On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:48:04 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>AIUI you were asking about Windows Update pages, right?

yes.

>Anyway, as I found when MSIE was broken on one of the machines I was
[...]
>scrollbar.  BUT there's still plenty of unused real-estate.
>
>Give me flexible design in preference!

that's enough, i got it.
an implementation of that kind, with all those fixed size areas isn't
effective. i agree. i didn't notice some of the things you wrote
because none of my local users know how to change font size and i
wasn't malicious enough to try to do it.

>understatement, IMHO).  As a model for designing a web page, it's
>utterly unsuitable, I'd say.

i understand and agree, after having read your post.
would you change your opinion if it was made with scalable fonts and
proportional sizes?

>dependent on full-scale execution of javascript.  This would be very,
>very inappropriate for a WWW page, quite apart from the criticisms I
>already mentioned.

and i agree. i use almost no javascript, not even for buttons
rollover.

>(browser), or not.  Lynx has no scrollbars as such.  What would a
>scrollbar or "pulldown" sound like on a speaking browser?

i don't know and have never seen anything speaking here in italy, but
again i agree: thanks for the point.

the question now is: take a webpage for a product catalog. you have
some categories and all the usual things. apart from the person using
a speaking browser --that *in my case* is of little importance because
he/she could never choose/use my products-- don't you think that for
the user it would be more confortable if he always had his menu on top
or left of the page?
please, let me give my definition of menu because i probably wasn't
clear in my previous posts. what i call menu is the list of links lik
"products/company/contact us/resellers/..." or "product category
1/p.c.2/p.c.3/...". what i call toolbar is the list of icons or
buttons you usually have in a web-oriented application and you click
to submit, search, modify data and so on.
with the whole page scrolling up or down, you have to scroll with your
mouse to the top of the page to find the links to go to a different
product or category or a different application in your intranet or you
want to browse the reseller pages.
having to scroll up to the beginning of page everytime you reach the
bottom takes time. a link "go to top" must be clicked and then you
have to click the link you want to follow. i understand that the time
these things take is very short, but often people gets the most
disappointed from the frequent short time losses.
i mean, with scrolling menus you always have to scroll up to the top
or click the "go to top" link. if you spend 5 minutes on a website
--and on mine it's the average because of the kind of products and
target of the website--, it's easy all these scrolls/click become
annoying.

i've understood very well from your post --and the many i've read on
the group-- that a good website is the one that can be seen and used
by the most, then i've already begun to redefine sizes using
"flexible" units and not fixed pixels --as i used to--, but i'm not
too sure that menus that scroll together with the whole page are the
most comfortable choice for the use --even if they're probably the
only one if you don't want to use frames, as they seem to be to me--.

>use them. There's the risk, with some other kinds of browser, that the
>widgets can be camouflaged via CSS to look like something else than
>they really are, fooling the user to perform some action which they
>hadn't intended.

good point.

i've read a lot on scrolling tables, too, but they seem to work only
when a fixed pixel height is given, and with that we're back to the
problem of not using all the available space. a scrolling table would
be perfect for my job, but only if there's a way to set a variable
height: do you know if there's any?

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Gianni Rondinini wrote:

(of IE)
> none of my local users know how to change font size

Well, it's not as if "View> Text Size" requires the white heat of
technology to find it (unlike IE's option to disable author-specified
fixed font sizes, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here).

> and i wasn't malicious enough to try to do it.

Some people *need* it - I must protest at the use of the term "malice"
in this context.

> i don't know and have never seen anything speaking here in italy, but
> again i agree: thanks for the point.
>
> the question now is: take a webpage for a product catalog. you have
> some categories and all the usual things. apart from the person using
> a speaking browser --that *in my case* is of little importance because
> he/she could never choose/use my products-- don't you think that for
> the user it would be more confortable if he always had his menu on top
> or left of the page?

I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here.  I'm not making
any objection to the way that your kind of "web application" is
presented *in the situations in which you're describing them*.  I'm
just trying to point out that this is one possible visual
representation of an underlying structure.  If one handles that
structure right, it's mostly feasible to make it accessible to a wider
range of *other situations*, some graphical, some maybe character
mode, and of which would not even be visual.

And that's one of the motivations for the separation of structure
(marked up in HTML) from presentation (proposed by one or more
stylesheet/s).

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:52:32 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Gianni Rondinini wrote:
>
>(of IE) 
>
>Well, it's not as if "View> Text Size" requires the white heat of
>technology to find it (unlike IE's option to disable author-specified
>fixed font sizes, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here).

At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
feature.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Jim Ley wrote:

> At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
> stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
> feature.

I fear we are drifting off the topic of this group, but if we're
going to discuss browsers, then I have to say I'm quite disappointed
at the limited range of features exposed in FF, and am much happier
with the Mozilla browser.  But then, I'm not representative of an
ordinary user, so what would I know.

Jim Ley wrote:

> At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
> stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
> feature.

Front end customisability in Firefox is hidden away well enough to make
the plot of another Dan Brown novel. I had to ask the son of a 7th
grade Freemason before I found out where.

(You can make the Google search box a useful size too)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:19:36 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:

>At least you can find you trivially find where to specify the user
>stylesheet, unlike firefox which doesn't even admit to having such a
>feature.

right, there is no menu for that. i just found, just for luck, you can
change sizes of fonts in a webpage with <ctrl>+<scroll wheel>.
scrolling up increases size, scrolling down decreases it.

probably this was interesting for somebody else, too.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:52:32 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>Well, it's not as if "View> Text Size" requires the white heat of
>technology to find it (unlike IE's option to disable author-specified

hey hey :)
don't overestimate my users too much :)
*believe me*: they don't know how to do it, nor why they would want
to. if they couldn't read something in a webpage, they would call me
and say "hey gianni, my pc is broken down, i can't read the text; can
you please check what's wrong?".
 
>
>Some people *need* it - I must protest at the use of the term "malice"
>in this context.

please, excuse my poor english. malicious was used to mean i didn't
think changing font size was possible --since i've never done it-- and
then that i should have tried it to see the effect on my webpage.
s/malicious/smart

>I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here.  I'm not making
>any objection to the way that your kind of "web application" is
>presented *in the situations in which you're describing them*.  I'm

ok. i'm sorry i misunderstood you.

but i still miss the answer to my "concept" question: do you think
that having to scroll up the whole page to return to the links is the
best choice for the average website or do you think it's okay just
because there is no other way possible --w/out frames--?
i begin to understand there is no way to do what i'd like to do
without frames, then i'll wait for another couple of browsers'
releases hoping to be able to do it, but talking about concepts, does
anybody agree with me that having at least the most frequently used
links/actions/buttons *always* available on the screen would be better
than having to scroll for them?

>range of *other situations*, some graphical, some maybe character
>mode, and of which would not even be visual.

sure. i agree. the more your website is usable by, the better it is.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
VBR - Vero Birro Romagnolo
Hai capito, scelf?

Gianni Rondinini  <bugbarbeq@icem.it> wrote:
> but i still miss the answer to my "concept" question: do you think
> that having to scroll up the whole page to return to the links is the
> best choice for the average website

Yes. It's best if the page behaves normally, so users know what to expect.
That includes having all the content of the page (including navigation
links) scroll normally.

FWIW, most of the techniques I've seen for scrolling the content while
keeping everything else static break keyboard navigation.

If there are critical navigation links (e.g., "Home", "Contents",
"Glossary", "Copyright") that you think some users might want to be
accessible at all times, then use <link> elements. Those with modern
browsers can have access to these links at all times if they so desire.

Everyone else can view the content without losing screen real estate to
persistent navigation links.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I've cut this board three times, and it's still too short!"

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> I fear we are drifting off the topic of this group, but if we're
> going to discuss browsers, then I have to say I'm quite disappointed
> at the limited range of features exposed in FF, and am much happier
> with the Mozilla browser.

<AOL>me too</AOL>

They pushed FF as a lighter version of mozilla, but they stripped out
too much, AFAIC.

We now return to our regularly scheduled topic...

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

In article <4ldgi15vi9ipqbc7jb00n00o6iiqo53au8@4ax.com>,
Gianni Rondinini  <bugbarbeq@icem.it> wrote:
>[snip]
>                                     but talking about concepts, does
>anybody agree with me that having at least the most frequently used
>links/actions/buttons *always* available on the screen would be better
>than having to scroll for them?

It depends how really frequently used they are.  However, most of the
time that GUI designers have inflicted this upon me, I have resented
their wasting my screen space this way.

>[snip]

--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian bachelor programmer