This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > April 2004 > Web page sizes!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Hi. Im a beginner in web design. Could anybody tell me what should the average
web page size be. I know it changes according to monitor size. I would
appreciate it if I get the size for each specific monitor size. (ie. 14", 15",
17" etc).
| |
| sheep worrier 2004-04-29, 5:32 pm |
| I always contain the width of my page to (a maximum of) 780 pixels at a screen
resolution of 800x600 .
It should appear at the same size as you are working on pixel measurements,
regardless of the size of your monitor.
| |
| JamesR 2004-04-29, 5:32 pm |
| monitor size and/or resolution have nothing to do with the size of web
pages.
You should either go for a standard 740-770 max width , or use 100% table
width..
that way the table will stretch to fill width of screen nomatter what the
user is looking at the site through..
James
"zed2" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c6qv4p$ojb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hi. Im a beginner in web design. Could anybody tell me what should the
average
> web page size be. I know it changes according to monitor size. I would
> appreciate it if I get the size for each specific monitor size. (ie. 14",
15",
> 17" etc).
>
>
| |
| Nancy Gill 2004-04-29, 5:32 pm |
| Have a look at this:
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey....html?tw=design
--
Nancy Gill
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX/UltraDev
http://www.macromedia.com/go/team/
BLOG: http://www.dmxwishes.com/blog.html
Co-Author: Dreamweaver MX: Instant Troubleshooter (August, 2003)
Technical Editor: DMX 2004: The Complete Reference, DMX 2004: A Beginner's
Guide, Mastering Macromedia Contribute
Technical Reviewer: Dynamic Dreamweaver MX/DMX: Advanced PHP Web Development
"zed2" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:c6qv4p$ojb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Hi. Im a beginner in web design. Could anybody tell me what should the
average
> web page size be. I know it changes according to monitor size. I would
> appreciate it if I get the size for each specific monitor size. (ie. 14",
15",
> 17" etc).
>
>
| |
|
|
|
|
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:32 pm |
|
> You should either go for a standard 740-770 max width ,
That's not a standard and, IMHO, way too wide if you are insisting on a
static width site.
James is right, though, there *is* no average web page size that is
measurable.
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:32 pm |
| > So: The most common fixed size is 750-770px since it fits a 800 x 600
> screen and you'll leave room for the scrollbar too.
But not room for bookmark or history panes.
800 may be most common, but that has more to do with a lack of planning than
any consistent statistic.
-Darrel
| |
|
|
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:33 pm |
| > Not being a PC user: Are those on the sides of the browser window?
You don't need to be a PC user...download FireFox to enjoy the Bookmarks
pane. ;o)
By default, it takes up about 150 pixels of the browser viewport along the
left.
than[color=darkred]
>
> ???????
> Pls elaborate. "Lack of planning"?
Everyone tosses out the '800' pixel standard as if it were some calculated,
measured, tested standard. But it's not. It's more of an urban legend than
anything. Usually 'data' to back it up refer to meaningless assumptions like
all web page viewers are using a desktop computer with a 600x800 or larger
monitor with a fully maximized browser with all chrome turned off. It's
believable, possibly true, but hardly substantiated.
I think for many sites, good planning will suggest that you don't design for
*any* particular browser width. Sure, make it look great at 800 pixels in
width, but also make sure I can see everything if I only have 600 pixels of
browser viewport space...or if I'm on my PDA...even if it may be a bit
cramped.
Always exceptions, of course, but I find the 800 'standard' merely a number
that was tossed out and repeated enough time by web designers who layout
their site in Photoshop that we all believe it now. It's just easier to
assume that is the standard that to get creative with your web page layout
and construction. It's related to the bad habit of popping up fixed size
browser windows...it's easier for the developer, but rarely better for the
end-user.
That's not to say that there may be plenty of reasons *to* build your site
at that resolution (or other specific resolution), but don't base the
decision solely on the '800 is the standard' remark that get's tossed
around.
-Darrel
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| darrel wrote:
> You don't need to be a PC user...download FireFox to enjoy the Bookmarks
> pane. ;o)
>
> By default, it takes up about 150 pixels of the browser viewport along the
> left.
>
Huh? That's such an extreme example it's simply silly. That one is a
pane you toggle in/out as you need it. What about Safari, then, where
the bookmarks takes up the entire window?
Examples are good, but keep them reasonable. Not bizarre just to prove a
point.
>
>
> than
>
>
>
> Everyone tosses out the '800' pixel standard as if it were some calculated,
> measured, tested standard. But it's not. It's more of an urban legend than
> anything. Usually 'data' to back it up refer to meaningless assumptions like
> all web page viewers are using a desktop computer with a 600x800 or larger
> monitor with a fully maximized browser with all chrome turned off. It's
> believable, possibly true, but hardly substantiated.
>
> I think for many sites, good planning will suggest that you don't design for
> *any* particular browser width. Sure, make it look great at 800 pixels in
> width, but also make sure I can see everything if I only have 600 pixels of
> browser viewport space...or if I'm on my PDA...even if it may be a bit
> cramped.
>
> Always exceptions, of course, but I find the 800 'standard' merely a number
> that was tossed out and repeated enough time by web designers who layout
> their site in Photoshop that we all believe it now. It's just easier to
> assume that is the standard that to get creative with your web page layout
> and construction. It's related to the bad habit of popping up fixed size
> browser windows...it's easier for the developer, but rarely better for the
> end-user.
>
> That's not to say that there may be plenty of reasons *to* build your site
> at that resolution (or other specific resolution), but don't base the
> decision solely on the '800 is the standard' remark that get's tossed
> around.
>
> -Darrel
>
>
I've seen your rants about this before, and I agree to some extent even
if it's like you're obsessed with your idea. The 800px width is
definitely not "tossed out". If that's your impression, you need a
reality check.
Of all monitors I have seen, I estimate that 80-90% are using the full
screen for their browser window, i.e. 800 x 600. The rest have higher
resolution, but the same browser width.
Then, you have palmtops and smaller screens, unable to show anything
that "wide" as 800px.
So, of course 800 x 600 isn't the "law". But it's a very appropriate
yard stock and by using that, you're site will be OK in the absolute
vast majority of all browsers.
We can chew on this forever, and will get nowhere.....
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| Dan:
> We can chew on this forever, and will get nowhere.....
Of course! That's because each of us has a different site root, so to
speak! 8)
> Of all monitors I have seen, I estimate that 80-90% are using the full
> screen for their browser window, i.e. 800 x 600.
This is a decidedly different observation than the one I have. Most of the
screens I look at are set the way they were when the box was opened, and
when I then maximize the browser viewport, I always get the "I didn't know
you could do that!" response...
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Dan Vendel *GOF*" <see_my_signature_@_the_bottom_of_the_post.org> wrote in
message news:c6r90s$g4l$34@forums.macromedia.com...[color=darkred]
> darrel wrote:
>
| |
| Michael Fesser 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| .oO(Dan Vendel *GOF*)
>darrel wrote:
>
>Huh? That's such an extreme example it's simply silly.
Not necessarily. In my Opera I have the side panel open always. It not
only contains bookmarks, but also informations about all currently open
tabs, links on the current site, informations about the current site and
lots of custom panels like HTML/CSS-references, newstickers etc.
Micha
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| Murray *TMM* wrote:
> This is a decidedly different observation than the one I have. Most of the
> screens I look at are set the way they were when the box was opened, and
> when I then maximize the browser viewport, I always get the "I didn't know
> you could do that!" response...
>
Yeah.
But that only proves that the average level and quality of education in
USA leaves very much else to be desired. ;-)
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
|
|
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| > Huh? That's such an extreme example it's simply silly.
What? It's a built in, very useful feature of the web browser. I use it
constantly. Why is that silly?
> That one is a pane you toggle in/out as you need it.
I don't know about you, but I like having constant access to my bookmarks
and the ability to drag an drop things into different folders.
>Examples are good, but keep them reasonable.
> Not bizarre just to prove a point.
Are you telling me that I'm being unreasonable because I'm using built in
feature of my particular web browser?
> Of all monitors I have seen, I estimate that 80-90% are using the full
> screen for their browser window, i.e. 800 x 600.
Again, that's is based on your particular research. In your partcular
environment, it is true, but you can't cast that on the rest of the computer
using world.
If you work in a office full of poorly trained computer users, then yea,
most will have ALL their apps maximized and won't even know what a bookmark
is. If you work in an office with all mac users, you'll find that hardly
anyone maximized their web browsers. If you work on the road with travelling
sales folks, you'll find that viewing pages on a PDA is a lot different.
Etc.
Again, IF a person can determine that their particular audience for their
particular site is mostly all browser with a maximized browser set at 800
pixels and they have a valid argument NOT to make the site flexible, then by
all means, they have justification.
My point is that few people determine that. They just hear '800 is the
standard' and assume it applies to everyone/everything.
> So, of course 800 x 600 isn't the "law". But it's a very appropriate
> yard stock and by using that, you're site will be OK in the absolute
> vast majority of all browsers.
It will be even more OK if you make it 600 pixels in width. Or 500 pixels.
or 300 pixels, or forget a specific page size to begin with ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:34 pm |
| > But that only proves that the average level and quality of education in
> USA leaves very much else to be desired. ;-)
Well, to be serious, it's a complete lack of training in corporate america.
I'm constantly 'wowing' office drones by showing them how to cut and past,
or open two windows side-by-side, or alt-tabbing through apps, etc.
The problem is using these folks as the basis for any decision on web page
usage. Yes, you absolutely need to accomodate these folks, but you don't
need to limit your site's usability to ONLY these folks. THAT is what I tend
to rant about. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2004-04-29, 5:35 pm |
| > showing them how to cut and past
You already WOWed me....
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"darrel" <notreal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6rb8b$eop$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> Well, to be serious, it's a complete lack of training in corporate
america.
>
> I'm constantly 'wowing' office drones by showing them how to cut and past,
> or open two windows side-by-side, or alt-tabbing through apps, etc.
>
> The problem is using these folks as the basis for any decision on web page
> usage. Yes, you absolutely need to accomodate these folks, but you don't
> need to limit your site's usability to ONLY these folks. THAT is what I
tend
> to rant about. ;o)
>
> -Darrel
>
>
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
| darrel wrote:
> What? It's a built in, very useful feature of the web browser. I use it
> constantly. Why is that silly?
Because it is ridiculous to refer to something you know is used by an
extreme minority. Not only is any kind of Mozilla used by just a small
percentage. Of the ones using it, I bet even a smaller share keeps the
bookmarks pane open at all times.
If you want to talk about *majority* of users, don't come dragging with
something used by an extreme *minority*. Mixing apples and pears when
you actually know better is silly.
>
> Again, that's is based on your particular research. In your partcular
> environment, it is true, but you can't cast that on the rest of the computer
> using world.
OMG....you really haven't a clue.
Do it your way, Darrel. Be happy.
I'll stick to mine.
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
| Michael Fesser wrote:
> Not necessarily. In my Opera I have the side panel open always. It not
> only contains bookmarks, but also informations about all currently open
> tabs, links on the current site, informations about the current site and
> lots of custom panels like HTML/CSS-references, newstickers etc.
>
As I wrote in the reply to Darrel:
Sure, there are lots of individual habits. I've got mine, too.
But when referring to the *majority*, it's silly to grab examples from a
*minority*.
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
|
> But when referring to the *majority*, it's silly to grab examples from a
> *minority*.
But that's what makes the web so different. You don't need to think in terms
of 'majority vs. minority'. With careful planning, you can accomodate both.
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
|
> Because it is ridiculous to refer to something you know is used by an
> extreme minority. Not only is any kind of Mozilla used by just a small
> percentage. Of the ones using it, I bet even a smaller share keeps the
> bookmarks pane open at all times.
You're making assumptions again. I'd make opposite assumption.
Yes, most web site *hits* are done from IE, but EVEN IE has the bookmarks
pane.
> If you want to talk about *majority* of users, don't come dragging with
> something used by an extreme *minority*. Mixing apples and pears when
> you actually know better is silly.
I don't like talking about majority or minority users. I try to consider
them the same group.
> OMG....you really haven't a clue.
> Do it your way, Darrel. Be happy.
> I'll stick to mine.
Dan, calm down.
I do have a clue. And I do do it my way. You haven't said why 'your' way is
better, though. Why is picking 800 pixels a good thing?
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
|
> I do have a clue. And I do do it my way. You haven't said why 'your' way
is
> better, though. Why is picking 800 pixels a good thing?
Actually, let's put this in a different perspective.
Dan, you seem to be out to write off each of my user profiles as being
'outside the norm'.
My point is that the web gives us this amazing ability to INCLUDE those
outside the norm if we plan properly for it (going back to my poor planning
statement).
Since it's hard to gauge the user norm of any particular site without
extensive user testing, and since we CAN accomodate those outside the norm
without (usually) adding any detriments for the norm, then why not do it?
-Darrel
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
| darrel wrote:
> Actually, let's put this in a different perspective.
>
> Dan, you seem to be out to write off each of my user profiles as being
> 'outside the norm'.
>
> My point is that the web gives us this amazing ability to INCLUDE those
> outside the norm if we plan properly for it (going back to my poor planning
> statement).
>
> Since it's hard to gauge the user norm of any particular site without
> extensive user testing, and since we CAN accomodate those outside the norm
> without (usually) adding any detriments for the norm, then why not do it?
Because it's theoretical nonsense without any foundation in the real world.
When designing a site, as when creating a communicatve device in any
media, be it print, TV or whatever, you *must* create this for the
*majority*.
Example: If you would actually do it your way, you would consequently
*never* include any images wider than the most narrow viewport/screen on
the market, which I believe is some mobile phones that allows 25-30
pixels wide images. If that's the case, I'm impressed and I will
congratulate you to sticking to your dogm, however bizarre I think it is.
But if you have published one single image wider than that, you have
proved that your own ideas are nothing but puffs of air. Reminds me
about the proverb "Please all and you'll please none".
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 5:36 pm |
| > Because it's theoretical nonsense without any foundation in the real
world.
> When designing a site, as when creating a communicatve device in any
> media, be it print, TV or whatever, you *must* create this for the
> *majority*.
Dan, I am in COMPLETE AGREEMENT with this statement!
My point is that, UNLIKE TV and print, the web allows you to create for
ALL...not JUST the majority. Another difference, with print, one NEEDs to
assume a user profile, since there can only be one format for the piece. On
the web, you don't want to do that, as no two people are going to see the
exact same piece. Different media...
I'm still confused as to how your 'majority' argument invalidates what I'm
saying, though. I think we're more in agreement than we realize.
> Example: If you would actually do it your way, you would consequently
> *never* include any images wider than the most narrow viewport/screen on
> the market, which I believe is some mobile phones that allows 25-30
> pixels wide images. If that's the case, I'm impressed and I will
> congratulate you to sticking to your dogm, however bizarre I think it is.
Sure I'd put in a larger photo. As long as it doesn't prohibit that person
from seeing the page. And it wouldn't. Actually, I doubt a person using a
cell phone with that small of a viewport would even have images turned on.
And if I did have to show a 800 pixel wide image, I'd probably not force it
on the user, but let them click to it if they wanted to see it at that
scale.
> But if you have published one single image wider than that, you have
> proved that your own ideas are nothing but puffs of air.
A large image wouldn't prohibit a person using a cell phone from easily
using a site. A forced table layout at 800 pixels may very well do that. If
you don't NEED the forced 800 pixel table layout, then why use it? (again,
if you have a reason, then go for it...)
> Reminds me
> about the proverb "Please all and you'll please none".
This is usually true. The web offers lots of ways around this, though, if
one properly plans for it. Again, I'm talking about planning here, as
opposed to just making broad assumptions and going from there. Yea, it's
easier to go off the assumption in the short term.
-Darrel
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 10:31 pm |
| darrel wrote:
> My point is that, UNLIKE TV and print, the web allows you to create for
> ALL...not JUST the majority.
No, Darrel. You are hugging to a theory that's too academic and rosy. It
has no foundation in reality among developers, save from maybe yourself.
But I actually think that you're not very faithful to it yourself,
either. At every instance when you make a choice to include something,
or use something for your communication, you are automatically and
simultaneously disqualifying groups from your attempts to make your
message available "for all". It comes with the territory, and is
impossible to avoid. As a matter of fact, you're doing it on a daily (?)
basis without even thinking about it. That's the similarity of all
communication channels; TV, web, magazines, billboards, etc.
See here a few examples:
For a starter, not ALL have a computer or Internet access. Sounds silly,
right? But it's not. Already at that stage, you have disqualified a huge
group from access. Still, you claim you're creating pages "for ALL".
Then, I assume you're creating sites in the English language only.
Again, you are thereby disqualifying yet another group from access,
namely the 80% of the people who can't speak English. Why is that, then,
since you're making sites "for all"?
I also assume that you're using colors, and that you have checked that
the colors you're using for e.g. backgrounds and texts are absolutely
safe for hundreds of thousand color blind? And that you're using 256 or
so web safe colors only and never any gradient images since it'll screw
up in lots of machines...
And, as you're suggesting, I assume that you are also presenting all
images as thumbnails, giving the users the option of viewing the actual
image or not, are you? And you're using the alt tags to describe each
image down to the smallest detail?
Etc, etc...
If that's the way you're creating sites, fine. But it's simply not
practical nor feasible for me and most others. I can't consider every
possible, individual requirement since it would take years to finish a
site, and it would look like crap. I go for the vast majority of my
target audience and can't humor everyone. Therefore, I need to draw a
line somewhere and if anyone "on the other side" of that line is having
difficulties viewing the site - tough shit.
So, your philosophy about "making sites for all" might be of academic
interest, but that's all it is. It definitely doesn't hold water in
reality. Making fixed sized sites about 750-770 pixels is a rational,
sound and no-nonsense advice.
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 10:32 pm |
| > No, Darrel. You are hugging to a theory that's too academic and rosy. It
> has no foundation in reality among developers, save from maybe yourself.
You're saying that, but you're not explaining it or countering with other
examples.
There's lots of folks that take this approach, the webstandards.org group
just one of them off the top of my head. Government sites in Australia and
the UK are now being put under ADA-type scrutiny.
> For a starter, not ALL have a computer or Internet access. Sounds silly,
> right? But it's not. Already at that stage, you have disqualified a huge
> group from access. Still, you claim you're creating pages "for ALL".
You have a point, but it's not relevant to web sites. We're assuming web
users are going to be using web sites. That's an obvious non-debatable
assumption. (I won't go into the exception that one should be planning their
content so it's not media-specific, but that's another debate ;o)
> Then, I assume you're creating sites in the English language only.
This is a human resource issue, not technology resources. So, again,
different debate.
> I also assume that you're using colors, and that you have checked that
> the colors you're using for e.g. backgrounds and texts are absolutely
> safe for hundreds of thousand color blind?
Sure. That's a basic accessibility requirement. Easy to test for.
> And that you're using 256 or
> so web safe colors only and never any gradient images since it'll screw
> up in lots of machines...
What will screw up? The colors will look off? That doesn't make them
inaccessible.
> And, as you're suggesting, I assume that you are also presenting all
> images as thumbnails, giving the users the option of viewing the actual
> image or not, are you?
I'm not uploading gigantic images on each page. Otherwise, it's an issue on
a site-by-site basis.
> And you're using the alt tags to describe each
> image down to the smallest detail?
Absolutely. Again, another fundamental accessibility issue. Easy to
implement and test for. (BTW, alt tags shouldn't be used to describe things
down to the minutia...that would actually be bad.)
> If that's the way you're creating sites, fine. But it's simply not
> practical nor feasible for me and most others.
How is adding alt tags or checking for colorblindness not feasible?
It's like saying adding seatbelts to a car isn't practical nor feasible.
Sure they car companies fought it (still do) but it's certainly feasible,
and, in the end, makes for a better designed car.
It's like saying making a house accessible isn't practical nor feasible. But
it is, and often LESS expensive, and always MORE useful for any occupant.
> I can't consider every
> possible, individual requirement since it would take years to finish a
> site, and it would look like crap.
Dan, you're being melodramatic.
Again, I'm not saying make your site accessible to 100% of the population.
I'm saying that deciding, arbitrarily, to make a fixed width page at 800
pixels will make your site less accessible to a portion of the population.
WHY do that if you can just as well design a site that doesn't force the 800
pixel width. You're using the baby and bathwater argument. "If I can't make
my site 100% accessible to all, then why bother even worrying about a thing
such as page width?"
Let's back up the discussion and just focus on that above question.
You're saying 800 pixels is sound advice. You have yet to explain why
suggesting 800 pixels is more sound than 600 pixels. Or 500 pixels. Or a
flexible width page.
Please understand that I'm not saying you HAVE to make something other than
800 pixels. As I've said MANY times in this debate, if there's a good reason
for it, then go for it. I haven't heard a good reason yet.
BTW, Dan, good debate! Hope I haven't offended in any way.
-Darrel
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-29, 10:32 pm |
| darrel wrote:
> You're saying that, but you're not explaining it or countering with other
> examples.
Huh? By trying to make you realize that your theory is nothing but a
theory and not working practically, that will leave "my" alternative as
the opposite. Didn't you understand that?
>
> There's lots of folks that take this approach, the webstandards.org group
> just one of them off the top of my head. Government sites in Australia and
> the UK are now being put under ADA-type scrutiny.
Sure! There will always be people who would love to have websites look
like just another ASCII message in your mail client, and some might have
good reasons.
> You have a point, but it's not relevant to web sites.
Yes, it is, but you don't like to hear that. My examples was to show
that you(?) and almost all are making exceptions to your theory all the
time.
> Dan, you're being melodramatic.
>
> Again, I'm not saying make your site accessible to 100% of the population.
> I'm saying that deciding, arbitrarily, to make a fixed width page at 800
> pixels will make your site less accessible to a portion of the population.
> WHY do that if you can just as well design a site that doesn't force the 800
> pixel width.
Huh again? I have never argued against flexible widths, which we haven't
even discussed. Where did you get that from? What I'm saying is that IF
you want a fixed width, aim toward 750-770px.
You're using the baby and bathwater argument. "If I can't make
> my site 100% accessible to all, then why bother even worrying about a thing
> such as page width?"
Huh for the third time. Do you think my posts in this thread seems to be
written by someone who doesn't bother about page widths?
>
> Let's back up the discussion and just focus on that above question.
>
> You're saying 800 pixels is sound advice. You have yet to explain why
> suggesting 800 pixels is more sound than 600 pixels. Or 500 pixels. Or a
> flexible width page.
Are you sober? I have not even mentioned 800px width, and I have not
discussed flexible pages. We have been talking about FIXED widths, and
which to prefer. Thus, I have suggested that 750-770px will be
accommodated best in most browsers - compared to any other FIXED width.
>
> Please understand that I'm not saying you HAVE to make something other than
> 800 pixels. As I've said MANY times in this debate, if there's a good reason
> for it, then go for it. I haven't heard a good reason yet.
>
> BTW, Dan, good debate! Hope I haven't offended in any way.
No, I'm not offended. How could I be? I just dislike the way you're
promoting this abstract idea of "web-for-all" of yours. As I wrote: It
might be an interesting intellectual exercise for some to discuss, but
it's nothing for the real world.
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| darrel 2004-04-29, 10:32 pm |
| > Sure! There will always be people who would love to have websites look
> like just another ASCII message in your mail client, and some might have
> good reasons.
What does ASCII message have to do with accessible web sites? Are you saying
a web site has to be ugly to be accessible? That's false.
> Huh again? I have never argued against flexible widths, which we haven't
> even discussed.
Then DAMMIT...we're in agreement!
;o)
> Where did you get that from? What I'm saying is that IF
> you want a fixed width, aim toward 750-770px.
OK. That's fine. I'll say if you want a fixed width, aim towards 570 pixels.
;o)
> Are you sober? I have not even mentioned 800px width, and I have not
> discussed flexible pages. We have been talking about FIXED widths, and
> which to prefer. Thus, I have suggested that 750-770px will be
> accommodated best in most browsers - compared to any other FIXED width.
Again, that's fine. I'll just say that 570 pixels is a better target as you
can accomodate even more browsers than at 750 pixels.
> I just dislike the way you're
> promoting this abstract idea of "web-for-all" of yours.
It's not a web-for-all abstraction. Rather, it's about being aware of
accessibility issues, and how they can improve overall usability for
everyone.
Maybe the 'web-for-all' isn't for real world use, but good accessibility
best practices are. Understand the best practices, and use them unless
there's a valid reason to over-ride them on a case-by-case basis.
-Darrel
| |
| Michael Fesser 2004-04-29, 10:32 pm |
| .oO(Dan Vendel *GOF*)
>No, I'm not offended. How could I be? I just dislike the way you're
>promoting this abstract idea of "web-for-all" of yours.
Basically it was Tim Berners-Lee's idea ...
Micha
| |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-30, 7:28 am |
| darrel wrote:
>
>
> What does ASCII message have to do with accessible web sites? Are you saying
> a web site has to be ugly to be accessible? That's false.
>
>
> OK. That's fine. I'll say if you want a fixed width, aim towards 570 pixels.
> ;o)
>
>
>
>
> Again, that's fine. I'll just say that 570 pixels is a better target as you
> can accomodate even more browsers than at 750 pixels.
>
>
>
>
> It's not a web-for-all abstraction. Rather, it's about being aware of
> accessibility issues, and how they can improve overall usability for
> everyone.
>
> Maybe the 'web-for-all' isn't for real world use, but good accessibility
> best practices are. Understand the best practices, and use them unless
> there's a valid reason to over-ride them on a case-by-case basis.
Darrel, you got a sharp head and without doubt you know tons of
technical solutions that I'm not even aware that I don't know. But in
this case, you're out wobbling on thin ice, repeating a dogma
originating from technicians that don't know squat what they're talking
about. Here's my final effort to try make you understand:
The web is a *visual* media - with extremely few exceptions, right?
Still, almost all bone headed "web gurus" have no experience, training,
education or even talent when it comes to *visual* design or how users
are influenced by it. Sadly, that doesn't stop them from claiming that
"accessibility", "usability" (and "content"), i.e. pure technicalities
are much more important to web design. Don't you think that's odd? How
can some people be so arrogant that they deem something as pretty
insignificant when they actually don't know what it really is? That's
the flat-earth-syndrome: I don't know about it, I don't want to hear
about, so let's pretend it doesn't exist.
(Compare to some other media: The sound technicians at record companies
says that it's the quality of the recording that makes a record popular
- not the song. Do you see how upside-down that is?)
As a matter of fact, one of the most thorough studies ever made on the
*users'* (NB: NOT the developers') appreciation of websites was made by
Stanford University about a year and a half ago. In short, "Design -
Look" beat the hell out of "Design/Structure", "Site functionality",
"Performance on Test" and similar issues. See for yourself:
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/new...fordPTL_TOC.htm
Now, many developers who don't have the slightest idea about the
importance of good visual design still have some foggy idea in the back
of their heads that a site might actually benefit from a nice
appearance. (oh, this usually applies to sites that are in a competitive
situation. That's why e.g. governmental bodies and others enjoying
"monopoly" can ditch the visual aspect and go for sites that looks like
plain text e-mail messages in order to please every possible user's
preference. That's perfectly fine with me.)
It's roughly the same inner voice that tells them to wear a necktie and
jacket when meeting a prospective client: It's impractical like hell,
makes you sweat and you can't breathe, and it *definitely* doesn't make
them better developers. But they *know* that the impression they'll give
is of utmost importance, actually often *more* important than what
they're saying to the client.
So, they're testing various layouts that "looks good", and lo and
behold: Many of them soon finds out that a fixed sized layout gives them
better control over the layout than a flexible page! Images stays where
they're supposed to, they get a balance between different elements,
columns stays a certain width and doesn't spread randomly all over the
screen (which, btw, is very important to the legibility). Heck, they can
even make a background image line up with the content in an attractive
way, etc, etc... The *impression* is better!
See: They are deliberately sacrificing "accessibility" for a minority to
gain and ensure "visual impact" on a majority, because somewhere in the
dark dungeons of their brains they know that the latter is more
important to the user than the former.
Here enter the question: Which width should he use, then?
They could of course go your way and a 570px wide layout. If they think
it's OK that the site will have either one huge margin (when left or
right aligned) or two less huge margins on both sides (when centered) in
most browsers, and if the content is so sparse that they'll manage to
squeeze the essential stuff in over the "fold" (above the bottom window
frame - what the user sees without being forced to scroll), then fine!
But I haven't seen that yet! 99.999% of all sites (NB: I'm talking about
sites made by professionals that are fully aware of the issue) with
fixed widths have a 750-770px width since the developers realized that a
less wide canvas area makes it virtually impossible to keep control over
the layout and at the same time keep the most essential elements above
the fold.
That's what I mean by "real life" as opposed to your theory: 750-770px
is what's practical as a fixed width. That's what experienced developers
go for, and that's a sound, hands-on advice. Even the Interernetus
Constructus Emeritus, the honorable Mr. Murray R. Summers finally
trashed his Spiderman look-alike site, had it re-designed, and is now
the proud owner (I assume he has paid for it in some way by now) of a
767px fixed width website.
This "570px" and "web-for-all" is simply academic nonsense of no real
value, and I wish you'd wouldn't promote your theory as vividly since
it's confusing the hell out of relative newbies.
Cheers,
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| Michael Fesser 2004-04-30, 9:28 am |
| .oO(Dan Vendel *GOF*)
>The web is a *visual* media - with extremely few exceptions, right?
It was not intended to be, but today it is.
>Still, almost all bone headed "web gurus" have no experience, training,
>education or even talent when it comes to *visual* design or how users
>are influenced by it.
On the other hand many design gurus don't even have the slightest idea
of what the web is and what it has to offer, instead they try to push
their printing standards into it, trying to keep absolute control about
everything, about the way the site appears on the client.
>Sadly, that doesn't stop them from claiming that
>"accessibility", "usability" (and "content"), i.e. pure technicalities
>are much more important to web design. Don't you think that's odd?
Why should it? What benefits does a user get from an extremely
professional styled website, which loads slow like glue, requires a
bigger browser window, requires this and that plugin, client-side
scripting and finally tells "upgrade your browser to gain ultimate
multimedia experience now ...".
>How
>can some people be so arrogant that they deem something as pretty
>insignificant when they actually don't know what it really is?
The same goes for some screen- and media designers. "What content?"
>So, they're testing various layouts that "looks good", and lo and
>behold: Many of them soon finds out that a fixed sized layout gives them
>better control over the layout than a flexible page!
And some find that they don't need that much control.
>Images stays where
>they're supposed to, they get a balance between different elements,
>columns stays a certain width and doesn't spread randomly all over the
>screen (which, btw, is very important to the legibility).
I disagree. Even on a "fluid" website it's possible to stick certain
elements to their position, keep some in a fixed manner, while others
are allowed to stretch and float around the fixed ones. The default
behaviour of HTML/CSS is defined in the spec, there's nothing randomly.
Flexibility and good design are _not_ mutually exclusive.
And for the legibility: Would you call a website legible, that uses a
10px fixed font size, just because it fits the designers vision of a
perfect looking website?
>Heck, they can
>even make a background image line up with the content in an attractive
>way, etc, etc... The *impression* is better!
A PDF would be even better in this case.
>See: They are deliberately sacrificing "accessibility" for a minority to
>gain and ensure "visual impact" on a majority, because somewhere in the
>dark dungeons of their brains they know that the latter is more
>important to the user than the former.
>
>Here enter the question: Which width should he use, then?
You know the answer.
>They could of course go your way and a 570px wide layout. If they think
>it's OK that the site will have either one huge margin (when left or
>right aligned) or two less huge margins on both sides (when centered) in
>most browsers, [...]
This happens with all fixed sized websites, if the browser window is big
enough.
Micha
| |
|
|
| Murray *TMM* 2004-04-30, 9:28 am |
| Dan:
Yes. I was inordinately expensive, too. I doubt that I will use me
again... 8)
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Dan Vendel *GOF*" <see_my_signature_@_the_bottom_of_the_post.org> wrote in
message news:c6t4qq$c7j$2@forums.macromedia.com...
{ snip }
>
> That's what I mean by "real life" as opposed to your theory: 750-770px
> is what's practical as a fixed width. That's what experienced developers
> go for, and that's a sound, hands-on advice. Even the Interernetus
> Constructus Emeritus, the honorable Mr. Murray R. Summers finally
> trashed his Spiderman look-alike site, had it re-designed, and is now
> the proud owner (I assume he has paid for it in some way by now) of a
> 767px fixed width website.
>
{ snip }
> Cheers,
>
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-30, 9:28 am |
| Dan Vendel *GOF* wrote:
> darrel wrote:
[snip]
[snip][color=darkred]
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> The web is a *visual* media - with extremely few exceptions, right?
> Still, almost all bone headed "web gurus" have no experience,
> training, education or even talent when it comes to *visual* design
> or how users are influenced by it. Sadly, that doesn't stop them from
> claiming that "accessibility", "usability" (and "content"), i.e. pure
> technicalities are much more important to web design. Don't you think
> that's odd? How can some people be so arrogant that they deem
> something as pretty insignificant when they actually don't know what
> it really is? That's the flat-earth-syndrome: I don't know about it,
> I don't want to hear about, so let's pretend it doesn't exist.
I've been looking a some recent debates in other NGs, for example one in which
someone asked for examples of good use of CSS, and another debating the
difference between "amateur" & "professional" web sites. I think it is
actually worse that the flat-earth-syndrome.
I believe many authors with a "purist" view of HTML & CSS make assumptions
about what is best for users according to what is *technically* the best code.
"Table-layout is wrong, therefore columns are bad". "Images have fixed sizes,
therefore web pages must be designed so that images are subservient to text".
"CSS is optional, therefore users only really care about being able to get at
the content, so its layout in the absence of CSS isn't important". I see a
reluctance to let true user-views drive the technicalities.
When I say there "the aim of a web site is to communicate with the audience;
everything else is a means to that end", I think this is seen as a "slippery
slope" argument. It would mean that web sites could be judged by what users
thought of them, and by whether they were commercially successful, not (just)
by their "technical" quality. Gosh! Authors may user spacer-GIFs, or rounded
corners!
This appears to lead to "technical" authors taking an unhelpful "can't do"
attitude with the desires of web site owners for visual effects. Instead of
trying to find the best technical way of satisfying the desires, they
sometimes say "the web isn't like that, web site owners need to learn this".
"The web isn't paper". "The web isn't DTP". But the web is used by *people*,
and DTP is like it is because it is read by *people*. The web *needs* to be
more like DTP - but its own sort of DTP. ("DTP with a vertical scroll-bar"!)
[snip]
> As a matter of fact, one of the most thorough studies ever made on the
> *users'* (NB: NOT the developers') appreciation of websites was made
> by Stanford University about a year and a half ago. In short, "Design
> - Look" beat the hell out of "Design/Structure", "Site functionality",
> "Performance on Test" and similar issues. See for yourself:
>
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/new...fordPTL_TOC.htm
I'm sure you know that the Stanford Web Credibility Research programme has its
own web site:
http://www.webcredibility.org/
[snip]
> Here enter the question: Which width should he use, then?
>
> They could of course go your way and a 570px wide layout. If they
> think it's OK that the site will have either one huge margin (when
> left or right aligned) or two less huge margins on both sides (when
> centered) in most browsers, and if the content is so sparse that
> they'll manage to squeeze the essential stuff in over the "fold"
> (above the bottom window frame - what the user sees without being
> forced to scroll), then fine!
I think this discussion needs to start with layout, not width. Consider the
5-box 3-column layout. It is popular for a reason. And I think that is to do
with rows, not columns. All the important stuff is in the first 2 rows, (the
boring admin is in the 3rd row), and the 1st row isn't tall. Therefore, within
a second or so, the user can identify at a glance all the important elements
on the page, just by looking at the top few hundred pixels of the page. The
user can then scroll vertically as needed, perhaps at reading-speed. An
effective layout.
And if you have 3 columns, with sidebars perhaps 150px to 200px, you need
perhaps 750px in all. But a 4-box 2-column layout could actually work at about
550px to 600px.
> But I haven't seen that yet! 99.999% of all sites (NB: I'm talking
> about sites made by professionals that are fully aware of the issue)
> with fixed widths have a 750-770px width since the developers
> realized that a less wide canvas area makes it virtually impossible
> to keep control over the layout and at the same time keep the most
> essential elements above the fold.
If the layout has 2 columns, then I suggest 550px to 600px works. But ...
since so many sites have 3 columns, and hence so many users need to be able to
view 750px sites, why bother with 600px? You might as well use 750px, like the
others.
> That's what I mean by "real life" as opposed to your theory: 750-770px
> is what's practical as a fixed width. That's what experienced
> developers go for, and that's a sound, hands-on advice. Even the
> Interernetus Constructus Emeritus, the honorable Mr. Murray R.
> Summers finally trashed his Spiderman look-alike site, had it
> re-designed, and is now the proud owner (I assume he has paid for it
> in some way by now) of a 767px fixed width website.
[snip]
Being basically a 2-column site, I believe it could be narrower. But I notice
that Murray has used plenty of white space, giving the site an uncluttered,
"relaxed", feel. I also notice that the text is larger than many sites, and
more comfortable to read. This is good use of the extra width.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-30, 9:28 am |
| Murray *TMM* wrote:
> 8) - thanks Barry. I like it when I don't have to touch the screen
> with my nose. So does my screen.
Chuckle!
But there is a good lesson there. I have found that, over time, I gradually
evolve the CSSs for my web sites to increase padding & margins, and sometimes
line-heights, and I have stopped setting font sizes by px anyway. I start by
trying to get too much across the page, then I gradually create more space as
I become dissatisfied.
Simple white space can be incredibly effective. Extra vertical scrolling can
be a good trade-off.
[color=darkred]
> "Barry Pearson" <webmaster@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:c6tcla$86g$1@forums.macromedia.com...
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
|
|
|
|
| Dan Vendel *GOF* 2004-04-30, 5:30 pm |
| Michael Fesser wrote:
> On the other hand many design gurus don't even have the slightest idea
> of what the web is and what it has to offer, instead they try to push
> their printing standards into it, trying to keep absolute control about
> everything, about the way the site appears on the client.
Yes, and why shouldn't they try? Sadly, they're too few!
Today, the web is "run" by techies (for good and bad) who don't know
anything about visual design, but with exactly the same attitude as you
have: Visual designers don't know shit.
That's why you can't even chose your own typography *if you want*,
that's why it's impossible to make a curve or circle in html, you can't
place a footer on a page with ease, etc. Engineers (still without a clue
about visual design) don't think it's necessary, that's why.
In other business, techies and "humanists" are working side-by-side. The
humanists says "I would want to do this" and the techies says "Ok, we
will see if we can fix that for you".
If the latter can't find a solution, they say "couldn't make it, but
here's another option. Is that OK?"
The sound engineer wouldn't dream about claiming to know about writing
songs. The camera crew and producer leaves the creative job to the
director when making a movie. The brick layer trusts the architect to
know how to make buildings look good. Only in web design has the
technician appointed himself to be also an artist, a creative mind that
knows how to play his audience. Which is very, very sad.
> Why should it? What benefits does a user get from an extremely
> professional styled website, which loads slow like glue, requires a
> bigger browser window, requires this and that plugin, client-side
> scripting and finally tells "upgrade your browser to gain ultimate
> multimedia experience now ...".
>
Who said "loads slow like glue, requires a bigger browser window,
requires this and that plugin, client-side scripting and finally tells
"upgrade your browser to gain ultimate multimedia experience now ..."???
I didn't. You did.
You are making an automatic assumption that a good looking,
professionally designed website also need to be tedious, which is waaaay
wrong!!!
> And some find that they don't need that much control.
Fine! Then have it flexible! You're missing the point by 180 degrees:
We're discussing FIXED widths, and when a developer want to have such.
> I disagree. Even on a "fluid" website it's possible to stick certain
> elements to their position, keep some in a fixed manner, while others
> are allowed to stretch and float around the fixed ones. The default
> behaviour of HTML/CSS is defined in the spec, there's nothing randomly.
> Flexibility and good design are _not_ mutually exclusive.
Of course you disagree. Flat earth syndrome! ;-) If I wrote "black"
you'd cry "white".
You are yet again missing the issue: When a professional developer has
found that he want a fixed width, even you can accept that he has been
considering the back draws. In the same way that I assume you want
colleagues to grant you the courtesy of deciding your own methodologies
in each of your projects, allow others to decide which way they want to go.
>
> And for the legibility: Would you call a website legible, that uses a
> 10px fixed font size, just because it fits the designers vision of a
> perfect looking website?
Again, you're making a (pretty childish, may I add) assumption that
visual designers need to be idiots, making texts impossible to read.
Come on, man....
> This happens with all fixed sized websites, if the browser window is big
> enough.
Yes, *IF* the browser is wide enough....
Cheers,
--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact me directly at http://contact.vendel.info
Formmail tutorial at http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html
Nested table demonstration at http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/
Search Engine Optimization & Rank Control Utility at http://awr.vendel.info
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup at http://www.vendel.info/google.html
| |
| darrel 2004-04-30, 5:31 pm |
| > On the other hand many design gurus don't even have the slightest idea
> of what the web is and what it has to offer, instead they try to push
> their printing standards into it, trying to keep absolute control about
> everything, about the way the site appears on the client.
Yes. I don't think Dan is that extreme, and I'm certrainly not as extreme on
the opposite side either.
In face, I bet Dan and myself would make a pretty decent team. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-30, 5:31 pm |
| > this case, you're out wobbling on thin ice, repeating a dogma
> originating from technicians that don't know squat what they're talking
> about.
I think you're trying to wave the 'developer vs. designer' banner.
I'm a developer with a BFA, so I understand the concept of a total design
solution.
> The web is a *visual* media - with extremely few exceptions, right?
It's text and image based. Yes.
> Still, almost all bone headed "web gurus" have no experience, training,
> education or even talent when it comes to *visual* design or how users
> are influenced by it.
That's an exaggeration. I'm a web developer with a fine arts degree with a
concentration in graphic design. Web design isn't graphic design. Graphic
design is a part of web design.
Web design has many design roles that need to be filled:
- visual design
- interface design
- usability design
- software design
- networking design
- copywriting
- etc.
None are more important than the others. They all must work together for the
solution to be succesful as a well rounded design.
> Sadly, that doesn't stop them from claiming that
> "accessibility", "usability" (and "content"), i.e. pure technicalities
> are much more important to web design. Don't you think that's odd?
A usabilty expert will tout their expertise, as will a visual designer tout
their expertise. Again, none are more important than the other.
> (Compare to some other media: The sound technicians at record companies
> says that it's the quality of the recording that makes a record popular
> - not the song. Do you see how upside-down that is?)
I agree that there are idiots that think their expertise is the key element.
No argument there. ;o)
I'm not saying accessibility TRUMPS visual design. I'm saying that visual
design doesn't TRUMP accessibility. They go hand in hand.
You seem to have it in your head that accessibility is somehow a hindrance
to good visual design. Is that your argument? I hope it didn't sound like I
was saying the opposite.
> That's why e.g. governmental bodies and others enjoying
> "monopoly" can ditch the visual aspect and go for sites that looks like
> plain text e-mail messages in order to please every possible user's
> preference. That's perfectly fine with me.)
I'm a .gover myself...and that isn't fine with me, actually. That's lazy
development. Just as making a photshop-cut-up, inaccessible, but cool
looking site is lazy development.
> So, they're testing various layouts that "looks good", and lo and
> behold: Many of them soon finds out that a fixed sized layout gives them
> better control over the layout than a flexible page!
Aha! This is the issue. PRINT IS NOT WEB!
I know. It's a tired, repeated statmenet.
But, sadly, it has to be repeated because there are too many graphic
designers that just do not get that. Paper is a fixed canvas. A web page
isn't. This isn't a hindrance. It isn't a limitation. It's simply a
difference in the two mediums. A good designer embraces the medium and works
to it's advantage.
> See: They are deliberately sacrificing "accessibility" for a minority to
> gain and ensure "visual impact" on a majority, because somewhere in the
> dark dungeons of their brains they know that the latter is more
> important to the user than the former.
Fixed layouts are not in any way a requirement for visual impact. If that's
what you are arguing, then so be it. I've worked in plenty of graphic design
firms where this illogical thinking permeates the air.
Again, I am a graphic designer. I love print. I love the control. I
appreciate the value of visual impact, good kerning, type color, consistent
imagery, branding, etc. None of these trump accessibility, though. They work
with accessibility to make a complete design solution on the web.
> Here enter the question: Which width should he use, then?
The real answer, of course, is the width that the end user's brower's view
port is set to. ;o)
> They could of course go your way and a 570px wide layout. If they think
> it's OK that the site will have either one huge margin (when left or
> right aligned) or two less huge margins on both sides (when centered) in
> most browsers, and if the content is so sparse that they'll manage to
> squeeze the essential stuff in over the "fold" (above the bottom window
> frame - what the user sees without being forced to scroll), then fine!
Well, margins never hurt anyone. And web content shouldn't be that heavy to
begin with.
> have a 750-770px width since the developers realized that a
> less wide canvas area makes it virtually impossible to keep control over
> the layout and at the same time keep the most essential elements above
> the fold.
Print designer whining. I know that's harsh, but that's what it is. It's the
'I don't WANT the end user to have control over *my* design. It's *my*
design dammit! I know best!'
But that's not the web. I'd suggest if they have that much content, then
perhaps some good copy editing might be the solution.
I do concede that sometimes a fixed width site is the best compromise for
time, effort, etc.
> That's what I mean by "real life" as opposed to your theory: 750-770px
> is what's practical as a fixed width. That's what experienced developers
> go for, and that's a sound, hands-on advice.
You keep saying this. I still disagree. ;o)
> This "570px" and "web-for-all" is simply academic nonsense of no real
> value, and I wish you'd wouldn't promote your theory as vividly since
> it's confusing the hell out of relative newbies.
Well, with all due respect, your '770 is good sound advice' is simply print
designer arrogance/laziness and of no real value and confuses the hell out
of relative newbies.
And I seriously mean the all due respect. ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-30, 5:31 pm |
| > Basically it was Tim Berners-Lee's idea ...
;o)
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2004-04-30, 5:31 pm |
| > Yes, and why shouldn't they try?
Should a outdoor media designer (billboards) try to force their design
standards onto a postcard?
No.
Why?
It'd different media.
> Today, the web is "run" by techies (for good and bad) who don't know
> anything about visual design,
That's an overstatement. There are pure techies. There are pure visual
designers. Neither make a good web site on their own, IMHO.
As a team, they can do wonders. Especially if you start adding some good
writers, usability experts, etc.
> but with exactly the same attitude as you
> have: Visual designers don't know shit.
Dan, who said that? Visual designers are a key component to any succesful
web site...as long as they are visual designers that understand the web
medium.
And the same is true for a software developer. They are also a key to any
succesful web site, as long as they understand the web medium.
And this accessibility thing isn't a 'techie' only or 'visual designer' only
thing. They both have to understand accessibility issues.
> That's why you can't even chose your own typography *if you want*,
> that's why it's impossible to make a curve or circle in html, you can't
> place a footer on a page with ease, etc. Engineers (still without a clue
> about visual design) don't think it's necessary, that's why.
Umm...Dan, HTML is a structural content markup language. If you want circles
and such, that's what SVG and such are for (a graphical markup language) or
images and CSS.
> In other business, techies and "humanists" are working side-by-side. The
> humanists says "I would want to do this" and the techies says "Ok, we
> will see if we can fix that for you".
> If the latter can't find a solution, they say "couldn't make it, but
> here's another option. Is that OK?"
I wish more IT departments were like that ;o)
> The sound engineer wouldn't dream about claiming to know about writing
> songs. The camera crew and producer leaves the creative job to the
> director when making a movie. The brick layer trusts the architect to
> know how to make buildings look good.
All these people work in teams for a succesful project. A good architect
consults the bricklayer as much as the bricklayer consults the architect.
> Only in web design has the
> technician appointed himself to be also an artist, a creative mind that
> knows how to play his audience. Which is very, very sad.
This goes both ways, Dan. There are plenty of sites designed by software
developers who think they are good visual designers just as there are as
many visual designers who think they are good software developers.
So, yea, there are a lot of bad, unbalanced design solutions out there on
the web. ;o)
> You are making an automatic assumption that a good looking,
> professionally designed website also need to be tedious, which is waaaay
> wrong!!!
And is sounds like you are making an automatic assumption that an accessible
web site can't be professionally visualy designed. ;o)
> allow others to decide which way they want to go.
And I do. If there is a good, valid reason to make it a fixed width, then go
for it. I just see a lot of fixed width sites that were made that way with
the one single reason of it being easier for the visual designer.
-Darrel
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-30, 5:32 pm |
| Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Dan Vendel *GOF*)
>
>
> It was not intended to be, but today it is.
[snip]
I believe, from the evidence I have seen, that the reverse is the case. From
the start, the web was thought of & implemented as a visual medium. Non-visual
aspects of it, apart from such things as MID files for music, followed a
number of years later. The sources below are also linked to from "A brief
history of tables":
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...les/history.htm
For example, the 1989 proposal by Berners-Lee says: "Storage of ASCII text,
and display on 24x80 screens, is in the short term sufficient, and essential";
and there is reference to: "... information display software ...".
http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
By 1990, Berners-Lee & Cailliau were describing "Hypertext concepts"
including: "When starting a hypertext browser on your workstation, you will
first be presented with a hypertext page which is personal to you.... Such
references are highlighted and can be selected with a mouse (on dumb
terminals, they would appear in a numbered list and selection would be done by
entering a number)"; and a browser "performs the display of a hypertext node
using the client hardware & software environment".
http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html
First suggestions for stylesheets in 1993 were all about visual styling:
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archive...ssages/443.html
In 1993, Berners-Lee & Connolly made an HTML proposal that included the
revealing statements:
"Typical rendering is described for many elements. This is not a mandatory
part of the standard but is given as guidance for designers and to help
explain the uses for which the elements were intended".
"When writing documents, you should assume that whatever is done it is
designed to have the same sort of effect as the styles above".
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
Note the first of these - "the uses for which the elements were intended" is
illustrated by "Typical rendering"! So, presumably, the *use* of "paragraph"
is illustrated by showing how "paragraph" is assumed to be rendered! So much
for the myth of presentation-neutral structural mark-up!
In 1993, Raggett proposed HTML+. It said: "HTML+ .... embodies a pageless
model making it suitable for efficient rendering on a wide range of display
types including VT100 terminals, X11, Windows 3.1 and the Macintosh".
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_4.html
Over the next few years, the web "took off". Browsers were entirely visual.
Extensions to HTML were too. Web sites were designed mainly to be seen, plus
some use of such things as MID files for music. This continued through the
W3C's first publications - one of which was HTML 3.2. In December 1996, CSS1
became a recommendation, entirely for visual purposes, as far as I can tell.
Then, in April *1997*, the Web Accessibility Initiative was launched. In
December 1997 the HTML 4 recommendation included table-HTML for accessibility
purposes. And in 1998, IBM announced their Home Page Reader speaking browser.
Accessibility, and non-visual media, were several years later than visual
media. CSS2 (also 1998) included non-visual "styling" for the first time.
See: "Since 1994, HTML has been used a thousand times to control presentation
for every one time it's been used to express meaning alone. The issue of
separate presentation and content in HTML itself is long closed. It was a
noble idea but it's not what happened.... While trying to make visual the
intricacies of HTML in a form useful to web designers I finally realized HTML
is all presentation. For years I'd preached its intent was to code structure
and let automation decide presentation. But the data from a spider program I
wrote to tally tag and attribute use in thousands of web sites made it clear
that HTML is a presentation markup language"
Bob Stein, "graphic design basics"
http://www.graphicdesignbasics.com/article1022.html
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| darrel 2004-04-30, 5:32 pm |
| > So much
> for the myth of presentation-neutral structural mark-up!
It's not a myth. A paragraph is a structural element and the quote simply
stated that the browser should have some sort of default style for it.
Basically, a default style sheet.
Remember that HTML is an application of SGML, standard generalized markup
language, a markup language for making structured content.
> See: "Since 1994, HTML has been used a thousand times to control
presentation
> for every one time it's been used to express meaning alone.
Oh sure, but that doesn't mean we should continue on that path if there
aren't strong reasons to do so. I use a screwdriver all the time to bang
nails, but that doesn't mean I'm doing my job efficiently ;o)
> The issue of
> separate presentation and content in HTML itself is long closed. It was a
> noble idea but it's not what happened....
xhtml + css, or, more specifically, XML + XSLT + CSS is exactly that.
There's nothing evil about mixing presentational style with your HTML. It
works fine, often really well. But often there are better ways to accomplish
the same thing. Those other ways should be considered.
-Darrel
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-30, 5:32 pm |
| darrel wrote:
>
> It's not a myth. A paragraph is a structural element and the quote
> simply stated that the browser should have some sort of default style
> for it. Basically, a default style sheet.
I believe there are 2 different views of the early web. One is what actually
happened. The other is what some people would like to think happened.
The sources I quoted are what actually happened. The web was unambiguously and
explicitly thought of, by the pioneers, to be a visual medium. That is how it
was implemented by the browser developers. It was how it was desired by web
site owners. And it was how it was delivered by web authors. I am not aware of
any early exceptions to this model. If you know of any, please identify URLs
that show otherwise. (Others have failed to do so).
The proposal *didn't* simply say that browsers should have some sort of
default styles! All early proposals illustrated their HTML specifications with
explicitly stated styles. In fact, this has continued - there are formatting
models in many later recommendations. It is absolutely clear that Berners-Lee
had a formatting model in mind in 1993. Ditto Raggett. They showed what things
could look like on GUI & character screens. These pioneers, and the browsers
developers, and the web site owners, and the web page authors, were all
conforming to a single visual formatting model.
I am not trying to say whether this was good or bad. I am simply saying that
these are what the early sources show to be the case. See: "A brief history of
tables":
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...les/history.htm
> Remember that HTML is an application of SGML, standard generalized
> markup language, a markup language for making structured content.
So what? See above! Facts are facts. By all means state that the web was a
mis-use of SGML because it didn't start by properly defining structured
content. But ... it didn't! It was focused on presenting the contents of the
document on screens. As the sources I quoted (and will quote again if I have
to) clearly show.
>
> Oh sure, but that doesn't mean we should continue on that path if
> there aren't strong reasons to do so. I use a screwdriver all the
> time to bang nails, but that doesn't mean I'm doing my job
> efficiently ;o)
[snip]
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Traditional
"If all you have is a screwdriver, everything may get screwed up". Barry
Pearson, 2004
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|