Posted by dorayme on 10/02/07 00:16

In article <18ofuikec3igr$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <t26fb9rfiguy$.dlg@ID-104726.news.individual.net>,
> > Jim S <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
> >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_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

[Back to original message]