|
It seems to me that absolute positioning and fixed pixel sizing
should be kept to a minimum under responsive UI design.
I'm currently working on a documentation viewport, which
previously relied on inline frames, but works nicely as a SPA.
Hi Nathan,--
Interesting.
Fixing the position of the navigation at the top of the page
eliminates the need for navigation links at the bottom of the page.
That's something I'll keep in mind as a design strategy.
I have mixed feelings about fixing the position of the theme statement
(i.e., the lighter blue bar with the text "Social hope is faith in the
ability of human beings to care for each other.") Fixing the theme
statement in place reduces the height of the main content area. To me,
the main content area is functionally more important to the site than
the theme statement. So, on the one hand, fixing the position of the
theme statement helps preserve the visual consistency of layout, but,
on the other hand, it reduces the real estate of the main content and
thereby disrupts functional prioritization of the layout. I would
probably try some options like loading the theme statement at the top
of the main content (so it scrolls with the main content) or dropping
the theme statement on all pages except the home page. However, I might not like these options once I see them.
I clearly see the maintenance benefits of loading the main content
into a page. The web site header information, theme statement,
navigation links, and footer information--basically everything except
the main content--is in a single HTML file. If I want to make changes
to this information, I can do it one time in one file. Conversely, the
way my web site is currently set up, if I want to make changes to a
navigation link, I have to make the change in multiple HTML files, one HTML file for each page of my web site.
Moreover, loading the main content into the page avoids the need for a
page refresh when the user clicks a link. The web site header, theme
statement, navigation and footer are loaded only one time when the
user visits the web site. The only thing that changes is the content
of the DOM element with the selector id #content (i.e., the main content of the page).
This eliminates any white flicker while waiting for a page to load
because there are no more page loads after the initial page load. It
also reduces the amount of data that has to be downloaded while
browsing the web site, making the site more efficient in terms of
bandwidth and more cost-effective in terms of data charges for users.
Let me see if I understand the details correctly.
In the HTML file, you coded this in the anchor tag for the page on Care:
href="javascript:ht_html('care.html');"
The argument 'care.html' is the name of an HTML file that contains
only the main content for the page on Care. The care.html file does
not contain any of the header, navigation, or footer information. When
the user clicks on this anchor tag, the JavaScript function ht_html is executed.
In the JS script, you coded the ht_html function:
ht_html(s) {
$("#content" ).load(s);
}
The "s" argument in ht_html(s) and load(s) is a variable that is
replaced by the name of the file provided in the code
javascript:ht_html('care.html').
So, when the user clicks the link for the page Care, JQuery grabs the
care.html file and loads it into the DOM element with the id selector
#content.
Is this basically correct?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
