Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S
> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Ji mspics_14_wav...
> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
right are better than tables. I don't.
One of the horrible things about browser capability/compatibility is
that vertical centering often simply doesn't work at all. In fact,
even horizontal centering has a lot catches depending on how you do
it. I was accused, when last I argued about this, of using
"pathological" cases to show why DIV doesn't always work when, in
fact, it was for a specific project I was working on. Especially
with "dynamic" content (like on your pages - you want to use the same
page structure, but some of your images might be wider or landscape as
opposed to portrait, so you can't just use some of the CSS hacks and
always have it centered). I was actually told I should be using
scripting to dynamicall modify the CSS in that case. Uh.... no, not
when I can do it with a simple table.
My opinion is that a very SIMPLE table for layout (not the nested
table within nested table nightmares) is not such a horrible thing.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
GMT Jim S scribed:
> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.
> html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
> placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
You a coward, just lazy, or what?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
> GMT Jim S scribed:
>
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.
>> html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
>> placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>
> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
> for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
> You a coward, just lazy, or what?
My other website is Strict
I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
In article
Jim S
> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
"table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
mention this to help you search the many times this has been
discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
here:
(1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
much these days from many experts here because they would be
tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
(2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
(3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
interested as I am sure would others.
---------
btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)
--
dorayme
Jim S
news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net:
> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
[snip]
>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
>
>
> My other website is Strict
> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
4.01 Strict example:
[url] http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php [/url]
--
BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 6:17 PM
"This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
*Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list*
"fred.haab@gmail.com"
> On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Ji mspics_14_wav...
>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>
> The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
> and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
> them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
> cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
> especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
> right are better than tables. I don't.
Agreed.
The key reason to avoid layout tables is that it makes for cleaner markup,
simplifying both initial development and maintenance. Some people confuse
the end with the means, though, and insist on avoiding tables even when
cross-browser issues make the alternative far more complicated.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
BootNic wrote:
> Jim S
> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net:
>
>> My other website is Strict
>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
>
> 4.01 Strict example:
>
God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.
Why overflow:auto?
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
BootNic wrote:
> Jim S
> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net:
>
>> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
>>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
>>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
>>
>> My other website is Strict
>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
>
> 4.01 Strict example:
> [url] http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php [/url]
>
Hmmm interesting... no mater the window size even at 1536px tall *still*
has a vertical scroll bar!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jim S
>
>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>
> "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
> mention this to help you search the many times this has been
> discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
> here:
>
> (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
> much these days from many experts here because they would be
> tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
> a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
>
> (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
> to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
> future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
> will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
> is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
> large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
>
> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
> interested as I am sure would others.
>
> ---------
> btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
> table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)
Not here I haven't.
Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
(and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
corners of the screen.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
John Hosking
news:470177aa$1_6@news.bluewin.ch:
> BootNic wrote:
[snip]
>
> God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.
>
> Why overflow:auto?
Ya know I don't recall all the details of it, but I would guess it has
something to do with allowing access to the table if the table is more
then 100% of the viewable area and or issues with Opera, IE 5-7 and
Safari.
The conversation that sparked this abomination can be found at:
[url]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html/browse_thread/thread /50811524ef19
997c/2853009db7412329 [/url]
Perhaps you may recall some of it.
As far as the mouse wheel goes, mine works just fine in almost everything
I view it in, the exception being an old mozilla browser before they
fixed the scroll issue.
--
BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 7:19 PM
There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence.
*Henry Adams*
"Jonathan N. Little"
news:2de4$47017e25$40cba7b3$16938@NAXS.COM:
> BootNic wrote:
>> Jim S
>> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
>>>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
>>>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
>>>
>>> My other website is Strict
>>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I
>>> would.
>>
>> 4.01 Strict example:
>> [url] http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php [/url]
>>
> Hmmm interesting... no mater the window size even at 1536px tall
> *still* has a vertical scroll bar!
Yes it does as it should, the footer is not in the table and the table
is set at 100% height. So lets see what to do about it ... lets remove
the footer from the page.
--
BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 7:31 PM
People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and
courageously. This is how character is built.
*Eleanor Roosevelt*
In article <18ofuikec3igr$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > Jim S
> >
> >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
> >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
> >> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
> >
> > "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
> > mention this to help you search the many times this has been
> > discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
> > here:
> >
> > (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
> > much these days from many experts here because they would be
> > tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
> > a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
> >
> > (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
> > to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
> > future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
> > will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
> > is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
> > large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
> >
> > (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
> > the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
> > improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
> > and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
> > caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
> > and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
> > these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
> > very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
> > you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
> > interested as I am sure would others.
> >
> > ---------
> > btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
> > table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)
>
> Not here I haven't.
>
Odd thing... I am sure it is not important. It appears in FF web
developer extension facilities. Here is a picture to demo what I
saw.
http://netweaver.com.au/test/pics/hidden_character.png
> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
> corners of the screen.
Give me a few minutes then. I will just say here that if you are
expecting to always get *exactly* what you can get cross browser
from tables but using best practice coding without tables for
layout, you will be disappointed. You need to be convinced that
sometimes, it is the look of the thing that is involved in the
change too, not merely a change in code. With lots of effort,
most table layouts can be mimicked... but doing this would be
pointless, it would be superficial, it would show that the author
is merely doing a "Look ma, no tables" trick. You will understand
what i am saying only when you get into designing without tables
from the very beginning. It influences you to design differently,
you get to like what you can do in a natural way.
Back soon!
--
dorayme
In article <18ofuikec3igr$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > Jim S
> >
> >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
> >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
> >> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
> >
> > (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
> > the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
> > improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
> > and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
> > caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
> > and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
> > these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
> > very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
> > you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
> > interested as I am sure would others.
> >
> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
> corners of the screen.
Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
etc):
I am happy with like this:
http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
(I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
should be in IE)
Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
merely put in text links)
http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
--
dorayme
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article <18ofuikec3igr$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> Jim S
>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> Jim S
>>>
>>>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
>>>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>>>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>>>
>
>>> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
>>> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
>>> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
>>> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
>>> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
>>> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
>>> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
>>> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
>>> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
>>> interested as I am sure would others.
>>>
>
>> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
>> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
>> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
>> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
>> corners of the screen.
>
> Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
> about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
> is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
> ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
> canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
> etc):
>
> I am happy with like this:
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
>
> (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
> mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
> practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
> should be in IE)
>
> Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
> that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
> that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
> put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
> merely put in text links)
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
Thanks I'll have a play
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article <18ofuikec3igr$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> Jim S
>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> Jim S
>>>
>>>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
>>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspi cs_14_wave.html
>>>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
>>>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
>>>
>
>>> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
>>> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
>>> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
>>> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
>>> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
>>> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
>>> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
>>> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
>>> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
>>> interested as I am sure would others.
>>>
>
>> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
>> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
>> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
>> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
>> corners of the screen.
>
> Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
> about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
> is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
> ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
> canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
> etc):
>
> I am happy with like this:
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
>
> (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
> mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
> practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
> should be in IE)
>
> Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
> that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
> that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
> put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
> merely put in text links)
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
Hi again
It was not t0o difficult to get to this
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_10_ Blyth_and_Tyne.html
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_52_ Greggs.html
http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_71_ Memorial_Methodists.html
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
John Hosking wrote:
> BootNic wrote:
>>
>>
>
> God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.
Or the keyboard. :-(
--
Berg
In article <5mfifpFcrlsqU1@mid.individual.net>, outside the table lower down.
Bergamot
> John Hosking wrote:
> > BootNic wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.
>
> Or the keyboard. :-(
To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
they are really needed. Try putting in extra text where he has
"test image". At least in FF they then appear. Try putting a
lorem in a
Can't test the scroll wheel ability on this Mac (reminds me to
purchase one of those for my Mac, it is a nice feature that I
miss when I have been on a Winbox - which has such - and come
back to my Mac)
--
dorayme
In article <1h8xnzy3xfsqm$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> >
> > I am happy with like this:
> >
> > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
> >
> > (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
> > mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
> > practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
> > should be in IE)
> >
> > Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
> > that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
> > that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
> > put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
> > merely put in text links)
> >
> > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
>
> Hi again
> It was not t0o difficult to get to this
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
>
Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.
> but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
>
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_10_ Blyth_and_Tyne.htm
> l
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_52_ Greggs.html
> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_71_ Memorial_Methodist
> s.html
OK Jim, I will take a look at these more complicated pages and
see if I can think of a way of proceeding that makes sense and
does not blind with science.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
>
> To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
> they are really needed.
Um, having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
using just the keyboard. Did you even try?
--
Berg
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article <1h8xnzy3xfsqm$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> Jim S
>
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am happy with like this:
>>>
>>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
>>>
>>> (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
>>> mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
>>> practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
>>> should be in IE)
>>>
>>> Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
>>> that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
>>> that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
>>> put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
>>> merely put in text links)
>>>
>>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
>>
>> Hi again
>> It was not t0o difficult to get to this
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
>>
>
> Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.
>
>> but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
>>
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_10_ Blyth_and_Tyne.htm
>> l
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_52_ Greggs.html
>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_71_ Memorial_Methodist
>> s.html
>
> OK Jim, I will take a look at these more complicated pages and
> see if I can think of a way of proceeding that makes sense and
> does not blind with science.
Remember it's an work in progress and usually adding an 'event' entails
using one of the pages as a template.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Bergamot
news:5mfvnjFd5sj4U1@mid.individual.net:
> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
>> they are really needed.
>
> Um, having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
> using just the keyboard. Did you even try?
I have, have no issues with it at all, I can even get it to scroll with
the keyboard in an old broken mozilla.
So just for my sake, what UA would you be using that your not able to
use the keyboard to scroll with?
--
BootNic Tuesday October 2, 2007 7:15 PM
Humor is an affirmation of dignity, a declaration of man's
superiority to all that befalls him.
*Romain Gary*
In article <5mfvnjFd5sj4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> dorayme wrote:
> >
> > To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
> > they are really needed.
>
> Um, having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
> using just the keyboard. Did you even try?
Yes, I use the arrow keys on my board, it is very convenient and
yes, it worked in FF for me when I added what I wrote about in
previous post. To be fair, I should add that I did this in FF
with the developer facilities, so I could easily add the text.
Perhaps this affects general conclusions. It was just an
observation, I thought I would throw it in the ring.
(You had to put in the word "even" didn't you? I am trying to be
pretty civil to you these days. Help out! You know I am as
delicate as you are blunt and caustic. I will get back in my box
now. I have a giant robot made in your image - took me ages to
engineer it - it is programmed to nail the box shut after I get
in. But I have a secret trap door. I am only a half fool.)
--
dorayme
BootNic wrote:
> Bergamot
> news:5mfvnjFd5sj4U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
>> using just the keyboard.
>
> I have, have no issues with it at all, I can even get it to scroll with
> the keyboard in an old broken mozilla.
My mozilla is neither old nor broken, but does not scroll. Your page
behaves the same as a scrolling div, which it, in essence, is. Scrolling
divs are a bane to keyboard accessibility. :(
--
Berg
In article <125nxaix97n8a.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> >>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
> >>
> >> Hi again
> >> It was not t0o difficult to get to this
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
> >>
> >
> > Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.
> >
> >> but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
> >>
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
> >
> > OK Jim, I will take a look at these more complicated pages and
> > see if I can think of a way of proceeding that makes sense and
> > does not blind with science.
>
> Remember it's an work in progress and usually adding an 'event' entails
> using one of the pages as a template.
I will suggest what I might do without doing what I find too
unacceptable. Perhaps you are not aware that on a monitor with
res of 1600 x 1200 (like my 20"), your
can easily look like:
So, I would be wanting to guard against this (and other things).
(I need a little time on this, when I get moments to spare...)
--
dorayme
Bergamot
news:5mghktFd9024U1@mid.individual.net:
> BootNic wrote:
>> Bergamot
>> news:5mfvnjFd5sj4U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>> having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
>>> using just the keyboard.
>>
>> I have, have no issues with it at all, I can even get it to scroll
>> with the keyboard in an old broken mozilla.
>
> My mozilla is neither old nor broken, but does not scroll. Your page
> behaves the same as a scrolling div, which it, in essence, is.
> Scrolling divs are a bane to keyboard accessibility. :(
In my 100% table example it's the body that scrolls in most browsers,
same difference I suppose.
For Firefox and Seamonkey all one has to do is tab about until the body
has focus. Once the body has focus you can scroll all you like with the
keyboard.
Although I really think this issue is about the scrolling, at least in my
example, is not an accessibility issue, but rather a UA issue that has
very limited keyboard shortcuts and perhaps a lack of knowledge or
willingness to use of them.
--
BootNic Wednesday October 3, 2007 12:58 AM
Humor is an affirmation of dignity, a declaration of man's
superiority to all that befalls him.
*Romain Gary*
In article <125nxaix97n8a.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <1h8xnzy3xfsqm$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> > Jim S
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I am happy with like this:
> >>>
> >>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
> >>>
> >>> (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
> >>> mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
> >>> practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
> >>> should be in IE)
> >>>
> >>> Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
> >>> that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
> >>> that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
> >>> put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
> >>> merely put in text links)
> >>>
> >>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
> >>
> >> Hi again
> >> It was not t0o difficult to get to this
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
> >>
> >
> > Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.
> >
> >> but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
> >>
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
I would tend to do something like this.
Most of this is straight forward. I am sure it could be improved
upon. If you really want those buttons left and right, at the
base as with the example I made for you at
http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
then just use the same code for the buttons but now allow (an
immediate slight loss in accessibility) about 2em margin left and
right on the wrapper. This should let the absolutely positioned
buttons then be 'sort of' more useful. theoretically if someone
has little height on the browser window.
I have just copy pasted your button code in from your site.
I feel this sort of thing is better across the browsers and
screen sizes than the heavy table layout of yours. Just look at
the difference in the size and complexity of the html/css between
the two.
Yes, I did cheat a little to make it look neater with the pics,
but it would be what I would normally do in an image editor
reasonably quickly to suit the page. You might spot the fiddle...
--
dorayme
In article
dorayme
> I would tend to do something like this.
>
>
Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
--
dorayme
On Oct 1, 3:09 pm, Neredbojias
> _Transitional_??
> You a coward, just lazy, or what?
I like that...
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:53:01 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article <125nxaix97n8a.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> Jim S
>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html
>>>>
>>>> Hi again
>>>> It was not t0o difficult to get to this
>>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.
>>>
>>>> but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_g raffiti.html
>
>>>
>>> OK Jim, I will take a look at these more complicated pages and
>>> see if I can think of a way of proceeding that makes sense and
>>> does not blind with science.
>>
>> Remember it's an work in progress and usually adding an 'event' entails
>> using one of the pages as a template.
>
> I will suggest what I might do without doing what I find too
> unacceptable. Perhaps you are not aware that on a monitor with
> res of 1600 x 1200 (like my 20"), your
>
>
>
> can easily look like:
>
>
>
> So, I would be wanting to guard against this (and other things).
>
>
> (I need a little time on this, when I get moments to spare...)
I have some px width statements that I may have to change to %s
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
BootNic wrote:
>
> In my 100% table example it's the body that scrolls in most browsers,
> same difference I suppose.
>
> For Firefox and Seamonkey all one has to do is tab about until the body
> has focus. Once the body has focus you can scroll all you like with the
> keyboard.
Oh, well, that does work.
bad I can't click on the body to give it focus. I'd actually thought to
try *that*. Unfortunately, you've quite rudely gone and placed content
on top of the body. ;-)
>
> Although I really think this issue is about the scrolling, at least in my
> example, is not an accessibility issue, but rather a UA issue that has
> very limited keyboard shortcuts and perhaps a lack of knowledge or
> willingness to use of them.
I'm worried that the word "accessibility" has come to be a code word to
mean "bending over backwards for those few, poor gimps." Isn't
accessibility really the question of whether *anybody* can access some
resource?
Making navigation JS-dependent makes a site inaccessible to those
without JavaScript (turned on). A page for Canadian citizens on how to
get a passport is not accessible to (pure) francophones if it's only in
English and has no link to French content.
IMDb.com uses a JS don't-copy-our-content-by-right-clicking mechanism,
so when I see an uncaptioned picture and try to see the alt text,
nothing happens. I can use the Web Developer toolbar, though, to turn on
"Display Alt Attributes", or I can turn JS off, or I can scan the
source, so I *can* get to the info, but it's basically an accessibilty
issue as soon as it becomes more difficult than necessary to get to it.
I think my argument is leading to the conclusion that your page lacks
accessibility (a cumbersome phrase, to be sure, but "is inaccessible" is
also misleading, and "has accessibility issues" is even longer). Yes,
the scrollbars are there when appropriate, and they work for me without
any problem. But my finger's right next to the _scrollwheel_, and my
cursor is way over _here_, while your scrollbars are way over _there_.
IYSWIM.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
John Hosking
news:47036d5c$1_5@news.bluewin.ch:
> BootNic wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> For Firefox and Seamonkey all one has to do is tab about until the
>> body has focus. Once the body has focus you can scroll all you like
>> with the keyboard.
>
> Oh, well, that does work.
> Too bad I can't click on the body to give it focus. I'd actually
> thought to try *that*. Unfortunately, you've quite rudely gone and
> placed content on top of the body. ;-)
It sounds to me as though you are using an older version of a mozilla
browser, in which case it will never work well. The only reason it would
work is because you tabbed to the link in the table, which would allow you
to scroll with the mouse or keyboard as long as the link has focus. If this
would be the case, it's a UA issue, and the only thing that would help is
to change to a UA that is not as borken as the one being used.
If the UA that you are using in not intuitive, complain to the authors
perhaps it may get corrected.
>> Although I really think this issue is about the scrolling, at least
>> in my example, is not an accessibility issue, but rather a UA issue
>> that has very limited keyboard shortcuts and perhaps a lack of
>> knowledge or willingness to use of them.
>
> I'm worried that the word "accessibility" has come to be a code word
> to mean "bending over backwards for those few, poor gimps." Isn't
> accessibility really the question of whether *anybody* can access some
> resource?
>
> Making navigation JS-dependent makes a site inaccessible to those
> without JavaScript (turned on). A page for Canadian citizens on how to
> get a passport is not accessible to (pure) francophones if it's only
> in English and has no link to French content.
>
> IMDb.com uses a JS don't-copy-our-content-by-right-clicking mechanism,
> so when I see an uncaptioned picture and try to see the alt text,
> nothing happens. I can use the Web Developer toolbar, though, to turn
> on "Display Alt Attributes", or I can turn JS off, or I can scan the
> source, so I *can* get to the info, but it's basically an accessibilty
> issue as soon as it becomes more difficult than necessary to get to
> it.
My example does not have any JS in it at all, although it did have a
navigation footer, but I removed that in an earler post.
My example is in English without a link to any French content. Now that I
think about it, none of my examples really have any content in them, there
just examples.
> I think my argument is leading to the conclusion that your page lacks
> accessibility (a cumbersome phrase, to be sure, but "is inaccessible"
> is also misleading, and "has accessibility issues" is even longer).
> Yes, the scrollbars are there when appropriate, and they work for me
> without any problem. But my finger's right next to the _scrollwheel_,
> and my cursor is way over _here_, while your scrollbars are way over
> _there_.
There is no argument, there may be an issue, but no argument. Until you
share what UA and version you are viewing the page with, I don't think
there is even an issue. If you are unable or unwilling to choose or update
a UA, then that is a problem, but not a problem with my example.
--
BootNic Wednesday October 3, 2007 1:23 PM
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please.
*Mark Twain*
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> In article
>
> dorayme
>
>> I would tend to do something like this.
>>
>>
>
> Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
> be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
> captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
> understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
I have tried your suggestion, but 'correct' tho' it may be, I find it
tiresome when updating pages, which I constantly do.
I use Expression Web (I can hear the sighs already) because it works for
me. For me, one of the faults with your layout is that I cannot 'see' it in
EW as it will look, without constantly flipping between a browser and back.
The fact that have asked for help in constructing my site to Strict
standards is mainly because I have the time, but partly because I was
goaded into it and partly because of the constant criticism that tables are
not meant to be used as placeholders for graphics.
Well that may be so, but it works for me and it validates (usually).
It is a simple site, but mine own.
If I make mistakes and the site looks wrong in your enormous display, it is
my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. I recommend the
resolution on the homepage and try to keep the pictures and setup so there
are no problems when viewing in 800 x 600 (unlike the one you suggested).
Thanks for now.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Jim S wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
>> In article
>>
>> dorayme
>>
>>> I would tend to do something like this.
>>>
>>>
>> Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
>> be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
>> captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
>> understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
>
> I have tried your suggestion, but 'correct' tho' it may be, I find it
> tiresome when updating pages, which I constantly do.
> I use Expression Web (I can hear the sighs already) because it works for
> me. For me, one of the faults with your layout is that I cannot 'see' it in
> EW as it will look, without constantly flipping between a browser and back.
Jim this may see a bit harsh but you do know that PCs can multitask now,
right? If you have the screen real estate, put your editor window beside
your browser window, cascade if you wish. Simply ALT TAB or click
taskbar buttons to toggle windows... The advantages are your can test
more than one browser. Yep, fire up Firefox and MS(Windows)IE and maybe
Opera at once and you can cycle among them rather than depend on MS's
take on how the web "should" work...not a good strategy IMHO
>
> The fact that have asked for help in constructing my site to Strict
> standards is mainly because I have the time, but partly because I was
> goaded into it and partly because of the constant criticism that tables are
> not meant to be used as placeholders for graphics.
> Well that may be so, but it works for me and it validates (usually).
> It is a simple site, but mine own.
Actually, going tablesless can be much simpler if you free yourself from
the grid. As you learn more about CSS you can streamline your
presentation and can make changes in presentations or add content
without having to redo the page...
>
> If I make mistakes and the site looks wrong in your enormous display, it is
> my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. I recommend the
> resolution on the homepage and try to keep the pictures and setup so there
> are no problems when viewing in 800 x 600 (unlike the one you suggested).
> Thanks for now.
See that's the evidence on your mindset problem. You are thinking 800 x
600... what if my display area is only 500px wide either by the
limitations of my display device or browser window I have alloted
because I have more than one window up on my desktop? Hang your page on
an 800 x 600 grid and I will have to scroll back and forth *and* up and
down within my view port. dorayme's design adjusts and all I have to do
is scroll down...with my scroll wheel at the ready!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:09:17 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Jim S wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>>
>>> dorayme
>>>
>>>> I would tend to do something like this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
>>> be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
>>> captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
>>> understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
>>
>> I have tried your suggestion, but 'correct' tho' it may be, I find it
>> tiresome when updating pages, which I constantly do.
>> I use Expression Web (I can hear the sighs already) because it works for
>> me. For me, one of the faults with your layout is that I cannot 'see' it in
>> EW as it will look, without constantly flipping between a browser and back.
>
> Jim this may see a bit harsh but you do know that PCs can multitask now,
> right? If you have the screen real estate, put your editor window beside
> your browser window, cascade if you wish. Simply ALT TAB or click
> taskbar buttons to toggle windows... The advantages are your can test
> more than one browser. Yep, fire up Firefox and MS(Windows)IE and maybe
> Opera at once and you can cycle among them rather than depend on MS's
> take on how the web "should" work...not a good strategy IMHO
>
>>
>> The fact that have asked for help in constructing my site to Strict
>> standards is mainly because I have the time, but partly because I was
>> goaded into it and partly because of the constant criticism that tables are
>> not meant to be used as placeholders for graphics.
>> Well that may be so, but it works for me and it validates (usually).
>> It is a simple site, but mine own.
>
> Actually, going tablesless can be much simpler if you free yourself from
> the grid. As you learn more about CSS you can streamline your
> presentation and can make changes in presentations or add content
> without having to redo the page...
>>
>> If I make mistakes and the site looks wrong in your enormous display, it is
>> my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. I recommend the
>> resolution on the homepage and try to keep the pictures and setup so there
>> are no problems when viewing in 800 x 600 (unlike the one you suggested).
>> Thanks for now.
>
> See that's the evidence on your mindset problem. You are thinking 800 x
> 600... what if my display area is only 500px wide either by the
> limitations of my display device or browser window I have alloted
> because I have more than one window up on my desktop? Hang your page on
> an 800 x 600 grid and I will have to scroll back and forth *and* up and
> down within my view port. dorayme's design adjusts and all I have to do
> is scroll down...with my scroll wheel at the ready!
I guess I just cannot cope with it.
Thanks for your efforts.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
Jim S wrote:
> I guess I just cannot cope with it.
> Thanks for your efforts.
Maybe in time.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article
Jim S
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> >
> > dorayme
> >
> >> I would tend to do something like this.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Just one more little thing I forgot to add to last post. I would
> > be tending to use display: block on the images but I have
> > captioned with a simple method that is easier to immediately
> > understand. Anyway, maybe this sort of thing could get you going?
>
> I have tried your suggestion, but 'correct' tho' it may be, I find it
> tiresome when updating pages, which I constantly do.
> I use Expression Web (I can hear the sighs already) because it works for
> me. For me, one of the faults with your layout is that I cannot 'see' it in
> EW as it will look, without constantly flipping between a browser and back.
>
> The fact that have asked for help in constructing my site to Strict
> standards is mainly because I have the time, but partly because I was
> goaded into it and partly because of the constant criticism that tables are
> not meant to be used as placeholders for graphics.
> Well that may be so, but it works for me and it validates (usually).
> It is a simple site, but mine own.
>
> If I make mistakes and the site looks wrong in your enormous display, it is
> my fault for bad markup, not the fault of using tables. I recommend the
> resolution on the homepage and try to keep the pictures and setup so there
> are no problems when viewing in 800 x 600 (unlike the one you suggested).
> Thanks for now.
No problem Jim. Just thought it might give you some ideas, the
coding being so much simpler than your table layout. I am sure
you can mark up your table layout simpler and better (as you are
allowing is possible).
About table layouts, up to a considerable point there is no
reason that you cannot make a fluid design with tables in the
sense that the page displays in a pleasant manner on most
screens. (Mobile brigade: relax!). They can be seen all over the
show.
But fluid does not mean that all the cells of a page must expand
to fill any size monitor. It may (sort of) mean that it should be
able to be seen in 800 x 600. But there is no point at all in
designing so that all the elements of a page make like marks on
the outside of a balloon or like stars in an expanding universe,
getting further and further away from each other.
There are a few devices to stop this sort of needless expansion
happening that I can mention immediately. First, do use the
excellent facility of such as
#wrapper {max-width: 1000px;}
or whatever figure is suitable for your material. Pick a wrapper
(it may be the main table) and a number of px where you judge the
material is spreading out needlessly beyond. Some older browsers
(including IE6!) do not recognise this but there are workarounds.
Second, *let* the magic of tables arrange the widths of the cells
to suit the material in it, think carefully whether to bother to
set widths on anything at all in the table. Be wary, above all,
of table {width: 100%;}
Third, be careful of setting heights on things. My advice is not
to in tables.
Please, Jim, I am working from memory and making general remarks,
I have not got your site on screen.
One thing I do recall though very vividly though is that you have
far too much inline css. If it is maintenance and updating you
are wanting, templating and all that in a busy site, get the
whole lot off the html page and put it into css sheets, use
inline only sparingly and mostly tactically in development.
--
dorayme
>
> See that's the evidence on your mindset problem. You are thinking 800 x
> 600... what if my display area is only 500px wide either by the
> limitations of my display device or browser window I have alloted
> because I have more than one window up on my desktop? Hang your page on
> an 800 x 600 grid and I will have to scroll back and forth *and* up and
> down within my view port. dorayme's design adjusts and all I have to do
> is scroll down...with my scroll wheel at the ready!
You missed my point I fancy.
The reference to 800x600 was meant to say that although my pages are not
specifically written for it, I have kept my photos to a size and layout
which should mean that sideways scrolling is never required.
I make the (arrogant?) assumption that most users of my site will be using
the default resolution that came with their pc and would not know how to
use shortcuts to change the size of what they see, or even want to.
--
Jim S
Tyneside UK
www.jimscott.co.uk
>
> No problem Jim. Just thought it might give you some ideas, the
> coding being so much simpler than your table layout. I am sure
> you can mark up your table layout simpler and better (as you are
> allowing is possible).
>
> About table layouts, up to a considerable point there is no
> reason that you cannot make a fluid design with tables in the
> sense that the page displays in a pleasant manner on most
> screens. (Mobile brigade: relax!). They can be seen all over the
> show.
>
> But fluid does not mean that all the cells of a page must expand
> to fill any size monitor. It may (sort of) mean that it should be
> able to be seen in 800 x 600. But there is no point at all in
> designing so that all the elements of a page make like marks on
> the outside of a balloon or like stars in an expanding universe,
> getting further and further away from each other.
>
This is possibly where we differ most.
You would have me create pages which never gets bigger than size X x Y and
would appear in the top left of any browser screen that opens it?
(That's a question)
My own starting point has always been to fill the allotted space
> There are a few devices to stop this sort of needless expansion
> happening that I can mention immediately. First, do use the
> excellent facility of such as
>
> #wrapper {max-width: 1000px;}
I have never met #wrapper and why 1000px?
(Pages with wide empty right hand margins really bug me)
>
> or whatever figure is suitable for your material. Pick a wrapper
> (it may be the main table) and a number of px where you judge the
> material is spreading out needlessly beyond. Some older browsers
> (including IE6!) do not recognise this but there are workarounds.
Oh dear, I imagine most of the world uses IE6/7 and the workarounds I have
used before usually are unvalidatable.
>
> Second, *let* the magic of tables arrange the widths of the cells
> to suit the material in it, think carefully whether to bother to
> set widths on anything at all in the table. Be wary, above all,
> of table {width: 100%;}
I try not to use individual cell widths except where there are several
images which look weirdly arranged otherwise.
HOWEVER width:100%; height:100% are the rocks on which my table stylesheet
is based. I have never actually considered changing that as my whole design
will probably fall to nothing (I'm going off to try that now so if you can
feel bad vibes, you know it's me)
>
> Third, be careful of setting heights on things. My advice is not
> to in tables.
>
> Please, Jim, I am working from memory and making general remarks,
> I have not got your site on screen.
>
> One thing I do recall though very vividly though is that you have
> far too much inline css. If it is maintenance and updating you
> are wanting, templating and all that in a busy site, get the
> whole lot off the html page and put it into css sheets, use
> inline only sparingly and mostly tactically in development.
This, you see is where I have my difficulty ie the jargon.
"Inline css": does this refer to a line like this
In article <18t0nzlifooys.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>, In article <18t0nzlifooys.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>, BootNic wrote:
Jim S
> > But fluid does not mean that all the cells of a page must expand
> > to fill any size monitor. It may (sort of) mean that it should be
> > able to be seen in 800 x 600. But there is no point at all in
> > designing so that all the elements of a page make like marks on
> > the outside of a balloon or like stars in an expanding universe,
> > getting further and further away from each other.
> >
> This is possibly where we differ most.
> You would have me create pages which never gets bigger than size X x Y and
> would appear in the top left of any browser screen that opens it?
> (That's a question)
Not saying that at all. I know it sounds boring, but too much of
one thing or the other can be bad. The fluid I have in mind is
this, *allow* a page to be squashed up a bit so that those with
small screens get as much as possible without having to scroll
(especially horizontally) but don't let it go so far the other
way *merely* to fill a screen. It seems to me paying lip service
to fluidity to let things blow out no matter what the size of the
screen is.
It requires some judgement, the figures I supply below are mere
stabs. With a big spread sheet page, many cols, much info, there
would be real advantage in *not* setting a max width. But even
here, width: 100% is not really needed because of what I have
referred to as the magic of tables, their inbuilt tendencies to
grow to fit the natural content. You need a good reason to
inhibit or control this natural process.
But it all depends! In the above paragraph, I have in mind a
table with info like stock numbers, sizes, web addresses,
price... not cells full of discursive text. If there is a spiel
in a cell, an essay even, then the game changes. With text, it is
uncomfortable to read lines that are very very wide, so here it
makes sense not to let the table do its natural thing, ie. to
grow as wide as it can before wrapping is forced. Magic is like
that, one sometimes does not get quite one wishes for when
unthinkingly talking to the genie.
> My own starting point has always been to fill the allotted space
>
It seems a most odd assumption when one considers the size and
resolution of some modern screens. Sometimes one simply does not
have enough material to do this effectively. Spreading a few
crumbs out just for the sake of "using" the space seems not
sensible to me. Greedy would-be miners rush out into greenfields
to grab as much as possible. But we know the reason for this.
> > There are a few devices to stop this sort of needless expansion
> > happening that I can mention immediately. First, do use the
> > excellent facility of such as
> >
> > #wrapper {max-width: 1000px;}
> I have never met #wrapper and why 1000px?
> (Pages with wide empty right hand margins really bug me)
Consider this carefully. If you do not like something, it is not
always sensible to do whatever it takes to avoid it. You can make
things even worse. I take a different attitude completely. If an
author has a little bit of material, I prefer to see it neatly
organised and read or look at it without having to cope with the
authors need to do the expanding. I prefer for my mouse to travel
the shortest distance, the eyes too. It is all a matter of
judging. I would say to you not to start with some absolute
requirement to fill the void at all costs!
In any case, if you do have a thing about empty space, there are
things you can do to make it seem more natural to your eye. I
won't go into this here but you are welcome to raise the issue.
> > One thing I do recall though very vividly though is that you have
> > far too much inline css. If it is maintenance and updating you
> > are wanting, templating and all that in a busy site, get the
> > whole lot off the html page and put it into css sheets, use
> > inline only sparingly and mostly tactically in development.
>
> This, you see is where I have my difficulty ie the jargon.
> "Inline css": does this refer to a line like this
>
This is what I am referring to. In the head is fine enough in
your circumstances, at least it is all together there!
> or something that refers to some style eg style1 created in the header?
> If it is the latter then it is one which has been created by Expression Web
> and I have missed it as I try not to let that happen.
> OR perhaps I should let EW do that, but call it something more meaningful.
--
dorayme
Re: To table or not to table?
am 09.10.2007 01:04:50 von dorayme
Jim S
> dorayme wrote concerning "max-width"
> > or whatever figure is suitable for your material. Pick a wrapper
> > (it may be the main table) and a number of px where you judge the
> > material is spreading out needlessly beyond. Some older browsers
> > (including IE6!) do not recognise this but there are workarounds.
> Oh dear, I imagine most of the world uses IE6/7 and the workarounds I have
> used before usually are unvalidatable.
I forgot to address this bit. IE6 is being used less and less and
those wedded to IE are moving to IE7. IE 7 respects max and min
width I understand. But even for IE6, there are ways to talk to
it alone, you can set widths (as distinguished from max-widths)
especially for it, to limit the problem. "Perfect" validation
needs to be seen with perspective. A validator does not really
know what you are doing, it can only apply rigid standards. It
does not know that something which every browser but IE6 cannot
see or ignores is not such a bad thing.
But if it is too complicated to go into such things, don't. But
do not be frightened to use max-width, almost all modern browsers
respect it. Let IE6 make things as wide as it likes! You can't
solve all the world's problems.
--
doraymeRe: To table or not to table?
am 11.10.2007 14:21:25 von Bergamot
>
> For Firefox and Seamonkey all one has to do is tab about until the body
> has focus. Once the body has focus you can scroll all you like with the
> keyboard.
Oh, that is sooooooooo user-friendly. Load the page, and hit the down
arrow or Page Down key. Nothing happens. Unless there is something about
your content that I absolutely must have, it's a lot easier to just go
elsewhere.
--
Berg