Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read 
what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like 
ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading 
elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to 
relocate the text you were trying to read?

It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the 
process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.

Rog

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On 2010-02-13 10:13:45 -0600, Roger said:

> Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read
> what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like
> ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading
> elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to
> relocate the text you were trying to read?
> 
> It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the
> process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.

I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not 
displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete. I hate 
what I've dubbed the splip-splap-splop display as the page appears 
piece by piece. Quite some time ago I posted my wanting in this regard 
and the responses were mainly negative, people feeling that delaying 
the presentation would make the browser seem slow.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7to278Fuf1U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-13 10:13:45 -0600, Roger said:
> 
> > Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read
> > what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like
> > ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading
> > elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to
> > relocate the text you were trying to read?
> > 
> > It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the
> > process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.
> 
> I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not 
> displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete. I hate 
> what I've dubbed the splip-splap-splop display as the page appears 
> piece by piece. Quite some time ago I posted my wanting in this regard 
> and the responses were mainly negative, people feeling that delaying 
> the presentation would make the browser seem slow.

Well I just want it to stay in one place as its loading, instead of 
jerking all over the place.  I'm no programmer, but I get the feeling 
it'd be do-able.  If I scrolled to a spot (or didn't), the browser 
should assume I did so for a reason.

Rog

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

In article <roger-D2704F.12161413022010@freenews.netfront.net>,
 Roger <roger@roger.net> wrote:

> In article <7to278Fuf1U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2010-02-13 10:13:45 -0600, Roger said:
> > 
> > > Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read
> > > what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like
> > > ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading
> > > elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to
> > > relocate the text you were trying to read?
> > > 
> > > It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the
> > > process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.
> > 
> > I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not 
> > displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete. I hate 
> > what I've dubbed the splip-splap-splop display as the page appears 
> > piece by piece. Quite some time ago I posted my wanting in this regard 
> > and the responses were mainly negative, people feeling that delaying 
> > the presentation would make the browser seem slow.
> 
> Well I just want it to stay in one place as its loading, instead of 
> jerking all over the place.  I'm no programmer, but I get the feeling 
> it'd be do-able.  If I scrolled to a spot (or didn't), the browser 
> should assume I did so for a reason.
> 
> Rog

I'm pretty sure it's only "do-able" if the HTML behind the page knows 
*all* of the details as to size and placement of every single thing 
embedded within the page before it ever starts the rendering process.  
Sadly, that's seldom true.
-- 
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

In article <roger-B30442.11134413022010@freenews.netfront.net>, Roger
<roger@roger.net> wrote:

> Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read 
> what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like 
> ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading 
> elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to 
> relocate the text you were trying to read?
> 
> It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the 
> process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.

it doesn't always know the size of all the parts until they're actually
downloaded, notably images.

In article <130220101012394218%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <roger-B30442.11134413022010@freenews.netfront.net>, Roger
> <roger@roger.net> wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read 
> > what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like 
> > ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading 
> > elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to 
> > relocate the text you were trying to read?
> > 
> > It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the 
> > process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.
> 
> it doesn't always know the size of all the parts until they're actually
> downloaded, notably images.

I think a common reason for this is AJAX scripts.  After things are done 
downloading, the script rewrites things on the fly, changing the layout.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

In article <roger-B30442.11134413022010@freenews.netfront.net>,
 Roger <roger@roger.net> wrote:

> Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read 
> what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like 
> ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading 
> elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to 
> relocate the text you were trying to read?
> 
> It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the 
> process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.
> 
 
One notable reason for this is HTML authors do not employ best 
authoring practice. To take just one example: if the author has a 
lot of images and merely legally goes:

<img src="..." alt="...">

instead of

<img src="..." width="..." height="..." alt="..."> 

then the page does not know how big the images are until they are 
fetched. Images have a native size and this is picked up 
eventually. 

If the author puts in the widths and heights, then provision is 
made for the spaces in advance. As the page loads, the images get 
loaded into prepared correct spaces, no jerkiness. Without the 
preknowledge of the spaces required, the server to browser 
exchanges do the best they can, the text is loaded along with the 
beginnings of the first images mentioned in the HTML and 
everything is constantly adjusted on the fly, every image is a 
total surprise - like children coming into class having to bring 
in desks to suit themselves and arranging them as the frazzled 
teacher says where and where...

-- 
dorayme

In article <7to278Fuf1U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-13 10:13:45 -0600, Roger said:
> 
> > Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read
> > what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like
> > ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading
> > elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to
> > relocate the text you were trying to read?
> > 
> > It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the
> > process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.
> 
> I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not 
> displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete. I hate 
> what I've dubbed the splip-splap-splop display as the page appears 
> piece by piece. Quite some time ago I posted my wanting in this regard 
> and the responses were mainly negative, people feeling that delaying 
> the presentation would make the browser seem slow.

What exactly would seem slow is one question. But what would be 
slow is simply you would have to wait. You might not be as happy 
with this as you think, T. I am often getting the information I 
want and I am been and gone before all is loaded. So I would 
never use that option. 

You might not want to wait for a long article to download if you 
could start reading immediately. The problem with your option is 
that it is good maybe for some website pages but bad for many 
others and it is hard to know in advance.

But I take your point, maybe browsers could have a button on them 
so that you can press it when you notice a slow and irritatingly 
loading page! But hang on! There is such a button/option and I 
used it extensively for years when on dial up. It is called 
Command Tab or click the plus sign or double click in the browser 
space to bring up a new tab. The irritating site loads in the tab 
you are not watching. 

Is something irritating when it is not actually being observed? 
Trees continue to exist when unobserved and even make sounds when 
falling in deep forests with no one around to hear them. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-8FB856.09050014022010@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> One notable reason for this is HTML authors do not employ best 
> authoring practice. To take just one example: if the author has a 
> lot of images and merely legally goes:

True. Also, Ajax generally writes to inner HTML, and the auteur should 
have the width/height of the container set up in advance. Also, one can 
dynamically assemble one's page with PHP in the output buffer, and flush 
the whole thing all at once. It all comes down to good auteurship.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On 2010-02-13 10:13 AM, Roger wrote:
> Does anyone else here get tired of loading a web page, starting to read
> what you want, then as the page continues to load other elements like
> ads or graphics it jumps all around as it accommodates the newly loading
> elements, and you have to again (maybe more than twice) scroll around to
> relocate the text you were trying to read?
>
> It seems to me it would be easy to program some stability into the
> process, in a browser.  I'd love if Safari were the first to do so.

This was do-able with HTML 3.2, which could be rendered before 
completing the first pass (as long as the page author included size 
information about inline images and the like).  But the DOM model in 
HTML 4.01 often requires the whole document to be read before even the 
beginning of it could be rendered.

And then, of course, there is JavaScript, which adds a whole other 
dimension to what can happen to a page.  (After all, things can move 
around on the page even after the whole thing is loaded is the included 
JavaScript tells it to).

There are great improvements from HTML 3.2 to HTML 4.  Things that are 
very good ideas.  But stable "render as you load" ability got lost.  Few 
browsers made use of the ability to provide stable rendering with HTML 
3.2 (lynx certainly did, and possibly Opera), so I guess the guys at w3c 
decided that it could be sacrificed in a move to better CSS control.

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 2010-02-13 16:19:31 -0600, dorayme said:

[responding to my wanting my browser to hold off displaying a website 
until the downloading has been completed, thus avoiding what I've 
dubbed the "splip, splot, splap" displaying of elements of the site as 
they become available]

> But I take your point, maybe browsers could have a button on them
> so that you can press it when you notice a slow and irritatingly
> loading page! But hang on! There is such a button/option and I
> used it extensively for years when on dial up. It is called
> Command Tab or click the plus sign or double click in the browser
> space to bring up a new tab. The irritating site loads in the tab
> you are not watching.

All I want is an option to not see the various parts of the site pop 
into place as the download proceeds. Just a simple fade-in fade-out 
screen that would wait until the download completes would be sufficient.


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7tpi1gFeq3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-13 16:19:31 -0600, dorayme said:
> 
> [responding to my wanting my browser to hold off displaying a website 
> until the downloading has been completed, thus avoiding what I've 
> dubbed the "splip, splot, splap" displaying of elements of the site as 
> they become available]
> 
> > But I take your point, maybe browsers could have a button on them
> > so that you can press it when you notice a slow and irritatingly
> > loading page! But hang on! There is such a button/option and I
> > used it extensively for years when on dial up. It is called
> > Command Tab or click the plus sign or double click in the browser
> > space to bring up a new tab. The irritating site loads in the tab
> > you are not watching.
> 
> All I want is an option to not see the various parts of the site pop 
> into place as the download proceeds. Just a simple fade-in fade-out 
> screen that would wait until the download completes would be sufficient.

I said how to get that option close enough, why not comment on 
that? I know, you want what you can't have and exactly! But what 
about nearby strategies?

-- 
dorayme

In article <7tpi1gFeq3U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> All I want is an option to not see the various parts of the site pop 
> into place as the download proceeds. Just a simple fade-in fade-out 
> screen that would wait until the download completes would be sufficient.

Have you got a link to a site that actually loads that slowly?
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On 2010-02-14 01:33:31 -0600, dorayme said:

> In article <7tpi1gFeq3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2010-02-13 16:19:31 -0600, dorayme said:
>> 
>> [responding to my wanting my browser to hold off displaying a website
>> until the downloading has been completed, thus avoiding what I've
>> dubbed the "splip, splot, splap" displaying of elements of the site as
>> they become available]
>> 
>>> But I take your point, maybe browsers could have a button on them
>>> so that you can press it when you notice a slow and irritatingly
>>> loading page! But hang on! There is such a button/option and I
>>> used it extensively for years when on dial up. It is called
>>> Command Tab or click the plus sign or double click in the browser
>>> space to bring up a new tab. The irritating site loads in the tab
>>> you are not watching.
>> 
>> All I want is an option to not see the various parts of the site pop
>> into place as the download proceeds. Just a simple fade-in fade-out
>> screen that would wait until the download completes would be sufficient.
> 
> I said how to get that option close enough, why not comment on
> that? I know, you want what you can't have and exactly! But what
> about nearby strategies?

What I want is a completely automatic and smooth effect that presents 
the site smoothly the moment the downloading is complete. Opening a new 
tab is not automatic and this takes two explicit actions on my part, 
creating the new tab and then guessing when the download will be 
complete and then deleting that download is complete. Given that Safari 
has an indicator that shows the downloading taking place it would seem 
not too difficult to implement the effect I would like.


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7tqetfF3skU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> What I want is a completely automatic and smooth effect that presents 
> the site smoothly the moment the downloading is complete. Opening a new 
> tab is not automatic and this takes two explicit actions on my part, 
> creating the new tab and then guessing when the download will be 
> complete and then deleting that download is complete. Given that Safari 
> has an indicator that shows the downloading taking place it would seem 
> not too difficult to implement the effect I would like.

Well, perhaps it is *just* the ugliness of the jerkiness that 
bothers you. I was thinking more that it would only bother you if 
it took a significant amount of time to complete. Let's take the 
two possible cases in turn, first where the site loads fast but 
you notice and feel sickened by the sight of the jerkiness (no 
matter that it is over in under 5 secs or so). And second, where 
it takes a significant amount of time, say, 30 secs or more. Yes, 
these are arbitrary figures and much depends on individual 
patience and business.

In the first case, OK, you want a pleasant curtain (a blank 
screen might do you) till the show opens fully fledged with all 
the actors in place. I know. You can't have it! But if you accept 
this, I will make you a nice cocoa before bedtime. <g>

In the second case, you get close to what you want if you are 
busy and have *other things to do* on your browser by opening a 
tab and doing something else in that tab till it is convenient 
for you to return to the original tab that would have eventually 
stopped "circling" (see Safari). 

The problem, you see, is that you are probably a male earthling 
and do not take to doing more than one thing at a time. In my 
case, non-earthling altogether, I do many things at the same 
time. I would not get through the day's work if I did not. I was 
on dial up for Christ's sake for years and this technique was a 
killer one to tackle the slowness and all the things that go with 
that (painful awareness of time being wasted and jerkiness and so 
on).

Another reason, just btw, that sites jerk often, besides the one 
I mentioned with image sizing, is that tables are often used for 
display layout purposes. Now the point here is that those who use 
tables for layout these days tend to be the less cluey authors 
and do not know some of the best practices for making it easy for 
browsers to reserve space in advance for the table and all its 
parts. There are ways but this is, of course, off topic.

-- 
dorayme

On 2010-02-14 15:20:30 -0600, dorayme said:

> In article <7tqetfF3skU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> What I want is a completely automatic and smooth effect that presents
>> the site smoothly the moment the downloading is complete. Opening a new
>> tab is not automatic and this takes two explicit actions on my part,
>> creating the new tab and then guessing when the download will be
>> complete and then deleting that download is complete. Given that Safari
>> has an indicator that shows the downloading taking place it would seem
>> not too difficult to implement the effect I would like.
> 
> Well, perhaps it is *just* the ugliness of the jerkiness that
> bothers you. I was thinking more that it would only bother you if
> it took a significant amount of time to complete. Let's take the
> two possible cases in turn, first where the site loads fast but
> you notice and feel sickened by the sight of the jerkiness (no
> matter that it is over in under 5 secs or so). And second, where
> it takes a significant amount of time, say, 30 secs or more. Yes,
> these are arbitrary figures and much depends on individual
> patience and business.
> 
> In the first case, OK, you want a pleasant curtain (a blank
> screen might do you) till the show opens fully fledged with all
> the actors in place. I know. You can't have it! But if you accept
> this, I will make you a nice cocoa before bedtime. <g>

Here I would be most happy to have a fadeout followed by a fadein, the 
fades taking perhaps a half second each, with a soft gray screen 
between the fades if needed. And how did you know that I love cocoa at 
bedtime!

> In the second case, you get close to what you want if you are
> busy and have *other things to do* on your browser by opening a
> tab and doing something else in that tab till it is convenient
> for you to return to the original tab that would have eventually
> stopped "circling" (see Safari).

There are currently times, albeit somewhat infrequently, when I will 
tab and do something else. But these are the times when I'm likely 
impatient at the slow loading of a site.

> The problem, you see, is that you are probably a male earthling
> and do not take to doing more than one thing at a time. In my
> case, non-earthling altogether, I do many things at the same
> time. I would not get through the day's work if I did not. I was
> on dial up for Christ's sake for years and this technique was a
> killer one to tackle the slowness and all the things that go with
> that (painful awareness of time being wasted and jerkiness and so
> on).

In general your assertion that I do not take to doing more than one 
thing at a time is quite true.  But there are indeed exceptions when I 
have to wait a while for something to complete. As for dial up it has 
been about ten years since I last connected that way. And speaking of 
dial up I remember when, and I'm speaking now of in the late sixties, 
when I connected to a time sharing mainframe at something just over a 
hundred baud using a socalled acoustic coupling modem, this being with 
a character only hard copy terminal.

> Another reason, just btw, that sites jerk often, besides the one
> I mentioned with image sizing, is that tables are often used for
> display layout purposes. Now the point here is that those who use
> tables for layout these days tend to be the less cluey authors
> and do not know some of the best practices for making it easy for
> browsers to reserve space in advance for the table and all its
> parts. There are ways but this is, of course, off topic.

And I do want to give you sincere thanks for your taking the time to 
compose a thoughtful reply to my grumpings!    :-)


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7ts04gF81aU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> And how did you know that I love cocoa at 
> bedtime!

Because all good boys like cocoa. I have a special concoction for 
bad boys, it involves nettles, frogs' eyes, rats' tails and 
castor oil.

-- 
dorayme

Continuing from my prior posting in this thread in which I responded to 
Dorayme's thoughtful post which was a response to my expressing a 
wanting for my browser, Safari, to have a smooth transition when a new 
website is selected....

Perhaps how my desktop is organized provides a clue as to why I find 
the current presentation via Safari when I open a website, a 
presentation that displays components of the site piece by piece as the 
components of the site are downloaded instead of waiting until the 
entirety of the site is received and then presenting it all at once.

When no applications are open my desktop displays only a pleasing (at 
least to me) background. The dock at the bottom and the menu at the top 
are normally hidden.

Objects appear on the desktop only until such time within a session 
when I move them to a folder somewhere in my file structure or trash 
them.

The only items that remain permanently in my dock are Finder and Trash.

So I guess it all boils down to my being a compulsive neatnik!    :-)





-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7ts4qtFr8fU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> When no applications are open my desktop displays only a pleasing (at 
> least to me) background. The dock at the bottom and the menu at the top 
> are normally hidden.
>
 
I knew you could hide the dock (I do), but the menus? At least 
not in Tiger?

 
> Objects appear on the desktop only until such time within a session 
> when I move them to a folder somewhere in my file structure or trash 
> them.

-- 
dorayme

On 2010-02-15 01:01:27 -0600, dorayme said:

[in resonse to my having stated]

> 
>> When no applications are open my desktop displays only a pleasing (at
>> least to me) background. The dock at the bottom and the menu at the top
>> are normally hidden.
>> 
> 
> I knew you could hide the dock (I do), but the menus? At least
> not in Tiger?

I run a little applet, Menu Eclipse, which "hides" the menu when it is 
not in use by overlaying it with a solid black. A slight disadvantage 
to this is that the space normally occupied by the menu will not be 
filled with the background. My real preference would be to have the 
menu disappear and appear as does the dock.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On 13/02/10 16:27, TaliesinSoft wrote:

> I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not
> displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete.

This is exactly how browsers used to work in the old days.  As web pages 
got more complex, people hated it, so now it's not how they work any more...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

In article <7tt1aqFh9rU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-15 01:01:27 -0600, dorayme said:
> 
> [in resonse to my having stated]
> 
> > 
> >> When no applications are open my desktop displays only a pleasing (at
> >> least to me) background. The dock at the bottom and the menu at the top
> >> are normally hidden.
> >> 
> > 
> > I knew you could hide the dock (I do), but the menus? At least
> > not in Tiger?
> 
> I run a little applet, Menu Eclipse, which "hides" the menu when it is 
> not in use by overlaying it with a solid black. A slight disadvantage 
> to this is that the space normally occupied by the menu will not be 
> filled with the background. My real preference would be to have the 
> menu disappear and appear as does the dock.

Turn off the machine.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

On 2010-02-15 08:28:43 -0600, Calum said:

> On 13/02/10 16:27, TaliesinSoft wrote:
> 
>> I've long wanted browsers (I'm using Safari) to have the option of not
>> displaying any part of a page until the downloading is complete.
> 
> This is exactly how browsers used to work in the old days.  As web 
> pages got more complex, people hated it, so now it's not how they work 
> any more...
> 
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Well I guess I'm amongst the minority who prefer aesthetics over 
impatience and therefore would like a smooth browser presentation as an 
option.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On 2010-02-15 09:04:56 -0600, Tom Stiller said:

[in response to my having stated]

>> 
>> I run a little applet, Menu Eclipse, which "hides" the menu when it is
>> not in use by overlaying it with a solid black. A slight disadvantage
>> to this is that the space normally occupied by the menu will not be
>> filled with the background. My real preference would be to have the
>> menu disappear and appear as does the dock.
> 
> Turn off the machine.

I can't turn off the computer otherwise the middle of the night 
maintenance and my scheduled backups wouldn't be run. I do have the 
display sleep after a few minutes of inactivity.
-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7tt1aqFh9rU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-15 01:01:27 -0600, dorayme said:
> 
> [in resonse to my having stated]
> 
> > 
> >> When no applications are open my desktop displays only a pleasing (at
> >> least to me) background. The dock at the bottom and the menu at the top
> >> are normally hidden.
> >> 
> > 
> > I knew you could hide the dock (I do), but the menus? At least
> > not in Tiger?
> 
> I run a little applet, Menu Eclipse, which "hides" the menu when it is 
> not in use by overlaying it with a solid black. A slight disadvantage 
> to this is that the space normally occupied by the menu will not be 
> filled with the background. My real preference would be to have the 
> menu disappear and appear as does the dock.

Yes, I thought maybe this latter is what you had? I like the menu 
visible at all times. The date/time is there for a start! 

Gee, T, you are sick! <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <7ttqeaF9phU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-15 09:04:56 -0600, Tom Stiller said:
> 
> [in response to my having stated]
> 
> >> 
> >> I run a little applet, Menu Eclipse, which "hides" the menu when it is
> >> not in use by overlaying it with a solid black. A slight disadvantage
> >> to this is that the space normally occupied by the menu will not be
> >> filled with the background. My real preference would be to have the
> >> menu disappear and appear as does the dock.
> > 
> > Turn off the machine.
> 
> I can't turn off the computer otherwise the middle of the night 
> maintenance and my scheduled backups wouldn't be run. I do have the 
> display sleep after a few minutes of inactivity.

Turn it on just before you go to bed and turn it off when you get 
up in the morning.

-- 
dorayme

On 2010-02-15 17:09:39 -0600, dorayme said:

[in resonse to my having stated]

>> 
>> I can't turn off the computer otherwise the middle of the night
>> maintenance and my scheduled backups wouldn't be run. I do have the
>> display sleep after a few minutes of inactivity.
> 
> Turn it on just before you go to bed and turn it off when you get
> up in the morning.

So what is the advantage, if any, of turning the computer off and then 
on compared to just leaving it on and having the display sleep?
-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <7tuorcFpihU5@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-02-15 17:09:39 -0600, dorayme said:
> 
> [in resonse to my having stated]
> 
> >> 
> >> I can't turn off the computer otherwise the middle of the night
> >> maintenance and my scheduled backups wouldn't be run. I do have the
> >> display sleep after a few minutes of inactivity.
> > 
> > Turn it on just before you go to bed and turn it off when you get
> > up in the morning.
> 
> So what is the advantage, if any, of turning the computer off and then 
> on compared to just leaving it on and having the display sleep?

Save power all day perhaps, you don't risk seeing anything not 
perfectly plain should the cat walk over the keys or pounce on 
the mouse? <g>

-- 
dorayme

On 2010-02-16 01:22:13 -0600, dorayme said:

[in response to my having asked]

>> So what is the advantage, if any, of turning the computer off and then
>> on compared to just leaving it on and having the display sleep?
> 
> Save power all day perhaps, you don't risk seeing anything not
> perfectly plain should the cat walk over the keys or pounce on
> the mouse? <g>

I've started a new thread in comp.sys.mac.system on this topic, hoping 
that others with thoughts might contribute.

As an aside, for reasons unbeknownst my cat doesn't jump on my desk or 
on any other furniture other than the bed which has become her literal 
home.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com