Help with website problems

[Josh]

<sigh/>

Point firefox to your site.

In the firefox menus at the top of the browser choose view>text
size>increase, or just pound on Ctrl+ a few times. This is called changing
your font size.

If *that* is what you consider to be broken with Netscape 6 then it is
because Netscape 6 has a larger default font size than the other browsers,
or somebody, sometime, has hit Ctrl+.

Thank you. That is the answer that I am looking for.

The real problem is that your design is broken. It should adapt to any font
size your viewer may choose (within reason) just as it should adapt to any
window size your viewer may choose (which it does not).

I know that it SHOULD adapt to any font size, but I don't know how to do
that. Would it help if I put all of the navigation bar rollover images into
a separate table within the main table? That way they wouldn't split?

By the way do not specify font size in pixels. This stops people using IE
from easily changing their font size and do *not* say that you don't want
them to because it breaks your design

Thanks. I will take that advice.

 

[Neal]

It is a question, see the "?", that's a
question mark, it means it is a question.

Thanks for the punctuation lesson. But it's time for your lesson in
"predicting what the poster's intentions are".

I
personally think most Web developers have little or no design skills at
all.

I happen to agree. This is something that needs to change.

With time, more graphic designers will learn the abilities and
limitations of an all CSS design and then they will start to look good
too. But until then we will continue to disagree.

Well, perhaps the designer will discover the benefits of CSS don't in any
way disturb the ability to have good graphic design and good code.

I might not be trained in graphic design, but I know well that the ability
is there.

 

[Neal]

Not trolling at all. Just stating an alternative viewpoint on the
importance of design. Sorry, I am a Graphic Artist first, Web developer
second. The last 15 year designing layout for different mediums (the
last 4 on the web) have contributed to my beliefs. I guess I think
design is more important than some of you do.

I feel design is dreadfully important. I do feel, however, that good code
does not need to be compromised to accomplish it.

I would give my left nut to have a professional knowledge of graphic
design so I could prove it. Alas, I do not. Someone will come down the
pike to prove this, however. Mark my words.

This is the kicker for me: the browser canvas is so very different from a
fixed paper size. Designing for the WWW means designing without knowledge
of the dimensions. Building a design without knowing exactly what the
proportions will be.

If your paper could be any number of inches by any number of inches, what
would you do? If your job required a design that would work on an 8 1/2 x
11 letterhead, a 3 x 5 business card, and a 20X45 poster, what would you
come up with?

 

[rf]

I know that it SHOULD adapt to any font size, but I don't know how to do
that. Would it help if I put all of the navigation bar rollover images into
a separate table within the main table? That way they wouldn't split?

Consider *why* it is breaking.

At the moment it is breaking because, as the font size gets larger, or you
get more content in that right half (the reservations thing) the table
expands. When this happens the browser likes to apportion space over those
colspanned rows, probably because the browser thinks you are using tables to
lay out tabular data.

You must stop the containers of those navigation elements from expanding.

Putting them all in a nested table is one option but a very messy one. Why
introduce yet another level of tables, and probably upset some other
browser.

Simply put all of the navigation in one table cell, in the same row as the
main content. That way it doesn't matter how tall that table cell is, the
content (the naviation *and* that animated gif) will flow together. You
might need a <br> after each navbar element.

Some will insist that you make the entire navigation into an unordered list.
I don't. You are already abusing tables for layout, using a <br> to newline
a navbar element is not such a sin

 

[Toby Inkster]

The web is way too big for the "one size fits all" philosophy I see
here a lot.

Precisely. Provide scalable fonts and don't fix design width and your site
won't be "one size fits all" anymore.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Never said it was what he said. It is a question, see the "?", that's a
question mark, it means it is a question.

I think it can reasonably be assumed that your questions where rhetorical.
Don't you?

Well we disagree, marketing, design, and the feel of a site are
important too.

The means and the ends.

Design is a useless end, but potentially a good means to an end. Design on
its own won't help you sell more widgets or provide more information on
foo.

Design as part of marketing may help you sell more widgets and provide
more information on foo, but only if you treat design as the means that it
is, and not as The Holy Grail.

If you start treating design as The Holy Grail and make compromises on the
readability of your documents then nobody will be able to see your widget
prices or read your foo info.

You will have stabbed yourself in the knee with design.

This is why every "Look at my great accessible CSS site" tend to
look exactly like every other one. Blocked text, a few pictures, 2 or 3
uneven columns. (Usually with one long thin column that contains more
text than the others.)

Which is why I created Hard Candy <URL:http://hardcandy.org/>. It may not
be the most beautiful site ever, but it is an accessible site utilising a
CSS based design and it doesn't use big, long paragraphs of text or boring
two/three column layouts (which is something that table-based designs
often use too!)

The analogy is dumb and irrelevant.

Well I don't own a gun so I couldn't use "shoot myself in the foot".

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, rf ([email protected]) feverishly typed...

Some will insist that you make the entire navigation into an
unordered list. I don't. You are already abusing tables for layout,
using a <br> to newline a navbar element is not such a sin

Oooh dear.... God is right now hovering his big squishing foot over the head
of a kitten! ;-)

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Travis Newbury]

Well, perhaps the designer will discover the benefits of CSS don't in any
way disturb the ability to have good graphic design and good code.

See this is where we disagree a little. The same design may or may not
be able to be rendered correctly with CSS. The main reason is layout,
but you (seem to, don't want to put words in your mouth) believe in a
flexible layout all the time, I don't. And depending on the site, both
opinions could cost a company visitors.

If 100 sites all offer the exact same thing. What persuades me to
bookmark one site over the other? It can only be:

1. accessibility
2. usability
3. site appeal (design)

And 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive of 3.

I might not be trained in graphic design, but I know well that the ability
is there.

If the ability is there then you can learn design. But if the ability
is not there, then no amount of books can teach you to make art

 

[Travis Newbury]

I feel design is dreadfully important. I do feel, however, that good code
does not need to be compromised to accomplish it.

I agree with your statement, but we probably disagree with what is
considered "good code"

I would give my left nut to have a professional knowledge of graphic
design so I could prove it. Alas, I do not. Someone will come down the
pike to prove this, however. Mark my words.

This is the kicker for me: the browser canvas is so very different from a
fixed paper size.

That's where you miss the point (and you will say that is where I miss
the point). Yes, it "can be different", but does not "have" to be
different.

Designing for the WWW means designing without knowledge
of the dimensions. Building a design without knowing exactly what the
proportions will be.

No, I know the exact dimensions, and the exact size of my design.
"You" may not be able to see that using your configuration (no matter if
it is your choice or not). That is part of what needs to be taken into
consideration when designing a site. Will your site accomplish its goal
better if it is viewable by all, or will it be more effective with a
less flexible design, but (possibly) more interesting to your visitors.

Accessible/usable to all does not guarantee better results. There is a
balance there. Different for every site in the world.

If your paper could be any number of inches by any number of inches, what
would you do? If your job required a design that would work on an 8 1/2 x
11 letterhead, a 3 x 5 business card, and a 20X45 poster, what would you
come up with?

Completely depends what I an trying to do. If I am displaying detailed
portraits, I would disregard the 3x5 for sure. Will that cause me to
lose a sale. It may, but I will gain more sales with the big paper than
the smaller one.

I think we should just agree we disagree about this. I am all about
accessibility, I am all about usability, but most of all, I am all about
making the site perform the way it needs to, and that is a mix of
accessibility, usability, and design. And a different mix every time.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Precisely. Provide scalable fonts and don't fix design width and your site
won't be "one size fits all" anymore.

Ok, that went over your head (probably because of my wording) It is the
flexible design, or one size fits any browser, that I was saying the web
may be too big for.

 

[Travis Newbury]

The means and the ends.

<snip>

Well we disagree.