[LINK] Redirects, User counters and Advertising

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:08:24PM +1100, Eric Scheid wrote:
> On 26/2/07 8:32 PM, "Craig Sanders" <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> >> so what is the standard and reasonable width for a web page?
> > 
> > the correct answer to that question is that it is up to the client
> > (i.e. the browser), not up to the server or the web designer.
> > this is "web-design 101" stuff, anyone who calls themselves a web
> > developer should know it.
>
> A good designer knows what line length is optimal for reading, anyone
> who calls themselves a web developer should know it, and designs to
> provide this as the default sizing.

no, they don't. the optimal length for reading is variable. it depends
on the user, and on the screen hardware (if any) that they have at the
time that they are browsing. their is no one-size-fits-all optimal size.


> Users don't want to futz with the window size for
> every web page they go to, 

that's precisely why web developers should not specify sizes (except as
percentages).  it is the act of specifying precise sizes which is what causes
users to have to mess with window sizes or use the horiz. scroll bar.

leave it up to the browser to render according to local conditions and these
stupid problems simply don't arise.

> a good designer makes it easier for users, not
> make more work for them.

yes, exactly.  it's a shame there are so few around.

> > i have to spend a lot of time using a crappy old laptop with a
> > tiny 1024x768 screen - and am routinely pissed off by dickhead
> > web developers who assume that everyone has a big screen on every
> > computer they use, therefore it's OK to make their pages stupidly
> > wide.
>
> maybe there's some dickhead sk(r)ewing with their web-stats such that
> small screens are under-reported?

you just don't get it, do you?

web sites should be developed so that they work at any window/screen
size (from no screen/speech synth to mobile phone to giant 30" LCD
monitor and beyond), on any browser.

i shouldn't have to allow myself to be spied upon just so that moron web
developers can do stuff that they shouldn't be doing anyway....and even
if i did allow spyware javascript to report my screen details, idiot
web-developers would say "well, 1024x768 only accounts for <10% of the
market so we can ignore it" - exactly the same as they do for linux and
mac os x and text-only etc browsers. they use the stats to justify their
stupid decisions after the fact.

> > more likely, it doesn't occur to them to even think about it - they
> > just assume that because it looks OK on their giant screen that it
> > is fine for everyone.
>
> now that sounds like a huge assumption, especially in light of the
> recent discussion on this list.

it's based on experience. i've worked with lots of web developers over
the years and nearly all of them had that attitude ("it looks good
on MY screen so it must be OK"). like you, many of them had great
difficulty even understanding that the web site would inevitably look
different on the user's screen than it does on theirs - they'd have a
different screen, different size, possibly different fonts, and possibly
a different browser.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Currently listening to: The Visitors - Nevr Know

"The voters have spoken, the bastards ..."