[thelist] Layout Stability

DAVOUD TOHIDY dtohidy at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 7 07:01:24 CST 2007


 
>You failed to define "layout stability", so I simply offered a limited,generalized response to >"Would you please provide a feedback?" based upon myimpression of what I found there.
 
Well I did not fail to define the layout stability. I swear the definition is still in my portfolio :) . 
 
However any layout might fail to meet the requirements for layout stability at some point. Not that mine does not meet but as I have provided enough info about my design in my portfolio, it is designed for the rsolutions that I have tested for, locally and online by browsercam's online service not for 2048x1536 . The reason again is in my portfolio. simply, I see it as wasting time etc. BTW You failed to provide a screen capture of any problem in my layout.
 
It is not possible to design for all resolutions and browsers and platforms while acheiving to exactly same rendering results. So what all of us, including you, as designers and coders do is to reach to a point somewhere in the middle and accepting some rendering issues, such as the gap between my picture and the text at the resolution of 1280x960 and frankly, but sorry to say, that I find your comment in this regard not professional. I find it more self promotional . 
 
In the mean time If you provide a cross resolution/browser/platform solution for this, I will give you credit in my portfolio.
 
>> Exactly. This is why sizing in px fails, not only for text, but alsocontainers. Mixing px widths >>with em widths is a formula for layout breakage.e.g. 
>> http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/>>OTOH, sizing virtually everything in em is a workable solution in most cases.
 
Well, I believe sizing the body in % and the rest in ems is a workable solution in most cases. Based on this, I have used % for the body and ems for navigation elements. 
 
Yes I have mixed it with pixels only for the containers not for fonts and I have tested my layout with most of the browsers and have confirmed that there is no , as you say, "layout breakage", not even when resizing the browser's window locally and using browsercam's online service and the results are shown through a link to browsercam website in my portfolio. 
 
Therefore I have confirmed that the combination of %,em and px that I have used in my portfolio for the resolutions/browsers/platforms of my tests is a perfect solution. 
 
One more thing is that, I do take to account whatever is out there and learn from them but I do not accept any theory as a must to obey and that I should not try anything else. I do try different things and I do test them, once I confirm that the results are satisfactory, I am done and I will go for it, which I have.
 
>96% isn't 100%, and it's made worse by two things: 1-low contrast (acceptable, but low >>nevertheless ...
>>http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast), &.
>>2-the significantdifference in apparent size between my default font choice and the >>Georgiafont your CSS specifies. 96% Georgia has an apparent size of less than 85%compared >>to my larger in apparent size sans-serif default. 96% applied to thecommon 16px default gets >>you 15.36px, which all modern browsers render at15.000px, or 93.75% nominal, which is >>87.9% actual. Size is a function ofboth height and width, so the nominal CSS % size must be >>squared to get theactual % size.
 
well I do not intend to use 100% "all the time" and I guess I know that 96% isn't 100% and I do not see anything wrong with 96%.  If I agree with your calculation above,which I will need to recalculate later myself, based on the 96% you will get 13.2 px (actual) and plus two more room for increments. This is not considered as small at all. It is even a proper text size for elderly people!
 
In regards to the contrast, yes you could have provided a link for it from W3C, because the formula in juicystudio is what W3C suggests. Even though I do take that into account when designing a layout, as I have in my portfolio, However, I do not completely agree with it.
 
It is too strict and some colors fall out of the criteria , meaning that you will not be able to provide a proper contrast based on what formula asks you to, if you use some colors as background.
 
I do beleive in providing a proper contrast when designing a layout, as I have noted in my portfolio, However I do not agree with the fact that based on this strict formula , i will have to ignore using some nice colors because I will not be able to provide a proper contrast based on what the formula asks me to.  
 
However I will do my best to provide an acceptable contrast,which I have, and again I do not find your suggestion as a professional comment.  Sorry.
 
>the significantdifference in apparent size between my default font choice and the Georgiafont >>your CSS specifies. 
 
Through all the tests that I have done I have confirmed that there is no problem with the font size that I am using. If you see problem at the resolution of 2048x1536 that is fine because I have not designed for it and will not design my layout for that resolution. However I do agree with the theory of 100% for body and ems for elements but will do some more experiments myself which I have.
>Why two increments? 
 
because as you have noticed,  my portfolio is designed for the resolutions that I have tested and again I do not intend to design for 2560x1600 or 1600x1200 . I will not design any layout for those resolutions now, may be in the future not now, unless my client asks me too.
 
Inregards to the jakob's page, i believe you have misunderstood the defintion of the "layout stability" which I have provided in my portfolio. Please double check the definition. header and footer of the page are not stable. Actually this page is not too bad, Jakob has other pages which the whole page cannot meet the layout stability requirements at all.
 
The following is your previous comments:
 
//your previous comments starts here
 
"Legibility should be job #1 when accessibility and usability are priorities.This page mildly fails a basic legibility test. The text is all too small.100% if my default is exactly the right size for most content, particularly 
Ptext.http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.htmlhttp://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.htmlhttp://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice.html 
 
7.3em is too narrow for .nav, as is 140px for #left, causing several LI tosplit into 2 lines when no user CSS is employed, and Standardization tooverflow when it is. 
 
The silver-gray Accessibility, About Me, About Portfolio and other headingslook like form buttons badly out of place on that dying plants color scheme. 
 
The huge space between the P and the images to their right probably needstrimming via an overall width limit or some more space to the right of theimages. Until zoom is applied to get the text up to legible size in a widebrowser window (1200px or more) it simply looks like shoddy design. It getsworse at 2X text zoom because the lower image gets pushed down below the keepin touch P. By 3X zoom it's horribly broken after .nav."
 
// your previous comments end here
 
>>My previous comments were based upon examination at 1400x1050 on OS/2 and1280x960 on >>windoz. This is 144DPI fullscreen on Linux: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc->>davoto1.htmlhttp://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/davoto1.png 
 
I do sincerely, appreciate taking your time for providing the above links. However you fail to provide a problem with my layout.  Actually I do not see any problem in regards to font sizes or anything else in the links that you have provided. It shows a completely perfect layout. please see the link below for what I have on my screen. 
 
http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/capture.html
 
Lastly, I am up here only and only to invite designers and coders to consider coding for layout stability to prevent readability and usability problems not for promoting myself.
 
regards,
davoud
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:20:42 -0500> From: mrmazda at ij.net> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org> Subject: Re: [thelist] Layout Stability> > On 2007/11/06 17:12 (GMT-0500) DAVOUD TOHIDY apparently typed:> > >>> http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/> > > Well, eventough I have the "layout stability" in my subject line some> > comments like yours are off topic and it does not even provide any> > feedback about the "layout stability. However I welcome any comments about> > my portfolio to enhance it as much as I can.> > You failed to define "layout stability", so I simply offered a limited,> generalized response to "Would you please provide a feedback?" based upon my> impression of what I found there.> > > I believe there is not any %100 perfect layout on earth, since there are> > different parameters a layout needs to be designed for such as cross> > resolution/browser/platform capabilities etc.> > Exactly. This is why sizing in px fails, not only for text, but also> containers. Mixing px widths with em widths is a formula for layout breakage.> e.g. http://cssfreelancer.awardspace.com/> > OTOH, sizing virtually everything in em is a workable solution in most cases.> e.g. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/> > >> Legibility should be job #1 when accessibility and usability are> >> priorities. This page mildly fails a basic legibility test. The text is> >> all too small. 100% if my default is exactly the right size for most> >> content, particularly P text.> >> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes> >> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults> >> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice> > > Have you checked my css file? I have set the font size to %96 and I do not> > see it as a failure to meeting the legibility as jakob states in his> > article.> > 96% isn't 100%, and it's made worse by two things: 1-low contrast> (acceptable, but low nevertheless -> http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast), & 2-the significant> difference in apparent size between my default font choice and the Georgia> font your CSS specifies. 96% Georgia has an apparent size of less than 85%> compared to my larger in apparent size sans-serif default. 96% applied to the> common 16px default gets you 15.36px, which all modern browsers render at> 15.000px, or 93.75% nominal, which is 87.9% actual. Size is a function of> both height and width, so the nominal CSS % size must be squared to get the> actual % size.> > > Jakob's page that you have provided itself fails to meet the> > layout stability requirements .> > Seems to work fine here whether 1024x768 or 2048x1536 or anything in between.> > >> 7.3em is too narrow for .nav, as is 140px for #left, causing several LI> >> to split into 2 lines when no user CSS is employed, and Standardization> >> to overflow when it is.> > > could you send me a screen capture of what you see please giving me the> > necessary info about the environment at which the layout has those> > problems?> > My previous comments were based upon examination at 1400x1050 on OS/2 and> 1280x960 on windoz. This is 144DPI fullscreen on Linux:> > http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/sc-davoto1.html> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/davoto1.png> > Note the several menu links require two lines, while your about me and about> portfolio columns are about 3 words wide until I zoom. After I zoom only one> step, about portfolio drops below and about me shrinks to 2 words wide.> Because 1200px isn't particularly wide on a 1920px wide screen with> proportionally larger default fonts, the space between the paragraphs and the> images to their right is gone.> > >> The huge space between the P and the images to their right probably> >> needs trimming via an overall width limit or some more space to the> >> right of the images. Until zoom is applied to get the text up to legible> >> size in a wide browser window (1200px or more) it simply looks like> >> shoddy design. It gets worse at 2X text zoom because the lower image> >> gets pushed down below the keep in touch P. By 3X zoom it's horribly> >> broken after .nav.> > > I have designed this layout to make it work as much as it is possible for> > all resolutions allowing for up to two increments. Now I would like to> > Why two increments? The difference between 800x600 and 2560x1600 is a lot> more than two increments. The difference between 800x600 and a mere 1600x1200> is four.> > > know how would you provide a cross resolution/browser/platform solution> > for what you see as a problem in regards to the gap at 1200 resolution and> > zoom? And would appreciate it if you reply to the list because I would> > like other members to participate in this discussion as well.> > Set sizes in em, as in the example ksc URL above or> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin . Visit http://cssliquid.com/> for more elaborate examples.> > The 2 main exceptions to setting sizes in em are that because of broken IE> fonts-size inheritance, font-size should be set to 100% in HTML and/or BODY;> and for all browsers line-heights should be set unitless:> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/line-height-inherit .> -- > " A patriot without religion . . . is as great a> paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."> John Adams> > Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409> > Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/> -- > > * * Please support the community that supports you. * *> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/> > For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester > and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org > Workers of the Web, evolt ! 
_________________________________________________________________
Send a smile, make someone laugh, have some fun! Start now!
http://www.freemessengeremoticons.ca/?icid=EMENCA122


More information about the thelist mailing list