Vent: Screen shapes/site shapes

JReacher1

Azari wrote: »

The word 'major' was neither here nor there. I assumed that everyone would be sensible enough to assume that we are talking about 'common' or 'major' types.

Seems I was a little optimistic.

Another strawman argument.

I said "all major devices". You said I posted "all devices".

Removing the word "major" deliberately misrepresented my post.

It's against forum etiquette to do things like that.

On your other post its rife with contradictions. One of the main ones being if websites could fit any screen size why would a UI designer deliberately limit the size of their website so it wouldn't be able to appear on any size page?

Could you perhaps treat us all to one of your websites you have written so we can all learn how it's done properly?

artbaron

Like this, you mean? Not sure I'd want the forum to expand to the edges, I'd get get a crick in my neck...

bod1467

Azari wrote: »

One of the fundamental attributes of HTML is that it will adapt to any size and shape of screen.

Not true ... HTML code will present the web page as the designer intended. It has nothing to do (fundamentally) with HTML, and everything to do (fundamentally) with how the page designer implemented the HTML code.

And flexible/stretchable UI design has as much, if not more, to do with the CSS implementation as the HTML implementation.

Ectophile

JReacher1 wrote: »

Can you provide an example of what websites you are talking about? I can then tell you why it won't fill the page. Providing information over what browser you are using would also help.

This website is a very good example (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com) on both IE and Firefox. In its default setting, it just gives a narrow band down the middle, with big white borders at the edge.

For those who haven't found the option to take the borders go away (and it's specific to this web site, not a general fix for all sites), hit the "User CP" link in the green bar above. Select "Edit Options". Scroll down to "Miscellaneous Options", and tweak the "Forum Skin". I use "New masthead, stretchy".

paddyrg

There seems to be a little confusion in this thread - for clarity...

HTML was designed as a markup language for CONTENT not FORMATTING. This was back when we used text-based browsers like Lynx. The web server had no idea what the display device size, platform, resolution, etc was - the rendering of the file was the responsibility of the client (browser) AND STILL IS. Graphical browsers like Mosaic and later Netscape came onto the scene, so it became possible for them to automatically request and display an image rather than just allowing you to download a link. This made the web more engaging, but people played around with more and more extensions - tables became used for layout of images, text was coloured, flashing, scrolling. Background images were introduced. All of this has to sell be back-compatible with those text browsers because the server doesn't know anything much about the client.

Some clever people saw that HTML itself was getting overloaded with design element descriptors, so managed to give them off into CSS (Cascading Style Sheets - cascading because they had an order of precedence if in collision). The more visual toys designers had, the more they wanted to decide what was good for us and what wasn't. They knew that many monitors at the time were at most 800px wide, so in an attempt to impose their design choices, they made the site content 800px wide (using tables or CSS, takes took a long time to deprecate) regardless of the myriad browsers who were going to render it. This is absolutely against the spirit of HTML which was to mark up text and allow the browser to do the rendering. It's hung over ever since, some idiots thinking it's the 'right' way to do it, and every kid with a computer calling himself a 'web designer' didn't help (incidentally, any Muppet with a laptop now sells SEO snake oil instead, but same bottom-feeders).

All the extra stuff added in (JavaScript, for instance, but there's a lot more) meant browsers had to try to cope with a bizarre range of designs, by all skill levels of designer. Browsers had to become very tolerant for ugly HTML (ever seen what MS Word 'export to HTML' used to make? Ewww!) and in doing so, became more compliant, so we get stupid layouts that don't reflow for different resolutions even though that's been part of HTML since CERN days.

The good news is that ultimately sites must be back-compatible with those old text browsers. Some will degrade nicely (skilled developers), most will look like a dogs dinner, some fail to work at all. The server still (most of the time) doesn't know about the browser and device doing the rendering, so the resulting HTML can be fun to play with using 'Examine Element' or the web developers toolkit toolbar - in almost all cases you can find the offending table or bad CSS constricting the site content to 800px, and nuke it - the browser will very happily reflow the page and text and the site still looks just fine. Limiting content width becomes even stupider when people need to increase the font size to read it - some sites will go so far as to end up with a vertical stripe of single words with most of the screen real-estate wasted.

Good developers who want rich experience websites but don't want to constrain their users unnecessarily will be less controlling, maybe use percentage/relative positioning instead of absolute. The BBC iPlayer site is an example of a site that renders differently on different devices by allowing the device dimensions to determine the layout of the content whilst still providing a rich environment.

In short, OP, it's because companies and designers think they should override the basic functionality of HTML through misplaced self-importance and arrogance. There is no technical reason why it should be.

Azari

JReacher1 wrote: »

Another strawman argument.

I said "all major devices". You said I posted "all devices".

Removing the word "major" deliberately misrepresented my post.

It did not misrepresent your post. You are just embarrassed because you posted something that was daft and contradictory and are digging yourself a massive hole trying to cover that up.

'All device' or 'all major devices' is just the same in context. No part of what I said was relying on some weird and wonderful device with an odd screen size.

It's against forum etiquette to do things like that.

Stop talking nonsense.

It's against forum etiquette to change what someone said inside a quote without noting it. It's never been against forum etiquette to paraphrase someone.

Especially when you make no substantive change to the meaning of what they said.

As I said, you're just desperate to try and dig yourself out of a hole of your own making.

On your other post its rife with contradictions. One of the main ones being if websites could fit any screen size why would a UI designer deliberately limit the size of their website so it wouldn't be able to appear on any size page?

Read the post by paddyrg further down. He explains it very clearly in such a way the even you might understand it.

Could you perhaps treat us all to one of your websites you have written so we can all learn how it's done properly?

There are plenty of examples all over the web. I think most of the sites I use work reasonably well. I presume OP was railing against some particularly egregious examples of incompetent design.

Azari

bod1467 wrote: »

Not true ... HTML code will present the web page as the designer intended. It has nothing to do (fundamentally) with HTML, and everything to do (fundamentally) with how the page designer implemented the HTML code.

When I said 'will', I meant 'will' in the sense that if you code things properly it will use the available screen space to display things.

Only if you foul things up by trying to design for a particular screen size and/or shape will things get nasty.

And, yes, I do know there are times (forms, for example) when it is expedient to design making certain assumptions about the screen space to be used.

Azari

artbaron wrote: »

Like this, you mean? Not sure I'd want the forum to expand to the edges, I'd get get a crick in my neck...

Erm, so how do you manage to use your monitor for other programs? And sites that don't force content into a central ribbon?

Sheldon_Cooper

JReacher1 wrote: »

Can you provide an example of what websites you are talking about? I can then tell you why it won't fill the page. Providing information over what browser you are using would also help.

You really are confused, aren't you? This was a vent about the disparity between hardware manufacturers and web designers, not a tech support call.

JReacher1

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

You really are confused, aren't you? This was a vent about the disparity between hardware manufacturers and web designers, not a tech support call.

My apologies, i thought if you provided information about what you were trying to access I could have helped you with your vent.

I apologise for trying to be helpful. It won't happen again