Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
here every day and learnt most of what I know.

Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
learning more techniques.

Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
things changed?

I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
it.

Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?


--

Free washing machine help and advice.
www.washerhelp.co.uk

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

On Jan 16, 6:39 am, XyZed wrote:
> Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
just being pigheaded or ignorant.

The design of a website is unique to that website. For some website
the best thing is a fluid design, plain text and some CSS formatting.
For others it might be fixed width and lots of Flash, for others it
might be a combination. There are no "set in stone" rules for
websites.

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still holdup?

XyZed wrote:

> Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

These are still good principles in general.

> I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
> proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
> length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
> it.

You could try using CSS max-width:

BODY { max-width: 45em; }

Adjust so that the max-width is not at your ideal width, but at the widest
possible "comfortable" width.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 17 days, 44 min.]

Gnocchi all'Amatriciana al Forno
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/15/gnocchi-allamatrici ana/

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still holdup?

XyZed wrote:
>
> I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
> proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
> length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
> it.

If the user doesn't like it that way, why does he have his browser
maximized to fill the entire screen?

> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?
>
>

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

XyZed wrote:
> I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
> here every day and learnt most of what I know.
>
> Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
> of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
> html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
> learning more techniques.
>
> Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.

Still a good principle, if done correctly can make maintenance a snap.
>
> My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
> things changed?
>
> I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
> proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
> length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
> it.
>
> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?
>

A liquid site does make it easier to read in various viewports without
have to scroll left to right (okay for books, a bad thing for computers
and PDA's) But I would say you are making a fundamental mistake

Browser Viewport != Display Size.

Don't assume that if one had a widescreen display that they have their
Browser maximize. I would hypothesize that the larger the display size
the less likely the browser is maximized. I rarely have mine maximized,
I use the extra space for other apps...multitasking. It is like the
difference of have a full 6-foot desk or just one of those school
chair-with-attached-paddle thingies.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

On 16 Jan, 16:14, richard wrote:

> Make up a division as a container for the entire page and put a border
> around it. Then center the page.

Automatic centring looks particularly bad when displayed on a twin-
screen display.

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

richard wrote:

> So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
> possible?

Not as hard as you make is seem, but with your mindset illustrated by
your posts enlightenment would be wasted.

> Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?
> Bullshit.

Not my preference, but more and more folks are sold on Job's gadget.

> Not to mention each and every browser?
> Bullshit.

Not everyone has IE.

> Excuse me sir, if the viewer has browser set to say 400x320 and my
> page is 3 times that, that's his problem, not mine.
> That's why browsers are flexible.
> Or should be.

The point is that if your page can wrap the content, especially when
textual to accommodate the width then it is easier to read on displayed
devices. Electronic reading ergonomically prefers vertical scrolling as
opposed to horizontal. Form follows function. Newspapers are the size
they are because it is the maximum size of paper that an average person
can uncomfortably hold up and with outstretched arms turn a page. Making
it smaller cost more in fabrication, increasing the size makes it
uncomfortable to handle. Web media is has different physical constraints
and by the nature of how it is used, vertical scrolling is preferred
over horizontal.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

On 2008-01-16, richard wrote:
....
> So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
> possible?

Browsers do that automatically. If your page doesn't adjust to fit
the browser window, it's because you have done something to
prevent it.

> Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?

Even cell phones and PDAs.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still holdup?

richard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:19:51 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>
>> XyZed wrote:
>>> I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
>>> here every day and learnt most of what I know.
>>>
>>> Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
>>> of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
>>> html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
>>> learning more techniques.
>>>
>>> Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
>>> site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.
>> Still a good principle, if done correctly can make maintenance a snap.
>>> My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
>>> things changed?
>>>
>>> I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
>>> proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
>>> length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
>>> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?
>>>
>> A liquid site does make it easier to read in various viewports without
>> have to scroll left to right (okay for books, a bad thing for computers
>> and PDA's) But I would say you are making a fundamental mistake
>>
>> Browser Viewport != Display Size.
>>
>> Don't assume that if one had a widescreen display that they have their
>> Browser maximize. I would hypothesize that the larger the display size
>> the less likely the browser is maximized. I rarely have mine maximized,
>> I use the extra space for other apps...multitasking. It is like the
>> difference of have a full 6-foot desk or just one of those school
>> chair-with-attached-paddle thingies.
>
> So I have to adjust my site to suit each and every browser setting
> possible?
> Not to mention cell phones and PDA's?
> Bullshit.
> Not to mention each and every browser?
> Bullshit.
> Excuse me sir, if the viewer has browser set to say 400x320 and my
> page is 3 times that, that's his problem, not mine.

It's his problem if he gets fed up using your site so he moves on to a
competing site that works happily on his platform?

> That's why browsers are flexible.
> Or should be.

A cell phone should be able to morph into a 15" display?

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article
<93818ae3-ca31-4d65-949a-6f8b4e58ab56@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 16 Jan, 16:14, richard wrote:
>
> > Make up a division as a container for the entire page and put a border
> > around it. Then center the page.
>
> Automatic centring looks particularly bad when displayed on a twin-
> screen display.

I have been meaning to get around to removing the right and left
mounting strips of my left and right LCD screens and looking for
that tube of clear resin glue I have somewhere...

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article <8oqro396d20dbh3b9pdpj0g4gc4h307pa6@4ax.com>,
XyZed wrote:

> I started my site about 8 years ago and for a couple of years I came
> here every day and learnt most of what I know.
>
> Eventually I stopped coming because although I only learnt a fraction
> of what there is to learn I settled for making my sites using simple
> html and css so eventually concentrated on adding content rather than
> learning more techniques.
>
> Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.
>
> My question is, does that hold as true today as it did then or have
> things changed?
>
> I particularly have a worry about my 100% width because of the
> proliferation of wide screen monitors. My site takes up the entire
> length of large wide screens and the text stretches al the way across
> it.
>
> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?

Who gave you permission to leave? How dare you try to concentrate
on content? That will teach you. 8 years! Do you really suppose
that you can get away with truancy like this scot-free?

It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article
<2662527f-4d74-4b08-9076-5081daff9208@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.co
m>,
Travis Newbury wrote:

> On Jan 16, 6:39 am, XyZed wrote:
> > Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> > site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.
>
> It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
> BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
> you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
> just being pigheaded or ignorant.
>
O well, here goes: always use a title, always put a doctype,don't
make the font-size so small that only very few people can read
it, ...
>
> The design of a website is unique to that website.
>
.... to the point where two websites differed by a mere full stop.
>

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article
,
dorayme wrote:

> In article
> <2662527f-4d74-4b08-9076-5081daff9208@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.co
> m>,
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 6:39 am, XyZed wrote:
> > > Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> > > site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.
> >
> > It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
> > BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
> > you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
> > just being pigheaded or ignorant.
> >
> O well, here goes: always use a title, always put a doctype,don't
> make the font-size so small that only very few people can read
> it, ...

These are reasonable rules. It's when they say "never use tables or
frames or iframes" that it becomes unreasonable.

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article
,
Tim Streater wrote:

> In article
> ,
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2662527f-4d74-4b08-9076-5081daff9208@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.co
> > m>,
> > Travis Newbury wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 16, 6:39 am, XyZed wrote:
> > > > Back in the day I was convinced by a core of purists to design a fluid
> > > > site that worked on all formats and used only css for styling.
> > >
> > > It wasn't true back then, and it isn't true today. There is NO
> > > BLANKET RULES for how a website should be built or the technologies
> > > you should use to build it. If anyone tells you different they are
> > > just being pigheaded or ignorant.
> > >
> > O well, here goes: always use a title, always put a doctype,don't
> > make the font-size so small that only very few people can read
> > it, ...
>
> These are reasonable rules. It's when they say "never use tables or
> frames or iframes" that it becomes unreasonable.

Ah you mean to defend our Travis, Mr Motherhood, to the very end!
All reasonable rules but not unreasonable ones.

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:36:25 GMT
dorayme scribed:

> In article <8oqro396d20dbh3b9pdpj0g4gc4h307pa6@4ax.com>,
> XyZed wrote:

>> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
>> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?
>

> It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
> IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
> issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
> it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
> giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
> after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)

Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm claustrophobic
about girdles.)

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:36:25 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article <8oqro396d20dbh3b9pdpj0g4gc4h307pa6@4ax.com>,
> > XyZed wrote:
>
> >> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
> >> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?
> >
>
> > It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
> > IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
> > issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
> > it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
> > giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
> > after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)
>
> Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm claustrophobic
> about girdles.)

So, what are you saying? That you are fat as well as everything
else?

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

"XyZed" wrote in message
news:8oqro396d20dbh3b9pdpj0g4gc4h307pa6@4ax.com...
> Is there an accepted different technique these days to deal with wide
> screens or should a page still be set to take up the whole page?


Great question that has generated a great discussion! I feel... well,
*enlightened.*

(and I'm not being facet.. faset.. uh, I'm not kidding!)

El

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:49:55
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
>> > IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
>> > issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
>> > it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
>> > giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
>> > after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)
>>
>> Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm
>> claustrophobic about girdles.)
>
> So, what are you saying? That you are fat as well as everything
> else?

Nope. I'm 5'8" and weigh 156 lbs with my clothes on. I s'pose it could be
distributed a little better, but I don't wanna make Arne jealous. My
concern was for the real tubbos of the world who would probably welcome
some sort of constriction on their blubber productivity.

Btw, what do you mean by "...as well as everything else"? Certainly you
have noticed nothing amiss in my typically impeccable characteristics...

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

In article ,
Neredbojias wrote:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:49:55
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > It is worth using max-width (supported by most browsers including
> >> > IE7 now, but not 6). You can use it on body (there are some
> >> > issues about this), you can *make* a wrapper for the site and use
> >> > it on the wrapper, you can use it on the parts of the site by eg,
> >> > giving the content a max width in px or ems (I recommend em here)
> >> > after having given any side bars widths (in px or ems)
> >>
> >> Yeah but too bad it don't work on the human body (and I'm
> >> claustrophobic about girdles.)
> >
> > So, what are you saying? That you are fat as well as everything
> > else?
>
> Nope. I'm 5'8"

In Witness, when John Book (Harrison Ford) first met the lovely
Rachel and her son, the boy (the "witness" to the murder) was
asked about the attackers. He pointed to Book's offsider who was
a short black detective. But he had to qualify and mumbled
something about him not being "stumpi".

"Stumpi?" queried Book. Rachel, the boy's Amish mother, explained
about a piglet in a litter being born a runt... At which, John
Book stood up (he had been kneeling to talk to the boy), and said
with a proud smile, "You mean, he was a big guy like me!". "Yes",
said the boy enthusiastically, "Big guy!". It is hard to describe
the eyes of the shorter black officer at the time. But what could
he say?

>
> Btw, what do you mean by "...as well as everything else"? Certainly you
> have noticed nothing amiss in my typically impeccable characteristics...

What do you mean btw, that was the main point of my post. I am
sorry, Boji, but I have to be very cruel to you in words because
Officer White (ha!) is on holiday and will not be back to
administer his usual beating of you till Feb (not that it does
any bloody good).

--
dorayme

Re: Do all the fundamentals I learnt here 8 years ago still hold up?

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:28:47
GMT dorayme scribed:

>> > So, what are you saying? That you are fat as well as everything
>> > else?
>>
>> Nope. I'm 5'8"
>
> In Witness, when John Book (Harrison Ford) first met the lovely
> Rachel and her son, the boy (the "witness" to the murder) was
> asked about the attackers. He pointed to Book's offsider who was
> a short black detective. But he had to qualify and mumbled
> something about him not being "stumpi".
>
> "Stumpi?" queried Book. Rachel, the boy's Amish mother, explained
> about a piglet in a litter being born a runt... At which, John
> Book stood up (he had been kneeling to talk to the boy), and said
> with a proud smile, "You mean, he was a big guy like me!". "Yes",
> said the boy enthusiastically, "Big guy!". It is hard to describe
> the eyes of the shorter black officer at the time. But what could
> he say?

"Yo' mama!"...?

>> Btw, what do you mean by "...as well as everything else"? Certainly
>> you have noticed nothing amiss in my typically impeccable
>> characteristics...
>
> What do you mean btw, that was the main point of my post. I am
> sorry, Boji, but I have to be very cruel to you in words because
> Officer White (ha!) is on holiday and will not be back to
> administer his usual beating of you till Feb (not that it does
> any bloody good).

Nice pun in a gruesome sort of way. However, I still find my deportment
flawless. So exactly what is it that puts a bug in your bloomers?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.