Scroll a table by multiple rows at a time?

[Martin]

I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
scroll the table 16 rows at a time.

I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
next to the table that the user could click on.

Any thoughts on how I might do this?

 

[TK]

I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
scroll the table 16 rows at a time.

I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
next to the table that the user could click on.

Any thoughts on how I might do this?

I am not following you. There is a scroll bar on the browser window
that will accomplish what I think you are saying. Please clarify.

 

[Martin]

I am not following you. There is a scroll bar on the browser window
that will accomplish what I think you are saying. Please clarify.

Yes, there is normally a scroll bar that "slides" the table rows up &
down however much the user wants - I plan to hide that. What I want to
do is "snap" the table rows up or down 16 rows at a time. The effect
would be that the user would be "paging" through the list 16 rows at a
time.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Yes, there is normally a scroll bar that "slides" the table rows up &
down however much the user wants - I plan to hide that.

You can't hide the browser scroll bar. That belongs to me, not you, and is
not a part of your web page.

What I want to
do is "snap" the table rows up or down 16 rows at a time. The effect
would be that the user would be "paging" through the list 16 rows at a
time.

You probably want something like this:

<http://www.imaputz.com/cssStuff/bigFourVersion.html>
<http://imar.spaanjaars.com/357/a-scrollable-table-with-a-fixed-header>

Make it so that your 16 rows fits the height of the table. (You could also
add a fixed footer to the table.)

 

[Neil Gould]

I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
scroll the table 16 rows at a time.

I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
next to the table that the user could click on.

Any thoughts on how I might do this?

One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your "up and
down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data. This approach
would also be tolerant of folks resizing their viewport if the height of the
table set at 100%.

 

[richard]

One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your "up and
down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data. This approach
would also be tolerant of folks resizing their viewport if the height of the
table set at 100%.

And the constant refreshing of the page just to scroll a few lines would
drive away the customers.

A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does not need
to be refreshed.

 

[Neil Gould]

And the constant refreshing of the page just to scroll a few lines
would drive away the customers.

Not if it's done properly. The only thing that would change in most browsers
would be the data in the table, and the rest of the page would appear to be
static. BTDT many times.

A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does not
need to be refreshed.

And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank, or
worse. That's a "better way"???

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
scroll the table 16 rows at a time.

I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
next to the table that the user could click on.

Any thoughts on how I might do this?

Please do not do this.

My browser has scrollbars so that I can scroll through a page. It
also has Find so I can look for content on the page. If you only
present a smidgin of the data, it makes searching labourious.

Here is an example of how this affects the user.

I follow Patricia Wrede's blog -- she is a fantasy author -- and
in one article, she pointed to another blog. She did not point to a
specific blog entry, just the blog. Unfortunately, that blog displays
five entries at a time and has bad navigation. I did not see any way
to skip to a different page (except the previous). I was going to
have to scroll back through several months of entries to find the one
I wanted.

I ended up giving up on it.

That is probably not the result that you want.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Lewis]

Not if it's done properly. The only thing that would change in most browsers
would be the data in the table, and the rest of the page would appear to be
static. BTDT many times.
And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank, or
worse. That's a "better way"???

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

 

[Neil Gould]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

You'd be surprised, apparently. A good website design does not require that
which can't be assured, especially when the information is important to the
customer.

 

[Lewis]

You'd be surprised, apparently. A good website design does not require that
which can't be assured, especially when the information is important to the
customer.

I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript. I do temporarily allow some sites to
execute JavaScript.

There are over 1,000 sites on the Web to choose from so I do not
feel that I am missing much.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:10:14 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.

I have seen many sites that do not allow navigating links without
having JavaScript enabled. (What is wrong with using <a>?) When that
sort of silliness happens, I try a different site. There are a lot of
them to try.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Lewis]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript.

So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?

Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.

I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.

And again.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript.

So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?

Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.

I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.

And again.

Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

Those 30 (plus the temps which I do not count) Websites are the
ones that need JavaScript AND are of use to me. I access far more
Websites that do not need JavaScript.

There are many, many Websites that do not require JavaScript.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Neil Gould]

I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.

I have the opposite experience. Perhaps because I personally use the quality
of a site's design as a filter to eliminate vendors and so forth. Poor
designs suggest that my time would be better spent at one of their
competitor's sites, and requiring Javascript for basic browsing is a
sure-fire indicator of a bad design. Saves me a lot of time, and improves
the quality of my browsing experience.

 

[Lewis]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript.

So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?

Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.

I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.

And again.

Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

You are not part of the percentage of users that have Javascript
enabled, since you have found at least 30 sites that you want to use
that require it.

Which was the originla question, "What percentage of users have
Javascript disabled?"

 

[Lewis]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

In message <[email protected]>
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript.

So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?

Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.

I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.

And again.

Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

 

[dorayme]

I personally use the quality
of a site's design as a filter to eliminate vendors and so forth. Poor
designs suggest that my time would be better spent at one of their
competitor's sites, and requiring Javascript for basic browsing is a
sure-fire indicator of a bad design. Saves me a lot of time, and improves
the quality of my browsing experience.

I once heard a cow in a field discussing the quality of the grasses.
One said to the other, "Me, I'm not so fussy to be going only for the
best grasses in a field, there's no time. I have to eat, there are
calves to be fed, bulls to be avoided or enjoyed. Near enough is good
enough. Yes, sometimes I just hold my nose and swallow."

 

[Neil Gould]

I once heard a cow in a field discussing the quality of the grasses.
One said to the other, "Me, I'm not so fussy to be going only for the
best grasses in a field, there's no time. I have to eat, there are
calves to be fed, bulls to be avoided or enjoyed. Near enough is good
enough. Yes, sometimes I just hold my nose and swallow."

Loved your analogy, and couldn't agree more!