|
|
Posted by Jeff on 03/13/07 00:19
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Formby wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[whatever]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are you blind?
>>>>
>>>>As a matter of fact yes, Chaddy is. Not totally, as I understand.
>>
>> That explains the color choices. Less colors would be a good start.
>>
>>Adding colors is kind of like adding properties to a stylesheet. When in
>>doubt, don't.
>>
>>>>And he's been around here a lot longer than you have.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I've been around for quite a while, I'm just not a
>>regular.
>>
>>>Hmmm, i'm not sure on the length part, but yes, you were spot-on with
>>>your other points.
>>>I think I was mainly just a bit shocked by Jeff's suggestion of useing
>>>tables for lay-out. I have bad memoried of tables for lay-out, check
>>>my URL on the way-back machine. Then take a look at my moddern site
>>>for a quick comparison (I can't be stuffed useing a spelling checker
>>>(very buggerd after staying up last night to work on the other CSS
>>>stuff). I did not think tables were really workable for this layout I
>>>am working on anyway.
>>
>>Why, it's dead simple. And you never have to specify heights or a host
>>of other things.
>>
>
> Well yeah, but you don't need to useing CSS eather.
Well, I would disagree with that. Font tags suck. But, most people
tend to put too much in their stylesheets. Inheritance and descendants
are generally preferable to spcifying everything.
I was makeing my
> layout overly complex which is the only reason why it was not working,
> I was trying to get things to work by specifying widths on
> everything.
>
>
>><table>
>> <tr><th colspan="2">Logo</th></tr>
>> <tr><td id="side_nav"><div>side nav stuff</div></td><td
>>id="content"><div>content stuff</div></td></tr>
>
> That mark-up is not really very meaningfull, you should really place
> blocks of text in paragraphs,
Of course. Or in a header, a list, a blockquote. Whatever is
appropriate. Even a table if it is tabular.
as the <div> tag does not have any
> samantic meaning.
Exactly, it's just a block level container. Add in whatever you like.
You should only use div's for layout out the stuff
> that adds too the page, like headers and footers,
Lots of people toss all their content in a div. Depends on what you are
doing and since it is semantically neutral, what does it matter. Seems
to me your own test site was a collection of divs.
that kind of thing
> and menu items should really be in a list. I am planning to do that
> for my main site very shortly, which can be done in one file with the
> includes.
>
>
>> <tr><td colspan="2"><div>footer stuff</div></td></tr>
>></table>
>>
>>It's hard to go wrong there. Columns are always columns and you *never*
>>have the weird wraps and items out of place that can happen when you
>>have floated content. I'm waiting for display: inline-block to be widely
>> implemented correctly, or to have actual columns. It'll eventually
>>happen...
>
> I agree that tables can be easy to use for layout, especially with
> WYSIWYMG editors,
Dunno. Who in this group uses a wysiwyg editor? I don't even have one.
as you just need to click some buttons and bam,
> there's your table. But it's not really a good way of doing things, as
> an example, images placed in a talbe do not act in a fluard manner
> when you re-size the window,
Reflows like anything else would in that container, but it will never
intrude on another container.
Like your own test site, add some more main content and you'll see
that it flows back to the left margin. Sometimes that is fine, but
usually you don't want your content flowing around your navigaton. Your call
but it depends on the target audience a
> bit. But generally it's hard to say who is actually vieing your
> website so target audience does not really come in to the argument as
> much as it would in other media.
> If you want stuff too "look identical" in all web browsers,
Most clients do. They get upset when something is off in their
browser. Now it's one thing to tell them that NS4 is an obsolete browser
with very little market share. It's quite another to say the number one
browser in useage (IE) is not compatible with their site.
It's really up to you. How many clients do you want?
with maybe
> Linux being the exception, then use Flash,
There's lot's wrong with an all flash site. You can start with search
engine invisibility. PDFs do a much better job and even they are no joy
for a complete site.
There's nothing wrong with doing a complex tableless layout. Most
people get it wrong somewhere though and for the typical commercial
site, light table useage is acceptable. I've never had a client complain
about the html, only the appearance when something is out of kilter.
That includes government and non profit organizations that should be 503
compliant.
Jeff
as it does not need very
> much HTML to get it working and as the majority of people have it
> installed. Mind you, the useual rules regarding borwser plug-ins
> applie.
> <rest of post snip>
>
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|