Problems with Tables

Discussion in 'HTML' started by O.B., Jul 12, 2004.

  1. O.B.

    O.B. Guest

    At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of 650.

    http://www.havenbaptist.org/photoAlbum_VBS2004.php

    This behavior "only" occurs with the Microsoft Internet Explorer
    browser. I have run the code through some HTML validation programs and
    nothing seems to be wrong. Can anyone tell me where the bug is?
     
    O.B., Jul 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. O.B.

    rf Guest

    "O.B." <> wrote in message
    news:kSmIc.939$...
    > At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    > few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of

    650.

    It's a bug in the way IE treats table cells with colspan. Reconstruct the
    pages so you don't have to use colspan.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jul 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. O.B.

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:40:20 -0500, "O.B." <>
    declared in alt.html:

    > At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    > few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of 650.


    Allotted where? By what/whom?

    > http://www.havenbaptist.org/photoAlbum_VBS2004.php


    Works fine here. Oh, you mean I actually have to click on those images?
    Well, you're not specifying the height or width for the image, so it
    displays at its actual size.

    BTW: Don't try and resize images using HTML. Use an image editing
    program and change the size of the actual image.

    > I have run the code through some HTML validation programs and
    > nothing seems to be wrong.


    Are you kidding? I can only assume you are not using a real validator
    then. Try http://validator.w3.org/ (and
    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ for your CSS).

    > Can anyone tell me where the bug is?


    Ask the validator.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    "Never drink rum&coke whilst reading usenet" - rf 2004
     
    Mark Parnell, Jul 12, 2004
    #3
  4. O.B.

    jake Guest

    In message <kSmIc.939$>, O.B.
    <> writes
    >At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    >few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of
    >650.
    >
    >http://www.havenbaptist.org/photoAlbum_VBS2004.php
    >
    >This behavior "only" occurs with the Microsoft Internet Explorer
    >browser. I have run the code through some HTML validation programs and
    >nothing seems to be wrong. Can anyone tell me where the bug is?
    >

    The ones that you mention seem OK to me, albeit with a small amount of
    horizontal scroll needed to see the whole page at 1024.

    More importantly, have you tested your site with a screen-reader or
    talking browser (as used by those with sight, or reading difficulties)?
    On my browser, I'm afraid, the menu system (as written) is quite
    'invisible' -- and, hence, unusable.

    regards.

    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Jul 12, 2004
    #4
  5. O.B.

    O.B. Guest

    jake wrote:
    > In message <kSmIc.939$>, O.B.
    > <> writes
    >
    >> At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    >> few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of
    >> 650.
    >>
    >> http://www.havenbaptist.org/photoAlbum_VBS2004.php
    >>
    >> This behavior "only" occurs with the Microsoft Internet Explorer
    >> browser. I have run the code through some HTML validation programs
    >> and nothing seems to be wrong. Can anyone tell me where the bug is?
    >>

    > The ones that you mention seem OK to me, albeit with a small amount of
    > horizontal scroll needed to see the whole page at 1024.


    That's the bug. I wrote the page to fit within 800 pixels, and the table width
    is set to 650. But for some reason, some pictures seem to expand beyond the 650
    width. I made sure that none of the pictures actual physical width exceeded 500
    pixels for this reason.

    > More importantly, have you tested your site with a screen-reader or
    > talking browser (as used by those with sight, or reading difficulties)?
    > On my browser, I'm afraid, the menu system (as written) is quite
    > 'invisible' -- and, hence, unusable.


    Good catch. I'll look into this further. Thanks.
     
    O.B., Jul 12, 2004
    #5
  6. O.B.

    O.B. Guest

    O.B. wrote:

    > At the following link, many of the pictures (7, 8, 10, 11 are just a
    > few) attempt to fill the entire page rather than the allotted width of 650.
    >
    > http://www.havenbaptist.org/photoAlbum_VBS2004.php
    >
    > This behavior "only" occurs with the Microsoft Internet Explorer
    > browser. I have run the code through some HTML validation programs and
    > nothing seems to be wrong. Can anyone tell me where the bug is?


    Fixed the problem. At line 210, I changed the width from "100%" to "150" and
    the problem went away. I'm not sure why the Microsoft browser got confused with
    this on some pictures and not others.
     
    O.B., Jul 12, 2004
    #6
    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. swoozie

    Problems Displaying Data In Tables

    swoozie, Jan 20, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    314
    swoozie
    Jan 21, 2005
  2. Peter Bassett
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    971
    Augustus
    Aug 15, 2003
  3. Thomas Korsgaard
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    brucie
    May 26, 2004
  4. Otuatail

    Tables within tables

    Otuatail, Jul 31, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    522
  5. Chris Brat
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    726
    =?iso-8859-1?q?Luis_M._Gonz=E1lez?=
    Aug 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page