H
Hywel
No. kibo.org.uk was the only domain left when I was looking for it. I
scanned through a load of computer acronyms and that one caught my eye:
Knowledge In, Bullshit Out.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No. kibo.org.uk was the only domain left when I was looking for it. I
scanned through a load of computer acronyms and that one caught my eye:
Knowledge In, Bullshit Out.
B
Barry Pearson
Charles Banas wrote:
I've only just seen your post. My ISP appears to be running several days late
on some posts.
Perhaps we are using the term in different ways, then. I'll come back to that
below.
I've just had a look there. Chuckle!
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
I rarely see that. And even then it doesn't validate!
What I found using Opera small screen mode is that Slashdot could be
navigated. But ... the pages simply had such a lot of stuff on them that
scrolling up and down for useful things was painful. I think there may be
about 200 links on the home page. At 240 pixels wide, Opera rendered that home
page as about 7000 pixels high!
That is not to do with HTML 3.2 or layout tables or non-linearising. No
tableless-layout of that home page would have made much difference. After all,
Opera disables the tables anyway. It is to do with complex site design
intended (as they say) for Nerds!
I view huge numbers of table-layout pages in a week, especially (but not only)
the on-line news services, and nearly all of them use CSS. Some use vast
quantities of it - too much in my opinion. (BBC, Times, etc). Slashdot is the
most extreme case I remember seeing. It is not representative of the
technique - or of anything else for that matter.
When I think of a layout table, I think of perhaps 1 to 5 cells. (Yes -
sometimes 1). The only attributes may be CLASS & ID. Slashdot has 35 cells on
its home page, with an incredible number of presentation attibutes. I didn't
find any CSS whatsoever.
I put simple layout tables (1 to 5 cells, say) alongside other techniques, and
choose the most effective technique for the purpose. The source at the
following page is such a layout table. And this page shows just how powerful
the combination of a simple layout table & CSS can be. (It is work in
progress, and really just a bit of fun).
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/table_pages/exhibit07.htm
I've only just seen your post. My ISP appears to be running several days late
on some posts.
Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]Try this for yourself. Run with this CSS:
table, tr, th, td {
display: block;
}
In effect, this turns all the elements of a table into the
equivalent of <div>s. Hence they linearise. Which is part of what
Opera does.
and that, unfortunately, _is something most pages don't do._
Perhaps we are using the term in different ways, then. I'll come back to that
below.
Slashdot is a good example of a major site that uses table-based
layouts and virtually no CSS. in fact, the layout hasn't changed in
years. and if you've ever tried to look at it on a PDA or cell
phone, you quickly realized it's impossible to navigate.
I've just had a look there. Chuckle!
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
I rarely see that. And even then it doesn't validate!
What I found using Opera small screen mode is that Slashdot could be
navigated. But ... the pages simply had such a lot of stuff on them that
scrolling up and down for useful things was painful. I think there may be
about 200 links on the home page. At 240 pixels wide, Opera rendered that home
page as about 7000 pixels high!
That is not to do with HTML 3.2 or layout tables or non-linearising. No
tableless-layout of that home page would have made much difference. After all,
Opera disables the tables anyway. It is to do with complex site design
intended (as they say) for Nerds!
I view huge numbers of table-layout pages in a week, especially (but not only)
the on-line news services, and nearly all of them use CSS. Some use vast
quantities of it - too much in my opinion. (BBC, Times, etc). Slashdot is the
most extreme case I remember seeing. It is not representative of the
technique - or of anything else for that matter.
i'm personally not against using table layouts (i've done it myself),
but i don't like it when sites use tables and then try to justify
their decision when it doesn't work the way it needs to.
When I think of a layout table, I think of perhaps 1 to 5 cells. (Yes -
sometimes 1). The only attributes may be CLASS & ID. Slashdot has 35 cells on
its home page, with an incredible number of presentation attibutes. I didn't
find any CSS whatsoever.
i use tables only as a last-ditch option in layouts. if i can't do it
properly with CSS (a common occurence in IE), then i'll fall back to
tables. but i don't want my sites to have the same usability problems
that Slashdot does.
I put simple layout tables (1 to 5 cells, say) alongside other techniques, and
choose the most effective technique for the purpose. The source at the
following page is such a layout table. And this page shows just how powerful
the combination of a simple layout table & CSS can be. (It is work in
progress, and really just a bit of fun).
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/table_pages/exhibit07.htm
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.
Similar Threads
Forum statistics
Latest Threads
-
Can I stop HTTPS?
- Started by IBMJunkman
-
Stephanie Beaudeau Emsworth is Running a Prostitution Ring
- Started by verona
-
Reverse search for a website
- Started by DRCM
-
What are the key advantages of using a SaaS (Software as a Service) model for application development?
- Started by remotedevelopers
-
How to build a database-driven web page
- Started by av3mar1a153
-
Hola
- Started by luuciefer
-
Using a DTSX file with GoDaddy
- Started by IBMJunkman