[thelist] Site check please rocky-hills.com

Christian Heilmann codepo8 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 17 12:17:11 CDT 2005


> > Felix, you've been down this road before on the CSS-D list. It is
> > great to make people aware of accessiblity and text resizing issues,
> > but using a worst case scenario screen resolution on a non-mainstream
> > operating system will result in more people getting annoyed than
> > listening to what you - and likeminded people - have to say.
> 
> People asking for site checks are as likely to be new to the forum as to
> have been down the road before, maybe more likely. That the old-timers
> don't appreciate it makes it no less important for the noobs to be aware
> of. I've taken to in most cases simply accepting the reply-to just as
> the listserv dictates. That means here you see me more because everyone
> gets my replies, while on css-d you see me less because most of my
> replies are now private.

Please do so here then, too. It is getting really tiring. And calling
people "noobs" because they have yet not come for help here is very
condescending.

In this case, the navigation not resizing without breaking apart was
the more important bug, and your post just gave a general "this sucks,
look how it looks on my machine" impression. Not helpful.
 
> That I used Linux is irrelevant. Windoze can run the exact same
> resolution I used (and sometimes higher) and similar or same DPI and UI

Hmm, I work with one Mac and 5 different PCs and none of them are
capable of 1600x without making my eyes bleed. Don't judge other
people by not thinking of your user group whilst assuming it is bigger
than everybody thinks. It is not.

[... cut off Linux evangelism ...]
> Netscape of same vintage. Using Linux also highlights the fact that not
> everyone uses doze.

So does MacOsx or text browsers on Solaris and DOS, what does that
prove? I can shoot any site with this or that setting, trying to find
a good consensus - or not styling at all - is all we can do as
developers. Have you ever had real clients or project managers
breathing down your neck for the release of a site and "make sure it
works for us and the CEO of the client's company"?
 
> The "worst-case" scenario is intended to with emphasis point out or
> remind that the web is a fluid medium, and that most ought to be
> designing for everyone (non-discriminatory as to those using high
> quality equipment and/or settings; adaptable, with em &/or percentage
> container and text sizing) rather than just for the
> lowest-common-denominator majority (discriminates against those using
> high quality equipment and/or settings; fixed ~740px wide overall with
> px or pt sized text).

Evangelism of usability is wonderful, but will give you the same
effect the chap with the bullhorn talking about Jesus has in the
street - he annoys people rather than spreading his message
(personally I consider the seller of the bullhorn an evil person).
Only by helping _step by step_ we can get more and more designers to
let go of fixed or inflexible designs. Or by creating showcases that
are successful as examples. Where is the "Devil's Details"[1] for
great usability enhancements? If you show designers a worst case
scenario they clam up and dismiss it as not a big thing.

I have no problem with pixel sized text - being a Firefox user. If a
design is fixed to 740pixels I can resize my browser window. If I am
below 800 pixels I am either used to the fact that I have to scroll or
I do it to prove a point that might not be _really_ relevant any
longer. Flexibility of designs only goes that far, we will have to
offer different style sheets - or even different content - for
different scenarios. I am not talking about resolution, OSes or
browsers - I am talking about needs. This is where Joe Clark's Zoom
layouts come in.

[1] http://www.devilsdetails.com/
-- 
Chris Heilmann 
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/  
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/


More information about the thelist mailing list