Active Topics
sgosnell |
2008-02-21
, 19:02
|
|
Posts: 348 |
Thanked: 61 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#11
|
One shouldn't have to do CSS tricks to view a site properly. It should be set up right in the first place, especially if it's marketed to ITTs. This site is ok, barely, with the classic view. The others the owner has chosen are simply not useable. White on black is a really bad idea, and the white carries over even on the classic view, making highlighted text invisible, being white on almost white.
 |
|
2008-02-21
, 19:06
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#12
|
Originally Posted by sgosnell
It depends on how you define "tricks".
One shouldn't have to do CSS tricks to view a site properly. It should be set up right in the first place, especially if it's marketed to ITTs..
I'm an old HTML guy, but after looking into the subject a few months ago, I quickly learned that CSS is THE way to go, period, especially with regards to the tablets. IMO, use of css is the only thing that makes sense to properly construct and view pages on small screens. It also makes it easy for them to render decently on many sizes at once, including large screens.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2008-02-21
, 19:37
|
|
Posts: 364 |
Thanked: 54 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
|
#13
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
I took the comment to mean the USER should not have to do create a custom CSS to override the setup of the site in order to make the site viewable on the NIT.
It depends on how you define "tricks".
I'm an old HTML guy, but after looking into the subject a few months ago, I quickly learned that CSS is THE way to go, period, especially with regards to the tablets. IMO, use of css is the only thing that makes sense to properly construct and view pages on small screens. It also makes it easy for them to render decently on many sizes at once, including large screens.
Basically that is true for ANY website....they user should not have to make any changes other than possible increase oe decrease the font size for their personal viewing/vision needs. But using properly formatted HTML pages will reflow with a font change w/o significantly altering the overall look of the site or, one of the most common probs is the text should not extend beyond the div container.
Anyway, that is how I read the comment.
|
|
2008-02-21
, 19:43
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#14
|
Ah! You may be right, breck.
But anyway, if the original design CSS is done properly, the user should not HAVE to do anything.
But anyway, if the original design CSS is done properly, the user should not HAVE to do anything.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 |
|
2008-02-21
, 20:00
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by sgosnell
I disagree regarding light-on-dark vs. dark-on-light, but let's not start that flamewar. Certainly whichever way it works out, it should be consistent. One or two lines of CSS resolves that problem with the classic theme; there's no reason why that CSS shouldn't have been added already. That's a bug in the implementation, but the great thing is that the design is right, so that it can be fixed by CSS.
One shouldn't have to do CSS tricks to view a site properly. It should be set up right in the first place, especially if it's marketed to ITTs. This site is ok, barely, with the classic view. The others the owner has chosen are simply not useable. White on black is a really bad idea, and the white carries over even on the classic view, making highlighted text invisible, being white on almost white.
While I agree that sites should not be broken (white-on-white is broken, no doubts on that!), they shouldn't necessarily be very suitable for internet tablet usage as they stand. (Remaining aware that the topic of this thread is good sites, I'm speaking more generally about all sites.) It would be nice for compassionate webmasters to add CSSs for us, but as our needs are different from "ordinary" browsers, it seems only natural that, until internet tablets become more commonplace, we'll have to make some efforts on our own to get a really comfortable experience.
But if you design content and structure in HTML, and presentation in CSS, it can always be fixed easily for other browsers, either by end-users or by the webmasters.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Benson For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2008-02-22
, 17:20
|
|
Posts: 26 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#16
|
OK...back to the original subject matter, here is a content portal I use on my Archos 605wifi. It is intended for use on the Archos, but so far I have found it to work quite well on my n810.
http://www.darksouls.org/
It has links to streaming TV, video and radio. There are links to flash games and apps and links to other sites that are good for viewing on mobile devices. Check it out.
http://www.darksouls.org/
It has links to streaming TV, video and radio. There are links to flash games and apps and links to other sites that are good for viewing on mobile devices. Check it out.
|
|
2008-02-22
, 17:23
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#17
|
Hmmm... you have me thinking now, ynnek63.
Jay and I have been wondering what to do with the whole jablet project now that parts of it are becoming moot. I wonder if what we should do is develop a "tablet-friendly certification program" and host it on jablet.net. Would anyone see value in that?
Jay and I have been wondering what to do with the whole jablet project now that parts of it are becoming moot. I wonder if what we should do is develop a "tablet-friendly certification program" and host it on jablet.net. Would anyone see value in that?
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2008-02-22
, 17:32
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#18
|
It'd give us something to flame you about, on the basis of which sites did/didn't get certified, I guess.
I tend to just use the tablet for the same sites I'd go to anyhow, and grumble to myself about ones that aren't friendly and I don't use much, and fix the ones that I do use much.
I tend to just use the tablet for the same sites I'd go to anyhow, and grumble to myself about ones that aren't friendly and I don't use much, and fix the ones that I do use much.
|
|
2008-02-22
, 17:40
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#19
|
I'm thinking of the future though. Something that could drive some current sites to become tablet-friendly. Some aren't because it's too new, some because it won't suit their site, some because of the work, and some because they don't know any better. The latter are who I'd mainly go for.
I cobbled up a rough idea of ratings. It would take 1 star minimum to be certified a Tablet-Friendly Website:
* 800x480 design, some 2-way scrolling allowed on secondary pages, no CSS required
** 800x480 design, some 1-way scrolling allowed on any secondary page, some CSS
*** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, some CSS, no javascript
**** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, full CSS compatible with all browsers, no javascript, scalable to desktop monitors with no problems
There would be cool logos as well, of course.
feedback? Other than Benson's that is.
I cobbled up a rough idea of ratings. It would take 1 star minimum to be certified a Tablet-Friendly Website:
* 800x480 design, some 2-way scrolling allowed on secondary pages, no CSS required
** 800x480 design, some 1-way scrolling allowed on any secondary page, some CSS
*** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, some CSS, no javascript
**** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, full CSS compatible with all browsers, no javascript, scalable to desktop monitors with no problems
There would be cool logos as well, of course.
feedback? Other than Benson's that is.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2008-02-22
, 20:37
|
|
Posts: 26 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#20
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
The link to the content portal I posted is not officially supported by Archos. The official Archos content portal sucks! The link I posted is an independent project started because of the crappy content portal on the Archos device. The sites within the link I posted are just sites that people have found that work well with the Archos. Since the 605wifi and the n8x0 have similar screen sizes and resolutions I figured that portal would work well for the NITs. I think it would be great to have a similar portal for the N8x0, but i am clueless when it comes to such matters as web site design and set-up.
I'm thinking of the future though. Something that could drive some current sites to become tablet-friendly. Some aren't because it's too new, some because it won't suit their site, some because of the work, and some because they don't know any better. The latter are who I'd mainly go for.
I cobbled up a rough idea of ratings. It would take 1 star minimum to be certified a Tablet-Friendly Website:
* 800x480 design, some 2-way scrolling allowed on secondary pages, no CSS required
** 800x480 design, some 1-way scrolling allowed on any secondary page, some CSS
*** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, some CSS, no javascript
**** 800x480 design, 1-way scrolling allowed only on list-style pages, full CSS compatible with all browsers, no javascript, scalable to desktop monitors with no problems
There would be cool logos as well, of course.
feedback? Other than Benson's that is.
