Footer?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Cerebral Believer, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. Hi all,

    I would like to know how to get two rows of text links to appear at the
    bottom of a page. Generally I have been using <div> tags with the id
    attribute and CSS to place blocks of text, tables and images where I want
    them to be, but this has got me a little stuck. My HTML code is:

    <div id="footer" class="footer">
    Home | About | Essays | Discussions | Member Area | Links & Resources |
    Contact<p>
    Text Only | Alternative Versions | Accessibility | Site Map | Help</div>

    My CSS code is:

    div#footer {
    position : absolute;
    left : 132.00pt;
    bottom : 0pt;
    width : 465.00pt;
    align : center;
    z-index : 2;
    }

    Problem is, that the text (lets call it the footer) I am controlling appears
    over the top of some other text (actually text in a table) rather than right
    at the bottom of the page vertically beneath the table. Also if I resize my
    browser window, the "footer" also moves in relation to the bottom of the
    browser window rather than staying in a fixed position at the bottom of my
    page. The two rows of text I am trying to place at the bottom of my page
    even occur as the last two lines of code in my HTML right before the </body>
    and </html> tags. So what am I doing wrong here?

    Regards,
    C.B.
     
    Cerebral Believer, Mar 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cerebral Believer

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:

    > Hi all,
    >
    > I would like to know how to get two rows of text links to appear at the
    > bottom of a page. Generally I have been using <div> tags with the id
    > attribute and CSS to place blocks of text, tables and images where I want
    > them to be, but this has got me a little stuck. My HTML code is:
    >
    > <div id="footer" class="footer">
    > Home | About | Essays | Discussions | Member Area | Links & Resources |
    > Contact<p>
    > Text Only | Alternative Versions | Accessibility | Site Map | Help</div>
    >
    > My CSS code is:
    >
    > div#footer {
    > position : absolute;
    > left : 132.00pt;
    > bottom : 0pt;
    > width : 465.00pt;
    > align : center;
    > z-index : 2;
    > }
    >
    > Problem is, that the text (lets call it the footer) I am controlling appears
    > over the top of some other text (actually text in a table) rather than right
    > at the bottom of the page vertically beneath the table. Also if I resize my
    > browser window, the "footer" also moves in relation to the bottom of the
    > browser window rather than staying in a fixed position at the bottom of my
    > page. The two rows of text I am trying to place at the bottom of my page
    > even occur as the last two lines of code in my HTML right before the </body>
    > and </html> tags. So what am I doing wrong here?


    It sounds like you want the "footer" _either_ at the bottom of the page
    or at the bottom of the viewport, whichever is "lower". If you simply
    want it at the bottom of the page, don't position it.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cerebral Believer

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Cerebral Believer wrote:

    > So what am I doing wrong here?


    1. You're using absolute positioning. (There are only a very few
    situations when absolute positioning is needed, and if you use it,
    you *really* need to know what you're doing.)

    2. You're specifying lengths using points as a unit. (Points are
    only really appropriate for print--and probably embossed--media.)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 25, 2006
    #3
  4. "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:
    >
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> I would like to know how to get two rows of text links to appear at the
    >> bottom of a page. Generally I have been using <div> tags with the id
    >> attribute and CSS to place blocks of text, tables and images where I want
    >> them to be, but this has got me a little stuck. My HTML code is:
    >>
    >> <div id="footer" class="footer">
    >> Home | About | Essays | Discussions | Member Area | Links & Resources |
    >> Contact<p>
    >> Text Only | Alternative Versions | Accessibility | Site Map | Help</div>
    >>
    >> My CSS code is:
    >>
    >> div#footer {
    >> position : absolute;
    >> left : 132.00pt;
    >> bottom : 0pt;
    >> width : 465.00pt;
    >> align : center;
    >> z-index : 2;
    >> }
    >>
    >> Problem is, that the text (lets call it the footer) I am controlling
    >> appears
    >> over the top of some other text (actually text in a table) rather than
    >> right
    >> at the bottom of the page vertically beneath the table. Also if I resize
    >> my
    >> browser window, the "footer" also moves in relation to the bottom of the
    >> browser window rather than staying in a fixed position at the bottom of
    >> my
    >> page. The two rows of text I am trying to place at the bottom of my page
    >> even occur as the last two lines of code in my HTML right before the
    >> </body>
    >> and </html> tags. So what am I doing wrong here?

    >
    > It sounds like you want the "footer" _either_ at the bottom of the page
    > or at the bottom of the viewport, whichever is "lower". If you simply
    > want it at the bottom of the page, don't position it.


    Hi,

    I tried the idea of not positioning it, and removed the <div> tags, this
    made the footer shoot to the top of the page. Forgive my ignorance, I could
    be way off base here, I am a learner, but if I remember what I read on the
    w3org site correctly, if everything else is on a page is positioned using
    <div> & stylesheets, and I have one item on the page which is not positioned
    using the same methond, even though that item appears last in the HTML code,
    will that item appear by default at the top of the page because the other
    items are removed from the "document flow".

    It really is my intention to control everything by <div> & CSS so that I can
    adjust elements site-wide through simple changes in the relevant
    stylesheets, rather than having to modify each page individually.

    Regards,
    C.B.
     
    Cerebral Believer, Mar 26, 2006
    #4
  5. "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > Cerebral Believer wrote:
    >
    >> So what am I doing wrong here?

    >
    > 1. You're using absolute positioning. (There are only a very few
    > situations when absolute positioning is needed, and if you use it,
    > you *really* need to know what you're doing.)


    I noticed that my other options were, Fixed | Relative | Static, I have
    tried all of those, and sometimes the item ("footer") just dissapears
    completely. What would you suggest is the best method of positioning seeing
    as all my other page content is positioned using <div> & CSS.

    > 2. You're specifying lengths using points as a unit. (Points are
    > only really appropriate for print--and probably embossed--media.)


    Do you know any point to pixel convertors?

    Regards,
    C.B.
     
    Cerebral Believer, Mar 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Cerebral Believer

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Cerebral Believer" <> wrote:
    >
    >"Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    >news:5n.co.uk...


    >> 2. You're specifying lengths using points as a unit. (Points are
    >> only really appropriate for print--and probably embossed--media.)

    >
    >Do you know any point to pixel convertors?


    Depends entirely on settings on the individual's user's computers.
    However, for many users 1pt = 1 1/3 pixels. But if you are defining
    text sizes or anything that is impacted by text sizes (e.g. line
    heights, the heights of boxes containing text, etc.) then pixels are
    an equally bad idea as points.

    Steve
    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Mar 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Cerebral Believer

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:

    >
    > "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:
    > >
    > >> Hi all,
    > >>
    > >> I would like to know how to get two rows of text links to appear at the
    > >> bottom of a page. Generally I have been using <div> tags with the id
    > >> attribute and CSS to place blocks of text, tables and images where I want
    > >> them to be, but this has got me a little stuck. My HTML code is:
    > >>
    > >> <div id="footer" class="footer">
    > >> Home | About | Essays | Discussions | Member Area | Links & Resources |
    > >> Contact<p>
    > >> Text Only | Alternative Versions | Accessibility | Site Map | Help</div>
    > >>
    > >> My CSS code is:
    > >>
    > >> div#footer {
    > >> position : absolute;
    > >> left : 132.00pt;
    > >> bottom : 0pt;
    > >> width : 465.00pt;
    > >> align : center;
    > >> z-index : 2;
    > >> }
    > >>
    > >> Problem is, that the text (lets call it the footer) I am controlling
    > >> appears
    > >> over the top of some other text (actually text in a table) rather than
    > >> right
    > >> at the bottom of the page vertically beneath the table. Also if I resize
    > >> my
    > >> browser window, the "footer" also moves in relation to the bottom of the
    > >> browser window rather than staying in a fixed position at the bottom of
    > >> my
    > >> page. The two rows of text I am trying to place at the bottom of my page
    > >> even occur as the last two lines of code in my HTML right before the
    > >> </body>
    > >> and </html> tags. So what am I doing wrong here?

    > >
    > > It sounds like you want the "footer" _either_ at the bottom of the page
    > > or at the bottom of the viewport, whichever is "lower". If you simply
    > > want it at the bottom of the page, don't position it.

    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I tried the idea of not positioning it, and removed the <div> tags, this
    > made the footer shoot to the top of the page. Forgive my ignorance, I could
    > be way off base here, I am a learner, but if I remember what I read on the
    > w3org site correctly, if everything else is on a page is positioned using
    > <div> & stylesheets, and I have one item on the page which is not positioned
    > using the same methond, even though that item appears last in the HTML code,
    > will that item appear by default at the top of the page because the other
    > items are removed from the "document flow".


    Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.

    > It really is my intention to control everything by <div> & CSS so that I can
    > adjust elements site-wide through simple changes in the relevant
    > stylesheets, rather than having to modify each page individually.


    You may want to rethink that strategy and, especially, make your page
    more fluid or you'll probably run into more problems akin to the footer
    one.

    And as for the footer prob, perhaps you can put the footer container
    inside the last/lowest of your other containers (which you said are all
    positioned) and position it below the final other content.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Cerebral Believer wrote:

    >
    > "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    > news:5n.co.uk...
    >> Cerebral Believer wrote:


    <snip>

    > Do you know any point to pixel convertors?


    Points are a unit of measure commonly used in the print industry. If I
    remember correctly, 72 points equals one inch.

    Pixels have to do with screen resolution, and their size varies monitor to
    monitor. I seem to remember calibrating my monitor a few years ago and
    having a pixel height and width of 1/83rd and 1/87th of an inch. That was
    at 1024x768 resolution resolution, with the picture stretched to the edges
    of my monitor. I now view at 1280x1024 on each of my two monitors, so my
    pixels have shrunk by about 20%. On the other hand, I do occasionally
    change my resolution to 800x600 just so I can view a site in a much smaller
    viewport. At that point, my pixel size is about 20% larger.

    In other words, converting point to pixels is about as easy as going for a
    fifteen kilogram drive. You may be able to figure out the measurements
    specific to your monitor and create the formula for your specific
    situation, but it will only be a very rough guide for the rest of us.

    Carolyn
    --
    Carolyn Marenger
     
    Carolyn Marenger, Mar 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Cerebral Believer

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Cerebral Believer wrote:

    > I noticed that my other options were, Fixed | Relative | Static, I have
    > tried all of those, and sometimes the item ("footer") just dissapears
    > completely.


    For the vast majority of things, static is what you want. Relative can be
    handy *occasionally*.

    You can then use the natural flow of HTML, combined with "float" for most
    positioning purposes.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Mar 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Cerebral Believer

    Jim Moe Guest

    Cerebral Believer wrote:
    >>
    >>> So what am I doing wrong here?

    >>
    >> 1. You're using absolute positioning. (There are only a very few
    >> situations when absolute positioning is needed, and if you use it,
    >> you *really* need to know what you're doing.)

    >
    > I noticed that my other options were, Fixed | Relative | Static, I have
    > tried all of those, and sometimes the item ("footer") just dissapears
    > completely. What would you suggest is the best method of positioning seeing
    > as all my other page content is positioned using <div> & CSS.
    >

    Without an URL showing your test case it is hard to give useful suggestions.

    >> 2. You're specifying lengths using points as a unit. (Points are
    >> only really appropriate for print--and probably embossed--media.)

    >
    > Do you know any point to pixel convertors?
    >

    ROTFL!
    Use % for font sizes, and specifically 100% for the main content font size.
    Use EMs for spacing around text.
    This way your site adapts to the visitor's preferences, settings and
    equipment.


    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
     
    Jim Moe, Mar 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Cerebral Believer

    kchayka Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    > Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    > never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.


    You should get out more. ;)

    I've seen plenty of such pages. If not viewed in the same browsing
    environment as the designer, they tend to be a disaster.

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Mar 26, 2006
    #11
  12. On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Carolyn Marenger wrote:

    > Points are a unit of measure commonly used in the print industry.
    > If I remember correctly, 72 points equals one inch.


    CSS size units are set out in detail in the CSS specification[1], it
    isn't really necessary to have a good memory.[2]

    > Pixels have to do with screen resolution, and their size varies
    > monitor to monitor.


    Indeed. However, the CSS px units as defined in the CSS specification
    aren't (necessarily) physical pixels - they are *supposed* to be
    adjusted to the physical resolution, and other parameters, of the
    viewing situation.

    The important points (no pun intended) to keep in mind are:

    1) neither pt units nor px units are, in fact, calibrated on typical
    user displays, so you can ask for them till you're blue in the face,
    but you'll only get what the user's display was set up to show.

    2) Even if pt or px units *were* calibrated, they wouldn't be what the
    user wants, since they make no allowances for their viewing
    preferences, eyesight etc.

    And a secondary point is that MSIE makes it rather difficult for users
    to scale text to their preferences, if the author has specified the
    size in px or pt units. That alone would be a good reason to avoid
    them, even if the other considerations didn't go against them already.

    So, the bottom line is that the right choice of units for general WWW
    work is em or percent, based on the user's choice of size, whatever
    that might be. It meets all of the right criteria, except for those
    annoying people who refuse to make their choice of font size and keep
    complaining (typically) that it's too large - see
    http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html

    pt units might be useful specifically for print media; whereas
    (properly-scaled) px units might be good for a collective viewing
    situation (e.g projection), where individual users don't get to adjust
    the display to their preferences.

    Coming back to the original question, which you were aiming to answer:
    the whole purpose of having different sizing systems is so that they
    can behave differently when the viewing situation is varied.
    Consequently, there can be no straightforward lookup table to convert
    from one to another.

    regards

    [1] Although in theory CSS 2.1 is still a "working draft", it's the
    closest thing we have to the current state of affairs, so I'll cite it
    here instead of being too pedantic:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

    The CSS px unit - like it or not - isn't simply a pixel, but is based
    on an angle subtended at the typical viewing distance, as is depicted
    there in the spec. One might argue it would have been better to call
    it something else than a px, to avoid confusion; but what's done is
    done, as far as specifying it is concerned. *Implementing* it is a
    different matter, though.

    [2] Historically, there have been several different "point" units, but
    as you rightly say, the one used in this context is 1/72nd of an inch.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Cerebral Believer

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:

    > except for those
    > annoying people who refuse to make their choice of font size and keep
    > complaining (typically) that it's too large - see
    > http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html


    The analogy is good to illustrate an issue. One problem, of
    course, is that these "annoying" people are not as familiar with
    the text size controls on browsers as they are with volume
    controls on radios. Yes, there are misguided idea about web
    viewing but perhaps more education on text controls would help
    steer folk towards more cluey ways of seeing things. Everyone
    knows that command c or its equivalent in Windows, control c is
    copy. This is taught at a basic level. Not so the controls for
    browsers.

    Why, I don't think there is even a completely standard keyboard
    way across all browsers. On a Mac, command + or - in a few
    browsers, in iCab it is not even this or it does not work well. I
    think it would help greatly for there to be a consistent key
    control for this, widely taught. An easy key combination. This
    would be do more than educating directly about the differences of
    the browser experience from the reading print one.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Cerebral Believer

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    > >
    > > Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    > > never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.

    >
    > You should get out more. ;)


    Yeah, I hear that a lot.

    > I've seen plenty of such pages. If not viewed in the same browsing
    > environment as the designer, they tend to be a disaster.


    Oh, woe is me... What ever happened to the goal (and ideal) of fluid
    design? Yes, I know, "everyone" wants their web page to be like a page
    in a magazine. <sigh>

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Font sizing again, was Re: Footer?

    On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, dorayme wrote:

    > > http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html

    >
    > The analogy is good to illustrate an issue. One problem, of course,
    > is that these "annoying" people are not as familiar with the text
    > size controls on browsers as they are with volume controls on
    > radios.


    Right...

    > Yes, there are misguided idea about web viewing but perhaps more
    > education on text controls would help steer folk towards more cluey
    > ways of seeing things.


    Absolutely. Which is why I'm so strongly opposed to those web sites
    which insist on implementing their own site-specific text size
    adjustment feechers - which, if they work at all, work only on that
    specific site and none other, so the user's time and effort is wasted
    without ever getting nearer to the real answer, which would work on
    every site.

    > Why, I don't think there is even a completely standard keyboard
    > way across all browsers.


    Since there isn't a standard keyboard, that isn't entirely surprising.

    But some users, particularly naive users, prefer menus anyway, and
    most of the common web-compatible browsers have both (with the
    keyboard shortcut often mentioned on the menu). So they could start
    with the menus, and then migrate to keyboard shortcuts as they gained
    confidence.

    Some browsers also offer other ways of doing these things, such as
    ctrl/mousewheel (that's Opera and Firefox, to name two).

    I'm not sure where the right compromise lies, between trying to
    spoonfeed users in every detail (and maybe confusing them by showing
    them instructions for the wrong browser or the wrong OS), or simply
    encouraging them to seek out the controls, on appropriate menus or
    help information that their browser makes available anyway, and get on
    and use them.

    Poley offers a modest link from his main page:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/index.html
    to a tutorial-ish page
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/main/adjust.html

    which seems a reasonable compromise, but I'm still concerned that a
    naive user of only a single browser might find themselves overwhelmed
    with detail here. Whereas the menus and help information for their
    own browser are surely going to contain what they need (at this
    level), and not confuse them with detail about other browsers and
    OSes.

    Admittedly that may not go as far as showing them how (in appropriate
    browsers) to protect themselved from microfonts by setting a minimum
    font size. But as that's only available in a sub-set of browsers,
    should it be mentioned in such a generally-applicable page?

    So, as I say, I don't really know where the best compromise lies.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Cerebral Believer

    dorayme Guest

    Re: Font sizing again, was Re: Footer?

    In article
    <>,
    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, dorayme wrote:


    > snip


    > > Why, I don't think there is even a completely standard keyboard
    > > way across all browsers.

    >
    > Since there isn't a standard keyboard, that isn't entirely surprising.
    >


    I agree with much of what you said that is snipped... As for
    keyboards, well, I was really making a point about basic computer
    education. The different keyboards mostly all accommodate the
    universally known copy and paste routines. I was just reflecting
    on a way of getting better appreciation of the idea of "the
    browser text size is yours to adjust" via a serious attempt to
    get a simple universal key combination going (as with copy).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 27, 2006
    #16
  17. Cerebral Believer

    kchayka Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:
    >
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    >> > never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.

    >>
    >> I've seen plenty of such pages. If not viewed in the same browsing
    >> environment as the designer, they tend to be a disaster.

    >
    > Yes, I know, "everyone" wants their web page to be like a page
    > in a magazine. <sigh>


    It's not just graphic designer types who are the cause of such ishy web
    pages. Blame also goes to authoring tools that foolishly claim Joe
    Newbie can make a pixel-perfect design without knowing any HTML. There's
    a huge amount of that going on, too. :-(

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Mar 27, 2006
    #17
  18. Cerebral Believer

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    > > With neither quill nor qualm, kchayka quothed:
    > >
    > >> Neredbojias wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    > >> > never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.
    > >>
    > >> I've seen plenty of such pages. If not viewed in the same browsing
    > >> environment as the designer, they tend to be a disaster.

    > >
    > > Yes, I know, "everyone" wants their web page to be like a page
    > > in a magazine. <sigh>

    >
    > It's not just graphic designer types who are the cause of such ishy web
    > pages. Blame also goes to authoring tools that foolishly claim Joe
    > Newbie can make a pixel-perfect design without knowing any HTML. There's
    > a huge amount of that going on, too. :-(


    That's why I've always been an anti-fan of Dreamweaver (-not to mention
    FP.) But part of the problem is the newbie, or some newbies, anyway.
    They don't want to learn; they want to cut-and-paste. Reminds me of
    friggin' kindergarten.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
     
    Neredbojias, Mar 27, 2006
    #18
  19. "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > Cerebral Believer wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed that my other options were, Fixed | Relative | Static, I have
    >> tried all of those, and sometimes the item ("footer") just dissapears
    >> completely.

    >
    > For the vast majority of things, static is what you want. Relative can be
    > handy *occasionally*.
    >
    > You can then use the natural flow of HTML, combined with "float" for most
    > positioning purposes.


    Toby,

    Thanks I will look into this positioning stuff a little more closely.

    Regards,
    C.B.
     
    Cerebral Believer, Mar 27, 2006
    #19
  20. "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:
    >
    >>
    >> "Neredbojias" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > With neither quill nor qualm, Cerebral Believer quothed:
    >> >
    >> >> Hi all,
    >> >>
    >> >> I would like to know how to get two rows of text links to appear at
    >> >> the
    >> >> bottom of a page. Generally I have been using <div> tags with the id
    >> >> attribute and CSS to place blocks of text, tables and images where I
    >> >> want
    >> >> them to be, but this has got me a little stuck. My HTML code is:
    >> >>
    >> >> <div id="footer" class="footer">
    >> >> Home | About | Essays | Discussions | Member Area | Links & Resources
    >> >> |
    >> >> Contact<p>
    >> >> Text Only | Alternative Versions | Accessibility | Site Map |
    >> >> Help</div>
    >> >>
    >> >> My CSS code is:
    >> >>
    >> >> div#footer {
    >> >> position : absolute;
    >> >> left : 132.00pt;
    >> >> bottom : 0pt;
    >> >> width : 465.00pt;
    >> >> align : center;
    >> >> z-index : 2;
    >> >> }
    >> >>
    >> >> Problem is, that the text (lets call it the footer) I am controlling
    >> >> appears
    >> >> over the top of some other text (actually text in a table) rather than
    >> >> right
    >> >> at the bottom of the page vertically beneath the table. Also if I
    >> >> resize
    >> >> my
    >> >> browser window, the "footer" also moves in relation to the bottom of
    >> >> the
    >> >> browser window rather than staying in a fixed position at the bottom
    >> >> of
    >> >> my
    >> >> page. The two rows of text I am trying to place at the bottom of my
    >> >> page
    >> >> even occur as the last two lines of code in my HTML right before the
    >> >> </body>
    >> >> and </html> tags. So what am I doing wrong here?
    >> >
    >> > It sounds like you want the "footer" _either_ at the bottom of the page
    >> > or at the bottom of the viewport, whichever is "lower". If you simply
    >> > want it at the bottom of the page, don't position it.

    >>
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I tried the idea of not positioning it, and removed the <div> tags, this
    >> made the footer shoot to the top of the page. Forgive my ignorance, I
    >> could
    >> be way off base here, I am a learner, but if I remember what I read on
    >> the
    >> w3org site correctly, if everything else is on a page is positioned using
    >> <div> & stylesheets, and I have one item on the page which is not
    >> positioned
    >> using the same methond, even though that item appears last in the HTML
    >> code,
    >> will that item appear by default at the top of the page because the other
    >> items are removed from the "document flow".

    >
    > Yes, that is true with absolute or fixed positioning. However, I've
    > never seen a page where _everything_ in it was so positioned.
    >
    >> It really is my intention to control everything by <div> & CSS so that I
    >> can
    >> adjust elements site-wide through simple changes in the relevant
    >> stylesheets, rather than having to modify each page individually.

    >
    > You may want to rethink that strategy and, especially, make your page
    > more fluid or you'll probably run into more problems akin to the footer
    > one.
    >
    > And as for the footer prob, perhaps you can put the footer container
    > inside the last/lowest of your other containers (which you said are all
    > positioned) and position it below the final other content.


    Thanks, I'll look into those options that you have outlined. I also am
    using tables to structure my main body of text for each page. I may just
    end up sticking the footer in the bottom row of the table, or is that a dumb
    newbie thing to do? The couse I am studying suggests that it is not a good
    idea to use tables to structure whole web pages, I wonder if that applies to
    text blocks as an "element" of a web page?

    Regards,
    C.B.
     
    Cerebral Believer, Mar 27, 2006
    #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. Al Franz
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,573
    Joe Smith
    Apr 4, 2006
  2. Roger Moore
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    757
    Roger Moore
    Jul 7, 2003
  3. KathyB
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    442
  4. Peter Wu

    ASCX as Header/Footer

    Peter Wu, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,040
    Peter Wu
    Aug 1, 2003
  5. Henrik
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]
    Jul 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page