I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a 
stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for 
making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;

http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic 
rhythm.

If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab page.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

First things first:  Get it readable.  You haven't set the colour
schemes properly, and I can't read it.  See ...
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Test/ColourSchemesBugs.html

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:56:16 +0100, "dE|_"
 wrote:

> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a 
> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for 
> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
> 
> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic 
> rhythm.
> 
> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab page.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist.  Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1n0va5horm3315nel9egc5mr8ab1r3j7ag@4ax.com...
> First things first:  Get it readable.  You haven't set the colour
> schemes properly, and I can't read it.  See ...
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Test/ColourSchemesBugs.html

I've done a quick brighten up of the tab area and rhythm guide. Is it any 
easier on the eye like that? I'll go through that page of yours after lunch, 
thanks for that.

dE|_

>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:56:16 +0100, "dE|_"
>  wrote:
>
>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>
>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>> rhythm.
>>
>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>> page.
>
> ======================================
>
> Please always reply to news group as the email address in
> this post's header does not exist.  Alternatively, use one of the
> contact addresses at:
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1n0va5horm3315nel9egc5mr8ab1r3j7ag@4ax.com...
> First things first:  Get it readable.  You haven't set the colour
> schemes properly, and I can't read it.  See ...
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Test/ColourSchemesBugs.html

So were you getting white-on-white then? Whoops, that's not like me, honest. 
If you are getting some other Win7 curiosity can you post it specific 
please, I'm XP.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

The tab itself was barely readable before lunch, but it is perfectly
readable now, but the surrounding text in the 'panel' is still
unreadable, white on white, suggesting that you've set the background
colour but not the foreground colour.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:20:29 +0100, "dE|_"
 wrote:

> 
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:1n0va5horm3315nel9egc5mr8ab1r3j7ag@4ax.com...
> > First things first:  Get it readable.  You haven't set the colour
> > schemes properly, and I can't read it.  See ...
> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Test/ColourSchemesBugs.html
> 
> So were you getting white-on-white then? Whoops, that's not like me, honest. 
> If you are getting some other Win7 curiosity can you post it specific 
> please, I'm XP.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist.  Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

dE|_ wrote:
> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a 
> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for 
> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
> 
> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic 
> rhythm.

Looks perfectly readable to me, but playing bass myself I often find
that tabs make it hard to work out the timing. Might be an idea to
provide some extra information to the page (such as the time signature
etc) to help those who struggle to get an idea of how it should be played?

-- 
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

“If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber” – Einstein

"Java Jive" wrote in the wrong place...
> The tab itself was barely readable before lunch, but it is perfectly
> readable now, but the surrounding text in the 'panel' is still
> unreadable, white on white, suggesting that you've set the background
> colour but not the foreground colour.

Hmm, so font colour didn't inherit from body (defined black) to div in that 
case then.

The interesting thing is that before setting the div with it's own 
foreground color, I left it to inherit red from top level body {} and my 
browsers picked up on that all the way to the tab (IE8 & FF3.5 on WinXP).
It was after my second reply that I made the colour change, is that still 
when your machine was not playing ball?

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup





>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1n0va5horm3315nel9egc5mr8ab1r3j7ag@4ax.com...
>> > First things first:  Get it readable.  You haven't set the colour
>> > schemes properly, and I can't read it.  See ...
>> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Test/ColourSchemesBugs.html
>>
>> So were you getting white-on-white then? Whoops, that's not like me, 
>> honest.
>> If you are getting some other Win7 curiosity can you post it specific
>> please, I'm XP.

"Dylan Parry"  wrote in message 
news:h8oh8c$4df$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> dE|_ wrote:
>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>
>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>> rhythm.
>
> Looks perfectly readable to me, but playing bass myself I often find
> that tabs make it hard to work out the timing. Might be an idea to
> provide some extra information to the page (such as the time signature
> etc) to help those who struggle to get an idea of how it should be played?

I've got other background jpegs of 6 blocks to the colour for 6/8 time sigs 
which I'm hoping should do the job there. I doubt there's many street 
guitarists who know what 6/8 means but it wouldn't hurt to say "6 counts to 
the bar" I suppose.

Have you tried 'Brown Paper Bag' bass yet? That's funky.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

dE|_ wrote:

> Have you tried 'Brown Paper Bag' bass yet? That's funky.

I haven’t, no… but you’re not the first to mention that to me, so maybe
I should take a look.

-- 
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

“If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber” – Einstein

I've just reloaded the page using <shift> to force a full reload, and
I can read it now.  Dunno if that would've fixed it before, I didn't
think to do it.  I was and am using FF3.5.3.

Anyhow, you've fixed it!  Now, if only I could persuade Microsoft and
Google, and too many other big sites that really should know better,
to acknowledge and fix the problem!

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:49:06 +0100, "dE|_"
 wrote:
> 
> The interesting thing is that before setting the div with it's own 
> foreground color, I left it to inherit red from top level body {} and my 
> browsers picked up on that all the way to the tab (IE8 & FF3.5 on WinXP).
> It was after my second reply that I made the colour change, is that still 
> when your machine was not playing ball?

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist.  Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
 "dE|_"  wrote:

> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a 
> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for 
> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
> 
> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic 
> rhythm.
> 
> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab page.

You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *? 
Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less 
width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does 
not really demand that you design for so wide.

-- 
dorayme

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:56:16 +0100, "dE|_"
 wrote:

>I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a 
>stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for 
>making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>
>http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic 
>rhythm.
>
>If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab page.

Simple yet brilliant idea!


-- 
Jurgen Nijhuis
http://www.argosmedia.nl

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i3tva5lejprtju1bg78ccb3qsqo7gikv2q@4ax.com...
> I've just reloaded the page using <shift> to force a full reload, and
> I can read it now.  Dunno if that would've fixed it before, I didn't
> think to do it.  I was and am using FF3.5.3.
>
> Anyhow, you've fixed it!  Now, if only I could persuade Microsoft and
> Google, and too many other big sites that really should know better,
> to acknowledge and fix the problem!

By the time of that post I had been unsparing and color labeled every 
element in the style sheet. When I get access to Win7 which supposedly has 
this font colour bug in it I can re-determine the nature of inhertance, 
until then...

(it is Win7 that you're using isn't it?)

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

"dorayme"  wrote in message 
news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
> "dE|_"  wrote:
>
>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>
>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>> rhythm.
>>
>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>> page.
>
> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
> not really demand that you design for so wide.

You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
now.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

"dorayme" wrote:
>
>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>
>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>> rhythm.
>>
>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>> page.
>
> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
> not really demand that you design for so wide.

Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get for 
the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

dE|_ wrote:
> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>
>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>
>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>> rhythm.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>> page.
>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
> 
> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
> now.
> 

So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
for your inability to create fluid designs.

Very few people I know run their browsers in full screen.  Most have 
other things going on, also.  Fluid designs rock.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"Jerry Stuckle"  wrote in message 
news:h8qh3b$5ap$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> dE|_ wrote:
>> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
>> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are 
>>>> a
>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>> rhythm.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>>> page.
>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>
>> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
>> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
>> now.
>>
>
> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
> for your inability to create fluid designs.
>
> Very few people I know run their browsers in full screen.  Most have other 
> things going on, also.  Fluid designs rock.

I love em when they suit to. Go get your self a bottle of shiraz and sit in 
the sun.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

dE|_ wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle"  wrote in message 
> news:h8qh3b$5ap$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> dE|_ wrote:
>>> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
>>> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>>>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are 
>>>>> a
>>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>>>> page.
>>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
>>> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
>>> now.
>>>
>> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>> for your inability to create fluid designs.
>>
>> Very few people I know run their browsers in full screen.  Most have other 
>> things going on, also.  Fluid designs rock.
> 
> I love em when they suit to. Go get your self a bottle of shiraz and sit in 
> the sun.
> 

Ah, you don't have any valid response to my comments so you have to 
resort to personal attacks.

That figures.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

I'm using W2k for everyday use, but W7 does have its own particular
problems as illustrated also on the page I linked.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:17:35 +0100, "dE|_"
 wrote:
> 
> (it is Win7 that you're using isn't it?)

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist.  Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
	http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:10:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>dE|_ wrote:
>> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
>> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>> rhythm.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>>> page.
>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>> 
>> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
>> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
>> now.
>> 
>
>So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>for your inability to create fluid designs.

You seem to be missing the point that tablature is fixed-width by
nature - the line breaks are part of the content. So there's no way to
make it either wider or narrower, it has to be presented at whatever
width the content requires. A fluid design, therefore, would do
nothing more than alter the amount of blank space either side of the
tablature itself, which is rather pointless. And, since the tablature
pages have to be fixed width (or, at least, minimum width) there's
little to gain by having a fluid design elsewhere.

The site could be made to work better for smaller windows by removing
the secondary navigation image block on the left, so that the minimum
width is the width of the tablature itself rather than tablature +
image. But I suspect that the usability and marketing downsides of
that would be greater than the gain from the extra space. And,
remember, this isn't a hobby site or a public service - this is Del's
business, and the most important thing (in the long run, the *only*
important thing) is that it generates income for him. And I'm pretty
sure that any loss of income from people who go elsewhere because they
can't (or won't) use a browser window wide enough is going to be a lot
smaller than the potential loss of income from removing internal
navigation and advertising in order to gain some extra space.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:10:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
> 
>> dE|_ wrote:
>>> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
>>> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>>>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>>>> page.
>>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
>>> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
>>> now.
>>>
>> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>> for your inability to create fluid designs.
> 
> You seem to be missing the point that tablature is fixed-width by
> nature - the line breaks are part of the content. So there's no way to
> make it either wider or narrower, it has to be presented at whatever
> width the content requires. A fluid design, therefore, would do
> nothing more than alter the amount of blank space either side of the
> tablature itself, which is rather pointless. And, since the tablature
> pages have to be fixed width (or, at least, minimum width) there's
> little to gain by having a fluid design elsewhere.
>

Not necessarily.  A fluid design does not have to alter the amount of 
blank space on either side - it can increase or decrease the width of 
the content to match the available size.

Now I agree a fluid design wouldn't add anything to this particular page 
- but other pages (such as the home page) could easily benefit from it.

> The site could be made to work better for smaller windows by removing
> the secondary navigation image block on the left, so that the minimum
> width is the width of the tablature itself rather than tablature +
> image. But I suspect that the usability and marketing downsides of
> that would be greater than the gain from the extra space. And,
> remember, this isn't a hobby site or a public service - this is Del's
> business, and the most important thing (in the long run, the *only*
> important thing) is that it generates income for him. And I'm pretty
> sure that any loss of income from people who go elsewhere because they
> can't (or won't) use a browser window wide enough is going to be a lot
> smaller than the potential loss of income from removing internal
> navigation and advertising in order to gain some extra space.
> 
> Mark

Or, move the navigation window to the right side, so people with 
narrower windows can see the table without having to scroll right.  The 
downside of that is, of course, that they wouldn't necessarily see there 
is a navigation block.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"Jerry Stuckle"  wrote in message 
news:h8rb4j$mlf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:10:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> dE|_ wrote:
>>>> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you 
>>>>>> are a
>>>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with 
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and 
>>>>>> lines;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a 
>>>>>> simplistic
>>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master 
>>>>>> tab page.
>>>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x 
>>>>> *?
>>>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content 
>>>>> does
>>>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>>> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
>>>> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it 
>>>> by now.
>>>>
>>> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>>> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>>> for your inability to create fluid designs.
>>
>> You seem to be missing the point that tablature is fixed-width by
>> nature - the line breaks are part of the content. So there's no way to
>> make it either wider or narrower, it has to be presented at whatever
>> width the content requires. A fluid design, therefore, would do
>> nothing more than alter the amount of blank space either side of the
>> tablature itself, which is rather pointless. And, since the tablature
>> pages have to be fixed width (or, at least, minimum width) there's
>> little to gain by having a fluid design elsewhere.
>>
>
> Not necessarily.  A fluid design does not have to alter the amount of 
> blank space on either side - it can increase or decrease the width of the 
> content to match the available size.
>
> Now I agree a fluid design wouldn't add anything to this particular page - 
> but other pages (such as the home page) could easily benefit from it.
>
>> The site could be made to work better for smaller windows by removing
>> the secondary navigation image block on the left, so that the minimum
>> width is the width of the tablature itself rather than tablature +
>> image. But I suspect that the usability and marketing downsides of
>> that would be greater than the gain from the extra space. And,
>> remember, this isn't a hobby site or a public service - this is Del's
>> business, and the most important thing (in the long run, the *only*
>> important thing) is that it generates income for him. And I'm pretty
>> sure that any loss of income from people who go elsewhere because they
>> can't (or won't) use a browser window wide enough is going to be a lot
>> smaller than the potential loss of income from removing internal
>> navigation and advertising in order to gain some extra space.
>>
>> Mark
>
> Or, move the navigation window to the right side, so people with narrower 
> windows can see the table without having to scroll right.  The downside of 
> that is, of course, that they wouldn't necessarily see there is a 
> navigation block.

Well I've got more time on my hands now so I'll come back into the window 
fray.

The scenario here is that the entire 'main slab' does fit to an 800w so once 
someone has scrolled to the right, hence passing the entire width of the 
navigation bar and reached the search box, they only have to go up/down.

As Mark kindly pointed out, the tuition is a business of mine but a good 
majority of visitors are from USA looking for tab or what chords are about. 
If someone in the southern states with an 8x600 takes offence at the nav bar 
and hits the back button I doubt go broke.

General opinion on fluid is; yes, go for it when the design suits, and as 
more people progress to 1440w monitors I will go more & more stretchable. I 
also want to start on WAP alternatives. But I am not going to compromise my 
primary design and structural options for the sake of the few who are 
sitting infront of 15 year old monitors. Facebook doesn't support them 
either so many will be used to it.

You wanna see a stretchy page I did years ago?
http://www.brettsplumbingandheating.co.uk/simonstiling/
(£100 add-on page)

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

On 2009-09-16, dE|_ wrote:
>
> "dorayme" wrote:
>>
>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>
>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>> rhythm.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
>>> page.
>>
>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>
> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get for 
> the main content.

    I get a horizontal scroll bar.

> I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.

    Luck, but not good luck.


-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

In article <c53sm.152181$I35.7613@newsfe24.ams2>,
 "dE|_"  wrote:

> "dorayme" wrote:
> >
> >> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
> >> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
> >> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
> >>
> >> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
> >> rhythm.
> >>
> >> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
> >> page.
> >
> > You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
> > Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
> > width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
> > not really demand that you design for so wide.
> 
> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get for 
> the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.

Sounds like you are missing my point. (Your page is quite nice though 
anyway).

-- 
dorayme

In article <x_2sm.152180$I35.141644@newsfe24.ams2>,
 "dE|_"  wrote:

> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
> news:doraymeRidThis-71F04E.06512916092009@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <1xJrm.21331$Xh5.3964@newsfe01.ams2>,
> > "dE|_"  wrote:
> >
> >> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are a
> >> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
> >> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
> >>
> >> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
> >> rhythm.
> >>
> >> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab 
> >> page.
> >
> > You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
> > Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
> > width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
> > not really demand that you design for so wide.
> 
> You can't let guitar tablature line-wrap due to the purpose of it, and 
> that's a 5 year old argument. People with 800 monitors are used to it by 
> now.

Again, you are missing my point. I am not suggesting you allow wrap on 
this.

-- 
dorayme

"Chris F.A. Johnson"  wrote in message 
news:7hd9g8F2mbp2mU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-09-16, dE|_ wrote:
>>
>> "dorayme" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are 
>>>> a
>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>
>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>> rhythm.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab
>>>> page.
>>>
>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>
>> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get 
>> for
>> the main content.
>
>    I get a horizontal scroll bar.

The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w. Once this 
handful have side scrolled the navigation bar, which I am not going to 
compromise, they go only up/down and not side/side to read the actual body 
content. In my books that's no ground zero.
>
>> I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
>
>    Luck, but not good luck.


-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

"dorayme"  wrote in message 
news:doraymeRidThis-B90CAE.14190017092009@news.albasani.net...
> In article <c53sm.152181$I35.7613@newsfe24.ams2>,
> "dE|_"  wrote:
>
>> "dorayme" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you 
>> >> are a
>> >> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>> >> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and 
>> >> lines;
>> >>
>> >> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>> >> rhythm.
>> >>
>> >> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab
>> >> page.
>> >
>> > You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x 
>> > *?
>> > Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>> > width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>> > not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>
>> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get 
>> for
>> the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
>
> Sounds like you are missing my point. (Your page is quite nice though
> anyway).

Is your point that I let the side 'bonus' navigation panel come closer to 
the content panel as the window shrinks? At the moment they line up to the 
edge of the horizontal drop-nav which will can not get any smaller and will 
change over my dead fender.

Is there another point?

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

In article <3wnsm.245456$156.178883@newsfe14.ams2>,
 "dE|_"  wrote:

> "dorayme"  wrote in message 
> news:doraymeRidThis-B90CAE.14190017092009@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <c53sm.152181$I35.7613@newsfe24.ams2>,
> > "dE|_"  wrote:
> >
> >> "dorayme" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you 
> >> >> are a
> >> >> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
> >> >> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and 
> >> >> lines;
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
> >> >> rhythm.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab
> >> >> page.
> >> >
> >> > You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x 
> >> > *?
> >> > Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
> >> > width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
> >> > not really demand that you design for so wide.
> >>
> >> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get 
> >> for
> >> the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
> >
> > Sounds like you are missing my point. (Your page is quite nice though
> > anyway).
> 
> Is your point that I let the side 'bonus' navigation panel come closer to 
> the content panel as the window shrinks? At the moment they line up to the 
> edge of the horizontal drop-nav which will can not get any smaller and will 
> change over my dead fender.
> 
> Is there another point?

The gap between the cry baby box ad and the central score rectangle  
does not budge when it could usefully do so at narrow window widths. As 
one lowers the text size, there is no em widthing for the box/elements 
in the box/etc so the text at the top, for example, remains wider than 
it needs be, the score has empty blue/grey space that is doing nothing 
to the right. I would have thought that all this adds up to "surely 
there is room to make it more flexible and user friendly"

I reiterate: it looks nice anyway and these are perhaps fine points 
given that North Korea seems to be developing nuclear weapons and there 
is even some talk of a plutonium bomb... <g>

-- 
dorayme

"dorayme"  wrote after:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you
>> >> >> are a
>> >> >> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with 
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and
>> >> >> lines;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a 
>> >> >> simplistic
>> >> >> rhythm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master 
>> >> >> tab
>> >> >> page.
>> >> >
>> >> > You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 
>> >> > x
>> >> > *?
>> >> > Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with 
>> >> > less
>> >> > width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content 
>> >> > does
>> >> > not really demand that you design for so wide.
>> >>
>> >> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you 
>> >> get
>> >> for
>> >> the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
>> >
>> > Sounds like you are missing my point. (Your page is quite nice though
>> > anyway).
>>
>> Is your point that I let the side 'bonus' navigation panel come closer to
>> the content panel as the window shrinks? At the moment they line up to 
>> the
>> edge of the horizontal drop-nav which will can not get any smaller and 
>> will
>> change over my dead fender.
>>
>> Is there another point?
>
> The gap between the cry baby box ad and the central score rectangle
> does not budge when it could usefully do so at narrow window widths. As
> one lowers the text size, there is no em widthing for the box/elements
> in the box/etc so the text at the top, for example, remains wider than
> it needs be, the score has empty blue/grey space that is doing nothing
> to the right. I would have thought that all this adds up to "surely
> there is room to make it more flexible and user friendly"
>
> I reiterate: it looks nice anyway and these are perhaps fine points
> given that North Korea seems to be developing nuclear weapons and there
> is even some talk of a plutonium bomb... <g>

Look; I can't make the drop-navigation bar any smaller and so the page as a 
whole can not get any narrower. As this is such I would rather just keep the 
2 white panels under it inline with the edge of the nav bars.

If anyone with a 1024 would rather hit the back button than the max button 
then they are not looking for my business. Anyone with an 800 should have a 
horizontal scroll wheel or just plain used to it by now.

End of my story, I've got a lesson in 20mins.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

dE|_ wrote:
> "dorayme"  wrote after:
>>>>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you
>>>>>>> are a
>>>>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with 
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and
>>>>>>> lines;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a 
>>>>>>> simplistic
>>>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master 
>>>>>>> tab
>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 
>>>>>> x
>>>>>> *?
>>>>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with 
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>>>> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you 
>>>>> get
>>>>> for
>>>>> the main content. I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
>>>> Sounds like you are missing my point. (Your page is quite nice though
>>>> anyway).
>>> Is your point that I let the side 'bonus' navigation panel come closer to
>>> the content panel as the window shrinks? At the moment they line up to 
>>> the
>>> edge of the horizontal drop-nav which will can not get any smaller and 
>>> will
>>> change over my dead fender.
>>>
>>> Is there another point?
>> The gap between the cry baby box ad and the central score rectangle
>> does not budge when it could usefully do so at narrow window widths. As
>> one lowers the text size, there is no em widthing for the box/elements
>> in the box/etc so the text at the top, for example, remains wider than
>> it needs be, the score has empty blue/grey space that is doing nothing
>> to the right. I would have thought that all this adds up to "surely
>> there is room to make it more flexible and user friendly"
>>
>> I reiterate: it looks nice anyway and these are perhaps fine points
>> given that North Korea seems to be developing nuclear weapons and there
>> is even some talk of a plutonium bomb... <g>
> 
> Look; I can't make the drop-navigation bar any smaller and so the page as a 
> whole can not get any narrower. As this is such I would rather just keep the 
> 2 white panels under it inline with the edge of the nav bars.
> 
> If anyone with a 1024 would rather hit the back button than the max button 
> then they are not looking for my business. Anyone with an 800 should have a 
> horizontal scroll wheel or just plain used to it by now.
> 
> End of my story, I've got a lesson in 20mins.
> 

The question is not if they are looking for your business, it's are YOU 
looking for THEIR business?  I'm glad you can have such a cavalier 
attitude towards potential customers.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On 2009-09-17, dE|_ wrote:
>
> "Chris F.A. Johnson"  wrote in message 
> news:7hd9g8F2mbp2mU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2009-09-16, dE|_ wrote:
>>>
>>> "dorayme" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am sure you have all come across tablature many times, unless you are 
>>>>> a
>>>>> stave reader, so can I get your opinion on the idea I came up with for
>>>>> making the rhythm layout more understanderble without sticks and lines;
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.crackguitar.com/tab/tab_bullsonparade.html for a simplistic
>>>>> rhythm.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it doesn't make sense there is an 'All explained' on the master tab
>>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be designing for a set screen size as some minimum 1024 x *?
>>>> Why not not do this and leave the page to adjust to browsers with less
>>>> width without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users. Your content does
>>>> not really demand that you design for so wide.
>>>
>>> Do you have a window sizer tool? Size it to 800x600 and see what you get 
>>> for
>>> the main content.
>>
>>    I get a horizontal scroll bar.
>
> The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w.

   At my default font size it doesn't. See:
   <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/crackguitar.jpg>.

> Once this 
> handful have side scrolled the navigation bar, which I am not going to 
> compromise, they go only up/down and not side/side to read the actual body 
> content. In my books that's no ground zero.
>>
>>> I can't remember if this was planned or pure luck.
>>
>>    Luck, but not good luck.


-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Chris F.A. Johnson" pointed out:
>>>>>
>>
>> The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w.
>
>   At my default font size it doesn't. See:
>   <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/crackguitar.jpg>.

Hmm, the font size for the both the music tablature and the navigation 
(being of a sensitive fit) were set in pt units not %. Am I just being 
retarded here; I was under the impression this format was not resizable.

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:34:32 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:10:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>> 
>>>>
>>> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>>> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>>> for your inability to create fluid designs.
>> 
>> You seem to be missing the point that tablature is fixed-width by
>> nature - the line breaks are part of the content. So there's no way to
>> make it either wider or narrower, it has to be presented at whatever
>> width the content requires. A fluid design, therefore, would do
>> nothing more than alter the amount of blank space either side of the
>> tablature itself, which is rather pointless. And, since the tablature
>> pages have to be fixed width (or, at least, minimum width) there's
>> little to gain by having a fluid design elsewhere.
>>
>
>Not necessarily.  A fluid design does not have to alter the amount of 
>blank space on either side - it can increase or decrease the width of 
>the content to match the available size.

But in this case, the content is fixed width. And it's content that's
derived from a non-web source, so there's no useful way to change that
without introducing serious usability problems.

>Now I agree a fluid design wouldn't add anything to this particular page 
>- but other pages (such as the home page) could easily benefit from it.

That requires two separate stylesheets, though, and results in an
inconsistent UI across the site. That's the sort of thing that's
generally a bad idea, unless there's a compelling reason to do it.

>> The site could be made to work better for smaller windows by removing
>> the secondary navigation image block on the left, so that the minimum
>> width is the width of the tablature itself rather than tablature +
>> image. But I suspect that the usability and marketing downsides of
>> that would be greater than the gain from the extra space. And,
>> remember, this isn't a hobby site or a public service - this is Del's
>> business, and the most important thing (in the long run, the *only*
>> important thing) is that it generates income for him. And I'm pretty
>> sure that any loss of income from people who go elsewhere because they
>> can't (or won't) use a browser window wide enough is going to be a lot
>> smaller than the potential loss of income from removing internal
>> navigation and advertising in order to gain some extra space.
>
>Or, move the navigation window to the right side, so people with 
>narrower windows can see the table without having to scroll right.  The 
>downside of that is, of course, that they wouldn't necessarily see there 
>is a navigation block.

That would work, but if they're going to scroll then they'll scroll
anyway, so it doesn't make much difference which side the navigation
block is.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote after I commented:
>> If anyone with a 1024 would rather hit the back button than the max 
>> button then they are not looking for my business. Anyone with an 800 
>> should have a horizontal scroll wheel or just plain used to it by now.
>>
>> End of my story, I've got a lesson in 20mins.
>>
>
> The question is not if they are looking for your business, it's are YOU 
> looking for THEIR business?  I'm glad you can have such a cavalier 
> attitude towards potential customers.

Jerry, 'Joe Public' looking for their local guitar teacher in small town 
rural England is really not going to give a shit if they have to maximise 
their browser to get rid of a scroll bar. Most are amazed I've even got a 
site as I have next to no competition.

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:34:32 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
> 
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:10:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>> So they're "used to it".  That doesn't mean they don't just leave the 
>>>> site, looking for a more user-friendly one.  They do.  Don't blame them 
>>>> for your inability to create fluid designs.
>>> You seem to be missing the point that tablature is fixed-width by
>>> nature - the line breaks are part of the content. So there's no way to
>>> make it either wider or narrower, it has to be presented at whatever
>>> width the content requires. A fluid design, therefore, would do
>>> nothing more than alter the amount of blank space either side of the
>>> tablature itself, which is rather pointless. And, since the tablature
>>> pages have to be fixed width (or, at least, minimum width) there's
>>> little to gain by having a fluid design elsewhere.
>>>
>> Not necessarily.  A fluid design does not have to alter the amount of 
>> blank space on either side - it can increase or decrease the width of 
>> the content to match the available size.
> 
> But in this case, the content is fixed width. And it's content that's
> derived from a non-web source, so there's no useful way to change that
> without introducing serious usability problems.
> 
>> Now I agree a fluid design wouldn't add anything to this particular page 
>> - but other pages (such as the home page) could easily benefit from it.
> 
> That requires two separate stylesheets, though, and results in an
> inconsistent UI across the site. That's the sort of thing that's
> generally a bad idea, unless there's a compelling reason to do it.
>

Not at all.  You can use a fluid design on this page with a minimum 
width; someone using a larger screen would see navigation block on the 
left with the fixed-width content centered.  One style sheet, yet fluid.

>>> The site could be made to work better for smaller windows by removing
>>> the secondary navigation image block on the left, so that the minimum
>>> width is the width of the tablature itself rather than tablature +
>>> image. But I suspect that the usability and marketing downsides of
>>> that would be greater than the gain from the extra space. And,
>>> remember, this isn't a hobby site or a public service - this is Del's
>>> business, and the most important thing (in the long run, the *only*
>>> important thing) is that it generates income for him. And I'm pretty
>>> sure that any loss of income from people who go elsewhere because they
>>> can't (or won't) use a browser window wide enough is going to be a lot
>>> smaller than the potential loss of income from removing internal
>>> navigation and advertising in order to gain some extra space.
>> Or, move the navigation window to the right side, so people with 
>> narrower windows can see the table without having to scroll right.  The 
>> downside of that is, of course, that they wouldn't necessarily see there 
>> is a navigation block.
> 
> That would work, but if they're going to scroll then they'll scroll
> anyway, so it doesn't make much difference which side the navigation
> block is.
> 
> Mark

But it does make a difference.  With the navigation block on the left, 
you are forcing the person to scroll to see the content.  With the block 
on the right, that's not necessary until they want the navigation block 
(if they do).


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

dE|_ wrote:
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" pointed out:
>>> The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w.
>>   At my default font size it doesn't. See:
>>   <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/crackguitar.jpg>.
> 
> Hmm, the font size for the both the music tablature and the navigation 
> (being of a sensitive fit) were set in pt units not %. Am I just being 
> retarded here; I was under the impression this format was not resizable.
> 

First rule of html - you cannot control what happens in the browser - 
you can only recommend.

Second rule of html - don't even try to control what happens in the 
browser.  You will fail.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

dE|_ wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote after I commented:
>>> If anyone with a 1024 would rather hit the back button than the max 
>>> button then they are not looking for my business. Anyone with an 800 
>>> should have a horizontal scroll wheel or just plain used to it by now.
>>>
>>> End of my story, I've got a lesson in 20mins.
>>>
>> The question is not if they are looking for your business, it's are YOU 
>> looking for THEIR business?  I'm glad you can have such a cavalier 
>> attitude towards potential customers.
> 
> Jerry, 'Joe Public' looking for their local guitar teacher in small town 
> rural England is really not going to give a shit if they have to maximise 
> their browser to get rid of a scroll bar. Most are amazed I've even got a 
> site as I have next to no competition. 
> 
> 

Are you sure?  You'll never know because those people will not come back 
or contact you.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

"This guitar teacher isn't worth checking out cos I have to maximize my 
window for his site?" Wake up donkey and get a hobby. I'm definately leaving 
the thread now.

dE|_ wrote:
> "This guitar teacher isn't worth checking out cos I have to maximize my 
> window for his site?" Wake up donkey and get a hobby. I'm definately leaving 
> the thread now. 
> 
> 

Ah, again, no valid answer so you have to resort to personal attacks. 
How surprising - NOT!

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On 2009-09-17, dE|_ wrote:
>
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" pointed out:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w.
>>
>>   At my default font size it doesn't. See:
>>   <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/crackguitar.jpg>.
>
> Hmm, the font size for the both the music tablature and the navigation 
> (being of a sensitive fit) were set in pt units not %. Am I just being 
> retarded here; I was under the impression this format was not resizable.

   Which would you prefer, resizable or unreadable?


-- 
   Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster         <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
   ===================================================================
   Author:
   Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Chris F.A. Johnson" noted after:

>>>>
>>>> The white scratchplate styled panels fit entirely within 800w.
>>>
>>>   At my default font size it doesn't. See:
>>>   <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/crackguitar.jpg>.
>>
>> Hmm, the font size for the both the music tablature and the navigation
>> (being of a sensitive fit) were set in pt units not %. Am I just being
>> retarded here; I was under the impression this format was not resizable.
>
>   Which would you prefer, resizable or unreadable?

Well, on the main tablature page which explains the colour patches I added a 
'disclaimer';
-----------
Please note that if your browser displays text larger than default size the 
numbers may not line up to their correct colour blocks. I'm afraid I can't 
change this.
-----------
(unless I produced the whole thing as a jpeg :)

If it is enlarged & goes out of screen capacity then the best I can do is 
offer modern monitor commercial links. (remember you can't line-wrap this 
stuff)

-- 
======= dE|_ =======
www.websitefoundry.co.uk
www.crackguitar.com
Fender~Photoshop~Markup

"Jerry Stuckle"  wrote in message 
news:h8u9jp$ngf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> dE|_ wrote:
>> "This guitar teacher isn't worth checking out cos I have to maximize my 
>> window for his site?" Wake up donkey and get a hobby. I'm definately 
>> leaving the thread now.
>
> Ah, again, no valid answer so you have to resort to personal attacks. How 
> surprising - NOT!

As I replied to Chris I thought I'd have another shot at explaining why in 
the case of this particular site (not my other works) I am not too concerend 
with 1024 maximising.

Please start by seeing this google map of my humble location;
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=royston&sll=52.050062,-0.01708&sspn=0.299811,0.617294&ie=UTF8&ll=52.048268,-0.024033&spn=0.149911,0.308647&z=12

In the 12k man town there is a handfull of ageing classical guitar teachers 
with grey beards. Locals & surrounding villages look up my town for guitar 
teachers, funnily enough I am the only one who has a website let alone one 
of this size, public information and rock flavour.

That is why in -this- particular scenario I am not freaked by the thought of 
potential students floating off to a competitor's site (they don't exist 
remember). Plus I still believe that none but a fracture of the public are 
actualy that bothered about maximising a window, we have more important 
concerns.
Oh, and I think 21st century protective mother is a bit more concerned with 
checking out "Who is this guy my son/daughter could go to see alone for £22 
per hour" than "Oh look I've got to maximise my browser for this site, that 
sucks"

--

dE|_ wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle"  wrote in message 
> news:h8u9jp$ngf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> dE|_ wrote:
>>> "This guitar teacher isn't worth checking out cos I have to maximize my 
>>> window for his site?" Wake up donkey and get a hobby. I'm definately 
>>> leaving the thread now.
>> Ah, again, no valid answer so you have to resort to personal attacks. How 
>> surprising - NOT!
> 
> As I replied to Chris I thought I'd have another shot at explaining why in 
> the case of this particular site (not my other works) I am not too concerend 
> with 1024 maximising.
> 
> Please start by seeing this google map of my humble location;
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=royston&sll=52.050062,-0.01708&sspn=0.299811,0.617294&ie=UTF8&ll=52.048268,-0.024033&spn=0.149911,0.308647&z=12
> 
> In the 12k man town there is a handfull of ageing classical guitar teachers 
> with grey beards. Locals & surrounding villages look up my town for guitar 
> teachers, funnily enough I am the only one who has a website let alone one 
> of this size, public information and rock flavour.
> 
> That is why in -this- particular scenario I am not freaked by the thought of 
> potential students floating off to a competitor's site (they don't exist 
> remember). Plus I still believe that none but a fracture of the public are 
> actualy that bothered about maximising a window, we have more important 
> concerns.
> Oh, and I think 21st century protective mother is a bit more concerned with 
> checking out "Who is this guy my son/daughter could go to see alone for £22 
> per hour" than "Oh look I've got to maximise my browser for this site, that 
> sucks"
> 

You'll never know, will you?  Glad I didn't hire you.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================