Re[2]: Resolutions 800 x 600 vs. 1024 x 768

>Okay, go ahead and yell :0)

OKAY, HEAR ME YELL!!!    ;-)

>But those who browse without JavaScript on are the minority ... That is 
>one out of ten. And these one out of ten will still see you page's 
>contents. Plan for this by letting the default layout mirror the 800 x 600 
>design.

I do not say that JavaScript should not be used.  I do assert that it 
should not routinely be used in such a way that its absence would make a 
site significantly less usable.  Your solution, as originally presented, 
had no fall-back for those with JavaScript disabled: if you amend it by 
adding some NOSCRIPT code, you again assume a specific default resolution 
(in this case 800x600) reducing its usability for the many who have larger 
resolution displays or who resize their browser windows to something other 
than the common maximum screen dimensions, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc.

And don't forget that you also used the JavaScript to resize and reposition 
the user's browser window, which severely detracts from the site's 
usability.  Once again, DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH THE SIZE OR POSITION OF MY 
BROWSER WINDOW!!!  I have visited sites that do this.  I have never 
revisited them.

>Place the noscript tag with a css class value so that it can be positioned 
>on the screen (with css) in an area that won't interfere with your page's 
>content.

Do you assume that all users' browsers support CSS-P properly?  Or do you 
believe that those with antique browsers are insignificant?  Perhaps you 
do:  if you feel that the 10% minority that have JavaScript disabled are 
less important, then surely you also believe that the 2% who still use 
antique browsers (NN4, mainly) can be ignored.

>As far as not designing for a resolution setting, have you ever loaded a 
>site that is designed for a 800 x 600 screen into a 1024 setting. At best 
>you get * a lot * of white space around your content. At worst you get 
>type that is completely unreadable - especially if you're using a third 
>party service such as a stock ticker.

A site designed for a 800x600 display is indeed nasty with a 1024x768 
resolution. And the site is even nastier with a 800x600 display if the 
browser is NOT MAXIMIZED!  Indeed, a site designed for ANY specific 
resolution is nasty when the browser window is either smaller or 
significantly larger.

Fluid design does not assume any specific display resolution. It seeks to 
work with the users' chosen browser windows, whatever the sizes.  And it is 
easy to do.  And works well.

>Planning a layout that takes in your user's screen resolution is no 
>different than creating different versions of your site to take into 
>account different  browsers (ie vs. netscape etc...). Personally I do as 
>much as possible using cgi but since this is a basics forum, and many 
>people may not have access to their server's cgi bin, I suggest JavaScript 
>- which is a viable alternative. People do have a bias against JavaScript 
>and cookies because they think that they're a security risk (they're not 
>in my opinion) , but then they go ahead and browse with IE which has so 
>many leaks in it that I get updates about once a week.
>
>In short, use JavaScript. It let's your viewer interact with your site. 
>Use css. It allows you to separate your site's content from it's layout 
>-  which is what W3C suggests. Plan carefully with your visitors' needs in 
>mind and they will return to you time after time. And also keep in mind 
>that my advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it. :0)  Your 
>results may vary.

Designing for different browsers.  Oh my, another rat's nest.  My view on 
this issue is that sites should be designed to the W3C standards, tested 
and tweaked for the browsers that are reasonably standards-compliant (IE5+, 
Opera 7, NN7, Mozilla, and preferably Safari ... though I personally don't 
test with Safari, as I don't have a Mac), and also tested and tweaked for 
the antique browsers that are still in common use (mainly NN4 right now, as 
IE4 usage is dropping precipitously).  I do use JavaScript for this, a 
bit:  mainly to overcome CSS incompatibilities in positioning of LI 
markers; but if JavaScript is disabled everything still works, though pages 
may not be quite so pretty.

This does not require different versions of the site for different browsers 
... though I must confess -- blush! -- that I did make different versions 
long ago when I began designing websites and thought myself wiser than I am 
today.  ;-)


Bottom line.  It isn't hard to make fluid sites:  try it; you'll like it!

(shouting done, now reducing volume to normal levels, mumble, mumble, 
mumble ... )

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA