21–27 of 27 posts
"The most important change is that most navigation elements continue to be visible even when you scroll down. The navigation bar, the search box and the search options sidebar have a fixed position" Strange that "position: fixed" hasn't found its way to popular websites before now. It's been supported by major browsers since the early zeroes (or late nineties?), the only exception being IE (for which you can easily m…
The only fixed that I can handle is a fixed background if there is a large difference in contrast between the page background and main content background.
I hope this does not become a norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I despise frames. And let's call these fixed elements what they really are: frames. In addition to reducing the usable screen area (which is awful on my netbook's 1024x600 screen)[1], frames also break the page metaphor. Part of what makes the web easy to use is that interacting with each website works more or less the same. That is to say, the scrolling behaviour of web pages mimics a real-life piece of paper. If th…
Would you design for the 90% or the 10%? While it sucks that your experience is diminished on a netbook with a small browser viewport (which can be helped if you were to switch to Chrome instead of Firefox), this is only a problem for a very small percentage of the user-base with tiny screens. The rest get a very pleasant and improved site experience. Does it suck for those in the ever-decreasing minority? Yep. Is it…
No, it's not. http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/
I hate infinite scrolling. With pagination at least you get a feeling of having completed something, of having got somewhere. With infinite scrolling you are stuck, scrolling forever. The nice thing about Google Images infinite scrolling is that they combine it with pagination.
My favourite way to combine pagination with infinite scrolling (for reading, at least) is to use columns - the line after the bottom of the first column is at the top of the second column, and scrolling down scrolls all columns along line by line. Scrolling left and right snaps to columns, and scrolling right by one column is equivalent to scrolling down by one page. Scrolling right by one page is equivalent to scrol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you design for the 90% or the 10%? While it sucks that your experience is diminished on a netbook with a small browser viewport (which can be helped if you were to switch to Chrome instead of Firefox), this is only a problem for a very small percentage of the user-base with tiny screens. The rest get a very pleasant and improved site experience. Does it suck for those in the ever-decreasing minority? Yep. Is it…
> this is only a problem for a very small percentage of the user-base with tiny screens No, it's not. http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you design for the 90% or the 10%? While it sucks that your experience is diminished on a netbook with a small browser viewport (which can be helped if you were to switch to Chrome instead of Firefox), this is only a problem for a very small percentage of the user-base with tiny screens. The rest get a very pleasant and improved site experience. Does it suck for those in the ever-decreasing minority? Yep. Is it…
I would design for both of your made up demographics. And in both cases I would preserve the page metaphor by not using frames.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you got a second picture showing how it would be better?
This is the gist of it. http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png
It would be interesting if spoofing your user-agent would get you the other half of the way.