|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/08/07 00:01
In article <l54msja36cd.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:22 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <doraymeRidThis-66E806.15165903102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> I would tend to do something like this.
> >>
> >> <http://netweaver.com.au/jim/jimsPage.html>
> >
> > 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
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|