Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Txpq
Thanks, Stef, the line-height is increased a bit and of course the narrow left column has gone all for the sake of better readability.
I’m determined to leave the 800 width for other pages. Lots of people land on the article rather than the front page so it won’t be a shock, and it’s better for usability. People have smaller monitors and can use the large size option without scrolling across, or they have their browser sidebar open so they can see it all without scrolling across. There’s also plenty of room for the article without needing to be any wider. Wide line lengths are harder to read. Plus I think it’s the perfect size cos it’s a perfect fit for 800 monitor plus a perfect fit for 1024 if you use large size. So I’ll take some convincing to change it ;-)
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline
Re: Txpq
All perfectly valid reasons to keep it the way it is :-) Like an inconsiderate klutz I always forget about people changing font sizes…
The smd plugin menagerie — for when you need one more gribble of power from Textpattern. Bleeding-edge code available on GitHub.
Hire Txp Builders – finely-crafted code, design and Txp
Offline
Re: Txpq
No more inconsiderate than anyone else, I think, Stef. In fact probably more considerate. I have a large monitor and it was quite a shock to me to look at a 17” set at 1024 × 768 the other day. This forum was very hard to read as was TXPQ at the default size, so I’m glad I put the large size option there, cos enlarging via the browser doesn’t always bring great results ;-(
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline
#34 2008-01-14 19:07:38
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: Txpq
Hey Peter, I like the new front page a lot, but the footer is acting strange in Firefox (Linux), it goes up with the content when you scroll: screenshot.
Offline
Re: Txpq
Thanks for that info, Els. I have the footer set to position:absolute;bottom:0; which means it will scroll with the content if there is any scrolling to do. (It’s different on the large size). Your screenshot is about right. I get similar on some other browsers. The idea is that everything is there to read without scrolling but it works differently on different monitors as well as browsers and how many toolbars you have open etc. I’m still trying to find the best way to do this.
I didn’t know about the border around the Read More though. It doesn’t look so good. I’m using an image there because I found my normal text Read More link was invisible on 15” monitors so I decided to turn it round so it should be visible on them all. All a bit tricky…
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline
#36 2008-01-14 19:23:35
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: Txpq
It doesn’t only scroll with the content, as you can see it’s partly covering the content (edit: depending on the height of your screen), and I don’t think that was your intention.
The border on the read more images is not there in Konqueror (but who uses Konqueror anyway…)
… and who uses Linux anyway… :/
Last edited by els (2008-01-14 19:29:57)
Offline
Re: Txpq
Is it better now, Els? My intention is to get enough content to read in both articles so the reader can decide whether to read more or click one of the other links. But I want to fit this into the viewport if possible. The content should cut off abruptly at the footer and that is intended. Unfortunately the content appears to go under and beyond the footer in Firefox. I thought that would not be a problem but I can see it could annoy someone who is expecting to read more content below the viewport.
I’ve used overflow:hidden to cut off the content next to the footer. This should prevent scroll bars showing as per this w3c statement:
bq. This value indicates that the content is clipped and that no scrolling mechanism should be provided to view the content outside the clipping region; users will not have access to clipped content.
But browsers being browsers do as they please so I’ll have to compromise again by the looks of it.
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline
#38 2008-01-14 23:36:49
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: Txpq
Okay, now I get your intention. There is no more content under the footer now, so that is better. There is still a (scrollable) very empty part of the page below the footer, you can see that in my screenshot. If I understand your intention correctly, there shouldn’t be scroll bar at all. But don’t ask me how to solve this ;)
Offline
Re: Txpq
Hi Els, I was very tired when I wrote my last comment and wasn’t thinking too straight. Although browsers vary and they should not leave a scroll bar if there’s no extra content beyond the fold or viewpoint or first screen (what’s the best term for that?), people have different heights of screen so although the footer is fixed to the bottom of the viewpoint, there will be times when the content goes under and beyond the footer (eg. when all their browser toolbars are open, or they have a shorter screen etc).
So really the problem was the positioning of the footer using absolute and bottom. It does not allow for the many user contexts and so that is probably why it is very rarely used. So I’ve now changed that and if people have a lower height screen they will have to scroll down to see the footer.
The very empty part of the screen is still there with Windows Firefox, Opera and Safari which seem to create the large space for no reason. Even allowing for the overflow if it was not hidden, there should only be a couple of lines extra in this case. Seems like IE is the only one to get it right this time so that’s puzzling! So there’s probably more to it than that…
Anyway, glad you like it and thanks for the feedback which made me do something about it.
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline
Re: Txpq
Peter, check out footerStickAlt (when the site’s up again).
Last edited by jm (2008-01-15 12:10:52)
Offline
Re: Txpq
I played around with footerStickAlt a bit but I’d have to change a few things to make it work, so I’ve bookmarked it and may use it another time another site. My method is pretty simple, just using position absolute from the top, and works the same in all the browsers I’ve tried, so I’ll stick with it unless someone finds it breaks.
But thanks for the link. As usual you show alternative ways I never knew about before. You’re the man for the CSS! I’m going to try the suckerfish dropdowns on the footer pullups when I get a bit more time.
Dozy P My attempt at music
Offline