Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote in message:
17OdnfKZKehkYPfVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com,

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
>> learn.
>
>
> I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?
>
> A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better
> answer.
> I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing
> matches. When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to
> contribute. Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument.
> Help me out here.

To each his own. One man's wasted space is another man's uncluttered
display.

I finally bought a monitor big enough so that I am comfortable with
multiple windows displaying at the same time and being useful in that
mode, but sometimes I just want to focus on one window without the other
distractions.
--
Red

In article <SfGdnfO9TZASZvfVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com>,
Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > I have had poor success in getting across a certain important
> > distinction. And I see from your answer that I have failed to trigger
> > it again! <g>
>
> Perhaps. Maybe I am missing something.
>
> > I would have known you were aware of my point had you said something
> > like:
> >
> > "All (many) of the fluid sites I go to are hopeless because the lines
> > of text are too long and this is clearly the fault of the designers
> > in allowing this to happen.
>
> I wouldn't say that, because I don't believe that. I find it annoying,
> but I don't fault the designer. I fault the medium.
>

OK.

<http://tinyurl.com/2jcs5r>

is fluid in that the thumbnails take up as much h space as possible
without breaking a thumbnail in half. They wrap when the h space runs
out. The v and h spaces are used to best advantage for displaying such
pics and avoiding unnecessary scrolling in the v direction.

Now imagine that in the middle of such a display I make an announcement
and I mark up something like this

<p style="width: 35em; margin: auto;">Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetuer adipiscing elit. Pellentesque augue.Suspendisse
consectetuer velit nec neque. Duis nec orci quis nulla egestas
fermentum.Ut quis eros. Aenean at augue vitae quam posuere vehicula.
Pellentesque habitantmorbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada
fames ac turpis egestas. Maecenas justonunc, porta sed, molestie eget,
adipiscing id, ante. --- sociis natoque penatibus etmagnis dis
parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Suspendisse potenti. Nunc
blanditmagna id odio sodales luctus. Nulla quam magna, viverra quis,
dignissim blandit, viverra nec, odio.</p>

where the Latin text is replaced by a critical message which is
important that you read and understand quickly. If the width was not in,
and your monitor was big, the text would be difficult to read.

It does not actually matter here whether we put in max-width or width.
The point that many do not grasp is that widthing text here does not
make the *page* a fixed-width page. Having a good fluid design does not
mean every single element must be allowed to grow as wide as the browser
allows.

Simple as this point seems, it is quite common for people who put up
straw man arguments against reasonable flexible design to omit to
mention this. They forget that it is not all or nothing on everything.


> > The fluidity of the page is not compromised by having the text
> > limited in width. But the designers of these sites are less than
> > competent and simply have not realised that the page can be usefully
> > wide (eg. pics can spread out horizontally to convenient effect
> > (easing need to scroll down) without also having to make text so
> > lengthy across. To be fair to some designers,
>
> If this is what you believe, then perhaps we both feel the same way
> about design. I'm beginning to think that you don't necessarily make a
> distinction between fixed width and fluid designs.


Not at all. The word "width" as with the word "percentage" needs a
reference to have a practical meaning. You need to distinguish between
the page or a container that represents the guts of a page (like body or
a div wrapper that holds all form lesser elements inside like
paragraphs, blockquotes, a few pictures.


> That perhaps you mean
> something different by "fluid." I have seen designs that don't recognize
> that you cannot determine the height of the text on the viewer's
> browser, but depend on fixed height divs, etc. Or use absolute
> positioning for images or paragraphs, not realizing that text won't
> necessarily wrap the same way the designer saw it on HIS screen. Is this
> what you are talking about?
>
> > You seem to me quite capable of appreciating the distinction I am
> > making. Perhaps you are seeming not to acknowledge it for special
> > reasons? I am happy to make you a page that illustrates the
> > distinction if it escapes you or anyone else.
>
> I seem to be missing something. If it isn't too much trouble...
>
> Whenever the subject of fluid design is discussed here it seem to be
> distinguished from sites that are a fixed number of pixels in width. Are
> you talking about something different?

I am talking about the relation between a site that has no fixed max
width but does have fixed max widths for some elements within. At no
stage have you made this important distinction.

--
dorayme

In article <17OdnfKZKehkYPfVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > You're hopeless. And beyond dumb, because you don't even want to
> > learn.
>
>
> I asked an honest question. If you won't answer it, how will I learn?
>
> A man resorts to ad hominem arguments when he hasn't got a better answer.
>
> I am really not interested in getting into one of your pissing matches.
> When you are not in one of your moods, you have a lot to contribute.
> Honestly, I don't understand the "wasted space" argument. Help me out here.

I beg you Scott! Don't! This man is a complete idiot and unworthy of
your tolerance and patience and good manners.

--
dorayme

In article <wfod5gelqy.fsf@calligramme.charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Scott Bryce <sbryce@scottbryce.com> writes:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> >> Funny you should say this, when I opened your url I happened to have
> >> my browser conveniently not too wide (under 800px) - there was much
> >> else on the screen as well. Now here is a site that has no reason
> >> whatsoever to need more width, it being all text, and yet it makes me
> >> use scrollbars or widen the window.
> >
> > And when I go to a site that has a fluid design, I have to re-size my
> > browser window to prevent the text from going ALL THE WAY across my 24
> > inch screen. I hate it when sites do that.
>
> Surely a proponent of fluid design would also be a proponent
> of CSS's max-width for text? (And want to knock IE
> implementers on the head)

Or simply a proponent of simple appropriate width in relevant text
holding elements within the design.

Em widthing of modest extent for text holding elements is usually best -
but not always essential or indeed desirable. All on its own, em
widthing has a desirable built in flexibility.

--
dorayme

On Jul 1, 8:47-pm, Scott Bryce <sbr...@scottbryce.com> wrote:
> So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
> ones you are going to break (and hopefully the site won't).

I would slightly change that to:

So the thing to do is learn all the rules, then decide which
ones you are going to break for the benefit of the site owner.

On Jul 1, 10:02-pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.net> wrote:
> > If I have a reason to need to see more than one window at a time, I will
> > resize my browser window. And I will concede that fluid designs usually
> > work best when I do.
> So you prefer?
> +----------------------------------------------------------+
> | - - - - - - - - - +--------------+ - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - | page content | - - - - -- - - - - - |
> | - - - - - - - - - +--------------+ - - - - -- - - - - - |
> +----------------------------------------------------------+

Exactly, that is what I prefer too. For just about the same
reasons.

On Jul 2, 1:50-am, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.org> wrote:
> - - body {
> - - - - max-width: 60em !important;
> - - --
>
> And there you go.

Well, it is a nice parlor trick, but it completely screws up other
sites so there really is no "one size fit's all" solution.

Oh, the site I was referring to that it screwed up was fox news.
Which I could fix with a different em setting, but then some other
site would be screwed up.

There is no winning, no matter how hard we try no one will ever be
able to view every site on the web the way they like.

On Jul 1, 10:17-pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.net> wrote:
> Make is a sensible ratio and have some other window on the desktop to do
> something else. It is like the difference of having and executive desk
> with your work laid out verses one of those school-days
> chair-'n-paddleboard desk with barely room for a book!

No, it is a preference on how someone likes to work. I have 2 huge
monitors. Each will hold a single application full screen. Doesn't
matter what the application is, browser, photoshop, premier, what
ever. The only exceptions are the calculator and notepad. I enjoy
working like this. Many people do. Not everyone wants 3 or 5, o 12
windows open on their desk top. When I open the browser, it is full
screen. I just like it that way. And because of this, I like fixed
width sites. Creating a user style sheet with max width fixes some
flexible sites for me, and breaks other sites I like, so it is not a
solution.

There are millions of us that work like this. I imagine they prefer
fixed width for the same reasons I do. There are millions that don't
work like this, I guess they prefer flexible like you do. Either way,
neither of us will ever have every site look exactly the way we like
it.

On Jul 1, 9:07-pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
> With a liquid design, if the user
> wants short lines he can reduce the width of his browser window.

Why would I want to change the size of the window of my browser to a
size I do not prefer so I enjoy your site, when I will have to change
it again (to my prefered size) when I go to a different site.

> Liquid design gives the user control of the line width. This
> is a Good Thing.

I don't find it to be a good thing. It makes more work for me.

Scott Bryce wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> And if you are designing the site, your arguments about fixed width
>> designs will always take over.
>
> That is a straw man, Jerry. I have never said in this thread that fixed
> width designs are better.
>

Horse Hockey.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================