comments much appreciated - thank you for your help

Discussion in 'HTML' started by windandwaves, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Hi Folks

    I have just completed a project for an accommodation finder in New Zealand - much with your help - thank you again.

    I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.

    The url is

    http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/index.php

    Thank you

    - Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Mar 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "windandwaves" <>
    > Organization: Xtra
    > Newsgroups: alt.html,comp.lang.php
    > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:10:51 +1300
    > Subject: comments much appreciated - thank you for your help
    >
    > Hi Folks
    >
    > I have just completed a project for an accommodation finder in New Zealand -
    > much with your help - thank you again.
    >
    > I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.
    >
    > The url is
    >
    > http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/index.php
    >
    > Thank you
    >
    > - Nicolaas



    It looks quite nice in IE 5.1.6 on a Mac. But it is a bit disastrous in
    Mozilla 1.3 (a very reliable Mac browser I have found) with any window size
    that is "bigger" than what is needed for your content: paradoxically it only
    half appears when browser is opened up bigger than "needed" (from
    "Discerning..." to the right, nothing to the left of these words in the
    heading). So there is serious trouble. It looks very complicated code
    considering the content? JS and stuff... are you browser (and user window
    size) sniffing somehow? If so, it is not working)

    I won't comment on the code here, the tables or anything like that, nor on
    things I am not experienced in, just on the look in the browser and take the
    comments how you will.

    1. I had to enlarge the browser font size to read the text. (I went to 120%
    and it was ok for me then). True, there are quite a few sites where I have
    to do this but not sure you have so much info on your page to have to go
    quite so small?)

    2. I found it hard to see the white text clearly on the yellowish bottom.

    3. The whole contents are carefully constrained and do not grow to take
    advantage of a bigger monitor, the white canvass "goes to waste" as it
    were...

    4. In particular there is a lack of grace in the lack of padding on the
    right side. "Balmoral Lodge - Queenstown", in particular, comes to an abrupt
    edge.

    It does resize nicely unlike so many sites (this is an independent point to
    the one made at the start). In other words, once the site is viewable in the
    browser, changing the browser font-size view is graceful enough.

    Only looked at the main page...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.

    10 minutes playing with this tells me you have some major issues...

    I find websites that leave 40% of the browser space blank, then use a tiny
    font to make things fit really annoying. I use a large monitor at 1600x1200
    and this site is hard to read unless I get my nose against the screen.

    It's slightly alarming that using a URL like:

    http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/listing.php?t='&p='

    results in "Table Undefined" being printed on screen. Is that a bad choice
    of error message on your part or is it a system error which you're not
    catching? If I were looking to break the site I'd be homing in on this.
    Turns out that's not necessary - see below.

    The login page tells me that if you "forgot your password then please enter
    your username and click submit", which would be a challenge because there
    isn't a submit button.

    When you go to refine a search, the criteria you started with aren't
    reproduced in the search screen, so you have to start again from scratch.
    Most unhelpful.

    I logged in with a username of "'''" and a password of "'''" (i.e. 3 single
    quotes). I'm not entirely sure what happened. I was presented with a list,
    of which I clicked the top one - "Christopher Brown Associates". It then
    said "You are now logged in for: Christopher Brown Associates (property
    code: cba)"! Either I don't understand what's happening, or what is
    supposed to be happening securitywise, or your idea of a completed project
    isn't the same as mine. But then, it says at the bottom that I'm not
    currently logged in, and there's no logout button.

    A bit more playing found me looking at the page for administrator's entry
    for "The Cove", complete with password in plain text (not even starred
    out). I added the string "Fred<script>alert(&quot;hello&quot;)</script>" to
    para 1 of the Cove's description, and went back to the viewing page. I got
    a PHP error: "Parse error: parse error, unexpected $
    in /var/www/html/_snippets.php on line 196".

    I don't go around trashing websites, but there are a lot of people out there
    who do. If you don't want this one crapped all over, you're going to have
    to start again with its security.

    BTW, I couldn't get that string out of the Cove's entry. I've broken it.
    Sorry... :eek:)

    --
    The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
    http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
    href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
    Derek Fountain, Mar 17, 2005
    #3
  4. windandwaves

    NSpam Guest

    Derek Fountain wrote:
    >>I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.

    >
    >
    > 10 minutes playing with this tells me you have some major issues...
    >
    > I find websites that leave 40% of the browser space blank, then use a tiny
    > font to make things fit really annoying. I use a large monitor at 1600x1200
    > and this site is hard to read unless I get my nose against the screen.
    >
    > It's slightly alarming that using a URL like:
    >
    > http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/listing.php?t='&p='
    >
    > results in "Table Undefined" being printed on screen. Is that a bad choice
    > of error message on your part or is it a system error which you're not
    > catching? If I were looking to break the site I'd be homing in on this.
    > Turns out that's not necessary - see below.
    >
    > The login page tells me that if you "forgot your password then please enter
    > your username and click submit", which would be a challenge because there
    > isn't a submit button.
    >
    > When you go to refine a search, the criteria you started with aren't
    > reproduced in the search screen, so you have to start again from scratch.
    > Most unhelpful.
    >
    > I logged in with a username of "'''" and a password of "'''" (i.e. 3 single
    > quotes). I'm not entirely sure what happened. I was presented with a list,
    > of which I clicked the top one - "Christopher Brown Associates". It then
    > said "You are now logged in for: Christopher Brown Associates (property
    > code: cba)"! Either I don't understand what's happening, or what is
    > supposed to be happening securitywise, or your idea of a completed project
    > isn't the same as mine. But then, it says at the bottom that I'm not
    > currently logged in, and there's no logout button.
    >
    > A bit more playing found me looking at the page for administrator's entry
    > for "The Cove", complete with password in plain text (not even starred
    > out). I added the string "Fred<script>alert(&quot;hello&quot;)</script>" to
    > para 1 of the Cove's description, and went back to the viewing page. I got
    > a PHP error: "Parse error: parse error, unexpected $
    > in /var/www/html/_snippets.php on line 196".
    >
    > I don't go around trashing websites, but there are a lot of people out there
    > who do. If you don't want this one crapped all over, you're going to have
    > to start again with its security.
    >
    > BTW, I couldn't get that string out of the Cove's entry. I've broken it.
    > Sorry... :eek:)
    >

    Listen to this guy he's good and he's probably spent some time on the reply.
    NSpam, Mar 17, 2005
    #4
  5. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    Thank you so much for your comments, much appreciated. I am stoked.

    > It looks quite nice in IE 5.1.6 on a Mac. But it is a bit disastrous
    > in Mozilla 1.3 (a very reliable Mac browser I have found) with any
    > window size that is "bigger" than what is needed for your content:
    > paradoxically it only half appears when browser is opened up bigger
    > than "needed" (from "Discerning..." to the right, nothing to the left
    > of these words in the heading). So there is serious trouble. It looks
    > very complicated code considering the content? JS and stuff... are
    > you browser (and user window size) sniffing somehow? If so, it is not
    > working)


    To be honest with you, making it compatable in all these browsers drives me mental - even when pages validate (using strict) with
    W3. Whenever I use float commands in the stylesheets then there is definitely trouble. So I go back to tables (ugly design), which
    makes it slightly better, but there are still places where it aint working. For example, in strict HTML you are not allowed to align
    a table in the centre. So I use the stylesheet, which basically causes the error you list above. The good news is that there will
    be very few people using Mozilla 1.3 on a Mac. I will check it out thought

    > I won't comment on the code here, the tables or anything like that,
    > nor on things I am not experienced in, just on the look in the
    > browser and take the comments how you will.
    >
    > 1. I had to enlarge the browser font size to read the text. (I went
    > to 120% and it was ok for me then). True, there are quite a few sites
    > where I have to do this but not sure you have so much info on your
    > page to have to go quite so small?)


    Good, yes, we like it small and because all the fonts are set as em, users can resize them anyway they want.

    > 2. I found it hard to see the white text clearly on the yellowish
    > bottom.


    Good point.

    > 3. The whole contents are carefully constrained and do not grow to
    > take advantage of a bigger monitor, the white canvass "goes to waste"
    > as it were...


    Because we want to keep some control over the look. For the vast majority of the users, it will look fine. Most geeks on here have
    huge size monitors, but most "normal" people have "normal" screens.

    > 4. In particular there is a lack of grace in the lack of padding on
    > the right side. "Balmoral Lodge - Queenstown", in particular, comes
    > to an abrupt edge.


    Can you explain?

    > It does resize nicely unlike so many sites (this is an independent
    > point to the one made at the start). In other words, once the site is
    > viewable in the browser, changing the browser font-size view is
    > graceful enough.


    I think that is due to only using em as font-size (rather than, for example px)

    Thank you once more for your comments.
    windandwaves, Mar 17, 2005
    #5
  6. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Derek Fountain wrote:
    >> I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.


    Thank you so much for your comments, much appreciated. Really useful. Looks like you have gone for the deconstructive ones. Thank
    you - very useful.

    > 10 minutes playing with this tells me you have some major issues...
    >
    > I find websites that leave 40% of the browser space blank, then use a
    > tiny font to make things fit really annoying. I use a large monitor
    > at 1600x1200 and this site is hard to read unless I get my nose
    > against the screen.


    Point taken. I designed it for the standard screen size, but I do not really want to look at this point now, as there seem to be
    more pressing issues.... If you have such a large screen then you do not need to maximize the screen. Like, for example, on the
    Mac, the window size is automatically set to the standard size of the website. Font-size are set as em, so they are easily to
    adjust. I may look at providing the option for a larger font as many users will be older people.

    > It's slightly alarming that using a URL like:
    >
    > http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/listing.php?t='&p='


    Did you create that url or was that a link?

    >
    > results in "Table Undefined" being printed on screen. Is that a bad
    > choice of error message on your part or is it a system error which
    > you're not catching? If I were looking to break the site I'd be
    > homing in on this. Turns out that's not necessary - see below.


    What would you do?

    > The login page tells me that if you "forgot your password then please
    > enter your username and click submit", which would be a challenge
    > because there isn't a submit button.


    Well spotted. I changed it. Thank you


    > When you go to refine a search, the criteria you started with aren't
    > reproduced in the search screen, so you have to start again from
    > scratch. Most unhelpful.
    >
    > I logged in with a username of "'''" and a password of "'''" (i.e. 3
    > single quotes). I'm not entirely sure what happened. I was presented
    > with a list, of which I clicked the top one - "Christopher Brown
    > Associates". It then said "You are now logged in for: Christopher
    > Brown Associates (property code: cba)"! Either I don't understand
    > what's happening, or what is supposed to be happening securitywise,
    > or your idea of a completed project isn't the same as mine. But then,
    > it says at the bottom that I'm not currently logged in, and there's
    > no logout button.


    LOL - fixed it. I am not sure how what happened there, but it sure not like that anymore...


    >
    > A bit more playing found me looking at the page for administrator's
    > entry for "The Cove", complete with password in plain text (not even
    > starred out). I added the string
    > "Fred<script>alert(&quot;hello&quot;)</script>" to para 1 of the
    > Cove's description, and went back to the viewing page. I got a PHP
    > error: "Parse error: parse error, unexpected $
    > in /var/www/html/_snippets.php on line 196".


    Fixed that

    >
    > I don't go around trashing websites, but there are a lot of people
    > out there who do. If you don't want this one crapped all over, you're
    > going to have to start again with its security.
    >
    > BTW, I couldn't get that string out of the Cove's entry. I've broken
    > it. Sorry... :eek:)


    No worries. I love your work. Could you try to login again? Without breaking the entire site...

    PS I never lock my door and I usually leave my keys in my car when I park it somewhere for a few minutes, that is, security is not
    very high on my list of priorities as I figure that if people want to break in, they will anyway (e.g. it is pretty easy to start my
    car even without the keys in it).

    Having said that, I should probably improve it a little on the security front. I have been looking at SQL injection as well. Do
    you know of any smart ways to cater for this? I saw some functions, but they were so complicated that I decided to keep looking for
    alternatives until I found something that is easier to implement and maintain.

    Cheers


    Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Mar 17, 2005
    #6
  7. windandwaves wrote:

    > Point taken. I designed it for the standard screen size, but I do not

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > really want to look at this point now, as there seem to be
    > more pressing issues.... If you have such a large screen then you do
    > not need to maximize the screen. Like, for example, on the Mac, the
    > window size is automatically set to the standard size of the website.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    What are these standards?

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
    Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 17, 2005
    #7
  8. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "windandwaves" <>

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > Thank you so much for your comments, much appreciated. I am stoked.
    >
    >> It looks quite nice in IE 5.1.6 on a Mac. But it is a bit disastrous
    >> in Mozilla 1.3 (a very reliable Mac browser I have found) with any
    >> window size that is "bigger" than what is needed for your content:
    >> paradoxically it only half appears when browser is opened up bigger
    >> than "needed" (from "Discerning..." to the right, nothing to the left
    >> of these words in the heading). So there is serious trouble. It looks
    >> very complicated code considering the content? JS and stuff... are
    >> you browser (and user window size) sniffing somehow? If so, it is not
    >> working)

    >
    > To be honest with you, making it compatible in all these browsers drives me
    > mental - even when pages validate (using strict) with
    > W3. Whenever I use float commands in the stylesheets then there is definitely
    > trouble. So I go back to tables (ugly design), which
    > makes it slightly better, but there are still places where it aint working.
    > For example, in strict HTML you are not allowed to align
    > a table in the centre. So I use the stylesheet, which basically causes the
    > error you list above. The good news is that there will
    > be very few people using Mozilla 1.3 on a Mac. I will check it out thought
    >


    You have errors in your html code, missing </a> in line 17:

    <TD><A HREF="friars.php?PHPSESSID=20729430e8de123bb58829a164d82228"><IMG
    SRC="o/logo.gif" ALT="Friars Guide to New Zealand Accommodation for the
    discerning traveller" TITLE="Friars Guide to New Zealand Accommodation for
    the discerning traveller" ID="log">***************</TD>

    I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do use
    tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and down the
    street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for finer control of
    borders and colours. You must be careful with all your absolute controls, in
    the HTML 4.01 specs it says things like "If a table or given column has a
    fixed width, cellspacing and cellpadding may demand more space than
    assigned. User agents may give these attributes precedence over the width
    attribute when a conflict occurs, but are not required to." Why buy trouble?

    Well, I cannot study your code and css too closely for now, but I would not
    set the bbb table css so rigidly, certainly not the width at 733. Frankly,
    whenever I use tables, it is out of frustration at failing to get the result
    I want with what is becoming more of an ideal these days: simple html with
    mainly divs and lists, and css to box these bare and sparsely elegant things
    into shape! There being nothing sparely lovely about the css though!
    Notwithstanding the admirable cleverness of the creators and I do mean this
    as a compliment). It seems to me, you are suffering the worse of both
    worlds. Tables are clever enough themselves and need not so much
    constraining in such details. Best to not set absolute widths for the table
    or tds (% fine often). Then, given an appropriate design, it will be good
    for any screen or browser size.


    >> I won't comment on the code here, the tables or anything like that,
    >> nor on things I am not experienced in, just on the look in the
    >> browser and take the comments how you will.
    >>
    >> 1. I had to enlarge the browser font size to read the text. (I went
    >> to 120% and it was ok for me then). True, there are quite a few sites
    >> where I have to do this but not sure you have so much info on your
    >> page to have to go quite so small?)

    >
    > Good, yes, we like it small and because all the fonts are set as em, users can
    > resize them anyway they want.


    OK, but are you sure that *most* people would like it so small (esp the menu
    on left). I have my screens at relatively large resolutions, I bet people
    with more pixels and finer would see your fonts especially small. The world
    has gone a bit mad in this respect. Almost no one uses normal font size
    anymore. Even I held out for a long time and now give in often to the desire
    for smaller than "normal" (which means simply "as browser default" which is
    usually set at a default and to me rather big 16pt, sensibly as it were,
    because most web designers make such small fonts! If they did not, the
    defaults would come down out of the factory, which most people do not much
    change).

    >
    >> 2. I found it hard to see the white text clearly on the yellowish
    >> bottom.

    >
    > Good point.
    >
    >> 3. The whole contents are carefully constrained and do not grow to
    >> take advantage of a bigger monitor, the white canvass "goes to waste"
    >> as it were...

    >
    > Because we want to keep some control over the look. For the vast majority of
    > the users, it will look fine. Most geeks on here have
    > huge size monitors, but most "normal" people have "normal" screens.


    OK, you want to keep control and minister to average screens... Lets say a
    15" I run many screens at once and while your site fits on my 15", it only
    just squeezes in and to make it so no sideways scrolling is needed i adjust
    a bit. One has to scroll down anyway. I say let go and let the content
    determine the width and height. But anyway, as I said, it does look nice and
    good luck to you...

    >
    >> 4. In particular there is a lack of grace in the lack of padding on
    >> the right side. "Balmoral Lodge - Queenstown", in particular, comes
    >> to an abrupt edge.

    >
    > Can you explain?


    Simply that when a bit of text say, is jammed up against a visible margin as
    all is when I view your right side, I think a bit of breathng space, some
    margin or padding looks nicer, that's all. Maybe things are not looking like
    the way they look on my screens. I will turn on my PC sometime and take a
    look further maybe.

    >
    >> It does resize nicely unlike so many sites (this is an independent
    >> point to the one made at the start). In other words, once the site is
    >> viewable in the browser, changing the browser font-size view is
    >> graceful enough.

    >
    > I think that is due to only using em as font-size (rather than, for example
    > px)
    >


    I understand on a PC using px has this effect, not on my Macs mercifully, (I
    hate not being able to resize). You are over-modest, it resizes without
    playing silly bugger tricks (as so often happens for all sorts of other
    reasons). The table, in my opinion, is cleverly helpful in this respect. I
    have said before that I use tables myself occasionally for layout of non
    tabular material but I am increasingly uncomfortable with tables within
    tables ...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 18, 2005
    #8
  9. windandwaves

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "windandwaves" <>
    > Organization: Xtra
    > Newsgroups: alt.html
    > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:00:29 +1300
    > Subject: Re: comments much appreciated - thank you for your help
    >
    > Derek Fountain wrote:
    >>> I would appreciate any constructive or deconstructive comments.

    >
    > Thank you so much for your comments, much appreciated. Really useful. Looks
    > like you have gone for the deconstructive ones. Thank
    > you - very useful.
    >
    >> 10 minutes playing with this tells me you have some major issues...
    >>
    >> I find websites that leave 40% of the browser space blank, then use a
    >> tiny font to make things fit really annoying. I use a large monitor
    >> at 1600x1200 and this site is hard to read unless I get my nose
    >> against the screen.

    >
    > Point taken. I designed it for the standard screen size, but I do not really
    > want to look at this point now, as there seem to be
    > more pressing issues.... If you have such a large screen then you do not need
    > to maximize the screen. Like, for example, on the
    > Mac, the window size is automatically set to the standard size of the website.
    > Font-size are set as em, so they are easily to
    > adjust. I may look at providing the option for a larger font as many users
    > will be older people.



    On my Macs, the browsers open to whatever size on whatever screen they were
    last opened at and on. On some screens, clicking the resize window box will
    then fill the screen with the browser (eg my 15", my portrait monitor). On
    some monitors (eg, my 20") it does more complex things, going the max height
    but *not* always as wide... In case this helps anyone?

    Since you use ems for fonts, they easily adjust. Why then do you need to
    provide larger fonts? Perhaps you mean some explicit link separate to
    browser facilities. On PC browsers I am always struck by how I generally
    have to dive into some menu to change the font-size on any particular page,
    whereas on Macs there is often a Smaller and Larger button or a key command
    like command plus + or command plus - I am sure some browsers on PCs have
    these or can be made to have them. But in all this, best to get it roughly
    readable to everyone from the start, for those who find all too big, that is
    fine, they can reduce or if they don't know how, they still can use the
    site. The situation is not symmetrical the other way around for obvious
    reasons. So more care is needed on small. This is an argument you might
    consider.

    dorayme
    dorayme, Mar 18, 2005
    #9
  10. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    dorayme wrote:


    > You have errors in your html code, missing </a> in line 17:


    Thank you - corrected.

    > I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    > use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    > down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for


    The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left: 50%; margin: Xpx;">

    Where X = 0.5 x TABLE WIDTH

    > finer control of borders and colours. You must be careful with all
    > your absolute controls, in the HTML 4.01 specs it says things like
    > "If a table or given column has a fixed width, cellspacing and
    > cellpadding may demand more space than assigned. User agents may give
    > these attributes precedence over the width attribute when a conflict
    > occurs, but are not required to." Why buy trouble?


    Because looks are important too. Have a look at www.friars.co.nz/hosts/corstorphine.html

    That is the old page, far too wide in my opinion. I often find that I disagree with people in newsgroup as I place a lot of
    emphasis on looks and I am not changing that emphasis. While code is imporant, looks are always more important to me- I can see
    that others see this different though.

    > Well, I cannot study your code and css too closely for now, but I
    > would not set the bbb table css so rigidly, certainly not the width
    > at 733. Frankly, whenever I use tables, it is out of frustration at
    > failing to get the result I want with what is becoming more of an
    > ideal these days: simple html with mainly divs and lists, and css to
    > box these bare and sparsely elegant things into shape!


    Great idea, but that means that your design does not work with older versions of browsers.

    > nothing sparely lovely about the css though! Notwithstanding the
    > admirable cleverness of the creators and I do mean this as a
    > compliment). It seems to me, you are suffering the worse of both
    > worlds. Tables are clever enough themselves and need not so much
    > constraining in such details. Best to not set absolute widths for the
    > table or tds (% fine often). Then, given an appropriate design, it
    > will be good for any screen or browser size.


    Probably true, but I like the look and I am going to keep it like that


    > OK, you want to keep control and minister to average screens... Lets
    > say a 15" I run many screens at once and while your site fits on my
    > 15", it only just squeezes in and to make it so no sideways scrolling
    > is needed i adjust a bit. One has to scroll down anyway. I say let go
    > and let the content determine the width and height. But anyway, as I
    > said, it does look nice and good luck to you...



    yeah, that is a trade-off

    >
    > Simply that when a bit of text say, is jammed up against a visible
    > margin as all is when I view your right side, I think a bit of
    > breathng space, some margin or padding looks nicer, that's all. Maybe
    > things are not looking like the way they look on my screens. I will
    > turn on my PC sometime and take a look further maybe.
    >


    Good point

    Thank you again for all your comments. Great
    windandwaves, Mar 18, 2005
    #10
  11. in alt.html, windandwaves wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >
    > > You have errors in your html code, missing </a> in line 17:

    >
    > Thank you - corrected.
    >
    > > I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    > > use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    > > down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for

    >
    > The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left: 50%; margin: Xpx;">


    That is bullshit, and works no browser. You propably meaned to have minus
    on margin, but that works even worse.

    Proper way is
    table {margin:auto;}

    And IE5 needs something else. But if this is layout table, align="center"
    is just as good, or maybe better.

    > > finer control of borders and colours. You must be careful with all
    > > your absolute controls, in the HTML 4.01 specs it says things like
    > > "If a table or given column has a fixed width, cellspacing and
    > > cellpadding may demand more space than assigned. User agents may give
    > > these attributes precedence over the width attribute when a conflict
    > > occurs, but are not required to."


    The fact is that you can't set width of table, and then think that it
    will not exeed it.

    > > Well, I cannot study your code and css too closely for now, but I
    > > would not set the bbb table css so rigidly, certainly not the width
    > > at 733. Frankly, whenever I use tables, it is out of frustration at
    > > failing to get the result I want with what is becoming more of an
    > > ideal these days: simple html with mainly divs and lists, and css to
    > > box these bare and sparsely elegant things into shape!

    >
    > Great idea, but that means that your design does not work with older versions of browsers.


    Which is great, as it works usually much better on older browsers, which
    are very often run in older computers, with not that big screens.

    > Probably true, but I like the look and I am going to keep it like that


    The look of you page is easy to make work with CSS on IE5+, and with
    correct tables from NN2. But it won't work in my current browser

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
    Lauri Raittila, Mar 18, 2005
    #11
  12. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Lauri Raittila wrote:
    > in alt.html, windandwaves wrote:
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> You have errors in your html code, missing </a> in line 17:

    >>
    >> Thank you - corrected.
    >>
    >>> I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    >>> use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    >>> down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for

    >>
    >> The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left:
    >> 50%; margin: Xpx;">

    >
    > That is bullshit, and works no browser. You propably meaned to have
    > minus on margin, but that works even worse.


    yes sorry, a minus one. This is quiet an accepted way to put something in the middle I think.

    > Proper way is
    > table {margin:auto;}


    What does margin: auto; do?

    > And IE5 needs something else. But if this is layout table,
    > align="center" is just as good, or maybe better.


    That is what I have done now, but that means that I can not make the pages strict any longer, which is a shame.


    >>> finer control of borders and colours. You must be careful with all
    >>> your absolute controls, in the HTML 4.01 specs it says things like
    >>> "If a table or given column has a fixed width, cellspacing and
    >>> cellpadding may demand more space than assigned. User agents may
    >>> give these attributes precedence over the width attribute when a
    >>> conflict occurs, but are not required to."

    >
    > The fact is that you can't set width of table, and then think that it
    > will not exeed it.


    No, but you can be pretty sure, it does not matter if it gets a little bigger anyway. It needs to be something that is larger

    - i know how big the images are, so no chance there
    - text needs to be really large for only one word to fit in the thing, fine, go for it.

    >>> Well, I cannot study your code and css too closely for now, but I
    >>> would not set the bbb table css so rigidly, certainly not the width
    >>> at 733. Frankly, whenever I use tables, it is out of frustration at
    >>> failing to get the result I want with what is becoming more of an
    >>> ideal these days: simple html with mainly divs and lists, and css to
    >>> box these bare and sparsely elegant things into shape!

    >>
    >> Great idea, but that means that your design does not work with older
    >> versions of browsers.

    >
    > Which is great, as it works usually much better on older browsers,
    > which are very often run in older computers, with not that big
    > screens.


    So are you recommending to use DIVs instead?

    >> Probably true, but I like the look and I am going to keep it like
    >> that

    >
    > The look of you page is easy to make work with CSS on IE5+, and with
    > correct tables from NN2. But it won't work in my current browser


    What do you mean?
    windandwaves, Mar 18, 2005
    #12
  13. in alt.html, windandwaves wrote:
    > Lauri Raittila wrote:
    > > in alt.html, windandwaves wrote:
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> You have errors in your html code, missing </a> in line 17:
    > >>
    > >> Thank you - corrected.
    > >>
    > >>> I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    > >>> use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    > >>> down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for
    > >>
    > >> The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left:
    > >> 50%; margin: Xpx;">

    > >
    > > That is bullshit, and works no browser. You propably meaned to have
    > > minus on margin, but that works even worse.

    >
    > yes sorry, a minus one.


    Which will cause content to be unaccessible, when browser window is
    smaller tahn table width.

    > This is quiet an accepted way to put
    > something in the middle I think.


    Yes, then just wrap lines to something like 75 chars.

    > > Proper way is
    > > table {margin:auto;}

    >
    > What does margin: auto; do?


    Sets all margins to auto, which practically centers element
    horizontally.

    > > And IE5 needs something else. But if this is layout table,
    > > align="center" is just as good, or maybe better.

    >
    > That is what I have done now, but that means that I can not make
    > the pages strict any longer, which is a shame.


    As long as you use table for layout it is irrelevant if it is strict or
    not.

    > > Which is great, as it works usually much better on older browsers,
    > > which are very often run in older computers, with not that big
    > > screens.

    >
    > So are you recommending to use DIVs instead?


    Yes. Also has advantages on new, high tech stuff. Mobile internet is not
    that fast, nor have mobile phones big screen...

    > >> Probably true, but I like the look and I am going to keep it like
    > >> that

    > >
    > > The look of you page is easy to make work with CSS on IE5+, and with
    > > correct tables from NN2. But it won't work in my current browser

    >
    > What do you mean?


    It would fit fine to my window, if you did use better layout. Now it
    don't fit it. I can force it to fit, but I can do that for most pages
    anyway. And not everybody can force...

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
    Lauri Raittila, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. windandwaves

    Spartanicus Guest

    "windandwaves" <> wrote:

    >> I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    >> use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    >> down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for

    >
    >The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left: 50%; margin: Xpx;">
    >
    >Where X = 0.5 x TABLE WIDTH


    Incorrect, absolute positioning removes an element from the flow and
    should not be used unless the author is fully aware of what that does
    (few are).

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Mar 18, 2005
    #14
  15. windandwaves

    junk Guest

    windandwaves wrote:

    >
    > To be honest with you, making it compatable in all these browsers drives me mental - even when pages validate (using strict) with
    > W3. Whenever I use float commands in the stylesheets then there is definitely trouble. So I go back to tables (ugly design), which
    > makes it slightly better,


    Have a look at the css at

    http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/index.html

    It's very well commented and may help.
    junk, Mar 18, 2005
    #15
  16. windandwaves

    kchayka Guest

    windandwaves wrote:
    >
    > Have a look at
    > www.friars.co.nz/hosts/corstorphine.html
    >
    > That is the old page, far too wide in my opinion.


    It looks just fine to me in my preferred text size, which is rather
    larger than average, at my usual window size, which is about 900px wide
    at the moment.

    The trouble is when the designer thinks the width should be contrained,
    but makes the mistake of setting dimensions in px. If you're going to
    restrict width of text blocks, a much more logical unit is em. And, IMO,
    it's often best to set widths in % of window and just set paragraph
    max-width at 40-45 em.

    > that means that your design does not work with older
    > versions of browsers.


    Your job should be to ensure it is usable in older versions of browsers.
    That does not mean it has to look the same. Or do you have such a high
    number of Netscape 4 users that you feel compelled to give them more
    than a plain, unstyled page?

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
    kchayka, Mar 18, 2005
    #16
  17. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Lauri Raittila wrote:
    [..........]
    >>
    >> What does margin: auto; do?

    >
    > Sets all margins to auto, which practically centers element
    > horizontally.


    Great, it works magic!

    >>> And IE5 needs something else. But if this is layout table,
    >>> align="center" is just as good, or maybe better.

    >>
    >> That is what I have done now, but that means that I can not make
    >> the pages strict any longer, which is a shame.

    >
    > As long as you use table for layout it is irrelevant if it is strict
    > or not.


    The only problem is that if you use align="center" then it does not validate in strict html


    Thank you for your responses
    windandwaves, Mar 18, 2005
    #17
  18. windandwaves

    windandwaves Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > "windandwaves" <> wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm unaware you can't centrally align tables (width-wise). When I do
    >>> use tables I get down and dirty while at it with a quick look up and
    >>> down the street and use <table align="center" ...>, I use css for

    >>
    >> The way to do it in css is <TABLE STYLE="position: absolute; left:
    >> 50%; margin: Xpx;">
    >>
    >> Where X = 0.5 x TABLE WIDTH

    >
    > Incorrect, absolute positioning removes an element from the flow and
    > should not be used unless the author is fully aware of what that does
    > (few are).


    Dooesn't position absolute just basically allow you to place an object anywhere on the screen independent of any other items or
    positions? The table I was using here was like the main one, the container if you like....

    - Nicolaas
    windandwaves, Mar 19, 2005
    #18
  19. windandwaves

    Spartanicus Guest

    "windandwaves" <> wrote:

    >> Incorrect, absolute positioning removes an element from the flow and
    >> should not be used unless the author is fully aware of what that does
    >> (few are).

    >
    >Dooesn't position absolute just basically allow you to place an object anywhere on the screen independent of any other items or
    >positions?


    It does, and that's a problem.

    >The table I was using here was like the main one, the container if you like....


    It's still an inappropriate method to center a table.

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Mar 19, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wootaek Choi

    Thank you so much.

    Wootaek Choi, Feb 13, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    Wootaek Choi
    Feb 13, 2004
  2. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    10,493
    Bruno Sirianni
    Apr 5, 2004
  3. Simon
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    289
    Joerg Jooss
    Jul 17, 2004
  4. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    Miguel Dias Moura
    Jan 28, 2006
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    388
Loading...

Share This Page