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

J

Jonathan N. Little

richard said:
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.
 
D

dorayme

"Jonathan N. Little said:
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.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

dorayme said:
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!
 
D

dorayme

"Jonathan N. Little said:

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?
 
K

Kevin Scholl

richard said:
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/
(e-mail address removed)
 
P

patrick j

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.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Sally said:
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.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Jonathan said:
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...
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Jonathan said:
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...
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Beauregard said:
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!
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Jonathan said:
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. :)
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Beauregard said:
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.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Jonathan said:
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...
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top