website authoring software recommendation
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: Editing html files
Next: Slightly OT about iTunes on windows - does it ACTUALLY take over media player prefs? Or is this FUD?
From: dorayme on 23 Feb 2010 02:31 In article <leoblaisdell-95863F.22292122022010(a)News.Individual.NET>, Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-B75A95.16575023022010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > But it is noticeable that no one at softpress does not know > > better than to make a website extolling website making tools if > > this is the sort of result that can happen for people who like > > their text bigger than average. > > Yikes! Any size design seems to be lacking in spades. I like my text > bigger than average. > Me too, Leo, especially as the day grows long and my eyes weaker... Not only that, my back! As it gets sorer, I need to sit further back in the seat... Someone shoot me! -- dorayme
From: TaliesinSoft on 23 Feb 2010 09:56 On 2010-02-23 01:28:55 -0600, dorayme said: > In article <7uhaqtFu16U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-02-22 23:57:50 -0600, dorayme said: >> >>> In article <7uh7a2Ff13U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> As an aside, the Softpress website itself was developed in Freeway and >>>> passes he W3C validation with 0 errors. >>> >>> Technical errors and validation is one thing, good website making >>> practice is more than this. I suppose it is unfair to blame the >>> software itself for slack design that results in such as: >>> >>> <http://people.aapt.net.au/~miltonreid/justPics/softpress.png> >>> >>> But it is noticeable that no one at softpress does not know >>> better than to make a website extolling website making tools if >>> this is the sort of result that can happen for people who like >>> their text bigger than average. >> >> dorayme... >> >> I've forwarded your posting to Softpress. Yes, they did botch it on that one! >> >> Jim > > O Christ, with my bad sentence? I hope you showed mercy and > altered the sentence a bit. <g> Actually I had my email ready to send to Ian Schray who is the U.S. representative for Softpress, but it was late at night and I decided to wait until this morning to send the email which didn't include the wording of your email, only the link you posted. And, this morning, I've noted that if you access the gallery information through the links in their website that the page displays fully and correctly. That link is <http://www.softpress.com/galleries/> As far as having text be "bigger than average" I've noted that the most recent versiions of Safari, the browser I use, wihen enlarging a site page will proportionately enlarge both the textual content and the associated images, a behavior which to me is far more pleasant than the former enlarge the text only and shove the images around behavior. -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com
From: TaliesinSoft on 23 Feb 2010 13:33 On 2010-02-23 12:10:15 -0600, James Sidbury said: [responding to my having stated] >> As far as having text be "bigger than average" I've noted that the most >> recent versiions of Safari, the browser I use, wihen enlarging a site >> page will proportionately enlarge both the textual content and the >> associated images, a behavior which to me is far more pleasant than the >> former enlarge the text only and shove the images around behavior. > > But if you increase the size of the text without increasing the size of > everything the text still behaves in the same way. I wasn't aware that in Safari (I'm using Version 4.0.4 (6531.21.10)), that there was an option to just zoom the text. Live and learn! :-) And, going back to the example dorayme posted where things run amuck if only the text is zoomed I was able to repeat what the link dorayme posted displayed. Again I'll report this to Softpress. -- James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft(a)me.com
From: dorayme on 23 Feb 2010 15:26 In article <7ui8liFvtlU1(a)mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-23 01:28:55 -0600, dorayme said: > > > In article <7uhaqtFu16U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-02-22 23:57:50 -0600, dorayme said: > >> > >>> In article <7uh7a2Ff13U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> As an aside, the Softpress website itself was developed in Freeway and > >>>> passes he W3C validation with 0 errors. > >>> > >>> Technical errors and validation is one thing, good website making > >>> practice is more than this. I suppose it is unfair to blame the > >>> software itself for slack design that results in such as: > >>> > >>> <http://people.aapt.net.au/~miltonreid/justPics/softpress.png> > >>> > >>> But it is noticeable that no one at softpress does not know > >>> better than to make a website extolling website making tools if > >>> this is the sort of result that can happen for people who like > >>> their text bigger than average. > >> > >> dorayme... > >> > >> I've forwarded your posting to Softpress. Yes, they did botch it on that > >> one! > >> .... > > And, this morning, I've noted that if you access the gallery > information through the links in their website that the page displays > fully and correctly. That link is > > <http://www.softpress.com/galleries/> Not as I can see. It is still stuffed. I use text only zoom in my Safari. > > As far as having text be "bigger than average" I've noted that the most > recent versiions of Safari, the browser I use, wihen enlarging a site > page will proportionately enlarge both the textual content and the > associated images, a behavior which to me is far more pleasant than the > former enlarge the text only and shove the images around behavior. Browsers can have a zoom where enlarging simply zooms the lot, downside being the scrollbars come up, horizontal ones being a big nuisance, another downside being a deterioration in picture quality (not even high end image software does enlarge good, you can hardly expect a browser capable of it). The other way a browser can handle enlarge is to just enlarge the text using the maths built into fonts (it stays beautifully crisp - at least on Macs!), the only disadvantage is not what you describe but quite the opposite, the text in *incompetently authored pages* gets shoved around everything else (as in it bursting out all over the show). What the authors do not take into account is that while pictures have a native size, text does not. So, if an HTML box element is the house for a picture and this house is given a pixel dimension, the picture cannot break the bounds of the box. But in HTML boxes that house text (or text as well), the text is not bound by the pixel dimensions of the box. The poor things generally have to burst out and cause bad trouble. There are solutions, many of them. One is to use em dimensions, the language of fonts. If a box is em sized, it grows *with* the text. Text should gracefully flow around pictures (achieved in various ways, some as natural as simply using img elements (which are inline elements). An author, blinded by his own eyesight, might do the lower of these boxes: <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/textBox.html> But a simple change of font size brings out all the faults. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 23 Feb 2010 15:30
In article <7uilbdFcm1U1(a)mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-23 12:10:15 -0600, James Sidbury said: > > [responding to my having stated] > > >> As far as having text be "bigger than average" I've noted that the most > >> recent versiions of Safari, the browser I use, wihen enlarging a site > >> page will proportionately enlarge both the textual content and the > >> associated images, a behavior which to me is far more pleasant than the > >> former enlarge the text only and shove the images around behavior. > > > > But if you increase the size of the text without increasing the size of > > everything the text still behaves in the same way. > > I wasn't aware that in Safari (I'm using Version 4.0.4 (6531.21.10)), > that there was an option to just zoom the text. Live and learn! :-) > > And, going back to the example dorayme posted where things run amuck if > only the text is zoomed I was able to repeat what the link dorayme > posted displayed. Again I'll report this to Softpress. T, it is good and hopeful of you to do this. But frankly, I would eat my hat if a webmaster from an organization of any size responded with anything but nothing or a silly or self-serving short term commercial response. Did not a king try to hold back a tide once? -- dorayme |