|
|
Posted by dorayme on 02/28/07 00:58
In article <drrbr66kbqlk$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:05:43 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <1wgp40jnzfbqa$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> > Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> It's all very well, but I have trawled through several tutorials and with
> >> my
> >> page layout I cannot for the life of me see how to produce a page like my
> >> homepage without using a table or indeed the other pages without frames.
> >> --
> >> Jim S
> >
> > As well as various test layouts, perhaps you might look at
> >
> > <http://tvrs.org.au/gallery/gallery.html>
> >
> > to see a gallery of pics in a web page setting that is fluid and
> > not table based. It can surely be improved upon but it does have
> > this basic idea of pics in divs, each floated in a line as are
> > words in a piece of text. Instead of words wrapping, it is little
> > boxes (divs), inside of which are pictures and a little bit of
> > text. That is what the basic idea of floating is about, boxes (be
> > they pics or divs or other things of rectangular nature) floating
> > to the left or right of other things, these other things can be
> > text or further boxy things, their tops approximately aligned,
> > when room runs out, they are wrapped.
>
> For me, the difference is that using frames, the "strip" scrolls and the
> linked enlarged graphic stays still.
> When I originally built the site I had a similar screen full of thumbnails
> and getting the enlarged picture was a continuous series of going back and
> forward between thumbnails and pictures. I think this is clumsy! I limit my
> enlarged picture so that it can be seen in 800 x 600 px without sideways
> scrolling, so the whole experience is stable.
> The example you have chosen may well adjust to various resolutions, but to
> me it is as I said earlier 'clumsy' because of the to-ing and fro-ing going
> on. It also works well, as does the Ansel Adams site mentioned elsewhere,
> because all the thumbnails are exactly the same size.
> Printing IS a problem, but since my index page is not framed then Search
> Engines seem to have no trouble.
Jim, I was just referring you to this to illustrate the idea of a
fluid gallery in a context of a navigation and header. You
expressed puzzlement as to how to do this fluid part. I was
trying to help you understand the idea better and see it in a
context.
The issue of the frames advantage is something quite separate (it
is something I have some sympathise with you over) You can still
have the wrapping (to fit a big range of screens and browser
windows) in a "thumnail" frame. Nothing to stop you much.
But there is one thing you say that is not quite right, about it
working because the pics are all the same size. It is true that
it helps to have something of uniform size, but it is not
necessarily the pics themselves. If you look carefully, you will
notice that in a simple table layout, a certain uniformity is
imposed on the cells automatically, the "magic of tables' you
could say. The cell size in a col will take its cue from the
_biggest_ combo of pic and text. In other words, and to simplify,
if the left most col has a cell with a pic that is bigger than
all the other pics in cells in that col, all those cells will
nevertheless have the same width at least.
Now, all this makes for a tidy arrangement. But it is something
that can be reasonably easily engineered into a fluid div/float
arrangement too. By inspecting the largest of your thumbnails and
sizing all divs for this size. Then all the pics will "tidy line
up" a bit like in a table but with the fabulous advantage of
being able to wrap.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|