Design Position by tables or CSS: Problem

Discussion in 'HTML' started by news.frontiernet.net, Oct 3, 2003.

  1. I have been usingtables to control screen position of content. It is easy to
    concieve the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to troubleshoot. It is
    easy to tweek code in a trial-and-error mode to find the most advantageous
    presentation. There are facilities to help craft advanced layouts with
    tables, such as FrontPage.

    NOw, it is recommended that one NOT use tables for design control, but us
    CSS positioning instead.

    U . . huh . .. sure.

    How?

    A simple task like a header, then a two column presentation, follewed by a
    footer, which is easy, quick and cross-browser using tables was a task that
    after hours of reading and hours of attempting various codings, I gave up
    on..

    And all I attempted was the simple part, the two column presentation
    followed by the footer. I didnt try to do the header which is tables
    handling the javascript navigation.

    How can anyone expect that a wide variety of people will ever be able to use
    the CSS positioning if it is this obscure, this difficult, this prone to
    cross-browser failure?

    The quick and dirty example of this using TABLEs is at:
    http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_tbl.htm

    The version I was trying with CSS positioning and the <DIV> tag is at:
    http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_div.htm

    The CSS version has the footer, which shouldbe at the bottom of the page
    following the two column presentation, but it iserroneously positioned ABOVE
    it. And the page wont scroll for the visitor to see all of what is in the
    left column. Jeez!

    The CSS version has an outer container for the two columns using <Div
    style="position: relative; top: 100px;">

    On the CSS version, the left of the two columns is <Div class="leftpanel"
    style="position: absolute; left: 10; width:200; overflow: auto;
    border-style: double; background-color: ivory">

    On the CSS version, the right of the two columns is <Div
    style="position:absolute; left: 240; width:575;">

    On the CSS version, the footer is <div style="position: absolute;">

    Perhaps it is the nomenclature . . ie the wording that confuses me with
    ABSOLUTE that is seemingly not absolute in a design sense and RELATIVE that
    seems to indicate it positions with the flow, but apparently does not under
    some, and obscure, circumstances.

    Is there some simple thing I am missing here? OR are TABLES still the
    easiest to implement, most sure footed, quickest to impliment, easiest to do
    trial-and-error layout work with, most cross-browser, more easy to trouble
    shoot and therefore should still be the design coding of preference?
    news.frontiernet.net, Oct 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. news.frontiernet.net pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
    > I have been usingtables to control screen position of content. It is easy to
    > concieve the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to troubleshoot. It is
    > easy to tweek code in a trial-and-error mode to find the most advantageous
    > presentation. There are facilities to help craft advanced layouts with
    > tables, such as FrontPage.
    >
    > NOw, it is recommended that one NOT use tables for design control, but us
    > CSS positioning instead.
    >
    > U . . huh . .. sure.


    It is just a different mindset. Once you are used to it, it becomes very
    easy.

    > How?
    >
    > A simple task like a header, then a two column presentation, follewed by a
    > footer, which is easy, quick and cross-browser using tables was a task that
    > after hours of reading and hours of attempting various codings, I gave up
    > on..


    Perhaps you could examine this simple template I made for a friend.
    http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/twocolumn.html
    Feel free to snatch it. There's a link to the CSS on the page. With a bit
    of tweaking, it should do nicely for your site. Notice, too, how it floats
    no matter what your browser window size is, or your font size.

    > And all I attempted was the simple part, the two column presentation
    > followed by the footer. I didnt try to do the header which is tables
    > handling the javascript navigation.


    Oh dear™. What will the 10-20% of visitors do who have JavaScript
    unavailable or turned off?

    > How can anyone expect that a wide variety of people will ever be able to use
    > the CSS positioning if it is this obscure, this difficult, this prone to
    > cross-browser failure?


    Take a look at the source of the page above. There is nothing obscure
    about it, really. Works in just about any modern browser you might choose,
    including text browsers.

    > The quick and dirty example of this using TABLEs is at:
    > http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_tbl.htm
    >
    > The version I was trying with CSS positioning and the <DIV> tag is at:
    > http://www.wgtn.net/Recreation/archery_div.htm


    <snip descriptions>

    > Is there some simple thing I am missing here? OR are TABLES still the
    > easiest to implement, most sure footed, quickest to impliment, easiest to do
    > trial-and-error layout work with, most cross-browser, more easy to trouble
    > shoot and therefore should still be the design coding of preference?


    IMO, there is a lot more maintenance necessary for sites like yours and
    mine if tables are used. A lot more coding...

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising


  3. >From:
    >(news.frontiernet.net)
    >I have been usingtables to control screen
    >position of content. It is easy to concieve
    >the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to
    >troubleshoot. It is easy to tweek code in a
    >trial-and-error mode to find the most
    >advantageous presentation.

    <snip>
    >Is there some simple thing I am missing
    >here? OR are TABLES still the easiest to
    >implement, most sure footed, quickest to
    >impliment, easiest to do trial-and-error
    >layout work with, most cross-browser,
    >more easy to trouble shoot and therefore
    >should still be the design coding of
    >preference?


    Stick with tables, if you want cross-browser compatability... browsers
    are definately not ready for CSS...

    Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
    INFO 2000 For You
    http://www.davmagic.com
    See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
    Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp
    Davmagic .Com, Oct 3, 2003
    #3
  4. news.frontiernet.net wrote:
    > ...
    > Is there some simple thing I am missing here?


    yep and you have the key word right there: simple.

    the examples you are following are way too complex.

    http://williamtasso.com/usenet/two-cols.html

    --
    William Tasso
    William Tasso, Oct 3, 2003
    #4
  5. news.frontiernet.net

    Sid Ismail Guest

    On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:07:56 GMT, "news.frontiernet.net" <>
    wrote:

    : A simple task like a header, then a two column presentation, follewed by a
    : footer, which is easy, quick and cross-browser using tables


    Stick to it then. I do, and use CSS only when I have to...

    Sid
    Sid Ismail, Oct 3, 2003
    #5

  6. >From: lid
    >(Beauregard T. Shagnasty)
    >Perhaps you could examine this simple
    >template I made for a friend.
    >http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/
    >wocolumn.html


    Just another example of hipprocracy... the <center> text is something
    you (in another news group) exclaimed to be bad for readability!!! And
    now I find you are using it here... what a joke!

    Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
    INFO 2000 For You
    http://www.davmagic.com
    See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
    Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp
    Davmagic .Com, Oct 3, 2003
    #6
  7. Davmagic .Com wrote:

    >>http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/twocolumn.html


    > Just another example of hipprocracy... the <center> text is something
    > you (in another news group) exclaimed to be bad for readability!!! And
    > now I find you are using it here... what a joke!


    I see two sections of centred text on that page. Neither are (IMO)
    paragraphs (although one is marked up as such).

    --
    David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
    David Dorward, Oct 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Davmagic .Com wrote:

    > browsers are definately not ready for CSS...


    Some browsers are not ready for CSS...

    > MSN-TV Browser:


    Yes, that's the one. Pity its broken really. How many people use it again?
    Three?

    --
    David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
    David Dorward, Oct 3, 2003
    #8
  9. Reposted for correction:

    >From: lid
    >(Beauregard T. Shagnasty)
    >Perhaps you could examine this simple
    >template I made for a friend.
    >http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/t
    >wocolumn.html


    Just another example of hipprocracy... the <center> text is something
    you (in another news group) exclaimed to be bad for readability!!! And
    now I find you are using it here... what a joke!

    Here's the referenced page (it got cut short in copy in my previous
    post):

    http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/twocolumn.html

    Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
    INFO 2000 For You
    http://www.davmagic.com
    See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
    Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp
    Davmagic .Com, Oct 3, 2003
    #9
  10. Davmagic .Com pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
    >
    > >From: lid
    > >(Beauregard T. Shagnasty)
    > >Perhaps you could examine this simple template I made for a friend.
    > >http://home.rochester.rr.com/bshagnasty/wocolumn.html

    >
    > Just another example of hipprocracy... the <center> text is something
    > you (in another news group) exclaimed to be bad for readability!!! And
    > now I find you are using it here... what a joke!


    It must be your broken browser.

    The only centered text in that template is the heading, the footer, and
    the caption under the photo, where centering would be appropriate.

    There is no centering for any of the content. Oh, maybe in your browser.
    I'm sorry it doesn't render correctly for you and your two friends.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 3, 2003
    #10
  11. On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:04:44 +0100, David Dorward <>
    wrote:

    >Davmagic .Com wrote:
    >
    >> browsers are definately not ready for CSS...

    >
    >Some browsers are not ready for CSS...
    >
    >> MSN-TV Browser:

    >
    >Yes, that's the one. Pity its broken really. How many people use it again?
    >Three?
    >


    Probably fewer than people who use browsers that linearize tables.

    Nick

    --
    Nick Theodorakis

    nicholas_theodorakis [at] urmc [dot] rochester [dot] edu
    Nick Theodorakis, Oct 4, 2003
    #11
  12. news.frontiernet.net

    DU Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:
    >>From:
    >>(news.frontiernet.net)
    >>I have been usingtables to control screen
    >>position of content. It is easy to concieve
    >>the design. It is easy to code. It is easy to
    >>troubleshoot. It is easy to tweek code in a
    >>trial-and-error mode to find the most
    >>advantageous presentation.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>Is there some simple thing I am missing
    >>here? OR are TABLES still the easiest to
    >>implement, most sure footed, quickest to
    >>impliment, easiest to do trial-and-error
    >>layout work with, most cross-browser,
    >>more easy to trouble shoot and therefore
    >>should still be the design coding of
    >>preference?

    >
    >
    > Stick with tables, if you want cross-browser compatability... browsers
    > are definately not ready for CSS...
    >


    Absolute non-sense. 96% of all browsers in use out there on the web have
    very good support for the CSS1 properties (which TR was released by the
    W3C in 1996). Even browsers in use in 3rd world countries are pretty
    good CSS1 compliant and render pages coded for them which uses CSS1.

    Only about 4% have a bad support for CSS1.

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 4, 2003
    #12
  13. news.frontiernet.net

    DU Guest

    Davmagic .Com wrote:


    >
    >
    > Stick with tables, if you want cross-browser compatability... browsers
    > are definately not ready for CSS...
    >


    Total non-sense on your part. Here's what an independent testing
    summarized publicly just 24 hours ago reported on 9 different browsers
    tested on layout and CSS positioning:

    8 browsers achieved 95% or better; only ICab got 51%.

    MSIE 6 for Windows...100%
    MSIE 5.2.3 for Mac....97%
    Mozilla 1.4..........100%
    Opera 7.20............96%
    Camino 0.7...........100%
    Firebird 0.6.1........98%
    Safari 1.0............96%
    Omniweb 4.5...........95%
    ICab 2.9.5............51%

    CSS Tableless Web Sites will only list layout that are fully compliant
    (markup syntax and CSS code) and which will work in recent browsers:
    http://www.meryl.net/css/

    DU
    --
    Javascript and Browser bugs:
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/
    - Resources, help and tips for Netscape 7.x users and Composer
    - Interactive demos on Popup windows, music (audio/midi) in Netscape 7.x
    http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/Netscape7/Netscape7Section.html
    DU, Oct 4, 2003
    #13
  14. DU wrote:

    > MSIE 6 for Windows...100%
    > MSIE 5.2.3 for Mac....97%
    > Mozilla 1.4..........100%
    > Opera 7.20............96%


    I seem to remember seeing this survey somewhere too. Seemed a little iffy
    to me though:

    h1 { counter-reset: ca 0; }
    h2:before {
    counter-increment: ca;
    counter-reset: cb 0;
    content: "Chapter " counter(ca) ": ";
    }
    h3:before {
    counter-increment: cb;
    content: "Section " counter(ca) "." counter(cb) ": ";
    }

    Opera 6 ................ 100%
    Opera 7 ................ 100%
    Internet Explorer ...... 0%
    Mozilla ................ 0%

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
    Toby A Inkster, Oct 5, 2003
    #14
    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. Peter Bassett
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    924
    Augustus
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    24,728
  3. Otuatail

    Tables within tables

    Otuatail, Jul 31, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    494
  4. Chris Brat
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    694
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Luis_M._Gonz=E1lez?=
    Aug 22, 2006
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    116
    Martin Honnen
    Jan 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page