"Snit" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:C4EAFA2A.D5414%usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
> ga4225$jul$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 9/8/08 1:30 PM:
>
>> Linonut <linonut@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>>> * Snit peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> "chrisv" <chrisv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stated in post
>>>> 70uac41dvd4fnj2k3vfv9dap8g33nanj35@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on 9/8/08 12:08 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. It is not just *my* preferences.
>>>>>> You are trampling on the preferences of a *lot* of people with
>>>>>> such a design. You are forcing *your* preferences on others.
>>>>>> Extremely bad design
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe not bad from ****'s perspective. He loves to annoy people,
>>>>> you know...
>>>>
>>>> Just for fun I decided to Google fixed-with vs. liquid. The
>>>> prevailing wisdom *clearly* agrees with me and not Peter (surprise
>>>> surprise, LOL!). Here is a sampling:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.webreference.com/authoring/style/sheets/css_mastery2/>
>>>> -----
>>>> Fixed-width layouts are very common as they give the
>>>> developer more control over layout and positioning. If you
>>>> set the width of your design to be 720 pixels wide, it will
>>>> always be 720 pixels. If you then want a branding image
>>>> spanning the top of your design, you know it needs to be 720
>>>> pixels wide to fit. Knowing the exact width of each element
>>>> allows you to lay them out precisely and know where
>>>> everything will be. This predictability makes fixed-width
>>>> layout by far the most common layout method around.
>>>> -----
>>>
>>> However, the original intent of HTML was /not/ to produce fixed
>>> layouts.
>>>
>>> It was to produce readable web sites under a wide variety of
>>> conditions, and to encourage sites that could be understood by
>>> those who had to rely on hearing alone.
>>
>> And they sure screwed that up by making the cardinal sin of merging
>> style and content.
>>
>>>
>>> The rest of your quotes were simply opinions, and opinions that do
>>> not take into account the needs of all people.
>>
>> Opinions based on practical experience. Have a play with firebug next
>> time you are browsing a good site.
>>
>>>
>>>> For Peter to say it is "extremely bad web design" is just silly...
>>>
>>> He exaggerates. However, fixed width web sites are gauche and
>>> impolite.
>>
>> And very common because they work. I agree the theory of them sucks.
>
> I do not think the theory sucks... they are practical in that they
> allow for keeping column widths a reasonable length and ease reading.
> Sure, something like the program "Tofu" would be better - where you
> can have "intelligent" column wrapping. I suspect web design
> technology will get their some day - but given the technology as it
> is now they are fine.
Who cares what you "think", gluey?
--
"Apple is pu****ng how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
|
