| LED Digest 2687: Pros and Cons of Web Editors |
|
|
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom http://www.AudetteMedia.com : the LED's Publisher The Internet Marketing Boutique: SEO, SEM, Social Media http://www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 30, 2008 Issue no. 2687 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Pros/Cons of WYSIWYG Editors ==-- ~ Dean Wright "Basically I am talking about small sites..." --== A Firefox Story ==-- ~ Will Bontrager "This morning, I allowed Firefox to update itself..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Design Resolution & Sizing ==-- ~ Mark Medlicott "Some designers think about their end viewer, while others take the money and run..." ~ Scott Wang "Karl, you too are guilty of using the current popular screen size to adjust your content..." ~ Caryl Felicetta "Stop building for technology and build for your audience..." ========= NEW ===================================== From: Dean Wright Subject: Web Site Creation What are the pro's and con's of creating sites with Front Page, Word and Microsoft Publisher. Basically I am talking about small sites, maybe 3 or 4 pages? Any pros and cons would be appreciated. Dean Wright -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Will Bontrager Subject: A Firefox Story It's been a bit slow of late, in LED land, so I thought I would share a story. It's not a hilarious story (unless you're easily amused), but it might crack a smile. This morning, I allowed Firefox to update itself. Today, I noticed that all links in our WebSite's Secret area had red backgrounds. But only the secrets area of the web site. Links in other sections of willmaster.com were okay. I could find nothing in the style sheet that would make red backgrounds. In fact, no color specifications were red or any shade of red, background or otherwise. Maybe it's some weird bug in the update, I thought. Or, maybe a Firefox file was corrupted. But that would not explain why only the secrets section was affected. So I did what I do when I look for an elusive whatever, duplicate the page and change things until I find something that affects the effect. Then dig in to find the culprit, on a single character level, if necessary. It wasn't the CSS. Removing the style sheet did not change the link background color. All images were removed. The links still had a red background. All body content except one link was removed. And that darn link's background color insisted on being red. I even deleted that and re- typed a link from the keyboard to eliminate the possibility of an invisible formatting character creating havoc. Still, red background. Okay, then it must be something in the head area of the source code. But the only things left in the head area were the meta noindex and nofollow tags. I removed those and the red background disappeared. When they were put back in, retyped from scratch, the link again had a red background. Come to find out, it was the nofollow specification that caused the red background on the links. Okay, time to ask google about this. Found a post in a forum somewhere that mentioned a Firefox SEO add-on and it's ability to mark nofollow links. My Firefox has the same add-on. And it was just yesterday that I checked the box that would give nofollow links a red background, just to see what would happen. Then forgot I did it. Will Bontrager http://www.willmaster.com/ ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Mark Medlicott Subject: Resolution > I am incredulous that I never see anyone > other than myself who has always (10 + > years) designed websites with auto-wrap. > The advantages, seems to me to be > conspicuously and intuitively obvious. - Karl L. Baldwin, LED 2686 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2101/190/ Your point about auto wrap is quite valid Karl, or I presume you also mean designing using percentages and not pixels. However, if you read the other posts about available 'real estate' and preferred settings you will find your assertions (quoted below) are not necessarily true. Both Will Bontrager and Tom Aman talk of not running full screen windows. > Regardless of any viewer's screen size or > resolution settings, my sites will display > all of the pages content, up to 100% of > each monitor's viewing width, with no side > scrolling - on anybody's computer screen. Since buying a new larger monitor (19") I now run my resolution at 1024 x 768 because my eyesight isn't the best and as I sit in front of the pc for many hours in a day do not need to struggle reading. I also from time to time run smaller windows due to the fact I may be using many applications simultaneously, so I went and checked your website, but when I restored it down to the size I have set when working normally I did have to scroll sideways to see all your page. I appreciate you talk about a monitors viewing width. However, I am not trying to prove you wrong or go down that track, but merely support other posters who also do not run at full screen display no matter what the monitor resolution. Often the only problem may be as simple as the size of images used, as they don't gracefully bend in the middle and move to the next line. I assume as mobile phones continue to access websites more and more, that as designers we will need to be more acutely aware of this as we build or design websites in the future. I am guessing that the 'print friendly' link at the bottom of a page will begin to have a 'mobile friendly' link next to it too, or more scripting in the page head to decide on the viewing application before serving it up. I'm sure this debate can go on forever, with no set answer because just as with art, some of it interests some people, while others can't stand it. Some designers think about their end viewer, while others take the money and run, leaving often already baffled clients to deal with the feedback. Regards Mark Medlicott Medlicott Design http://www.medlicottdesign.orconhosting.net.nz/ -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Scott Wang Subject: Resolution Karl, you too are guilty of using the current popular screen size to adjust your website's content, even though you are using a dynamic "auto-wrap". Your menu bar is roughly 200px wide and you are running 2x 728px Google Ads at the bottom of your site. This forces the site to stretch to at least 928px, so even if someone is surfing your site with 800x600, they need to scroll horizontally to see your content. You are no different than the rest of us. We all want to be able to lay out the web pages "perfectly", with the content that we desire, and make it appear as it was intended. Doing this often requires more than 800 pixels of width. Our question isn't "how wide can we go?", the question is "can we go a little wider?". 750-770px just isn't enough anymore, and with the new "lowest" screen resolution being 1024px wide, we now have the freedom to go "a little wider" and create websites that appear the way we truly want them to appear. Scott Wang Thorp Web -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Caryl Felicetta Subject: Re: Resolution > The disadvantages? The only one I can think > of is that a monitor with very high > resolution (mine is 1200 x 1600) will have > lengthy lines of text. However, I have > never once found that to be an issue either > from website owners or visitors (up to 1200 > visitors per hour) on my website in over 10 > years. The only value to creating websites that grow and fit these huge displays is that it fits. That's it. Having long lines of text makes the site content illegible. People are probably not complaining because they stopped bothering to read and moved on to your competitior who have made it easier. By making the page itself "grow" also takes control away from call to action. The farther you move something from a viewer's field of vision the less likely they are to see your message and connect. The sad thing about websites is that people have forgetton there are type standards; that there are realistic avaerages for a human's field of vision. Ask a trained typographer to take a look at the site. They will cringe in horror. Technology will continue to make displays larger. That doesn't mean a website needs to be as well. Stop building for technology and build for your audience: the humans. They will appreciate it and reward you with sales. Caryl Felicetta Single Throw http://www.singlethrow.com (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Where there's a will there's a way." -anon. |
