Re: [WSG] Site review - alachua co library
Just a quick thank you to everyone who replied, it's been a *huge* help. I'm carefully going over the site with your comments in mind and making many changes based upon them. I'm still very busy, but as soon as things slow down I'll try to respond in detail - meanwhile I'll just say that if there were no glaring errors, that is in large part due to the invaluable tips and hints I've picked up from careful daily reading of this list. Thanks! Andrew On 2008/02/25 10:31 (GMT-0500) Andrew Maben apparently typed: I'm almost done with a site redesign, and the time is right to ask for your opinions: http://beta.www.aclib.us for comparison, the current site is: http://www.aclib.us *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Site review - alachua co library
On 2008/02/27 18:39 (GMT+1100) John Hancock apparently typed: >> Here's a screenshot of a typical moderately high resolution >> environment: >> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-alaclib1.jpg >> and the setup source: >> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc-alaclib1.html > Just a thought, but a moderately high resolution environment to me is > a setup of over 3mpx. For instance, dual 20" TFTs, dual 19" CRT or > single 30" etc. A high resolution environment for me is about 7.5mpx. > While I'm aware that your mileage may vary, a 1680 x 1200 pixel screen > size is certainly not a standard one! I was hoping anyone who noticed that would just ignore it. I don't use flat panel displays, because they are just not suited to alternative screen resolutions desirable for thorough testing. What you see there in 1680x1200 is a virtual resolution, while the screenshot itself is exactly the fullscreen px size of typical 22" desktop displays now common in stores, and of typical 16" & 17" laptops. The actual physical resolution is UXGA 1600x1200, with an 80px wide virtual addition. On Linux, nearly any virtual resolution is possible without fancy hardware or additional software. :-) > Thus I'm really curious about > your definition of a standard one! The "standard" LCDs now commonly available at retail new are: XGA 1024x768 (4:3) (slightly low, usually 15") SXGA 1280x1024 (5:4) (standard or base, almost exclusively 17" or 19") WXGA 1280x800 (16:10) (standard or base, 11.1" to 15.4") SXGA+ 1400x1050 (4:3) (standard or base, 20") WXGA+ 1440x900 (16:10) (slightly high, 16" to 21") WSXGA+ 1680x1050 (16:10) (moderately high, 16" to 23") UXGA 1600x1200 (4:3) (high, 20" to 22") WUXGA 1920x1200 (16:10) (high, 16" to 27") Naturally the meanings vary according to whether desktop or laptop, as the average PPI for laptops is much higher than for desktops, which is why the common 120 DPI replacement for 96 DPI is provided by laptop OEMs. > The Standard Panels Working Group > (SPWG) isn't the fastest moving of organisations, admittedly, but > you'll find that they're usually ratifying 16:10 aspect ratios as > standard - something to consider when designing sites. > Additionally, those of us with extremely large working areas should > usually have a 17" TFT or lower to test on for 'the great unpixeled'. Or a large CRT and a small CRT, which can provide the utility of at least 3 LCDs - each! Most panels just don't have usable optional resolutions. -- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Site review - alachua co library
Hi Felix, Here's a screenshot of a typical moderately high resolution environment: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-alaclib1.jpg and the setup source: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc-alaclib1.html Just a thought, but a moderately high resolution environment to me is a setup of over 3mpx. For instance, dual 20" TFTs, dual 19" CRT or single 30" etc. A high resolution environment for me is about 7.5mpx. While I'm aware that your mileage may vary, a 1680 x 1200 pixel screen size is certainly not a standard one! Thus I'm really curious about your definition of a standard one! The Standard Panels Working Group (SPWG) isn't the fastest moving of organisations, admittedly, but you'll find that they're usually ratifying 16:10 aspect ratios as standard - something to consider when designing sites. Additionally, those of us with extremely large working areas should usually have a 17" TFT or lower to test on for 'the great unpixeled'. kind regards, John Hancock Identity [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +61 2 8012 0274 f: +61 2 9799 6135 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Site review - alachua co library
On 2008/02/25 10:31 (GMT-0500) Andrew Maben apparently typed: > I'm almost done with a site redesign, and the time is right to ask > for your opinions: http://beta.www.aclib.us > for comparison, the current site is: http://www.aclib.us ... > Of course accessibility is important, and this is where your insights > and criticisms can be especially helpful. > http://www.andrewmaben.net > [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's quite a bit better than its close neighbor http://www.ufl.edu/ and better in some ways than the original, but worse in others. I really don't like the artificial width constraint that the original lacks. Width should only be constrained to less than 100% of the window width to the extent wider would produce too long line lengths for comfortable reading. There's no chance of that on the new page, while quite a bit of it looks over-constrained without enlarging the text, and most of it does with text enlargement. The other problem is the same as most of the web, too much too small text. Nearly right smack dab in the middle of above the fold content is what looks like primary content, yet it's shrunken to the size of UI text, smaller than the menu text, creating the inference that it's less important than other content. Most of the text-in-image content is illegible or nearly so on median or higher resolution displays. Those using the most expensive laptops will not be pleased at the mousetype effect of africanamerican_history_onli.gif hot_topics/webfeat.jpg or the last line of acld_Logo.gif. Foreground images can and in many cases should be scaled up to match surrounding text, and these are some of those cases. At least the original is blatantly up front about enabling large enough to read text. Here's a screenshot of a typical moderately high resolution environment: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-alaclib1.jpg and the setup source: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc-alaclib1.html The main branch used to be about a 10 minute walk from where I lived. If I still lived just a bit closer I might be inclined to ride over to the main branch, find the manager, and complain about waste of money on a redesign that doesn't amount to much readily apparent improvement. Maybe its only real goal is to get people in to read printed material that doesn't suffer from the web's normally too small text, but if that's it, the address and phone number should be at least as big as it is in the phone book. :-p -- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
