Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
yes I know that But you are not getting it, which is fine, you don't have too, I do. We know some or a lot of people it wont fit which is a given. But your option is to make them page scroll and mine is to window scroll so that they DON'T have to scroll all the way up to use the menu. Does that make sense too you? Ok like on your http://cheeaun.phoenity.com/weblog/ if i am using that site and am going through the about section and i read all the way to the bottom of the page and I decide to go to a different page I have to up scroll how many hundreds if not thousands of lines to do that??? Really, it's quite annoying and thats what we DIDNT want on this site, you can stay put and scrool and have immediate access to the menu without adding additional menus or floating annoying menus. anyways, im heading to bed and im sure people are sick of this threadFrom: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:08 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600screen resolution != viewport sizethis is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to youthat my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger thanthat, however my viewport size is 1257 x 536.1257 x 536 -- notice the number less than 600If you would explain that to your client maybe they would realize themistake being made.once again, screen resolution != viewport size.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
So you hit CTRL and HOME for the top or CTRL and END for the bottom of a page. And yes, lots of people do know that. Simple, Josh. Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. "So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute." Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertical scroller because I havent resized the flash form on that 1 FRICKIN page, so there is a scroll bar, geezo From: Gunlaug Srtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemscsslist wrote: and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in orderto get to the content. Cute.Seriously, what windows/screens is that design meant to fit on? Georg-- http://www.gunlaug.no**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
csslist wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute. Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertical scroller because I havent resized the flash form on that 1 FRICKIN page, so there is a scroll bar, geezo Personal insults are not necessary. Gunlaug is correct. At 800x600 you have to scroll vertically and horizontally to even see the whole of your main content div. This is an EXACT 800x600 px screenshot without taking in to account other native elements that will be below / to the site of the browser window: http://gr0w.com/test/img/800x600.jpg (115.84 KB). Even if, as you state, the site is designed to fit within 800x600 screen resolution, it won't. Not only that but every empty href you have will be a dead link with javascript turned off. That's potentially about 10% of your audience. There are simple ways to have them degrade gracefully. Some people are taking the time to make suggestions. Granted you asked about a specific issue however, if you don't like what they have to say feel free to ignore it rather than acting like a child and spitting your dummy out at the list. Nothing that anyone has said so far would stop your client getting more business. In fact, it would do the opposite by making the site better. Perhaps part of all of our jobs is doing what we're asked by clients, but perhaps part of it is advising our clients when what they want is a hindrance to their business. In any event, by reacting so ungraciously to input, I doubt it will encourage further assistance with your problem. Jon Tan www.gr0w.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
On 11/25/05, csslist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport: http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpg Notice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600. My laptop is a 15 widescreen. The default resolution for readable text is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar, address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at the bottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts for the 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity of browser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) as well as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standard displays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going to work. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit the design, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then this isn't the list for you. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
"I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content."gee, really??? now wayyy!!! I don't recall asking you for your opinon on it and I didn't ask for a site check and unless you are paying the bill for the site then I will listen to the people that are. "Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do?" Because they didnt frickin want that, we didnt want that type of design (which btw~ was the first one i did). We didn't want long scrolling pages, they wanted scrolling within the screen size, is that ok with you master? "The page does not fit within my browser." Well its the way they wanted it too fit, is that ok with you or should i have consulted with you first? Sorry to be an ass but I asked a question for a problem not for you to tell the people what they want. I did want to cut the bg up, i wanted to do a lot of things that i couldn't and unless you know the facts don't dictate how it "should" be done, you aren't paying for it and those "issues" have all been brought up. Your sites are a perfect example of what they didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt itI could show you a million websites with the background graphicpositioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that backgroundimage up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of thosevery popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So itis not a matter of preference.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
Actually, a workaround has been proposed for your specific problem (see earlier in the thread). If Ive read your post correctly, you have ignored common accessibility and layout standards/conventions to create a static design and then want the standards group list to help you work around the ensuing issues and then you get snotty when people point out that youre site doesnt follow standards. Are you posting to the right group?? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 25 November 2005 08:45 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content. gee, really??? now wayyy!!! I don't recall asking you for your opinon on it and I didn't ask for a site check and unless you are paying the bill for the site then I will listen to the people that are. Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do? Because they didnt frickin want that, we didnt want that type of design (which btw~ was the first one i did). We didn't want long scrolling pages, they wanted scrolling within the screen size, is that ok with you master? The page does not fit within my browser. Well its the way they wanted it too fit, is that ok with you or should i have consulted with you first? Sorry to be an ass but I asked a question for a problem not for you to tell the people what they want. I did want to cut the bg up, i wanted to do a lot of things that i couldn't and unless you know the facts don't dictate how it should be done, you aren't paying for it and those issues have all been brought up. Your sites are a perfect example of what they didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of those very popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So it is not a matter of preference. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
First of all I appriciate all help I get and I can take critizism fine when I ask for it. Ok, so if we do it your way on your browser (lets just say..) to read the page you will have to scroll the screen down and so when you want a new link you will have to scroll all the way back up to do it, where as how it is now you can scroll the content and when ready to go to new link you simply move the mouse over a tad and there you are, I'm sorry but I agree with them and think that is a much better solution than an entire page scroll, especially for their target audience. And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600 so we made it to fit their needs to what their expectations are and we wanted to get away from the way their current site is (which is kinda like yours) where everything is shoved over to the left so on bigger browsers it only takes up half the screen which is fine but at least center the damn thing. And if 6 months from now their stats change and we need to do a new layout then big deal we do a new layout. Again I don't mean to be a jerk but I asked a ? to a menu problem, if I woulda asked you for a site check then your responce would have been warranted but I didn't. You need to make a site to the requirements of the audience not your personal preference. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:31 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsOn 11/25/05, csslist wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine.This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport:http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpgNotice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600.My laptop is a 15" widescreen. The default resolution for readabletext is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar,address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at thebottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts forthe 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity ofbrowser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) aswell as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standarddisplays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going towork. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit thedesign, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then thisisn't the list for you.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there is nothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If the client wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Just keep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-size large on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won't care. So I say just leave it like it is. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
csslist wrote: and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute. Seriously, what windows/screens is that design meant to fit on? Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
Then I appologize Christian, This is due like today and I'm really growchy but it's what they want and if it needs changed then we change it. I was opposed to the idea just like you are now but it's grown on me and I kinda like it. But you gotta remember we are targettting their main audience which is on 800 x 600. I have a pc xp (puke) set up here set to the specs they gave me, 800 x 600, ie6, ff with med to large fonts and actually it looks pretty good on it. This is the one i did before this one http://www.elkhornflyrods.com/store/index.cfm As you can see (well its not perfect css by any means, had a 2 week deadline) but I took 1 image cut it into 3 parts (header, body, footer) actually u can see my gradiant mistake lol and the header randomly rotates but thats just not how this one wanted it. So I know what you are saying but its just not happening on this one. I wish the menu section was a bit wide but there is no time right now to do it as there are 2 sites due and both have same layout with diff color schemes. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:39 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer?You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there isnothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If theclient wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Justkeep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-sizelarge on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won'tcare. So I say just leave it like it is.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of those very popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So it is not a matter of preference. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
I could have sworn I got all these e-mails last night, what's going on?!? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
On Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:53 PM, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could have sworn I got all these e-mails last night, what's going on?!? Ditto. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. "So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute." Ok smart ass, thats 1 page that has a vertical scroller because I havent resized the flash form on that 1 FRICKIN page, so there is a scroll bar, geezo From: Gunlaug Srtun [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemscsslist wrote: and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in orderto get to the content. Cute.Seriously, what windows/screens is that design meant to fit on? Georg-- http://www.gunlaug.no**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
"I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content."gee, really??? now wayyy!!! I don't recall asking you for your opinon on it and I didn't ask for a site check and unless you are paying the bill for the site then I will listen to the people that are. "Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do?" Because they didnt frickin want that, we didnt want that type of design (which btw~ was the first one i did). We didn't want long scrolling pages, they wanted scrolling within the screen size, is that ok with you master? "The page does not fit within my browser." Well its the way they wanted it too fit, is that ok with you or should i have consulted with you first? Sorry to be an ass but I asked a question for a problem not for you to tell the people what they want. I did want to cut the bg up, i wanted to do a lot of things that i couldn't and unless you know the facts don't dictate how it "should" be done, you aren't paying for it and those "issues" have all been brought up. Your sites are a perfect example of what they didn't want, yours may make sense to you but it doesn't mean you're right. And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 2:57 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt itI could show you a million websites with the background graphicpositioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that backgroundimage up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not.The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of thosevery popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So itis not a matter of preference.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
On 11/25/05, csslist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine. This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport: http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpg Notice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600. My laptop is a 15 widescreen. The default resolution for readable text is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar, address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at the bottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts for the 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity of browser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) as well as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standard displays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going to work. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit the design, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then this isn't the list for you. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer? You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there is nothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If the client wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Just keep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-size large on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won't care. So I say just leave it like it is. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
First of all I appriciate all help I get and I can take critizism fine when I ask for it. Ok, so if we do it your way on your browser (lets just say..) to read the page you will have to scroll the screen down and so when you want a new link you will have to scroll all the way back up to do it, where as how it is now you can scroll the content and when ready to go to new link you simply move the mouse over a tad and there you are, I'm sorry but I agree with them and think that is a much better solution than an entire page scroll, especially for their target audience. And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600 so we made it to fit their needs to what their expectations are and we wanted to get away from the way their current site is (which is kinda like yours) where everything is shoved over to the left so on bigger browsers it only takes up half the screen which is fine but at least center the damn thing. And if 6 months from now their stats change and we need to do a new layout then big deal we do a new layout. Again I don't mean to be a jerk but I asked a ? to a menu problem, if I woulda asked you for a site check then your responce would have been warranted but I didn't. You need to make a site to the requirements of the audience not your personal preference. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:31 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsOn 11/25/05, csslist wrote: its designed to fit on a 800 x 600 and it fits right down to the bottom of the scroll area, sure the bottom of the reels arent showing and thats fine.This is a 1:1 image of my browser viewport:http://space.rdpdesign.com/reels.jpgNotice the height of the viewport: 536 pixels. That's 64 pixels less than 600.My laptop is a 15" widescreen. The default resolution for readabletext is 1280 x 768 pixels. My browser has the title bar, menu bar,address bar, links bar, one toolbar, tabs, and the status bar at thebottom. Then there's the thick windows bar below it. That accounts forthe 132 pixels of lost screen estate. Considering the popularity ofbrowser toolbars and tabbed browsing (soon to be standard in IE7) aswell as the popularity of widescreen displays (and even standarddisplays at 768 pixels height), I'd say this layout isn't going towork. You can take the feedback as constructive and revisit thedesign, or you can ignore it, but if you choose to ignore it then thisisn't the list for you.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
Then I appologize Christian, This is due like today and I'm really growchy but it's what they want and if it needs changed then we change it. I was opposed to the idea just like you are now but it's grown on me and I kinda like it. But you gotta remember we are targettting their main audience which is on 800 x 600. I have a pc xp (puke) set up here set to the specs they gave me, 800 x 600, ie6, ff with med to large fonts and actually it looks pretty good on it. This is the one i did before this one http://www.elkhornflyrods.com/store/index.cfm As you can see (well its not perfect css by any means, had a 2 week deadline) but I took 1 image cut it into 3 parts (header, body, footer) actually u can see my gradiant mistake lol and the header randomly rotates but thats just not how this one wanted it. So I know what you are saying but its just not happening on this one. I wish the menu section was a bit wide but there is no time right now to do it as there are 2 sites due and both have same layout with diff color schemes. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:39 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And yet you have offered nothing yet to help with the question, so why answer?You misunderstand. My reason for telling you this is that there isnothing you can do about your problem with the current layout. If theclient wants it that way, then that's fine, no need to argue. Justkeep in mind that the number of users that are going to use text-sizelarge on the page is about 1 in a thousand, and they probably won'tcare. So I say just leave it like it is.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600 screen resolution != viewport size this is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to you that my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger than that, however my viewport size is 1257 x 536. 1257 x 536 -- notice the number less than 600 If you would explain that to your client maybe they would realize the mistake being made. once again, screen resolution != viewport size. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
yes I know that But you are not getting it, which is fine, you don't have too, I do. We know some or a lot of people it wont fit which is a given. But your option is to make them page scroll and mine is to window scroll so that they DON'T have to scroll all the way up to use the menu. Does that make sense too you? Ok like on your http://cheeaun.phoenity.com/weblog/ if i am using that site and am going through the about section and i read all the way to the bottom of the page and I decide to go to a different page I have to up scroll how many hundreds if not thousands of lines to do that??? Really, it's quite annoying and thats what we DIDNT want on this site, you can stay put and scrool and have immediate access to the menu without adding additional menus or floating annoying menus. anyways, im heading to bed and im sure people are sick of this threadFrom: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:08 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems And too add to that, their stats say well over 90% of their web site users are using a screen resolution of 800 x 600screen resolution != viewport sizethis is a common mistake among developers. I just explained to youthat my screen resolution is 1280 x 768 which is much bigger thanthat, however my viewport size is 1257 x 536.1257 x 536 -- notice the number less than 600If you would explain that to your client maybe they would realize themistake being made.once again, screen resolution != viewport size.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
[WSG] menu suggestions and problems
look at my menu http://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfm which is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large then thereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflow it adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing. Anyone have any good suggestions for this? tia dave
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
To make the site truly fluid you'll need to use relative size units (em, %) in place of pixels. This will ensure that container elements change size in proportion to the font contained therein. Regards Scott Swabey Lafinboy Productions www.lafinboy.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005 10:51 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems look at my menu http://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfm which is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large then thereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflow it adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing. Anyone have any good suggestions for this? tia dave ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
Could you use the Javascript getComputedStyle() function on an interval loop to test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu's class could be changed to one with overflow:scroll. (Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820) Also if you define you DL height in EM (or not at all) then when the text-size is increased, the background will scale to fit. Stephen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 24 November 2005 23:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems look at my menu http://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfm which is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large then thereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflow it adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing. Anyone have any good suggestions for this? tia dave ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
I dont know, not sure how to do that but I will look it up. I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg thanksFrom: "Stephen Stagg" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsCould you use the _javascript_ getComputedStyle() function on an interval loopto test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu'sclass could be changed to one with overflow:scroll. (Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820)Also if you define you DL height in EM (or not at all) then when thetext-size is increased, the background will scale to fit.StephenFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of csslistSent: 24 November 2005 23:51To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemslook at my menuhttp://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfmwhich is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large thenthereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflowit adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing.Anyone have any good suggestions for this?tiadave**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
The site isn't truely fluid as it uses a one piece bgFrom: "Scott Swabey - Lafinboy Productions" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsTo make the site truly fluid you'll need to use relative size units (em, %)in place of pixels. This will ensure that container elements change size inproportion to the font contained therein.RegardsScott SwabeyLafinboy Productionswww.lafinboy.com-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of csslistSent: Friday, 25 November 2005 10:51 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemslook at my menuhttp://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfmwhich is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large thenthereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflowit adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing.Anyone have any good suggestions for this?tiadave**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
Sorry I wasnt clear on the second point. The Menu-Item borders produce the bevelled effect on the menu I believe. Because you have specified a height AND line-height of 20px, the borders are always 20px apart. If the List item height were either auto or specified in EM (say 1.3EM), the menu would look better at different text-sizes because the menu-item borders would fit better. Stephen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 25 November 2005 00:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems I dont know, not sure how to do that but I will look it up. I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg thanks From: Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems Could you use the _javascript_ getComputedStyle() function on an interval loop to test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu's class could be changed to one with overflow:scroll. (Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820) Also if you define you DL height in EM (or not at all) then when the text-size is increased, the background will scale to fit. Stephen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 24 November 2005 23:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems look at my menu http://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfm which is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large then thereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflow it adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing. Anyone have any good suggestions for this? tia dave ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
but if you do that it still gets screwed up What i did was just set the font size in pints for the menu and it seems too work across the board better then anything elseFrom: "Stephen Stagg" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:05 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems Sorry I wasnt clear on the second point. The Menu-Item borders produce the bevelled effect on the menu I believe. Because you have specified a height AND line-height of 20px, the borders are always 20px apart. If the List item height were either auto or specified in EM (say 1.3EM), the menu would look better at different text-sizes because the menu-item borders would fit better. Stephen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 25 November 2005 00:50 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems I dont know, not sure how to do that but I will look it up. I cant scale the bg to fit because its a one piece fixed size bg thanksFrom: "Stephen Stagg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems Could you use the _javascript_ getComputedStyle() function on an interval loop to test for Text-size and if the Text size was too great then the Menu's class could be changed to one with overflow:scroll. (Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wdf-dom/message/3820) Also if you define you DL height in EM (or not at all) then when the text-size is increased, the background will scale to fit. Stephen From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of csslist Sent: 24 November 2005 23:51 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems look at my menu http://65.36.226.10/content/catalog.cfm which is fine until you increase the browsers text size to large then thereare some problems such as overflowing and such and if you use overflow it adds scrollbars even when it's technically not overflowing. Anyone have any good suggestions for this? tia dave ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
This website has too many things defined in absolute sizes to be robust for font resizing. What you should do is take the overflow:auto out of the left container altogether and let it flow down as far as the content. Then when you increase text size everything flows together and it looks fine. Besides the only thing the overflow:auto does for me is give me two scrollbars to use on the site rather than one. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:27 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problemsThis website has too many things defined in absolute sizes to berobust for font resizing. What you should do is take the overflow:autoout of the left container altogether and let it flow down as far asthe content. Then when you increase text size everything flowstogether and it looks fine. Besides the only thing the overflow:autodoes for me is give me two scrollbars to use on the site rather thanone.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
and if you take the overflow out the content just flows right on out over the bg and right down the page that would beautiful wouldnt it I could show you a million websites with the background graphic positioned at the bottom of the content. Why not split that background image up and do like the rest of them do? and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. The page does not fit within my browser. And I'm using one of those very popular widescreen laptops that is very short vertically. So it is not a matter of preference. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] menu suggestions and problems
csslist wrote: and I know what you are saying but we didn't want the pages to be big long pages it needed to fit within the browser(and NOT scroll), so your answer would depned upon how you want the website to be, whether you like it or not. So now one has to scroll both the window and the inner element in order to get to the content. Cute. Seriously, what windows/screens is that design meant to fit on? Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
