Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4271E208.1020102@pcotech.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:28:08 +0200
From: Cyriaque Dupoirieux <Cyriaque.Dupoirieux@pcotech.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Plugin] PDA or Sidebar output plugin ?
References: <20050428172833.56448.qmail@web41525.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050428172833.56448.qmail@web41525.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

    I fully agree with you.
    Sidebar is browser dependent and is generally made to be 
automatically and frequently refreshed - just as CNN sidebar does, 
dispaying the titles of the recent news...
    I think I started this thread, so allow me to close it.

    Sidebar is not a good idea. (This discussion opened my eyes)

    The only thing I keep in mind is the idea to generate a PDA site 
with a specific output plugin...
  
Regards,
Cyriaque,
   
Mark Eggers a �crit :

>I apologize for joining this discussion late.
>
>--- Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I think it would be great to have optional support
>>>for advanced features of smarter browsers. Though 
>>>that means you would have to support several
>>>      
>>>
>access 
>  
>
>>>options (smart and dumb) for the same browser.
>>>      
>>>
>
>While I like the idea of exploring advanced features
>of some of the browsers, I do think it should be
>optional.
>
>This does create an extra burden for the site
>administrator.  That person would have to keep up two
>sets of style sheets (or sites!) as well as having a
>pretty good set of selection rules to distinguish
>between all the browsers.
>
>  
>
>>>second permanent window area to support all kinds
>>>of extra info see
>>>      
>>>
>
>www.granneman.com/webdev/browsers/mozillafirefoxnetscape/sidebars.htm.
>
>I really don't like the sidebar and will only use it
>occasionally for history searches.  In general when I
>put together or read web pages, I like as much screen
>real estate as possible.
>
>  
>
>>I wouldn't put navigation in the side bar, that is
>>not really what it is for.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree with this.  The sidebar information in the web
>site example has nothing to do with the page being
>viewed.
>
>  
>
>>The user has full control over when a side bar is 
>>viewed and therefore if you put something critical
>>    
>>
>to 
>  
>
>>your page in there (like navigation) your page may 
>>appear broken to the user.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree with this.  What happens when a user makes
>consistent use of the sidebar, as in the Scott
>Granneman example?  Does the Forrest sidebar overwrite
>the user's sidebar?  Do you end up with two sidebars
>and half the screen real estate gone?  This second
>option might be manageable if Forrest's structure was
>more liquid.
>
>My real problem with this is that it strays quite far
>from standards, and thus accessibility.  I think it's
>not safe to have critical parts of a web site depend
>on optional (flash, shockwave, java, javascript) or
>browser-specific (ActiveZ, rounded corners in CSS,
>sidebars) functionality.
>
>Just my two cents . . . .
>
>/mde/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>
>  
>