3 ms·

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

by p9idf 15y ago

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 the entire website no longer scrolls as one uniform page, when visiting a new site, the scrolling behaviour is unpredictable with each site doing something different. My terminology is clumsy, but perhaps it is clear enough to understand what I mean. [1] http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1748/screenwaste.png http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1748/screenwaste.png

nodata 15y ago
Have you got a second picture showing how it would be better?
- p9idf 15y ago
  This is the gist of it. http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png
  - nodata 15y ago
    Okay: so going full screen with F11 would get you half way there. It would be interesting if spoofing your user-agent would get you the other half of the way.
experimental 15y ago
A reminder: you can use Alt to bring up the menu bar if you hide it. If you're using TabMixPlus, there may be an add-on that gives you better performance.
Pewpewarrows 15y ago
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 worth it? Absolutely.
- p9idf 15y ago
  I would design for both of your made up demographics. And in both cases I would preserve the page metaphor by not using frames.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- jamesgeck0 15y ago
  > 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/ http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

by p9idf 15y ago

nodata 15y ago

Have you got a second picture showing how it would be better?

p9idf 15y ago
This is the gist of it. http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4007/screenwaste2.png
- nodata 15y ago
  Okay: so going full screen with F11 would get you half way there. It would be interesting if spoofing your user-agent would get you the other half of the way.

experimental 15y ago

A reminder: you can use Alt to bring up the menu bar if you hide it. If you're using TabMixPlus, there may be an add-on that gives you better performance.

Pewpewarrows 15y ago

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 worth it? Absolutely.

p9idf 15y ago
I would design for both of your made up demographics. And in both cases I would preserve the page metaphor by not using frames.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
jamesgeck0 15y ago
> 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/ http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]