Sent by Patrick Mannix on 31 May 2005 04:04
I can't think of a better way to express what I'm asking.
I developed and maintain two sites, <http://xps.org/> and
<http://mhcug.org/>, with the xps site being the most extensive (and
important). They each evolved since the mid-1990s, using a basic
two-column design using simple table layout. I've begun redesign of
both, but using slightly different standards-based approaches. I have
tentatively decided that the fluid (?) design seen at
http://www.mhcug.org/members.htm which seems to fit my requirements the
best. This design is classic three-column with header and footer. Column
widths are in EMs, such that at default browser font settings, the page
fits an 800 pixel width display. (First two or last two columns can
display in 640 window.) The idea being that as screen resolution
increases the USER settings are likely to be for larger font size. The
columns will expand in proportion.
I know there is no single best solution, but I hold line length to be an
important usability concern. The question is:
Is this a good approach before I begin converting my many (hundreds) of
static pages?
The XHTML and CSS (http://www.mhcug.org/styles/advanced.css) validate
and most 508 issues are resolved (search box still needs attention).
I have only tested in Windows and Linux browsers, so Mac reports would
be appreciated.
Nit picking encouraged!
The real question is the "reassurance" one. Is this a satisfactory approach?
Thanks for "listening."
Pat
Patrick Mannix
Webmaster, http://xps.org/ and http://mhcug.org/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
