Also sprach Alex Mogilevsky: > I also think it is a great idea, although I would be a little > concerned if it was the only option. > > 1) Scrolling down to the next group of columns (if done manually) > is a distracting user experience. The user will have to stop > reading, scroll *precisely* to the top of the next group (so that > whole columns fit the viewport), then continue reading. It is very > different from hitting Right button enough times for next column or > two to appear. Yes, but at least you get to see it. I think much content spilling over to the right will never be seen because people aren't aware of it being there. > It is still a good approach, it will probably work best when > accompanied by custom "Next Page" links which scroll exactly to the > next group. But that complicates the story a little. Yes. > 2) There are good use cases for infinite number of fixed-width > columns, scrollable horizontally. E.g. consider "address book" > view, with columns of contacts or business cards. But, wouldn't you use tables for this kind of information? > 3) The ideal I think is the true paginated view, where overflow is > not visible but one set of columns is shown at a time, with UI to > go to previous/next set. That is somewhat orthogonal to this > proposal, but will IMO be necessary for using the full power of > columns. It seems that most of us agree that having a paginated view would improve the user experience. It's tempting to spec that behavior instead of trying to place overflow content in a scrolled view. How about: overflow-style: pages on the root element. We could add it to this draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-box/#overflow-style -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcomeReceived on Friday, 17 October 2008 22:52:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT