Trouble structuring my site

Imagine this:
The site layout is split in three parts: 'top', 'middle' and 'bottom'.
all three parts are 100% width, 'top' and 'bottom' are x pixels high
and middle hight is to fill the rest of the page. Standard scrolling
is disabled and 'middle' is set to (css) 'overflow:auto'.
Problems:
1. i can't get the structure right without using table, but tables are
not my favorit solution and it seems to me that it should be possible
doing it just with 'div' tags and css.
2. I have been unable to specify a doctype which allows (css)
'overflow', all though it works without a doctype.
3. (css) 'overflow' doesn't work, with or without doctype, in 'Mozilla
Firefox'.

I have tried over nad over again, i've asked at various forums etc.
but seemingly there is not solution to the problem... I refuse to
accept that.

I hope you can help.


Regards

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 2007-09-23, zacariaz@gmail.com wrote:
> Imagine this:
> The site layout is split in three parts: 'top', 'middle' and 'bottom'.
> all three parts are 100% width, 'top' and 'bottom' are x pixels high
> and middle hight is to fill the rest of the page. Standard scrolling
> is disabled and 'middle' is set to (css) 'overflow:auto'.
> Problems:

The problems are stated clearly in your first paragraph.

You have no idea what anyone's browser window look like. Setting a
height in pixels (for anything other than a fixed-size object like
an image) is doomed to failure.

> 1. i can't get the structure right without using table, but tables are
> not my favorit solution and it seems to me that it should be possible
> doing it just with 'div' tags and css.

It is possible. You are trying to do the wrong thing.

> 2. I have been unable to specify a doctype which allows (css)
> 'overflow', all though it works without a doctype.

It works in HTML 4.01 strict.

> 3. (css) 'overflow' doesn't work, with or without doctype, in 'Mozilla
> Firefox'.

It works in my Firefox browser.

> I have tried over nad over again, i've asked at various forums etc.
> but seemingly there is not solution to the problem... I refuse to
> accept that.

Post a URL demonstrating the problem.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 23 Sep., 09:47, "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
> On 2007-09-23, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Imagine this:
> > The site layout is split in three parts: 'top', 'middle' and 'bottom'.
> > all three parts are 100% width, 'top' and 'bottom' are x pixels high
> > and middle hight is to fill the rest of the page. Standard scrolling
> > is disabled and 'middle' is set to (css) 'overflow:auto'.
> > Problems:
>
> The problems are stated clearly in your first paragraph.
>
> You have no idea what anyone's browser window look like. Setting a
> height in pixels (for anything other than a fixed-size object like
> an image) is doomed to failure.
>
I know for a fact that it is possible with the use of tables, an
example:
http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/g33kz%2Dinn/ (doesnt work as i have
specified doctype, but it should be clear from the code)

> > 1. i can't get the structure right without using table, but tables are
> > not my favorit solution and it seems to me that it should be possible
> > doing it just with 'div' tags and css.
>
> It is possible. You are trying to do the wrong thing.
>
Yes, but it seems to me that if it is possible in tables it should
allso be possible by the use of divs, but maybe im mistaken.

> > 2. I have been unable to specify a doctype which allows (css)
> > 'overflow', all though it works without a doctype.
>
> It works in HTML 4.01 strict.
>
this is the doctype i am currently using:
TR/html4/strict.dtd">
If this is correct, im really confused, assuming you are correct of
course.

> > 3. (css) 'overflow' doesn't work, with or without doctype, in 'Mozilla
> > Firefox'.
>
> It works in my Firefox browser.
>
well it doesnt in mine, but it may allso have to do with the fact that
i this havent solved the doctype problem.

> > I have tried over nad over again, i've asked at various forums etc.
> > but seemingly there is not solution to the problem... I refuse to
> > accept that.
>
> Post a URL demonstrating the problem.
>
http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/g33kz%2Dinn/index.htm
http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/g33kz%2Dinn/layout.jpg (what it is
suposed to look like and does in IE without specityed doctype)
> --
> Chris F.A. Johnson
> ============================================================ =======
> Author:
> Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Trouble structuring my site

edit:
>>> It is possible. You are trying to do the wrong thing.
>>
>>Yes, but it seems to me that if it is possible in tables it should
>>allso be possible by the use of divs, but maybe im mistaken.

I read that wrong.
What you are saying here is contradiction it self.
1. you say it is possible.
2. you say im trying to do the wrong thing, e.g. its not possible? or
do you mean that i am using the wrong methode? In than case i would
like to know how.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

zacariaz@gmail.com wrote:
> On 23 Sep., 09:47, "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
>> On 2007-09-23, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Imagine this:
>>> The site layout is split in three parts: 'top', 'middle' and 'bottom'.
>>> all three parts are 100% width, 'top' and 'bottom' are x pixels high
>>> and middle hight is to fill the rest of the page. Standard scrolling
>>> is disabled and 'middle' is set to (css) 'overflow:auto'.
>>> Problems:
>
> I know for a fact that it is possible with the use of tables, an
> example:
> http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/g33kz%2Dinn/ (doesnt work as i have
> specified doctype, but it should be clear from the code)

The bottom seems to be completely outside the window, the left is continuing
out from window... Maybe you get some help of this article
http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2005/08/29/# content



--

//Aho

Re: Trouble structuring my site

zacariaz@gmail.com schreef:
> edit:
>>>> It is possible. You are trying to do the wrong thing.
>>> Yes, but it seems to me that if it is possible in tables it should
>>> allso be possible by the use of divs, but maybe im mistaken.
>
> I read that wrong.
> What you are saying here is contradiction it self.
> 1. you say it is possible.
> 2. you say im trying to do the wrong thing, e.g. its not possible? or
> do you mean that i am using the wrong methode? In than case i would
> like to know how.
>

Other possibily: you are trying to achieve the wrong effect.
(that would not contradite it being possible)

--
Rob

Re: Trouble structuring my site

ok, so youre saying that:

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On Sep 23, 10:13 pm, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
> ok, so youre saying that:
>
>
>

Re: Trouble structuring my site

In article
<1190578405.350125.168860@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
zacariaz@gmail.com wrote:

> ok, so youre saying that:
>
>
>

Re: Trouble structuring my site

julian.bash wrote:
>
> #middle { height:100%; margin-top:100px; margin-bottom:100px; }

Wouldn't that would make the total height 100% plus 200px?

--
Berg

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 23 Sep., 22:39, "julian.bash" wrote:
> On Sep 23, 10:13 pm, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ok, so youre saying that:
>
> >
> >

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, Bergamot wrote:
> julian.bash wrote:
>
> > #middle { height:100%; margin-top:100px; margin-bottom:100px; }
>
> Wouldn't that would make the total height 100% plus 200px?
>
> --
> Berg

You're right, this works for me:

body { margin:0; }
div { position:absolute; width:100%; }
#top { height:100px; }
#middle { top:100px; bottom:100px; }
#middle { height:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }
#bottom { height:100px; bottom:0; }
#bottom { margin-top:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }

--Julian

Re: Trouble structuring my site

Ok, it is pretty clear by now that it is a problem without a perfect
solution, however there are ways, so i wont bother with that anymore.
Still thee is the overflow problem, no matter which doctype i specity,
it just wont support overflow.
current doctype:
TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Re: Trouble structuring my site

zacariaz@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, it is pretty clear by now that it is a problem without a perfect
> solution, however there are ways, so i wont bother with that anymore.
> Still thee is the overflow problem, no matter which doctype i specity,
> it just wont support overflow.
> current doctype:
> > TR/html4/strict.dtd">

There is rarely a "perfect" solution. However, what you are trying to
achieve is quite possible. Do a Google search for "sticky footer". Here
is one tutorial:

http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/footerStickAlt/

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

Re: Trouble structuring my site

zacariaz@gmail.com schreef:
> Ok, it is pretty clear by now that it is a problem without a perfect
> solution, however there are ways, so i wont bother with that anymore.
> Still thee is the overflow problem, no matter which doctype i specity,
> it just wont support overflow.
> current doctype:
> > TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>

Would you please quote the texts that you are replying to.

--
Rob

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 23 Sep, 08:23, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
> The site layout is split in three parts: 'top', 'middle' and 'bottom'.
> all three parts are 100% width, 'top' and 'bottom' are x pixels high
> and middle hight is to fill the rest of the page. Standard scrolling
> is disabled and 'middle' is set to (css) 'overflow:auto'.

"Letterbox" scrolling usually looks ugly. You've limited the effective
window height for reading in and you've swapped the scrolling control
from the window's frame to some embedded frame. Both of these are a
bad idea usability-wise.

If you want "persistent branding", then I'd set the footer to
position:fixed down at the bottom, make it a bit transparent, and then
leave the scrolling of the header and main content to the window frame
itself.

I don't believe you need to have the navigation bar permanently
available like this. Users know where to find it and how to get there
by scrolling upwards. Is your content really so bad that you need to
provide an easy escape route from it? 8-) If it's a bloggish site
then you might well want a floating fixed toolbar for "task" buttons,
but that's not the same as a hefty great 100% width header.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

I have accepted the fact that it will simply be to much work and if i
ever get it to work, it will probably be so mezzy that it wont
validate and will probably allso be browser specific.

Therefor i have switched to xhtml 1.0 strict, and it works quite
nicely.
http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/G33kz%2DInn/xhtml.htm
I have two small problem as it is.
1. In IE i cant make the scrollbar disapear when not needed.
(overflow:auto doesnt work on body)
2. In MZ have a minor problem with a line thats is... well, out of
line.

Other that that it works fine and validates, so thank you for your
help.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On Sep 24, 3:00 pm, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have accepted the fact that it will simply be to much work and if i
> ever get it to work, it will probably be so mezzy that it wont
> validate and will probably allso be browser specific.
>
> Therefor i have switched to xhtml 1.0 strict, and it works quite
> nicely.http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/G33kz%2DInn/xhtml.ht m
> I have two small problem as it is.
> 1. In IE i cant make the scrollbar disapear when not needed.
> (overflow:auto doesnt work on body)
> 2. In MZ have a minor problem with a line thats is... well, out of
> line.
>
> Other that that it works fine and validates, so thank you for your
> help.

1) Setting html { overflow:auto } shoud work
2) Which line is out of line?

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 24 Sep., 16:27, "julian.bash" wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:00 pm, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I have accepted the fact that it will simply be to much work and if i
> > ever get it to work, it will probably be so mezzy that it wont
> > validate and will probably allso be browser specific.
>
> > Therefor i have switched to xhtml 1.0 strict, and it works quite
> > nicely.http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/G33kz%2DInn/xhtml.ht m
> > I have two small problem as it is.
> > 1. In IE i cant make the scrollbar disapear when not needed.
> > (overflow:auto doesnt work on body)
> > 2. In MZ have a minor problem with a line thats is... well, out of
> > line.
>
> > Other that that it works fine and validates, so thank you for your
> > help.
>
> 1) Setting html { overflow:auto } shoud work
> 2) Which line is out of line?

do you mean html {overflow:auto} instead of body {overflow:auto} ?
ill try it at once.

in my mozilla browser the line over the menu is too width.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 24 Sep., 19:11, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 24 Sep., 16:27, "julian.bash" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 3:00 pm, zacar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I have accepted the fact that it will simply be to much work and if i
> > > ever get it to work, it will probably be so mezzy that it wont
> > > validate and will probably allso be browser specific.
>
> > > Therefor i have switched to xhtml 1.0 strict, and it works quite
> > > nicely.http://www.zacariazdisciples.net/G33kz%2DInn/xhtml.ht m
> > > I have two small problem as it is.
> > > 1. In IE i cant make the scrollbar disapear when not needed.
> > > (overflow:auto doesnt work on body)
> > > 2. In MZ have a minor problem with a line thats is... well, out of
> > > line.
>
> > > Other that that it works fine and validates, so thank you for your
> > > help.
>
> > 1) Setting html { overflow:auto } shoud work
> > 2) Which line is out of line?
>
> do you mean html {overflow:auto} instead of body {overflow:auto} ?
> ill try it at once.
>
> in my mozilla browser the line over the menu is too width.- Skjul tekst i=
anf=F8rselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -

Ok, problem one solved (more or less), it is a bit messy af IE and MZ
treath the width of the site different when overflow is activates. But
it works, and it look allright. You can hardly see theres something
wrong.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 2007-09-23, julian.bash wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> julian.bash wrote:
>>
>> > #middle { height:100%; margin-top:100px; margin-bottom:100px; }
>>
>> Wouldn't that would make the total height 100% plus 200px?
>>
>> --
>> Berg
>
> You're right, this works for me:
>
> body { margin:0; }
> div { position:absolute; width:100%; }
> #top { height:100px; }
> #middle { top:100px; bottom:100px; }
> #middle { height:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }

That "expression" thing is completely non-standard.

> #bottom { height:100px; bottom:0; }
> #bottom { margin-top:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }

And that one isn't necessary anyway.

Just make middle position absolute as well and give it top: 100px,
bottom: 100px and height: auto.

Make body (or some wrapper div) position: relative, and don't bother
with width:100%. Then you will get the width you want regardless of
margin, padding and borders. Tip: width:100% is rarely necessary, if you
find yourself writing it ask why.

But latching things onto the bottom of the viewport like this doesn't
work well when the viewport is resized. What's the browser supposed to
do? Annoyingly reflow the whole page or leave the "footer" half-way up
the page at its new size?

Much better to let the bottom of the page just be at the bottom. Locate
things only at the top and left (or top and right if it's a rtl page)
and let the right and bottom do what they want.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> You have no idea what anyone's browser window look like. Setting a
> height in pixels (for anything other than a fixed-size object like
> an image) is doomed to failure.

I may be setting myself up here, but I have been wondering. Suppose I
have a fairly small block of text I need to insert on a page like an
insert or sidebar in print. I could a) add a floated div of specific
height (in ems of course) that would be fluid, b) have a text image of
specific dimensions (in its intrinsic pixels). but why couldn't I c)
create a div that I treat like an image using pixels dimensions, but
without the bandwidth hit of the image?

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 2007-09-28, William Gill wrote:
>
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> You have no idea what anyone's browser window look like. Setting a
>> height in pixels (for anything other than a fixed-size object like
>> an image) is doomed to failure.
>
> I may be setting myself up here, but I have been wondering. Suppose I
> have a fairly small block of text I need to insert on a page like an
> insert or sidebar in print. I could

> a) add a floated div of specific height (in ems of course) that
> would be fluid,

If you set a height, it might not be enough to contain the text.
If my default is large (as it is), then that text will need more
lines.

> b) have a text image of specific dimensions (in its intrinsic
> pixels).

You don't know how big that text will appear on my screen. There's
a good chance it will be too small for me to read.

> but why couldn't I

> c) create a div that I treat like an image using pixels dimensions,
> but without the bandwidth hit of the image?

It will almost certainly be too small to contain the text at a
comfortable viewing size (for me, and probably many others).

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Trouble structuring my site

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-09-28, William Gill wrote:
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> If you set a height, it might not be enough to contain the text.
> If my default is large (as it is), then that text will need more
> lines.

My bad. I meant specific WIDTH in order to create the "insert" look,
allowing the height to adjust itself as needed.

> You don't know how big that text will appear on my screen. There's
> a good chance it will be too small for me to read.

Agreed, that is the inherent risk of graphics based text of any kind,
and a solid argument against them.

>> c) create a div that I treat like an image using pixels dimensions,
>> but without the bandwidth hit of the image?
>
> It will almost certainly be too small to contain the text at a
> comfortable viewing size (for me, and probably many others).
>

So if I treat the entire block (div) as an image, specifying text size,
div height and width all in pixels, I should be able to have the same
effect as a graphic without the overhead. Theoretically, it could work
just like a graphic, with the same limitations. Of course, those
limitations may render this as a particularly moot point.

Interestingly, there is a tangent to a thread in c.i.w.a.s (Re: Possible
to Change List Bullet Color?) that talks about using non-pixel
dimensions on images (i.e. em's), allowing the user font size controls
to work on the images. This can produce some good and bad effect.

I guess it's just the engineer in me that always wants to see "what
if...?" At eight, I "designed" my first radio by "adapting" the
instructions to the material I had available, and have been doing this
far to many years to just quit now. :-)

Unfortunately, accommodation for my particular disability is not as
direct as controlling text size. I often get so focused on the complex,
that I can miss the (otherwise) obvious.

Thanks for your patience.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On 2007-10-02, William Gill wrote:
>
>>> c) create a div that I treat like an image using pixels dimensions,
>>> but without the bandwidth hit of the image?
>>
>> It will almost certainly be too small to contain the text at a
>> comfortable viewing size (for me, and probably many others).
>
> So if I treat the entire block (div) as an image, specifying text size,
> div height and width all in pixels, I should be able to have the same
> effect as a graphic without the overhead. Theoretically, it could work
> just like a graphic, with the same limitations. Of course, those
> limitations may render this as a particularly moot point.

If you specify the text size in px, it may be be too small for me
to read (just as with a graphic), or my browser may increase the
size so that it overflows the container and I may not be able to
read it (or any other text that it overwrites).

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Re: Trouble structuring my site

In article <2ksMi.5637$6p6.5114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
William Gill wrote:

> So if I treat the entire block (div) as an image, specifying text size,
> div height and width all in pixels, I should be able to have the same
> effect as a graphic without the overhead. Theoretically, it could work
> just like a graphic, with the same limitations.

If you have text in a box (not a picture of text), you won't get
much benefit *overhead wise*.

It is almost always best to use html text, and size the box
itself to grow with the text if it threatens to bust out of the
box. You can do this by eming the box if you are dealing with a
box that does not grow naturally to fit the text. You are an
engineer, use the well evolved built-in machines in html...

>
> Interestingly, there is a tangent to a thread in c.i.w.a.s (Re: Possible
> to Change List Bullet Color?) that talks about using non-pixel
> dimensions on images (i.e. em's), allowing the user font size controls
> to work on the images. This can produce some good and bad effect.
>

Sometimes one can do this with banners and headings to some
effect. But my experiments on this have always disappointed me
when I see the results in IE. If you prepare the images right
(and there are some rules to observe here), it can work
brilliantly in some browsers.


> I guess it's just the engineer in me that always wants to see "what
> if...?" At eight, I "designed" my first radio by "adapting" the
> instructions to the material I had available, and have been doing this
> far to many years to just quit now. :-)
>

Be very careful of this tendency, William, it is a double edged
sword. Here is an example of the tendency and its swordlike
effect:



--
dorayme

Re: Trouble structuring my site

dorayme wrote:
> If you have text in a box (not a picture of text), you won't get
> much benefit *overhead wise*.
>
I was looking at ways to keep Kb bloat under control. Even the smallest
text graphic takes a couple Kb. A few characters of text "treated like
a graphic" would only take a few bytes. Think "a CSS button", but not
in the traditional nav bar. Like a notice in the normal text indicating
"the next meeting has been scheduled."

> It is almost always best to use html text, and size the box
> itself to grow with the text if it threatens to bust out of the
> box.

Absolutely no argument there.

> Sometimes one can do this with banners and headings to some
> effect. But my experiments on this have always disappointed me
> when I see the results in IE. If you prepare the images right
> (and there are some rules to observe here), it can work
> brilliantly in some browsers.
>
>
>> I guess it's just the engineer in me that always wants to see "what
>> if...?"
>
> Be very careful of this tendency, William, it is a double edged
> sword. Here is an example of the tendency and its swordlike
> effect:

Someone much greater than I (Thomas Alva Edison) once said "I have not
failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." I'm not even half
way there on this, but even the most assiduous seeker must recognize a
poor ROI when he/she sees it. :-) Of course It's still intriguing to
poke around.

Re: Trouble structuring my site

In article ,
William Gill wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > If you have text in a box (not a picture of text), you won't get
> > much benefit *overhead wise*.
> >
> I was looking at ways to keep Kb bloat under control. Even the smallest
> text graphic takes a couple Kb. A few characters of text "treated like
> a graphic" would only take a few bytes.

Sure, if you were tempted to make every heading a pic, every
caption... In many situations, the more significant reasons for
using text rather than pics of text are to do with ease of change
for the author, ease for the user of the website with different
visual or other requirements... I mean, are you making a site
that shows signs of a bloat problem?

--
dorayme

Re: Trouble structuring my site

dorayme wrote:

> ... I mean, are you making a site
> that shows signs of a bloat problem?
>

Not particularly, just always watching for ways to keep things fit
and trim. This was more of a theoretical query.

Actually, the about the only time I use a text graphic is for
headings that require some fancy font work. Although one time I put up
a show schedule as a text graphic because the background picture (the
client wanted) made normal text hard to distinguish, so I did a graphic
that allowed me to differentiate text from background without looking
too bad. It was large enough, and simple enough that most could read
it. Probably would have been a good candidate for the em dimension
trick (to allow user control).

Re: Trouble structuring my site

On Sep 28, 9:30 am, Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-23, julian.bash wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, Bergamot wrote:
> >> julian.bash wrote:
>
> >> > #middle { height:100%; margin-top:100px; margin-bottom:100px; }
>
> >> Wouldn't that would make the total height 100% plus 200px?
>
> >> --
> >> Berg
>
> > You're right, this works for me:
>
> > body { margin:0; }
> > div { position:absolute; width:100%; }
> > #top { height:100px; }
> > #middle { top:100px; bottom:100px; }
> > #middle { height:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }
>
> That "expression" thing is completely non-standard.
>
> > #bottom { height:100px; bottom:0; }
> > #bottom { margin-top:expression(document.body.clientHeight-100); }
>
> And that one isn't necessary anyway.
>
> Just make middle position absolute as well and give it top: 100px,
> bottom: 100px and height: auto.

Position: absolute and setting bottom- or right-values doesn't work in
ie.

--julian

Re: Trouble structuring my site

In article ,
William Gill wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > ... I mean, are you making a site
> > that shows signs of a bloat problem?
> >
>
> Not particularly, just always watching for ways to keep things fit
> and trim. This was more of a theoretical query.
>
> Actually, the about the only time I use a text graphic is for
> headings that require some fancy font work. Although one time I put up
> a show schedule as a text graphic because the background picture (the
> client wanted) made normal text hard to distinguish, so I did a graphic
> that allowed me to differentiate text from background without looking
> too bad. It was large enough, and simple enough that most could read
> it. Probably would have been a good candidate for the em dimension
> trick (to allow user control).

Fair enough. If you ever do em dimming on pics, let us see the
results.

--
dorayme