Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> writes:

> Or are you afraid to participate because the
> results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be
> wrong?

This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go
take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right?

Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On Jun 28, 12:12-pm, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.org> wrote:
> This is the part where I'm supposed to let you push my buttons, and go
> take your survey to show I'm not afraid of the results, right?

First, it's not my survey, second I really don't care what you do.

> Sorry bub, I'm not that stupid.

I don't know you so I really can't make that call

On Jun 28, 11:48-am, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.php> wrote:
> Ditto. -Hey, maybe it's an omen. -Like we should go into business together:
> Waaijenberg and Neredbojias Widgets, Inc. -Kinda catchy.

Please, for the love of big -----, let him choose the spokes woman...

On 2008-06-28, Sherman Pendley wrote:
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
>> in your normal browser window.
>
> Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
> propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?

This is not measuring screen size or window size. It is measuring
the width of browser windows in ems. The screen or window size in
pixels is irrelevant, as is the user's font size.

While a good page may suffer somewhat when extreme sizes are used,
and should degrade gracefully when they are, pages may be
optimized for a certain range. The purpose of this survey is to
determine how wide this range should be.

In practice, I don;t think this information will make a
significant difference to the way my pages are coded.

> There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.

Agreed; and I am dealing with it.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:29 am, Sherman Pendley <spamt...@dot-app.org> wrote:
>> Why would I want to participate in a survey that does nothing but
>> propogate the myth that screen size should matter to HTML authors?
>
> Oh ye of such little faith. Maybe the survey will prove your point
> that there is no "standard size" and that the browser window size is
> so random that it is meaningless to try to code for it.
>
>> There is no "normal" browser window. Deal with it.
>
> And if you participate in the survey I believe you may help to prove
> that once and for all. Or are you afraid to participate because the
> results might show there are some "normal" sizes and you might be
> wrong?
>
>

Not at all. Such a survey is pointless. Those who have been around for
a while have learned that. Newbies need to be taught it over and over
again.

Design the page correctly and the content adjusts itself to any window
size within reason.

I'm not afraid to participate. It's just now worth my time. But you
are tacky and manipulative for even suggesting such a thing.

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

On 2008-06-28, Andrew Heenan wrote:
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote ...
>> I have posted a quick survey at
>> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.
>> There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
>> in your normal browser window.
>
> Nice idea ... a one man campaign to banish the horizontal scroll?

Nope. To eliminate horizontal scroll, you do not specify any
widths.

This is to get a better idea of what the typical viewer will see.

For example, I am designing a page with three columns of text. In
my typical window, the columns are narrower than I like. They are
still very readable, but I prefer to have more text. If I find
that most people will see even less than I do, I may rethink the
page; if the majority see more than I do, I'll leave it.

> Do let ut have the 'final' results,

There is a running total at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.cgi>.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

On 28 Jun 2008, Travis Newbury <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 28, 11:48-am, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
> fliam.php> wrote:
>> Ditto. -Hey, maybe it's an omen. -Like we should go into business tog
> ether:
>> Waaijenberg and Neredbojias Widgets, Inc. -Kinda catchy.
>
> Please, for the love of big -----, let him choose the spokes woman...

Ah, but is there anything so endearing to a man as the budding young nips
of a febrile, fledgling female filled with desire yet concerned by the mode
of its consummation, shy but nascently needy and destined to nevertheless
take that "next step" along the road to womanhood regardless of personal
consequences? Except a good beer, of course.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

On Jun 28, 4:01-pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
> > width. -Both are equally correct based on the website.
> Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. -Professionals design sites
> which resize themselves.

Yea, those ---- highly paid amateurs...

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:01 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Well that is one way to design,the other is to have it be fixed
>>> width. Both are equally correct based on the website.
>> Yep, amateurs design fixed width sites. Professionals design sites
>> which resize themselves.
>
> Yea, those ---- highly paid amateurs...

Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients
they are "professionals".

Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you
"professional". It just means you got paid.

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

On Jun 28, 5:05-pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Yep, those amateurs who are screwing their clients, telling the clients
> they are "professionals".
> Just because you can find some sucker to pay you doesn't make you
> "professional". -It just means you got paid.

Yea, suck doesn't it...