D
dorayme
"rf said:
I could not get overlap by going down in any of my browsers so I thought
that experimental punt on ems was ok in practice in that respect.
I too did not like the gap (that would appear for a minority) with the
figure I chose but speculated that it was a price worth paying in a case
of lots of thumbnails for the benefits of a fluid layout over a table.
Those few who have text very big, would lose a bit of aesthetic neatness.
OP is using px in fact and in my real applications of this sort of
layout so have I used pxs. Yes, problems can arise. It is a matter of
judgement. And, yes, it exercises me from time to time how to improve
such a layout.
But it is not as if, as almost seemed from your smiling question, I had
overlooked something so obvious as working under text adjustments! I
spent some time worrying about just such things. It is an interesting
matter and I adapt each instance the best I can.
<http://tinyurl.com/6fnfon>
seems to me to work over a sufficient range of clicks and takes great
advantage of browser space.
All this is hopeful, imo, for small amounts of text (captions or
whatever). If the text required is more extensive, then other solutions
are required. I would be tempted by tables then. But not without one
last save for fluidity. Let me explain:
If the pic/text boxes have varying amounts of text (or, indeed, pic
height), then, I would be likely to group the boxes according to size.
And I would set different CSS dimensions to the groups so they behaved
over a reasonably broad range of clicks.
But all this is high management! Tables are indeed simpler and the
format does all the work for you! It all depends on what benefits are
wanted.