CSS tables - more confused

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005.

  1. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    Having taken advice here I constructed a css stylesheet for a table to hold
    my page contents in position. Prior to that, those of you who have stayed
    awake, may recall my tables were entirely in HTML.
    It worked ok, but just out of interest I deleted the stylesheet and ran the
    page without it. Apart from a wider column border, it did not make a blind
    bit of difference. Was it the waste of time it seems to be?
    For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
    gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim Scott wrote:

    > It worked ok, but just out of interest I deleted the stylesheet and ran
    > the page without it. Apart from a wider column border, it did not make a
    > blind bit of difference. Was it the waste of time it seems to be?


    So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default rendering.
    That does seem like something of a waste of time, although you never know
    what the default stylesheet will look like in future browsers.

    Of course you are still abusing tables for layout, so you don't get the
    benefits of accurate markup, and your code is littered with inline style,
    so you don't get the benefits of smaller pages that are easier to maintain
    and faster to download.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Apr 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest


    > So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default rendering.
    > That does seem like something of a waste of time, although you never know
    > what the default stylesheet will look like in future browsers.
    >
    > Of course you are still abusing tables for layout, so you don't get the
    > benefits of accurate markup, and your code is littered with inline style,
    > so you don't get the benefits of smaller pages that are easier to maintain
    > and faster to download.


    David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
    your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser default
    rendering": means nothing to me. I styled the pages to look the way I
    wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).
    I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
    each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
    instead of 2.
    I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
    me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
    talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
    appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
    inline tables.
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Jim Scott

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:
    > For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
    > gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    > http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/


    In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
    bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
    a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.

    --
    Nico
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl
     
    Nico Schuyt, Apr 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:39:16 +0200, Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
    >> gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    >> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

    >
    > In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
    > bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
    > a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.


    Yes I know that, but I would like to get the layout right before I go back
    and do them.
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005
    #5
  6. Jim Scott wrote:

    > David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
    > your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser
    > default rendering": means nothing to me.


    There isn't any jargon there, its plain English. The browser renders the
    markup with its default style if there is no CSS, and with your style if
    there is. If they look the same, then your style and the browser default
    are the same.

    > I styled the pages to look the
    > way I wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).


    Which, if removing the style makes no difference, is the same as the browser
    default.

    > I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
    > each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
    > instead of 2.


    I'd suggest three style sheets. One column, Two column, and Common. Where
    the common includes all the style that doesn't change between layouts (such
    as colour schemes and font styles).

    > I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
    > me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
    > talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
    > appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
    > inline tables.


    Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
    out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
    section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
    and then post a specific question if you get stuck.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Apr 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:40:16 +0100, David Dorward wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >
    >> David, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I simply don't understand
    >> your jargon."So you styled your page to look a lot like the browser
    >> default rendering": means nothing to me.

    >
    > There isn't any jargon there, its plain English. The browser renders the
    > markup with its default style if there is no CSS, and with your style if
    > there is. If they look the same, then your style and the browser default
    > are the same.
    >
    >> I styled the pages to look the
    >> way I wanted them to look (in any browser - if I can).

    >
    > Which, if removing the style makes no difference, is the same as the browser
    > default.
    >
    >> I suppose to reduce inline style, I could use a different stylesheet for
    >> each gallery and a different one again where the page requires 1 column
    >> instead of 2.

    >
    > I'd suggest three style sheets. One column, Two column, and Common. Where
    > the common includes all the style that doesn't change between layouts (such
    > as colour schemes and font styles).
    >
    >> I understand your point that I am abusing tables, but until someone points
    >> me to a helpful page, (one that doesn't assume you know what they are
    >> talking about already), which shows clearly what to do to achieve the same
    >> appearance, then I have to go on as I am, leave it how it is or return to
    >> inline tables.

    >
    > Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
    > out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
    > section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
    > and then post a specific question if you get stuck.


    This time I *am* with you. Must cut down on the ale.
    I'll go off and do some searching, but I tried using css column layouts (2
    and 3 as it happened). My problems seemed to arise with % widths and the
    three main browsers. Off I go to try again.
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005
    #7
  8. David Dorward, Apr 17, 2005
    #8
  9. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    Jim Scott, Apr 17, 2005
    #9
  10. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    <snip>
    > Your layout doesn't appear to be particularly complex, I'd suggest cleaning
    > out the incorrect markup, then taking each bit of the appearance one
    > section at a time. Use the specification to look for likely property names,
    > and then post a specific question if you get stuck.


    Thanks David
    You, of course, were right; there was a lot of excess markup. As a webmaker
    beginner, it is difficult to understand the unnecessary/duplicate markup
    that the various WYSIWYGs leave behind. For a start we don't know what is
    necessary and what is not. Without the use of a WYSIWYG I would never have
    got very far. It does what it says on the tin and if it doesn't do it very
    well, at least it stimulates the interest to go further.

    Anyhoo I have cleared most the crap out of my site markup without too much
    tearing of hair. I have stayed with the tables route, but all are
    controlled by stylesheets (although I believe I can combine all my
    stylesheets into one, but I haven't gone there yet).
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 22, 2005
    #10
  11. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:39:16 +0200, Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the 'Shipyards"
    >> gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    >> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

    >
    > In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
    > bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
    > a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.


    Can you be more specific? All the photos are mine and I have most of the
    originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet changed and
    some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on webspace and there are
    lots here.
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Jim Scott

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Jim Scott wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >> Jim Scott wrote:


    >>> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the
    >>> 'Shipyards" gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    >>> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/


    >> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is
    >> *very* bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture
    >> editor. If you post a link to an original, someone might give you
    >> some advice.


    > Can you be more specific?


    No need to do so. *All* pictures are bad :)

    > All the photos are mine and I have most of
    > the originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet
    > changed and some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on
    > webspace and there are lots here.


    Like I said, post an original. And inform us about the picture editor you
    use. Maybe someone can help you.

    --
    Nico
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl
     
    Nico Schuyt, Apr 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Jim Scott

    Jim Scott Guest

    On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:56:36 +0200, Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Jim Scott wrote:
    >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>> Jim Scott wrote:

    >
    >>>> For those of you wishing to help, the first 6 pages in the
    >>>> 'Shipyards" gallery are with css, the rest are not.
    >>>> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

    >
    >>> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is
    >>> *very* bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture
    >>> editor. If you post a link to an original, someone might give you
    >>> some advice.

    >
    >> Can you be more specific?

    >
    > No need to do so. *All* pictures are bad :)
    >
    >> All the photos are mine and I have most of
    >> the originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet
    >> changed and some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on
    >> webspace and there are lots here.

    >
    > Like I said, post an original. And inform us about the picture editor you
    > use. Maybe someone can help you.


    You are beginning to annoy me. What is your definition of *bad* and what
    qualifies you to pass such cold judgement?
    --
    Jim on Tyneside UK
    Remove X to email me.
    http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/
     
    Jim Scott, Apr 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Jim Scott

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Jim Scott <>

    >>> http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.jimscott/

    >>
    >> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
    >> bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
    >> a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.

    >
    > Can you be more specific? All the photos are mine and I have most of the
    > originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet changed and
    > some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on webspace and there are
    > lots here.
    > --
    > Jim on Tyneside UK



    Many of the pics look nice. (I notice that some of them were very sharply
    pixilated - the sort of grainy effect that looks artificial. I used to use a
    developer called Rodinal on Tri-X to get a big grain effect sometimes, grain
    but sharp. You get a small grain effect in many pics. I expect you use a
    digital camera.)

    Anyway, more to the point: preparing pics for the web is a big subject! I am
    sure the person who made the comments about pic quality will oblige you
    further. For what it is worth, I took a look at a couple of pics and agree
    that you could achieve better results given the file sizes if the original
    pics are of a high quality.

    Take a look at Windfarm-1993. First, what did you do to prepare it, starting
    from the camera itself. What format does the output from the camera come in?
    What software are you using? Do you prepare each pic individually? Sorry,
    but it is sort of necessary to look into these things...

    If you don't want to go into everything, this is my advice: take pics at the
    highest res. Try for tiff or very high jpg output from the camera. Use very
    good software like Photoshop to jpg, don't be too ambitious in image size,
    trade a bit of image size for extra quality (less compression). Compress
    before you resize (there being more information for the jpg algorithm to
    work on).

    If you are batch processing all, there are further tips but it gets
    complicated, you need to employ strategies to batch and then sort, batch
    again and so on. You simply can't batch a big collection and compress all to
    tight limits and expect good results for all. Perhaps I will stop here for
    now...

    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Jim Scott

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Jim Scott <>

    >> In addition to the comments of David: The quality of the pictures is *very*
    >> bad. You must have done something wrong in your picture editor. If you post
    >> a link to an original, someone might give you some advice.

    >
    > Can you be more specific? All the photos are mine and I have most of the
    > originals. Some I have changed, some I have scanned and not yet changed and
    > some I don't think need changing. I have a limit on webspace and there are
    > lots here.
    > --
    > Jim on Tyneside UK



    Sorry Jim, I missed your bit about scanning in my last post and just
    noticed! So maybe we need to look at your method of scanning. My remarks can
    be transposed for the scanning procedure: scan at the highest quality and go
    from there in a good photo editor.

    If you are not sure about what is not the best about your pics - and as I
    said, many are *very nice and acceptable* - perhaps look at Windfarm and
    look at around the props, the pole on the left; look at Anchors2 and over
    the bridge to the right of the windmill there... sort of watery aberrations,
    possibly the sign of over compression (the poor algorithm does it best!).
    Yes, I know around the props look almost ok because it might be air
    disturbance! But it is a fault I think that can be seen in a few pics where
    there is not this "excuse" :)

    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 25, 2005
    #15
  16. Jim Scott

    Spartanicus Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    >If you don't want to go into everything, this is my advice: take pics at the
    >highest res.


    Pointless if most of the information will be thrown away as is common
    with web images.

    >Use very good software like Photoshop to jpg


    Expensive advice, and unnecessary, Photoshop uses the same jpeg
    algorithms as other software.

    >Compress before you resize (there being more information for the jpg algorithm to
    >work on).


    Resizing is performed on uncompressed 24 bit bitmaps, the above advice
    would therefore result in extra information loss.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Apr 25, 2005
    #16
  17. Jim Scott

    Oli Filth Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > Compress before you resize (there being more information for the jpg algorithm
    > to work on).


    JPEG compression almost certainly works by uncompressing back to a
    bitmap, resizing (decimating and interpolating), and then recompressing
    to JPEG. Hence two lots of compression, hence more loss.

    --
    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Apr 25, 2005
    #17
  18. Jim Scott

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Oli Filth <>

    >
    > dorayme wrote:
    >> Compress before you resize (there being more information for the jpg
    >> algorithm
    >> to work on).

    >
    > JPEG compression almost certainly works by uncompressing back to a
    > bitmap, resizing (decimating and interpolating), and then recompressing
    > to JPEG. Hence two lots of compression, hence more loss.
    >
    > --
    > Oli



    There is an image file of some MB, the pic is also way too big pixel-wise.
    Wanted is 500px sq and file to about 50K.

    When starting with a big px size high quality file of any type, two
    operations are usually necessary:

    1. Reducing the pixel size

    2. Compressing the info using say jpg.

    Of course, both operations will result in loss of quality. I was using the
    term compression to refer to the operation in 2.

    What exactly are you saying more than this?

    Perhaps you are saying it is bad advice to go in the order I recommended.
    If so, I am not following your argument

    dorayme

    (I tend to go in the order I recommend, though I sometimes go in the reverse
    order when I think a px size reduction is all that is needed, and sometimes
    because I am slack and the result is sure to be acceptable either way...).
     
    dorayme, Apr 25, 2005
    #18
  19. dorayme wrote:

    > Many of the pics look nice. (I notice that some of them were very sharply
    > pixilated - the sort of grainy effect that looks artificial. I used to use a
    > developer called Rodinal on Tri-X to get a big grain effect sometimes, grain
    > but sharp. You get a small grain effect in many pics. I expect you use a
    > digital camera.)


    Whoa. Chemicals. I used to do b/w darkroom work, too. I can smell
    the stop bath, now. :)

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
    Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 25, 2005
    #19
  20. Jim Scott

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Spartanicus <>

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    >> If you don't want to go into everything, this is my advice: take pics at the
    >> highest res.

    >
    > Pointless if most of the information will be thrown away as is common
    > with web images.


    It is not pointless if you do not know what use you will make of the pic or
    if you might want to print later. And it is not pointless if they are to be
    given later to someone else to prepare - who would not want better orig pics
    to work with? And it is not pointless as general advice knowing nothing
    about how what camera does what job in compressing things, any camera will
    do less damage the less it goes to work with its hatchet on the information.

    >> Use very good software like Photoshop to jpg

    >
    > Expensive advice, and unnecessary, Photoshop uses the same jpeg
    > algorithms as other software.


    I am sure there is a lot of good software besides PS. If it is really true
    that there is a lot of cheap software that does this job just as well, then
    fine. Suck it and see, I would not tend to be too trusting beforehand
    though... But I don't think (not quite on your point, I realise) the same
    can be said for resizing (px size, height, width wise) algorithms in
    different software. In PS it is very good in quality (using the bicubic,
    which was slow on old computers but lightening on modern)

    >
    >> Compress before you resize (there being more information for the jpg
    >> algorithm to
    >> work on).

    >
    > Resizing is performed on uncompressed 24 bit bitmaps, the above advice
    > would therefore result in extra information loss.


    Oli was saying something on this bit, I am not fully with you. Could you
    spell out this argument please.

    If you resize first (meaning changing a 1150px sq pic to 500px sq) you get
    a smaller pic with many pixels discarded and adjusted depending on the
    algorithm used. If the file size resulting is too big, you hit it with a jpg
    compression technology and you lose more info. Either way, you lose info
    twice. What is it about the order I suggested that seems wrong to you?

    I do it in one or the other order at different times. I have only an
    intuitive idea of which order is "best" and in truth, it is hard to tell the
    difference between a pic prepared one way rather than another! I was
    figuring that it was best for the more complex algorithm of jpg compression
    (holding the px-size) was best done on more good quality info. But I do not
    know for sure. I am yet to see that I gave Jim any bad (rather than
    unnecessary) advice.

    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 25, 2005
    #20
    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. RichGK
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
    SStory
    Jul 31, 2004
  2. Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    670
    Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record
    Nov 15, 2004
  3. Michael
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    438
    Matt Hammond
    Jun 26, 2006
  4. Weng Tianxiang
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    545
    Eric Smith
    Feb 16, 2010
  5. Robert Klemme

    With a Ruby Yell: more, more more!

    Robert Klemme, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    225
    Jeff Wood
    Sep 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page