Guido A.J. Stevens wrote:
> Some thoughts on Kathy's swift response on an earlier statement of
> mine, took some time to ripen. Long post on technical
> vs. informational perspectives on 'graceful degradation'.
>
> "Gill, Kathy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I find I tend to design in two columns, one about 550 pixels wide and
> > > the other 250. In the wide left column all essential information is
> > > presented, the right column contains 'additional goodies'. This way,
> > > the design is optimized for 800x600 (which I'm assuming is the
> > > resolution most people use) while those with less resolution
> still get
> > > major bang for the buck.
> > >
> > I'm curious where you get this generalization -- that 800x600
> is the rez "most" people use.
> >
> > GVU stats don't back it up.
>
> Good point.
>
> > There are lots of 640x480 monitors out there -- and *if* your stuff
> > is good enough for folks to want to print offline, they're going to
> > find truncated right-hand margins at anything wider than 590.
>
> That's exactly my point. The point being that the page is deliberately
> designed to contain all essential information in the 'printable'
> 'main' 550 pix area. *But* there's some additional goodies available
> to people surfing at higher rez/screensizes.
I don't buy the "additional goodies" argument at all. I go into many offices
where people are surfing at 640x480. When they come across a site that has
to scroll right they:
1) think there's something wrong with it
2) get annoyed by having to scroll right to see the site, then back left to
see the rest
3) request a leave of absence and a bucket
...well, I must admit that item #3 is rare...
Anyway, I'm not sure what res you surf at, but let's say it's 1024 x 800 and
every once in a while you come across a site designed for 1150 wide...how
would you respond to that site? If you took it patiently, how long would you
"deal" before clicking away?
As far as "goodies" are concerned, I think it's wise to give all the goodies
to the folks who surf at 640x480, too. It seems like a respectful way to do
"business".
> Let me put it differently. I suppose we can agree, that we don't want
> nor shouldn't design different sites for different browser types? That
> is, I'm not going to build 6 versions of a site and use server side
> redirects to point people at the most appropriate design for them,
> only to find out I need a seventh version for people surfing on their
> wristwatch.
Right.
> The solution then, is the magic catchall phrase 'gracefully
> degrading'. Which, to me, means something like "looks fine in MSIE7
> and makes sense when speech synthesized". The big question, as
> somebody pointed out, is how to operationalize this noble intent
<snip>
> While adhering to HTML4 standards is a very good foundation to start
> from, it doesn't do the job on its own. We have (1) a major backward
> compatibilty and cross-compatibility problem and (2) people with
> wildly varying information needs.
<snip>
> When I'm
> surfing mobile on a Nokia Communicator, I don't even *want* the same
> information as when I'm behind my high-rez 20" workstation monitor. On
> a Nokia or Lynx screen, I want bare-bones essentials. On my
> workstation, I want a wide-angle high-density overview perspective.
>
> Lots of words to come to this question: doesn't graceful degradation
> *also* require a layered information model? A presentation with core
> informational elements being distributed to everyone, but additional
> information layers of context, explanation and diversions being
> gradually made available for more demanding (high-end high-rez)
> information users?
This seems to be exactly the issue that I've been seeing addressed in
articles about Gecko that I've read recently. The mozilla programmers seem
to be working to address that issue, much in the way you said it. I think
the concept is to separate content from layout, then allow the rendering to
take place in layers, depending on the environment. In other words, design a
"page" to layout OK on a desktop browser, but do the coding so the same
"content" can be delivered to other platforms (handhelds, cel phones, etc)
and still be usable.
I dunno, I'm just kinda rambling about this from bits and pieces I read. If
anyone can fill us/me in with more details about Gecko and the idea of a
rendering engine that separates content from layout in a "layered" way, as
Guido stated, plz feel free. I can see myself designing for handhelds in the
very near future...I'll bet many of us will, as those devices become even
more common...and it'd be great to do a "global" design that would shrink to
fit...
> And how does this relate to the cross-compatibility issue? Maybe XML
> is a great way to realize layered complexity, but it's not backwardly
> compatible, or is it?
My suspicion (but I haven't tinkered) is that XML is not backwardly
compatible, because XML is/will be used to contain and structure
data/content. Can anyone confirm?
> How do we strike a balance?
Good questions, Guido.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
