To table or not to table?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    Jim S, Oct 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim S

    Guest

    On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S <> wrote:
    > Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wav...
    > Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?


    The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
    and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
    them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
    cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
    especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
    right are better than tables. I don't.

    One of the horrible things about browser capability/compatibility is
    that vertical centering often simply doesn't work at all. In fact,
    even horizontal centering has a lot catches depending on how you do
    it. I was accused, when last I argued about this, of using
    "pathological" cases to show why DIV doesn't always work when, in
    fact, it was for a specific project I was working on. Especially
    with "dynamic" content (like on your pages - you want to use the same
    page structure, but some of your images might be wider or landscape as
    opposed to portrait, so you can't just use some of the CSS hacks and
    always have it centered). I was actually told I should be using
    scripting to dynamicall modify the CSS in that case. Uh.... no, not
    when I can do it with a simple table.

    My opinion is that a very SIMPLE table for layout (not the nested
    table within nested table nightmares) is not such a horrible thing.
     
    , Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim S

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
    GMT Jim S scribed:

    > Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.
    > html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
    > placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?


    I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
    for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
    You a coward, just lazy, or what?

    --
    Neredbojias
    Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
     
    Neredbojias, Oct 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:

    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:01:49
    > GMT Jim S scribed:
    >
    >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.
    >> html Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a
    >> placeholder? If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

    >
    > I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a table
    > for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment! _Transitional_??
    > You a coward, just lazy, or what?


    <g>
    My other website is Strict
    I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    > Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    > If so, could someone please show me how to do it?


    "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
    mention this to help you search the many times this has been
    discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
    here:

    (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
    much these days from many experts here because they would be
    tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
    a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.

    (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
    to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
    future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
    will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
    is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
    large and complicated, the answer is probably not.

    (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    interested as I am sure would others.

    ---------
    btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
    table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Jim S

    BootNic Guest

    Jim S <> wrote:
    news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$:

    > On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:

    [snip]
    >> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
    >> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
    >> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?

    >
    > <g>
    > My other website is Strict
    > I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.


    4.01 Strict example:
    http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php

    --
    BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 6:17 PM
    "This seems like a case where we need to shoot the messenger."
    *Charlie Kaufman on Cypherpunks list*
     
    BootNic, Oct 1, 2007
    #6
  7. "" <> writes:

    > On Oct 1, 6:01 am, Jim S <> wrote:
    >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like thishttp://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wav...
    >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?

    >
    > The rants against tables are way overblown, IMO. Yes, I avoid tables,
    > and there's a lot of practical "theory" about why you shouldn't use
    > them for layout, and they all make great points. There are, however,
    > cases where even the most creative use of "div" and css doesn't work,
    > especially on all browsers. So then they think hacks to make IE look
    > right are better than tables. I don't.


    Agreed.

    The key reason to avoid layout tables is that it makes for cleaner markup,
    simplifying both initial development and maintenance. Some people confuse
    the end with the means, though, and insist on avoiding tables even when
    cross-browser issues make the alternative far more complicated.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Oct 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Jim S

    John Hosking Guest

    BootNic wrote:
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    > news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$:
    >
    >> My other website is Strict
    >> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.

    >
    > 4.01 Strict example:
    > <http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php>


    God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.

    Why overflow:auto?

    --
    John
    Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Oct 1, 2007
    #8
  9. BootNic wrote:
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    > news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$:
    >
    >> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:

    > [snip]
    >>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
    >>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
    >>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?

    >> <g>
    >> My other website is Strict
    >> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I would.

    >
    > 4.01 Strict example:
    > http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php
    >

    Hmmm interesting... no mater the window size even at 1536px tall *still*
    has a vertical scroll bar!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    >> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

    >
    > "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
    > mention this to help you search the many times this has been
    > discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
    > here:
    >
    > (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
    > much these days from many experts here because they would be
    > tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
    > a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
    >
    > (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
    > to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
    > future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
    > will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
    > is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
    > large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
    >
    > (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    > the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    > improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    > and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    > caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    > and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    > these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    > very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    > you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    > interested as I am sure would others.
    >
    > ---------
    > btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
    > table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)


    Not here I haven't.

    Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
    I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
    pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
    (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
    corners of the screen.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Jim S

    BootNic Guest

    John Hosking <> wrote:
    news:470177aa$:

    > BootNic wrote:

    [snip]
    >
    > God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.
    >
    > Why overflow:auto?


    Ya know I don't recall all the details of it, but I would guess it has
    something to do with allowing access to the table if the table is more
    then 100% of the viewable area and or issues with Opera, IE 5-7 and
    Safari.

    The conversation that sparked this abomination can be found at:
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html/browse_thread/thread/50811524ef19 997c/2853009db7412329

    Perhaps you may recall some of it.

    As far as the mouse wheel goes, mine works just fine in almost everything
    I view it in, the exception being an old mozilla browser before they
    fixed the scroll issue.

    --
    BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 7:19 PM
    There is no such thing as an underestimate of average intelligence.
    *Henry Adams*
     
    BootNic, Oct 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Jim S

    BootNic Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    news:2de4$47017e25$40cba7b3$:

    > BootNic wrote:
    >> Jim S <> wrote:
    >> news:1qjq4gtnlte6o$:
    >>
    >>> On 01 Oct 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Neredbojias wrote:

    >> [snip]
    >>>> I pretty much agree with Fred and think you'll invariably _need_ a
    >>>> table for vertical "middling". But, oh, the disappointment!
    >>>> _Transitional_?? You a coward, just lazy, or what?
    >>> <g>
    >>> My other website is Strict
    >>> I cannot get tables to occupy the full HEIGHT using Strict or I
    >>> would.

    >>
    >> 4.01 Strict example:
    >> http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php
    >>

    > Hmmm interesting... no mater the window size even at 1536px tall
    > *still* has a vertical scroll bar!


    Yes it does as it should, the footer is not in the table and the table
    is set at 100% height. So lets see what to do about it ... lets remove
    the footer from the page.

    --
    BootNic Monday October 1, 2007 7:31 PM
    People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and
    courageously. This is how character is built.
    *Eleanor Roosevelt*
     
    BootNic, Oct 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <18ofuikec3igr$>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    > > Jim S <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    > >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    > >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    > >> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

    > >
    > > "table as a placeholder" presumably means "table for layout". I
    > > mention this to help you search the many times this has been
    > > discussed here. There are several things that you could be asking
    > > here:
    > >
    > > (1) Why is table for layout bad in general? (you won't get too
    > > much these days from many experts here because they would be
    > > tired of answering this). Yes, there are advantages, they are of
    > > a *general kind*, it has been greatly discussed.
    > >
    > > (2) Is it worth changing a table layout site to one that conforms
    > > to better practise? If it is an evolving site, and will have a
    > > future, be updated regularly and get new sections etc, yes, it
    > > will gain all the advantages from accruing from the above. If it
    > > is not, if it is a legacy piece, still of interest, if it is also
    > > large and complicated, the answer is probably not.
    > >
    > > (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    > > the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    > > improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    > > and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    > > caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    > > and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    > > these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    > > very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    > > you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    > > interested as I am sure would others.
    > >
    > > ---------
    > > btw, in your css you have an unwanted character before your
    > > table.sample { (i>>?table.sample {)

    >
    > Not here I haven't.
    >


    Odd thing... I am sure it is not important. It appears in FF web
    developer extension facilities. Here is a picture to demo what I
    saw.

    http://netweaver.com.au/test/pics/hidden_character.png


    > Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
    > I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
    > pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
    > (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
    > corners of the screen.


    Give me a few minutes then. I will just say here that if you are
    expecting to always get *exactly* what you can get cross browser
    from tables but using best practice coding without tables for
    layout, you will be disappointed. You need to be convinced that
    sometimes, it is the look of the thing that is involved in the
    change too, not merely a change in code. With lots of effort,
    most table layouts can be mimicked... but doing this would be
    pointless, it would be superficial, it would show that the author
    is merely doing a "Look ma, no tables" trick. You will understand
    what i am saying only when you get into designing without tables
    from the very beginning. It influences you to design differently,
    you get to like what you can do in a natural way.

    Back soon!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <18ofuikec3igr$>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    > > Jim S <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    > >> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    > >> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    > >> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?

    > >


    > > (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    > > the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    > > improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    > > and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    > > caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    > > and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    > > these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    > > very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    > > you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    > > interested as I am sure would others.
    > >


    > Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
    > I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
    > pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
    > (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
    > corners of the screen.


    Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
    about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
    is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
    ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
    canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
    etc):

    I am happy with like this:

    http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html

    (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
    mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
    practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
    should be in IE)

    Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
    that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
    that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
    put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
    merely put in text links)

    http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <18ofuikec3igr$>,
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    >>> Jim S <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    >>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    >>>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    >>>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
    >>>

    >
    >>> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    >>> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    >>> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    >>> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    >>> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    >>> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    >>> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    >>> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    >>> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    >>> interested as I am sure would others.
    >>>

    >
    >> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
    >> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
    >> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
    >> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
    >> corners of the screen.

    >
    > Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
    > about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
    > is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
    > ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
    > canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
    > etc):
    >
    > I am happy with like this:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
    >
    > (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
    > mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
    > practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
    > should be in IE)
    >
    > Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
    > that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
    > that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
    > put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
    > merely put in text links)
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html


    Thanks I'll have a play
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:

    > In article <18ofuikec3igr$>,
    > Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:06:44 +1000, dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <t26fb9rfiguy$>,
    >>> Jim S <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Almost all the many pages on my website look something like this
    >>>> http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Jims_pictures/Jimspics_14_wave.html
    >>>> Is there any advantage to doing away with the 'table' as a placeholder?
    >>>> If so, could someone please show me how to do it?
    >>>

    >
    >>> (3) As for your particular page above, it is an example of many,
    >>> the changes would be very easy and useful because you might
    >>> improve some things while at it - for example, in Safari, the fwd
    >>> and back buttons are way down at the bottom of a page. The
    >>> caption is way down from the pic. It looks odd on a big screen
    >>> and involves greater travel for the mouse. Making a page for
    >>> these pics with a caption, and forward and back button would be
    >>> very simple, involve less code (less css and less html) than what
    >>> you have. I would be happy to give you a demo if you are
    >>> interested as I am sure would others.
    >>>

    >
    >> Anyhow, yes I am asking for a demo.
    >> I simply have never been able to find a simpler way of presenting the
    >> pictures in a way that keeps them within the bounds of an 800x600 layout
    >> (and bigger), centralised. The buttons are meant to be in the lowest bottom
    >> corners of the screen.

    >
    > Here is something that might disappoint you if you are adamant
    > about vertical centering. I respect you wanting that but think it
    > is not something that should overrule the advantages of other
    > ways of proceeding, simplicity, easier mouse control over larger
    > canvasses, greater flexibility to change the look of the pages
    > etc):
    >
    > I am happy with like this:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
    >
    > (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
    > mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
    > practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
    > should be in IE)
    >
    > Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
    > that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
    > that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
    > put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
    > merely put in text links)
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html


    Hi again
    It was not t0o difficult to get to this
    http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm

    but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others

    http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_graffiti.html
    http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_10_Blyth_and_Tyne.html
    http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_52_Greggs.html
    http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_71_Memorial_Methodists.html


    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
     
    Jim S, Oct 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Jim S

    Bergamot Guest

    John Hosking wrote:
    > BootNic wrote:
    >>
    >> <http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php>

    >
    > God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.


    Or the keyboard. :-(

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Oct 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bergamot <> wrote:

    > John Hosking wrote:
    > > BootNic wrote:
    > >>
    > >> <http://bootnic.atwebpages.com/100PercentTableHeight.php>

    > >
    > > God, I hate pages which won't scroll with the mousewheel.

    >
    > Or the keyboard. :-(


    To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
    they are really needed. Try putting in extra text where he has
    "test image". At least in FF they then appear. Try putting a
    lorem in a <p> outside the table lower down.

    Can't test the scroll wheel ability on this Mac (reminds me to
    purchase one of those for my Mac, it is a nice feature that I
    miss when I have been on a Winbox - which has such - and come
    back to my Mac)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1h8xnzy3xfsqm$>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:30:04 +1000, dorayme wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I am happy with like this:
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim.html
    > >
    > > (I did not remake the arrows, they are from another gallery of
    > > mine and bigger natively than sized in the html (not best
    > > practice, just for here and now)... so they may look fuzzier than
    > > should be in IE)
    > >
    > > Closer to what you want follows and demos a simple thing, namely
    > > that you can use your knowledge about your pics (they are not
    > > that big, they are highly likely to leave left and right room) to
    > > put in a little absolute positioning for your buttons (I have
    > > merely put in text links)
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/jim/guestFootJim2.html

    >
    > Hi again
    > It was not t0o difficult to get to this
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tester.htm
    >


    Well done. I trust you find it simpler code.

    > but I would have my work cut out on pages like these and others
    >
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_8_graffiti.html
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_10_Blyth_and_Tyne.htm
    > l
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_52_Greggs.html
    > http://www.jimscot.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Local_History/LH_71_Memorial_Methodist
    > s.html


    OK Jim, I will take a look at these more complicated pages and
    see if I can think of a way of proceeding that makes sense and
    does not blind with science.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Oct 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Jim S

    Bergamot Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    >
    > To be fair to BootNic's page, the page develops scroll bars when
    > they are really needed.


    Um, having scroll bars is irrelevant to being able to actually scroll
    using just the keyboard. Did you even try?

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Oct 2, 2007
    #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. David Williams
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,171
    Jacob Yang [MSFT]
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Paul Schmidinger

    table in table -> 100% height does not work

    Paul Schmidinger, Aug 10, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,976
    roma1123
    Mar 24, 2011
  3. Rio
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,241
  4. phl
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,417
    Martin Jay
    Jun 8, 2006
  5. UJ
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    61,926
Loading...

Share This Page