DavidSwe schrieb am 2007-02-28:
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=DocComments/WikiTemplate
>
> HF. It's a wiki after all!

Sure it is. I've tried to de-pixelise the layout, but it is totaly broken.

Reverted back to the original layout.

Thomas

Pragma Wrote:
<snip>
> For general site layout, I agree.  However, for columnar layout of content, fixing the width for content has everything to do with readability for the sighted - I for one have a hard time reading paragraph after paragraph of text laid out at over 1000px wide.  Granted, I could just resize my browser, but the effect is hardly the same.

It also has everything to do with unreadability for the sighted, if they have to keep scrolling their screens in a variety of directions just because the designer's browser dimensions don't match.

> The ideal solution is having paragraphs elements that layout such that they create natural (magazine-style) columns regardless of the dimensions of the page itself.  But I have yet to see that happen without constraining the page width, height or number of columns in some way, without resorting to javascript hacks.  ;)

Some would claim that magazine-style columns don't belong on the WWW, but are just a pointless attempt to mimic printed material.  Someone once said:

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem
"Trying to force a text-flow from one column to another, when the real problem is creating text interesting enough to induce readers to scroll their displays in a presentation based on methods appropriate to the medium instead of those adopted from print. "

Moreover, to read columns on a web page you would often have to scroll down the column to read it, and then scroll up again to read the next column.

But you have a point.  Maybe there is a way in which such a thing could be reasonably implemented....

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> The ideal solution is having paragraphs elements that layout such that they create natural (magazine-style) columns regardless of the dimensions of the page itself.  But I have yet to see that happen without constraining the page width, height or number of columns in some way, without resorting to javascript hacks.  ;)
> 
> Some would claim that magazine-style columns don't belong on the WWW, but are just a pointless attempt to mimic printed material.  Someone once said:

I've heard somewhere before that narrower text is easier to read.  But just now I couldn't find anything in the way of corroboration.
I did find this:
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/textmargin.html
"""
Conclusions

Results indicated that, by itself, text width does not influence readability; however, there was a significant interaction between text width and margin width.
"""

But I really don't like what the data shows.  They say an 8inch column is significantly more readable with 0-inch margins.  Ugh, I hate zero-width margins.  Makes me feel all stressed out looking at zero width margins.

--bb

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Pragma Wrote:
> <snip>
>> For general site layout, I agree.  However, for columnar layout of content, fixing the width for content has everything to do with readability for the sighted - I for one have a hard time reading paragraph after paragraph of text laid out at over 1000px wide.  Granted, I could just resize my browser, but the effect is hardly the same.
> 
> It also has everything to do with unreadability for the sighted, if they have to keep scrolling their screens in a variety of directions just because the designer's browser dimensions don't match.
> 
>> The ideal solution is having paragraphs elements that layout such that they create natural (magazine-style) columns regardless of the dimensions of the page itself.  But I have yet to see that happen without constraining the page width, height or number of columns in some way, without resorting to javascript hacks.  ;)
> 
> Some would claim that magazine-style columns don't belong on the WWW, but are just a pointless attempt to mimic printed material.  Someone once said:
> 
> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem

Good link.  I'll have to hang onto that one.

> "Trying to force a text-flow from one column to another, when the real problem is creating text interesting enough to induce readers to scroll their displays in a presentation based on methods appropriate to the medium instead of those adopted from print. "
> 
> Moreover, to read columns on a web page you would often have to scroll down the column to read it, and then scroll up again to read the next column.

Aside: I find it genuinely funny that my newsreader (Thunderbird) saw fit to quote you without line-wrapping in my editor. :)

You're right (and your quoted source is right) that it's a PITA to scroll down, then up again to keep reading.  I think the only way that works at all is if you have dissimilar content, stories or whatnot in each column - kind of like CNN's story layout.  That way you have only one true column for something of interest, leaving the user to "shift gears" and scroll up to do something else.

Otherwise, for a "minimal scrolling magazine style layout", you'd have to constrain the page to the height of the viewport, and encourage horizontal scrolling instead of vertical - a little counter-intuitive (and very unconventional), but I've seen similar things done before with good looking results.  I'm not advocating this for the wiki, but I wouldn't mind having a personal Blog done this way.

> Maybe there is a way in which such a thing could be reasonably implemented....

It can be done a whole bunch of ways: javascript + CSS comes to mind so you can adopt a different layout depending on the viewport size/shape.  But then it all comes back to accessibility and browser behavior by version and vendor: "what is acceptable and what isn't" depends on your audience. :(

Now what would be nice is if browser vendors changed how big an EM is depending on the viewport size.

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2005/03/gecko_18_for_we.html

Of course, you'll need a fairly recent version of a Mozilla browser. Just try resizing the window left and right to see what happens.

	-- Daniel

Pragma wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> Pragma Wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> For general site layout, I agree.  However, for columnar layout of content, fixing the width for content has everything to do with readability for the sighted - I for one have a hard time reading paragraph after paragraph of text laid out at over 1000px wide. Granted, I could just resize my browser, but the effect is hardly the same.
>>
>> It also has everything to do with unreadability for the sighted, if they have to keep scrolling their screens in a variety of directions just because the designer's browser dimensions don't match.
>>
>>> The ideal solution is having paragraphs elements that layout such that they create natural (magazine-style) columns regardless of the dimensions of the page itself.  But I have yet to see that happen without constraining the page width, height or number of columns in some way, without resorting to javascript hacks.  ;)
>>
>> Some would claim that magazine-style columns don't belong on the WWW, but are just a pointless attempt to mimic printed material.  Someone once said:
>>
>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem
> 
> Good link.  I'll have to hang onto that one.
> 
>> "Trying to force a text-flow from one column to another, when the real problem is creating text interesting enough to induce readers to scroll their displays in a presentation based on methods appropriate to the medium instead of those adopted from print. "
>>
>> Moreover, to read columns on a web page you would often have to scroll down the column to read it, and then scroll up again to read the next column.
> 
> Aside: I find it genuinely funny that my newsreader (Thunderbird) saw
> fit to quote you without line-wrapping in my editor. :)
> 
> You're right (and your quoted source is right) that it's a PITA to scroll down, then up again to keep reading.  I think the only way that works at all is if you have dissimilar content, stories or whatnot in each column - kind of like CNN's story layout.  That way you have only one true column for something of interest, leaving the user to "shift gears" and scroll up to do something else.
> 
> Otherwise, for a "minimal scrolling magazine style layout", you'd have to constrain the page to the height of the viewport, and encourage horizontal scrolling instead of vertical - a little counter-intuitive (and very unconventional), but I've seen similar things done before with good looking results.  I'm not advocating this for the wiki, but I wouldn't mind having a personal Blog done this way.
> 
>> Maybe there is a way in which such a thing could be reasonably
> implemented....
> 
> It can be done a whole bunch of ways: javascript + CSS comes to mind so you can adopt a different layout depending on the viewport size/shape. But then it all comes back to accessibility and browser behavior by version and vendor: "what is acceptable and what isn't" depends on your audience. :(
> 
> Now what would be nice is if browser vendors changed how big an EM is depending on the viewport size.
> 

-- 
Unlike Knuth, I have neither proven or tried the above; it may not even make sense.

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/

Pragma Wrote:
<snip>
> It can be done a whole bunch of ways: javascript + CSS comes to mind so you can adopt a different layout depending on the viewport size/shape.  But then it all comes back to accessibility and browser behavior by version and vendor: "what is acceptable and what isn't" depends on your audience. :(
> 
> Now what would be nice is if browser vendors changed how big an EM is depending on the viewport size.

What's an EM?

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Pragma Wrote:
> <snip>
>> It can be done a whole bunch of ways: javascript + CSS comes to mind so you can adopt a different layout depending on the viewport size/shape.  But then it all comes back to accessibility and browser behavior by version and vendor: "what is acceptable and what isn't" depends on your audience.  :(
>>
>> Now what would be nice is if browser vendors changed how big an EM is depending on the viewport size.
> 
> What's an EM?
> 
> Stewart.

One of the units of measure that CSS recognizes.  In theory its the size of the 'M' character for the current font face and size.  In practice it... usually is.  Its also generally accepted as a better unit to use than px (pixels) if you want content to resize itself nicely to fit different display sizes.  (What looks nice at 50px on my screen, might be either invisibly miniscule or awkwardly huge on someone else's.  At 10em it'll usually look much the same on mine and theirs.)

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

"Chris Nicholson-Sauls" <ibisbasenji@gmail.com> wrote in message news:es58u0$23fd$1@digitalmars.com...

> One of the units of measure that CSS recognizes.  In theory its the size of the 'M' character for the current font face and size.  In practice it... usually is.  Its also generally accepted as a better unit to use than px (pixels) if you want content to resize itself nicely to fit different display sizes.  (What looks nice at 50px on my screen, might be either invisibly miniscule or awkwardly huge on someone else's.  At 10em it'll usually look much the same on mine and theirs.)

Oh, man!  You are going to get reamed _out_ because Stewart already knows what an em is.  Prepare yourself!

Chris Nicholson-Sauls Wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> Pragma Wrote:
<snip>
>>> Now what would be nice is if browser vendors changed how big an EM is depending on the viewport size.
>> 
>> What's an EM?
> 
> One of the units of measure that CSS recognizes.  In theory its the size of the 'M' character for the current font face and size.  In practice it...  usually is.
<snip>

Oops.  I must be just not used to seeing the word written in uppercase.  Actually, I think technically it's equal to the font height, and an en is half of this.

But this doesn't seem to fit.  Usually when people increase the size of a browser window, they expect to see more content at once, rather than to zoom in.

Stewart.

Couldn't you have tried a different layout instead of reverting to the old one? Forcing Firefox to use no style on wiki4d have about the same look as the old one. I think that speaks for itself.

Thomas Kuehne Wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> DavidSwe schrieb am 2007-02-28:
> > http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=DocComments/WikiTemplate
> >
> > HF. It's a wiki after all!
> 
> Sure it is. I've tried to de-pixelise the layout, but it is totaly broken.
> 
> Reverted back to the original layout.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> iD8DBQFF5dDzLK5blCcjpWoRAhR/AJ4nQnJe/NGmyFhZwHF/fOHk/P7YeACcD6Lb
> yxdP1XSyPDenDckHR9QZ4Nk=
> =RbgU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----