RE: [boost] Re: [website] Oh the fun..
----Original Message---- From: Rene Rivera [mailto:grafik.list@redshift-software.com] Sent: 28 April 2005 03:37 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Re: [website] Oh the fun..
Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
I think this layout makes unreasonable assumptions about the browser
Unreasonable for whom?
window width, and looks terrible when viewed in a slightly less wide browser window.
Here's an example screenshot: http://www.xs4all.nl/~weegen/ss.png
Note that this does not just affect people who use 800x600 or smaller resolutions.
1. That screenshot is less than 800 pixels wide. So? Eelis explained WHY he uses less than 800 pixels for his browser.
2. I think just about all web designers agree that 800x600 is the minimum one should design for at this time. Hmm. How about all (boost) USERS?
As for the links, I agree with Victor; changing link formatting is yet another symptom of overly eager webdesigners' trying to control every last pixel on the screen because their precious design "depends" on it, while breaking usability for users who use a less common configuration.
As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility to make the majority of users happy.
So why do you need to specify the background colour? I haven't looked at the source, but it looks white on my machine which is the default for my browser. If you don't specify the background colour or the font colour, then the link colour will match nicely.
The website should just provide structured content and leave it up to the user's browser and preferences to do the final formatting.
That's a nice dream.. And with the current arrangement you can attain it. The current design is entirely CSS based. Which means that you can turn it off, or use your own design. -- Of course that's assuming your browser will let you.
It's a lot of work to define a new CSS for boost - why not just use the user's defaults? -- Martin Bonner Martin.Bonner@Pitechnology.com Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ, ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 441434
Martin Bonner wrote:
----Original Message---- From: Rene Rivera [mailto:grafik.list@redshift-software.com] Sent: 28 April 2005 03:37 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Re: [website] Oh the fun..
Please change your posting program so that it doesn't include this superfluous information.
2. I think just about all web designers agree that 800x600 is the minimum one should design for at this time.
Hmm. How about all (boost) USERS?
You should already know that it's impossible to satisfy all users. And the various *_ptr discussions should serve as an example. In C++ the way to satisfy the widest audience is to use template. In HTML we use CSS to serve a similar purpose.
So why do you need to specify the background colour? I haven't looked at the source, but it looks white on my machine which is the default for my browser.
What makes you assume that everyone has a default background color of white? I certainly don't assume that, nor have my default as white.
If you don't specify the background colour or the font colour, then the link colour will match nicely.
Like I already said..
It's just not a possibility to accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost completely.
What you are saying is to abandon design and leave it entirely to the browser defaults and user settings. And please don't assume that the browser developers made perfect, or even good, choices about how to present a web page.
Which means that you can turn it off, or use your own design.
It's a lot of work to define a new CSS for boost - why not just use the user's defaults?
Like I just said above.. You can turn the CSS *off* and have your browser+user settings prevail. For example with Firefox you can choose the View/Page Style/No Style menu and voila you have your defaults. I leave other browsers as an exercise to the reader. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
Rene Rivera wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote:
2. I think just about all web designers agree that 800x600 is the minimum one should design for at this time.
Hmm. How about all (boost) USERS?
You should already know that it's impossible to satisfy all users. And the various *_ptr discussions should serve as an example. In C++ the way to satisfy the widest audience is to use template. In HTML we use CSS to serve a similar purpose.
I agree with Rene 100%. If I haven't expressed my opinion on the subject yet, I'd like to say that Rene has done a wonderful job and that he should not attempt to please everyone. Pleasing everyone will result in a mediocrity (averaging effect). I remember QuickBook being threatened by the same "averaging" effect that happens when an attempt is made to please everyone. At one point, everything became literally dull grey! I detest that! IMO, Rene's work is superb. If any of you think you can do better, by all means, please submit a proposal for everyone to see. Then, we can be able to compare. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Rene Rivera wrote:
Like I just said above.. You can turn the CSS *off* and have your browser+user settings prevail. For example with Firefox you can choose the View/Page Style/No Style menu and voila you have your defaults. I leave other browsers as an exercise to the reader.
In internet explorer and other mozilla based browsers, you can go here: http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html and drag the 'zap style sheets' bookmarklet to your toolbar. There's also a 'zap colors' bookmarklet, which I find very useful. Although, I wouldn't use either with Rene's design as it is ace. And it works great in browsers like lynx and dillo. We're very lucky as there are few people who would put so much thought and consideration into the structure of a web page. Daniel
Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Like I just said above.. You can turn the CSS *off* and have your browser+user settings prevail. For example with Firefox you can choose the View/Page Style/No Style menu and voila you have your defaults. I leave other browsers as an exercise to the reader.
In internet explorer and other mozilla based browsers, you can go here:
I think MS will be very upset to hear that IE is mozilla-based! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Like I just said above.. You can turn the CSS *off* and have your browser+user settings prevail. For example with Firefox you can choose the View/Page Style/No Style menu and voila you have your defaults. I leave other browsers as an exercise to the reader.
In internet explorer and other mozilla based browsers, you can go here:
I think MS will be very upset to hear that IE is mozilla-based!
Doh! yours incoherently, Daniel James
From: Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk>
David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel James <daniel@calamity.org.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Like I just said above.. You can turn the CSS *off* and have your browser+user settings prevail. For example with Firefox you can choose the View/Page Style/No Style menu and voila you have your defaults. I leave other browsers as an exercise to the reader.
In internet explorer and other mozilla based browsers, you can go here:
I think MS will be very upset to hear that IE is mozilla-based!
Doh!
I just took it as "In Internet Explorer and Mozilla-based browsers other than Firefox," though I did backtrack to get that meaning. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
participants (6)
-
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
Joel -
Martin Bonner -
Rene Rivera -
Rob Stewart