User Gallery...
Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at
http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery...
We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I
thought we had sooooo many more then that :)
Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It
doesn't fit very well in netscape
-Egon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Show quoted text
Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at
http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery...We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I
thought we had sooooo many more then that :)
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It
doesn't fit very well in netscape
If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount
of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one
:)
Show quoted text
-Egon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Just added some more entries to the User Gallery located at
http://www.postgresql.org/user_gallery...We're up to a grand total of 18 sites that are using PostgreSQL...and I
thought we had sooooo many more then that :)
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
the content.
-Egon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Show quoted text
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It
doesn't fit very well in netscapeIf you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount
of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one
:)
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
the content.
You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
dosnload then the current coniguration...
BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
missing...
Show quoted text
-Egon >
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Hi, is it possible to reduce the number of columns to two or three. It
doesn't fit very well in netscapeIf you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount
of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one
:)
Scrolling horizontally isn't as good as scrolling vertical. I would
suggest to have one entry over the next so I can see all information all
together on the scren. And of course leave out rows with no content.
-Egon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Show quoted text
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
the content.You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
dosnload then the current coniguration...BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
missing...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Scrolling horizontally isn't as good as scrolling vertical. I would
suggest to have one entry over the next so I can see all information all
together on the scren. And of course leave out rows with no content.
I, personally, do not like the idea of the length of the page that
would result in switching to your above format...and, so far, I've had one
private email from someone stating the same thing :(
If you wish to take the information that is there and come up with
a sample of what you are thinking, that reflects the current layout,
please feel free to do so...but, the current layout requires much less
'real estate' then what you are proposing, and, IMHO, scrolling
horizontally or vertically means the same thing...
Show quoted text
-Egon
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
the content.You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
dosnload then the current coniguration...BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
missing...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
the content.You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
dosnload then the current coniguration...BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
missing...
The list is nice, though I agree it needs to be reduced in width.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
At 21:07 +0300 on 17/6/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount
of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one
:)
Here's a suggestion:
Put the "date added" as a separate line, and make the table contain only
the other columns. Like this:
Date added: June 19th, 1998
Title Company Category More
bla bla bla bla
xxx xxx xxx xxx
...
Date added: June 18th, 1998
Title Company Category More
bla bla bla bla
xxx xxx xxx xxx
...
This adds very little to the length of the page, and saves a very wide
column which is very sparsely filled.
Herouth
--
Herouth Maoz, Internet developer.
Open University of Israel - Telem project
http://telem.openu.ac.il/~herutma
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Herouth Maoz wrote:
At 21:07 +0300 on 17/6/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
If you wish to suggest a good layout that will allow for the same amount
of information in less columns, I'm all ears...I couldn't figure out one
:)Here's a suggestion:
Put the "date added" as a separate line, and make the table contain only
the other columns. Like this:Date added: June 19th, 1998
Title Company Category More
bla bla bla bla
xxx xxx xxx xxx
...Date added: June 18th, 1998
Title Company Category More
bla bla bla bla
xxx xxx xxx xxx
...This adds very little to the length of the page, and saves a very wide
column which is very sparsely filled.
I tried this out, and didn't like the way it was looking, *but* I took
another persons suggestions and reduced the date to mm/dd/yy, which tends
to at least shrink that column somewhat...