forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Date Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:38:25 GMT

Miles Elam wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>> Miles' version looks a lot better in lynx, while one could argue about
>> links (which tries to put the navigation bar to the left in the
>> "original" table design).

> Links is also prone to link jumping: haphazard flow from one link to the
> next.  As a demonstration, go to in links and try 
> to login
> for an extreme example.  One minute you're in the nav, the next you are in
> the news queue, the next you're back in the nav.  The only thing that's 
> easy
> to get to is the search box.

But some users use it, nevertheless.

> Nowadays you can get a perfectly capable browser in an airport, a library,
> and even a cell phone.  I worked for a company that used Mozilla as a
> rendering engine prior to serialization to a Palm device.  Even Palm
> devices are becoming CSS aware!  XHTML+CSS would be more efficient
> for these access points especially when some of them have per kilobyte and
> per minute charges.  The fact that links can render tables at all is 
> amazing,
> but who can't get a graphical browser these days?  The only people I can
> think of who can't effectively use a graphical web browser are the visually
> impaired -- and they aren't using links for text retrieval for the reasons
> mentioned above.

It's not me you have to convince, it's an important user we have.
As I have already forwarded on this list, the Forrest skin will not be 
used in Apache Commons till it doesn't look ok in "links".
Ok means without spacer images and such, and fully validating. No more, 
no less.

> If there is really going to be support for a text interface with all of 
> the bells
> and whistles, why not just start hosting a gopher server?

No need to make it look that good on text browsers.

I don't care how well it looks there, as long as unneeded images are not 
shown (spacer images and such), and that content important images are.

Text browsers are needed to be functional only -> let's make the skin 
functional for them, no more, no less.

> - Miles
> P.S.  Once again, I apologize for my tone.  I have no animosity for 
> anyone on
> this list (quite the contrary!).  All of the crappy pages out there that 
> remain
> crappy only because of Netscape 4 compatibility or some other fringe
> browser from years ago really get me down sometimes.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message