E
Els
McKirahan said:nice.guy.nige said:
Which god; my God starts with a capital G.
Mine too, but He wouldn't kill a kitten over a piece of
JavaScript ;-)
Mine too, but He wouldn't kill a kitten over a piece of
JavaScript ;-)
N
nice.guy.nige
While the city slept, Randy Webb ([email protected]) feverishly
typed...
He moves in mysterious ways! ;-)
Cheers,
Nige
typed...
He moves in mysterious ways! ;-)
Cheers,
Nige
M
Mark Parnell
Ditto. To both.
S
Sam Hughes
Els said:McKirahan said:nice.guy.nige said:
Which god; my God starts with a capital G.
Mine too, but He wouldn't kill a kitten over a piece of
JavaScript ;-)
My goddess of Javascript would. The god of jscript might not notice. Then
again, the Godglomerate of all scripts would vote to have constantly
copied-and-overwritten kittens written in Perl, just to keep up with
society.
R
rf
Els wrote
[gods]
Mine has disabled resizeTo. The universe is big enough already.
[gods]
Mine has disabled resizeTo. The universe is big enough already.
W
WebcastMaker
And that is a bad thing because....
D
Dylan Parry
Spake WebcastMaker unto thee:
because he should be killing a FrontPage user
because he should be killing a FrontPage user
N
Neal
My god is mightier than your god!
/conan
E
Els
rf said:
LOL!!
E
Els
Dylan said:Spake WebcastMaker unto thee:
because he should be killing a FrontPage user
<g>
S
Sentient Fluid
McKirahan said:
Which god; my God starts with a capital G.
So does my name!
Coincidence? I think not!
S
Sentient Fluid
Karl said:
When you design something to be used by potentially billions of people,
you sometimes need to do things that some of those billions won't like.
"You can't please all of the people all of the time." Or even some of
the time, for that matter.
Besides, you're also assuming the poster wants to use it in a way that
annoys the user. What if the link leading to the page has test to
explain it's opening an 200x300 image, for example, in a new smaller
window? Then the user has a *choice* on whether to open it or not.
Clicking the link is the same as giving permission to resize the new
window. Therefore your "It might be your website, but it is their
computer" comment is satisfied...
~Senti
M
Michael Winter
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:28:10 -0600, Sentient Fluid
[snip]
Only the pathetic want to annoy the user intentionally, but plenty do it
by accident.
The word, "test", really confuses the meaning of that sentence. However,
it's irrelevant.
The user already has a choice. Opera and the Gecko family allow middle
clicking to open a link in a new window. Even IE users can do it through
the use of shift-clicking. There are also keyboard equivalents, if needed.
But, when the author starts imposing his or her misguided will on
visitors, their choices change:
1) Put up with pop-ups.
2) Disable Javascript and reload the page. Hopefully, the author didn't
make the page Javascript dependent.
3) Leave.
I invariably choose the latter, unless the content really interests me. I
don't I'll be alone in that decision.
[snip]
Mike
[snip]
Only the pathetic want to annoy the user intentionally, but plenty do it
by accident.
The word, "test", really confuses the meaning of that sentence. However,
it's irrelevant.
The user already has a choice. Opera and the Gecko family allow middle
clicking to open a link in a new window. Even IE users can do it through
the use of shift-clicking. There are also keyboard equivalents, if needed.
But, when the author starts imposing his or her misguided will on
visitors, their choices change:
1) Put up with pop-ups.
2) Disable Javascript and reload the page. Hopefully, the author didn't
make the page Javascript dependent.
3) Leave.
I invariably choose the latter, unless the content really interests me. I
don't I'll be alone in that decision.
[snip]
Mike
J
Jan Clemens Faerber
alt.comp.lang.javascript
a real cross over
a real cross over
D
DU
Karl said:
I would not go that far. It now has become rather well known that
non-MSIE browsers can neutralize easily such trick.
What is and was important to tell the OP was the importance to make his
webpage content scalable, adaptable to any kind of visual web-aware
application, including mobile/SSR devices.
I wouldn't pounce on the fact that info was given but rather the
benefits (for visitors and ultimately for the web master) of thinking
radically otherwise this issue.
DU
M
ME
I always start a new page and insert a 75% width table, aligned to center.
I then insert a 100% table with 2 columns (right margin) and a few rows,
into that one.
This is exactly how YAHOO and GOOGLE's pages Load, like they'll fit anything
they encounter. I will never go back to all of that "detect browser/detect
resolution crap. Thank God for % width tables.
Hope This Helps
W.H. Olives
I then insert a 100% table with 2 columns (right margin) and a few rows,
into that one.
This is exactly how YAHOO and GOOGLE's pages Load, like they'll fit anything
they encounter. I will never go back to all of that "detect browser/detect
resolution crap. Thank God for % width tables.
Hope This Helps
W.H. Olives
G
Grant Wagner
Many would argue against the use of <table> for layout control. However, in the
absense of a reliable mechanism to achieve the variety of layout that can be
achieved using <table> across all browsers, I will continue using <table>.
Certainly there will be a number of browsers which will not render the resulting
HTML correctly, but that list of browsers will almost certainly be smaller than,
and a subset of, browsers which would not understand a CSS-controlled site.
It can be argued that using CSS would result in content that will be readable in
almost all browsers in the absense of CSS, such that Netscape 4 and lynx would
get a series of <div> elements laid out one below the other. However, I would
rather not sacrifice the layout of the page in Netscape 4 in order to support
lynx or other browsers which may not render a <table> site correctly. So yes, I
would rather my sites render correctly for the 1%[1] of people still using
Netscape 4 than for the 0.01%[1] of people using lynx.
I have a pretty firm grasp of the audience using the sites I work on, and that
audience does not include people who would even be aware of the existance of
lynx, let alone how to use it. It also does not include people using portable
devices.
But honestly, if someone is browsing a site using a portable device like a
phone, I don't think it much matters if you use:
<table width="100%">
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
</table>
or
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:0px;width:33%;>...</div>
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:34%;width:33%;>...</div>
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:67%;width:33%;>...</div>
They are unlikely to get anything approaching usability on most modern Web
sites. I was recently forced to work on a laptop with a 640 x 480 display. I can
not tell you how hostile most sites I visited were to that particular
resolution, let alone something smaller that you might find on a portable
device.
[1] other meaningless statistics may be inserted here
absense of a reliable mechanism to achieve the variety of layout that can be
achieved using <table> across all browsers, I will continue using <table>.
Certainly there will be a number of browsers which will not render the resulting
HTML correctly, but that list of browsers will almost certainly be smaller than,
and a subset of, browsers which would not understand a CSS-controlled site.
It can be argued that using CSS would result in content that will be readable in
almost all browsers in the absense of CSS, such that Netscape 4 and lynx would
get a series of <div> elements laid out one below the other. However, I would
rather not sacrifice the layout of the page in Netscape 4 in order to support
lynx or other browsers which may not render a <table> site correctly. So yes, I
would rather my sites render correctly for the 1%[1] of people still using
Netscape 4 than for the 0.01%[1] of people using lynx.
I have a pretty firm grasp of the audience using the sites I work on, and that
audience does not include people who would even be aware of the existance of
lynx, let alone how to use it. It also does not include people using portable
devices.
But honestly, if someone is browsing a site using a portable device like a
phone, I don't think it much matters if you use:
<table width="100%">
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
<tr><td width="33%">...</td></tr>
</table>
or
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:0px;width:33%;>...</div>
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:34%;width:33%;>...</div>
<div style="position:absolute;top:0px;left:67%;width:33%;>...</div>
They are unlikely to get anything approaching usability on most modern Web
sites. I was recently forced to work on a laptop with a 640 x 480 display. I can
not tell you how hostile most sites I visited were to that particular
resolution, let alone something smaller that you might find on a portable
device.
[1] other meaningless statistics may be inserted here
Sorry, you're all probably going to hate me.....
I know just how annoying some web authoring trends can be. I detest pop-ups, am not a fan of heavy frame usage and when my internet banking resizes the browser to full screen I want to scream.....
but....
In the e-Learning industry, we sometimes need to (as directed by legislation) have things accessible in a certain way. We (sadly)(sometimes) have to use pop-ups and browser re-sizing techniques when making courses and training packages. The learning management system (LMS)(i.e Blackboard, Moodle, Janison) usually takes up a fair proportion of the screen, the course then sits within this (in a frame) (sorry to use bad language here!). In order for people to see feedback for items on a page or sometimes due to a particular activity we need to have an image or a glossary term appear in a small browser window. It is sadly necessary to work this way as the LMS is usually a restrictive environment to author/develop for (i.e. it might need to progress through a series of pages whilst tracking a users' responses to activities etc) meaning we can't design pages except how we're told.
If I'm designing web pages for (non-educational) clients or myself, pop-ups and resizing are a no-no! I have used a frame once on an image gallery on my personal site (as a navigation device) and used scripts on the rest of my pages to bust back out of the frame once exiting the page. I don't think using frames this way is a crime, only if the entire site or the front door is in a frame do they become really annoying.
Anyhow, that's my two cents.
I know just how annoying some web authoring trends can be. I detest pop-ups, am not a fan of heavy frame usage and when my internet banking resizes the browser to full screen I want to scream.....
but....
In the e-Learning industry, we sometimes need to (as directed by legislation) have things accessible in a certain way. We (sadly)(sometimes) have to use pop-ups and browser re-sizing techniques when making courses and training packages. The learning management system (LMS)(i.e Blackboard, Moodle, Janison) usually takes up a fair proportion of the screen, the course then sits within this (in a frame) (sorry to use bad language here!). In order for people to see feedback for items on a page or sometimes due to a particular activity we need to have an image or a glossary term appear in a small browser window. It is sadly necessary to work this way as the LMS is usually a restrictive environment to author/develop for (i.e. it might need to progress through a series of pages whilst tracking a users' responses to activities etc) meaning we can't design pages except how we're told.
If I'm designing web pages for (non-educational) clients or myself, pop-ups and resizing are a no-no! I have used a frame once on an image gallery on my personal site (as a navigation device) and used scripts on the rest of my pages to bust back out of the frame once exiting the page. I don't think using frames this way is a crime, only if the entire site or the front door is in a frame do they become really annoying.
Anyhow, that's my two cents.
It bothers me that the first 2 replies to this post were..... Why would you want to do that? What are you trying to accomplish? and a lecture on why it should not be done.
I realize that many of you experts worked very hard to obtain your knowledge and you may not believe others are priveledged to it, so why even bother commenting. There may be others others who want to help others and it is not right to try to silence them.
If there is a willingness to supply information then it would also be helpful to supply a warning on why using such tools or information could have negative consequences, but to only give the warning is unenlightening and probably serves to encourage a possible abuser to search for such methods.
I myself want to create an html page for personal use on my own computer for data examination and have the ability to adjust the size of the window automatically. I could have used a lot more of the positive comments on here rather than sorting through all of the debate that was propagated as a result of the first 2 responses.
I realize that many of you experts worked very hard to obtain your knowledge and you may not believe others are priveledged to it, so why even bother commenting. There may be others others who want to help others and it is not right to try to silence them.
If there is a willingness to supply information then it would also be helpful to supply a warning on why using such tools or information could have negative consequences, but to only give the warning is unenlightening and probably serves to encourage a possible abuser to search for such methods.
I myself want to create an html page for personal use on my own computer for data examination and have the ability to adjust the size of the window automatically. I could have used a lot more of the positive comments on here rather than sorting through all of the debate that was propagated as a result of the first 2 responses.