If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    richard, Sep 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    patrick j Guest

    On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:53:24 +0100, richard wrote
    (in article <>):

    > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >
    > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > I won't give away what to expect.
    >


    I think that's great :)

    --
    Patrick
    Brighton, UK
     
    patrick j, Sep 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    richard wrote:
    > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >
    > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > I won't give away what to expect.
    >


    Crap, so your point is?

    Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
    there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
    modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 22, 2006
    #3
  4. richard

    Paul Watt Guest

    "richard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >
    > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > I won't give away what to expect.
    >


    seriously,whats the point. Big picture, Big wow.
    --
    Cheers

    Paul
    le singe est dans l'arbre
    http://www.paulwatt.info
     
    Paul Watt, Sep 22, 2006
    #4
  5. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Crap, so your point is?
    >
    > Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
    > there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
    > modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.


    Perhaps his point is this: if you want to put a huge picture for
    some reason or other on a website page, tables is the only
    possible way to go. Or it is the best way to go. Or it is a
    convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
    splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?

    You are a wily shark Jonathan and this innocent might need some
    help, some leads of what to splutter in reply to you.

    Let us not go into why someone might want as a rarity to put a
    big pic on a website, you would be on very shaky ground to say
    that there never could be a good reason, that it never should be
    done. It could be for fun, for information, to send a mighty
    impressive ransom note, to do an electronic Hieronymus Bosch (The
    Garden of Earthly delights) and then some, and a million other
    reasons that might emerge in the next 5 million years.

    One question might be the way to do it. Obviously, one big pic
    would have its drawbacks for the impatient viewer, so it needs to
    be spliced up somehow, somehow delivered in bits and some of the
    bits showing.

    In this particular case I imagine it would not be hard to deliver
    it without table cells if you spliced it all up by hand etc. How
    easy this is to do for non human agents, I have no idea? Is
    Dreamweaver up to generating with divs yet?

    Anyway, it was fun to see it. Someone went to a lot of trouble.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Crap, so your point is?
    >>
    >> Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
    >> there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
    >> modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.

    >
    > Perhaps his point is this: if you want to put a huge picture for
    > some reason or other on a website page, tables is the only
    > possible way to go.


    Don't agree with that one

    > Or it is the best way to go.


    Nor that
    > Or it is a
    > convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
    > splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?
    >


    With tables it can alway be a problem with "some" browsers at getting a
    seamless splice. This is where DIVs and absolute positioning (which I
    personally try to avoid) can work well and defining classes for your x &
    y offset can make it easy to keep track of the grid.

    DIV.mosaic IMG { display: block; position: absolute; }

    ..c1 { left: 0px; }
    ..c2 { left: 100px; }
    ..c3 { left: 200px; }

    ..r1 { top: 0px; }
    ..r2 { top: 0px; }
    ..r3 { top: 0px; }

    <div class="mosaic">
    <img src="c1r1.jpg" alt="" class="c1 r1" width="100" height="100">
    <img src="c2r1.jpg" alt="" class="c2 r1" width="100" height="100">
    <img src="c3r1.jpg" alt="" class="c3 r1" width="100" height="100">
    ....

    Looks simple and ease to manage to me...

    > You are a wily shark Jonathan and this innocent might need some
    > help, some leads of what to splutter in reply to you.


    Aw, been a little cranky today I guess. Must be in curmudgeon-mode.

    >
    > Let us not go into why someone might want as a rarity to put a
    > big pic on a website, you would be on very shaky ground to say
    > that there never could be a good reason, that it never should be
    > done. It could be for fun, for information, to send a mighty
    > impressive ransom note, to do an electronic Hieronymus Bosch (The
    > Garden of Earthly delights) and then some, and a million other
    > reasons that might emerge in the next 5 million years.


    Not debating the 'wallpaper' just the method of hanging the baby!


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 22, 2006
    #6
  7. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <3cddf$45146429$40cba7b0$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Nor that
    > > Or it is a
    > > convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
    > > splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?


    OK, the question remains about wsiwig generators (that people
    like for this sort of thing) to make with divs (as you outlined
    and I suspected was possible) rather than tables. Are there such
    on the market? Perhaps the only impediment is that the people who
    make these generators are a few years behind in their HTML/CSS
    thinking?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 22, 2006
    #7
  8. richard

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    richard wrote:
    > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >
    > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > I won't give away what to expect.


    Hey, that's pretty neat from a visual standpoint. Lots of variety and
    cool little details.

    But I personally don't see where it fits into any argument regarding
    tables for tabular data. That montage could easily be done without the
    table as the basis for the layout.

    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ======================================================
    Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
    ------------------------------------------------------
    We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
    the dreams...
    ======================================================
     
    Kevin Scholl, Sep 23, 2006
    #8
  9. richard

    patrick j Guest

    Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 04:41:09 +0100, Kevin Scholl wrote
    (in article <>):

    > richard wrote:
    >> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >>
    >> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    >> I won't give away what to expect.

    >
    > Hey, that's pretty neat from a visual standpoint. Lots of variety and
    > cool little details.


    It's very nice that it is so large that you never get the chance of a
    view of the whole thing :)

    It creates a great sense of exploration.

    > But I personally don't see where it fits into any argument regarding
    > tables for tabular data. That montage could easily be done without the
    > table as the basis for the layout.


    Yes, I agree this is an irrelevant side issue imho.



    --
    Patrick
    Brighton, UK
     
    patrick j, Sep 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    says...
    > richard wrote:
    > > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    > >
    > > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > > I won't give away what to expect.
    > >

    >
    > Crap, so your point is?


    I see RtS is back. Save yourself.

    --
    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Sep 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    > says...
    >> richard wrote:
    >>> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >>>
    >>> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    >>> I won't give away what to expect.
    >>>

    >> Crap, so your point is?

    >
    > I see RtS is back. Save yourself.
    >



    I must be still bleary-eyed this morning. What or who is RtS?

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:37:15 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote
    (in article <61c2e$45168a31$40cba7b0$>):

    > Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    >> In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    >> says...
    >>> richard wrote:
    >>>> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >>>>
    >>>> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    >>>> I won't give away what to expect.
    >>>>
    >>> Crap, so your point is?

    >>
    >> I see RtS is back. Save yourself.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I must be still bleary-eyed this morning. What or who is RtS?
    >
    >


    Google for Richard Bullis :)
    Warning, some of it is Not Nice Reading (TM).



    --
    Sally in Shropshire, UK
    bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
    Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
    http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk
     
    Sally Thompson, Sep 24, 2006
    #12
  13. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    Sally Thompson wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:37:15 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote
    > (in article <61c2e$45168a31$40cba7b0$>):
    >
    >> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    >>> In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> richard wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    >>>>> I won't give away what to expect.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Crap, so your point is?
    >>> I see RtS is back. Save yourself.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I must be still bleary-eyed this morning. What or who is RtS?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Google for Richard Bullis :)
    > Warning, some of it is Not Nice Reading (TM).
    >
    >


    Thanks Sally, our dear "richard" here seems to have a similar inane
    quality to his posts, but I have noticed over the years several
    "Richards" that fit this generalizations. But can one be sure he is
    *the* BtS? Being "clueless" is not a rare affliction in Usenet.
    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 24, 2006
    #13
  14. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Thanks Sally, our dear "richard" here seems to have a similar inane
    > quality to his posts, but I have noticed over the years several
    > "Richards" that fit this generalizations. But can one be sure he is
    > *the* BtS?


    Okay, did a little Googling on his new moniker, seems to post in groups
    of similar unseemly topics...okay I won't bother to waste my time...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Sally Thompson wrote:
    >> Google for Richard Bullis :)
    >> Warning, some of it is Not Nice Reading (TM).

    >
    > Thanks Sally, our dear "richard" here seems to have a similar inane
    > quality to his posts, but I have noticed over the years several
    > "Richards" that fit this generalizations. But can one be sure he is
    > *the* BtS? Being "clueless" is not a rare affliction in Usenet.


    Ahem! Richard the Stoopid is *not* BtS. Hopefully, that was a typo...

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> Sally Thompson wrote:
    >>> Google for Richard Bullis :)
    >>> Warning, some of it is Not Nice Reading (TM).

    >> Thanks Sally, our dear "richard" here seems to have a similar inane
    >> quality to his posts, but I have noticed over the years several
    >> "Richards" that fit this generalizations. But can one be sure he is
    >> *the* BtS? Being "clueless" is not a rare affliction in Usenet.

    >
    > Ahem! Richard the Stoopid is *not* BtS. Hopefully, that was a typo...
    >

    Oh my yes!! A thousands apologies Blinky! I have the highest regard for
    *BtS*! Damn my fingers!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 24, 2006
    #16
  17. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Ahem! Richard the Stoopid is *not* BtS. Hopefully, that was a typo...
    >>

    > Oh my yes!! A thousands apologies Blinky! I have the highest regard for
    > *BtS*! Damn my fingers!


    Ahem! While BtS may also mean Blinky the Shark ... see my sig. :)

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to thisone?

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> Ahem! Richard the Stoopid is *not* BtS. Hopefully, that was a typo...
    >>>

    >> Oh my yes!! A thousands apologies Blinky! I have the highest regard for
    >> *BtS*! Damn my fingers!

    >
    > Ahem! While BtS may also mean Blinky the Shark ... see my sig. :)
    >


    Ah but you're *BTS*! I also hold you in great esteem but I would give a
    middle name an uppercase initial whereas 'the' only deserves a
    lowercase. We need some way to keep your two straight.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>> Ahem! Richard the Stoopid is *not* BtS. Hopefully, that was a
    >>>> typo...
    >>>>
    >>> Oh my yes!! A thousands apologies Blinky! I have the highest regard
    >>> for *BtS*! Damn my fingers!

    >>
    >> Ahem! While BtS may also mean Blinky the Shark ... see my sig. :)

    >
    > Ah but you're *BTS*! I also hold you in great esteem but I would give
    > a middle name an uppercase initial whereas 'the' only deserves a
    > lowercase. We need some way to keep your two straight.


    Oh, ok. You win. <g> I'll take a "T" for a middle initial...

    --
    -BTS
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Sep 24, 2006
    #19
  20. Re: If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

    In article <61c2e$45168a31$40cba7b0$>,
    says...
    > Hywel Jenkins wrote:
    > > In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
    > > says...
    > >> richard wrote:
    > >>> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
    > >>>
    > >>> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
    > >>> I won't give away what to expect.
    > >>>
    > >> Crap, so your point is?

    > >
    > > I see RtS is back. Save yourself.
    > >

    >
    >
    > I must be still bleary-eyed this morning. What or who is RtS?


    "Richard the Stupid". I ought to start charging for my counselling!

    --
    Hywel
    http://kibo.org.uk/
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Sep 28, 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. Gufus

    tabular vs tables

    Gufus, Mar 16, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    618
    Neredbojias
    Mar 16, 2006
  2. Waleed Abdulla
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
    Waleed Abdulla
    Apr 18, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    328
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    554
    cwdjrxyz
    Jan 17, 2006
  5. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    241
Loading...

Share This Page