedly, SQL
    >programming can be a bit ideosyncratic at times ( I only know it from
    >the Delphi environment, mind) but a site that often crashes and only
    >gives gibberish output is a pita.


    Were all these sites written in PHP, by any chance?

    :)
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <_Agae.742$>,
    "AD." <> wrote:

    >Phstpok wrote:
    >
    >>> Accept that at least 1152x864 is the norm now, and that people dont
    >>> like to have the content bunched together in the middle of the screen
    >>> with 6" of whitespace on each side.

    >>
    >> That's why css to fit the page to 100% of window width. Dynamically
    >> adjusts to each viewer's resolution.

    >
    >Yep, along with not using points or pixels for font sizes, and trying to
    > avoid using pixels for layout units (although making an exception when
    >dealing with an image, is ok).


    Why is making an exception for images OK?
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2005
    #16
  17. Phstpok

    Steve Guest

    On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:17:16 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:

    [snip]
    >
    > bullshot
    >
    > 800x600 is still the most common resolution the %age at 1024x768 is
    > growing significantly and will eventually overtake this
    > 1152x854 is in NO way the norm


    Most interested in your evidence. I've just started rebuilding for
    1024x768 min.

    Steve
    Steve, Apr 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Phstpok

    AD. Guest

    On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:28:20 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:

    >>Yep, along with not using points or pixels for font sizes, and trying to
    >> avoid using pixels for layout units (although making an exception when
    >>dealing with an image, is ok).

    >
    > Why is making an exception for images OK?


    Usually you don't need to, but bitmapped images are one of the few bits of
    web content where pixels are an intrinsic part of the content itself.

    If SVG somehow takes off and support for vector graphics becomes more
    popular, that should reduce the need even further.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 24, 2005
    #18
  19. Phstpok

    Phstpok Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:17:16 +1200, FreedomChooser wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>bullshot
    >>
    >>800x600 is still the most common resolution the %age at 1024x768 is
    >>growing significantly and will eventually overtake this
    >>1152x854 is in NO way the norm

    >
    >
    > Most interested in your evidence. I've just started rebuilding for
    > 1024x768 min.
    >
    > Steve


    Please use percentages, not pixels or points to set page width etc, then
    it will look ok in any resolution.

    Check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ showing what can be done with css-p.

    Rob
    Phstpok, Apr 24, 2005
    #19
  20. Phstpok

    AD. Guest

    On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:09:55 +1200, Phstpok wrote:

    > Please use percentages, not pixels or points to set page width etc, then
    > it will look ok in any resolution.
    >
    > Check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ showing what can be done with
    > css-p.


    Although csszengarden themes usually aren't a good example to set for not
    using fixed pixel layouts ;)

    Separation of content and presentation? sure.

    But liquid layouts? nope (for the most part).

    I suspect that the requirement to work in IE might be responsible for
    a lot of those fixed layouts though. Are there any copycat sites that
    don't require IE support? That would really show off whats possible.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Apr 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. : : b r i a n : :

    Web Designers Suck

    : : b r i a n : :, Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    525
    Keith Bowes
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. Mario
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,222
    Mario
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    921
    Jonathan Walker
    May 24, 2007
  4. Richard Fangnail

    Google designers messed up again - top news link

    Richard Fangnail, Dec 7, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    628
    Richard Fangnail
    Dec 10, 2010
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    96
    Views:
    901
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 4, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page