This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > March 2004 > rounded borders in css
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
rounded borders in css
|
|
| Peter 2004-02-03, 10:31 am |
| I have a number of tables on my site that use images to create a rounded
border.
So for 6 tables i am using 48 images.
Is there a way to create rounded table borders using css? and would this
help with load times?
| |
| ~Angela, TMM 2004-02-03, 11:30 am |
| Hi Petere,
There is, but the result isn't a very smooth pretty corner. "Rounding table
corners" is in the top 10 downloads here: http://www.dwfaq.com/snippets/ It
is also Mozilla proprietary code.
48 images for 6 tables seems an awful lot. You should be at least reusing
the 8 images...
Good luck,
~Angela
--
Angela C. Buraglia, Founder:
~FAQs, Tutorials & Resources~ http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com
~My Extensions~ http://www.dwfaq.com/go.asp?ID=AngelaX10
DWfaq Support Newsgroup: news://support.dwfaq.com/support
Co-Author with Joseph Lowery, Dreamweaver MX 2004 Killer Tips:
http://www.dwkillertips.com
Extension Developer for Cartweaver 2:
http://www.cartweaver.com/extensionsuite.cfm
Remove the CAPS in my E-mail to reply off list.
"Peter" <peter@paains.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bvo8ls$gtm$1@forums.macromedia.com...quote:
> I have a number of tables on my site that use images to create a rounded
> border.
> So for 6 tables i am using 48 images.
> Is there a way to create rounded table borders using css? and would this
> help with load times?
>
>
| |
|
|
| PaulPosition 2004-03-05, 1:30 pm |
|
"dibiase" wrote :
> That's so old (2001) I can't believe you would even suggest it! What about
> this: http://theimposter.org/cascade/curve/ ?
>
Hmm, well that's very avant-guarde, and it's clever, but is it really better
than using 4 small gifs? I picture a page with a few such boxes (say a blog)
and man would the source code look hermetic.. :o
I'm totally new at this, but when you need to use the 'search and replace'
function of your editor to find where to change the title of a box, isn't
that a bit of overkill? Please, if you have time, explain why this solution
is better than that so-passe 2001 solution..?
| |
| James Shook 2004-03-05, 2:29 pm |
| dibiase wrote:
> That's so old (2001) I can't believe you would even suggest it! What about
> this: http://theimposter.org/cascade/curve/ ?
Perhaps because the CSS method described at that URL uses approximately
four times the code than using a table with graphics?
--James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
| pspl04 2004-03-17, 12:30 pm |
| "James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
news:c2afa8$kv2$2@forums.macromedia.com...
> dibiase wrote:
>
about[color=darkred]
>
> Perhaps because the CSS method described at that URL uses approximately
> four times the code than using a table with graphics?
>
> --James M. Shook
Although assuming there's going to be more than just one rounded-corner box
on the web site, the style sheet will only load once and the rest of the
code doesn't amount to much. We have to progress, and move away from tables
regardless of the cost.
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-17, 12:31 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
> "James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:c2afa8$kv2$2@forums.macromedia.com...
[snip][color=darkred]
> Although assuming there's going to be more than just one
> rounded-corner box on the web site, the style sheet will only load
> once and the rest of the code doesn't amount to much. We have to
> progress, and move away from tables regardless of the cost.
Isn't it wonderful how you can separate mark-up from presentation using CSS?
You just add 22 extra elements to the HTML per box, and you've cracked it!
Seriously, I must examine that to see why it works so well. When I tried it,
mine broke up, especially in IE 5.2 on Mac. But, for some reason, I used
"nearly-empty divs" - a no-break-space in each one - instead of empty divs. It
was to get round some problems I had elsewhere - I think floating empty-divs
has a serious height problem in IE, and I needed nearly-empty-divs to get
round that.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...ers/corners.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| James Shook 2004-03-17, 2:30 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
> We have to progress, and move away from tables regardless of the cost.
I'm sure your clients love to hear this.
--James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-17, 3:28 pm |
| James Shook wrote:
> pspl04 wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure your clients love to hear this.
Of course they will.
Would you buy anything from an organisation that uses a table-layout web site?
However much you wanted what they offered?
Would you file your tax return via such a site? Even to avoid the overheads of
alternatives?
Would you read on-line news sites that used table-layout, even though about
99% of news sites use table layout?
No, of course not! Users are very particular. They take care to use
CSS-compliant browsers, which is why so few users in the world use IE. They
always check for table-layout, so the BBC web site hardly ever gets a visit.
And as for Google - well no one ever goes there, do they?
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| pspl04 2004-03-19, 11:29 am |
| James it is pretty obvious that you haven't discovered the power,
flexibility and bandwidth-saving features of CSS. Go to macromedia's
Dreamweaver section and guess what, you see article after article on the
benefits of CSS instead of tables. I probably once thought like you did, but
have since seen the light. I hope you do too.
By the way, regarding clients - if an informed, intelligent web designer can
articulate the benefits of CSS over tables, OF COURSE they will love to hear
it.
"James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
news:c3a33i$l26$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I'm sure your clients love to hear this.
>
> --James M. Shook
> http://www.jshook.com
| |
| pspl04 2004-03-19, 11:29 am |
| I don't think you meant this:
"Barry Pearson" <webmaster@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3a5r5$pnb$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Would you read on-line news sites that used table-layout, even though
about
> 99% of news sites use table layout?
:)
| |
|
|
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM 2004-03-19, 1:33 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
>
> Although assuming there's going to be more than just one rounded-corner box
> on the web site, the style sheet will only load once and the rest of the
> code doesn't amount to much. We have to progress, and move away from tables
> regardless of the cost.
The table images would only need to load once too. :-)
--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| James Shook 2004-03-19, 3:29 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
> James it is pretty obvious that you haven't discovered the power,
> flexibility and bandwidth-saving features of CSS.
I am familiar with the claims made for this technology, and actually use
CSS when it seems to me appropriate. However, the particular example
makes something of a mockery of the benefits of CSS-P, in my opinion.
The markup is quite inscrutable, and much more code than would be needed
for achieving the same effect using a simple table structure. So far as
I can see, the choice is
A) Use CSS-P that is large (about 40 lines as I estimate) and opaque to
make a box with rounded corners
or
B) Use a simple table to achieve the same effect that will work in every
existing browser and require about one fifth the code
Choice A doesn't seem like progress to me unless you feel that one MUST
use CSS-P at any cost whether it is the better solution or not.
Apparently you do feel that way, as you wrote in a previous message:
"We have to progress, and move away from tables regardless of the cost."
Choosing a less-than-optimum solution is not, to my mind, progressing,
and cost is always a factor.
--James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-19, 3:29 pm |
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM wrote:
> pspl04 wrote:
>
> The table images would only need to load once too. :-)
Chuckle! Do *any* anti-table arguments stand up to scrutiny?
ps: You have opinions about people who think they can't draw. What about
people who can't think *what* to try to draw? Or anthing else creative?
I find that most graphical design tutorials assume that people don't know how
to implement their ideas. My problem is that I don't know how to have ideas
that need implementing. If I had the ideas I'm sure I could find a way of
implementing them - perhaps by reading your stuff.
I can't hope to design an original button. But I have a single visual
ability - my type of photography. It isn't creative photography. (I don't tell
my models how to pose). It is selective & analytical photography. (I ask my
models to pose themselves, and I capture the best bits). I couldn't create a
background image. But I can take a holiday and gain a distinction with my
holiday photographs. It is a very narrow talent, which I have to exploit to
the full.
I'm looking for tutorials of the form "I have these photographs, now how can I
exploit them to maximum effects for all aspects of web page design?" A pretty
simple version is seen here. (Hover over the buttons):
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/templates/
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...ound_images.htm
Views?
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| pspl04 2004-03-19, 6:28 pm |
| "Linda Rathgeber - TMM" <lightly@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c3fak4$82q$2@forums.macromedia.com...
> pspl04 wrote:
>
box[color=darkred]
tables[color=darkred]
>
> The table images would only need to load once too. :-)
Well yeah but how long would it take your table image(s) (with graphics to
enable the rounded corners) take to load that one time vs my rounded-corners
CSS box that contains only TEXT??? I mean we all know that it takes much
longer for graphics to load. :-)
| |
| pspl04 2004-03-19, 6:29 pm |
| "James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
news:c3fg34$edf$2@forums.macromedia.com...
> pspl04 wrote:>
> The markup is quite inscrutable, and much more code than would be needed
> for achieving the same effect using a simple table structure.
Really? Let's see your code, and file size. Your claim is laughable.
> So far as
> I can see, the choice is
>
> A) Use CSS-P that is large (about 40 lines as I estimate) and opaque to
> make a box with rounded corners
You seem so set on "lines" (it's text, who cares!)
> or
>
> B) Use a simple table to achieve the same effect that will work in every
> existing browser and require about one fifth the code
'Simple tables' don't work the same in every browser (hello Netscape), you
should know that at least. Less code - possibly - but less time to load -
no.
> Choosing a less-than-optimum solution is not, to my mind, progressing,
> and cost is always a factor.
It's not a 'less-than-optimum solution'. But hey, you can feel free to stick
with tables (hmm, is table technology progressing in any way?) and I'll
stick to CSS (a technology that's always progressing) and meet me back here
in 5 years to compare and we'll see then what's the optimum solution.
| |
|
|
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-19, 7:29 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
> "James Shook" <jshook@dont_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3fg34$edf$2@forums.macromedia.com...
[snip]
> 'Simple tables' don't work the same in every browser (hello
> Netscape), you should know that at least. Less code - possibly - but
> less time to load - no.
Is there *any* browser where simple layout table don't work, but CSS
positioning methods do? I suspect not, and certainly not NN4.
Layout table are a vastly more mature technique. They were working *long*
before CSS positioning. (In 1994/5 in fact). Because about 99% of the stuff on
the web, now & published every day, uses table layout, no common-purpose
browser could survive if it didn't support layout tables.
After all, layout tables use a subset of the mark-up of data tables. If a
browser stopped supporting layout tables, it would also inevitably stop
supporting data tables. And that would be very silly indeed. Layout tables
simply use a subset of utterly valid (X)HTML (Strict), nothing special.
Simple layout tables conform to all the best characteristics of the web. They
work even with the most deficient browser, for example ones that can't render
CSS adequately or at all. At their simplest (and best) the browser adapts them
to the user's conditions, for example text size, images or not, viewport
width. They do things effortlessly that other schemes struggle with.
>
> It's not a 'less-than-optimum solution'. But hey, you can feel free
> to stick with tables (hmm, is table technology progressing in any
> way?) and I'll stick to CSS (a technology that's always progressing)
> and meet me back here in 5 years to compare and we'll see then what's
> the optimum solution.
Yes, of course table technology is progressing! It has to, because a huge part
of the planet's major information repository is held within layout tables.
They *have* to be supported for the next decade or two! Who would tolerate a
screen display browser that didn't?
In 1998, the breakthrough was to have a speaking browser, IBM HPR. This caused
the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative to decide in April 1999 that layout
tables were OK if they linearised. In 2002/3, a breakthrough was Opera's
handling of tables on small screens, showing that layout tables could be
rendered on 240 pixel-wide displays. When we don't have to cater for IE, we
will all know how to dismember tables using CSS2 and put the cells where we
want in the page or viewport. It is easy!
No total anti-table-layout argument stands up to scrutiny. You are welcome to
propose another one and be shot down like the rest. Performance arguments
*will* fail. Accessibility arguments *will* fail. And so will many others. The
counter-arguments have already been published!
Tables were explicitly proposed in 1993 to layout complex material on a
display in rows and columns. Tables are still being built into the XHTML 2.0
proposals to layout complex material on a display in rows and columns! The
future standards of the web will include the ability to use layout tables.
They are absolutely certain to be supported for decades.
Condemning layout tables is a silly & futile exercise, because they are
demonstrably successful, and have helped the web to be the success it is. Any
counter arguments need to identify the advantages of alternatives. And there
*are* some such alternatives. Some. But those alternatives do not make layout
tables stop working. They will be working for decades.
Meanwhile, IE 5 and IE 6 will still be constraining what can be done with CSS
in 5 years time. Even if Longhorn is released in (say) 2006, it will be so
resource-heavy that it will take several years for people to replace their
pre-Longhorn PCs. I'm assuming 2010 as the very earliest that techniques that
are unfriendly to IE will be acceptable. I think 2015 is more likely.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...t_presentation/
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Eric A. Meyer 2004-03-20, 3:28 pm |
| In article <c3ffv6$ge9$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
"Barry Pearson" <webmaster@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> Chuckle! Do *any* anti-table arguments stand up to scrutiny?
Actually, yes, some of them do. But they don't stand up to prejudice
any more than do anti-CSS arguments.
--
Eric A. Meyer | http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/ | CSS and standards guy
Yes.[color=darkred]
> Are you sure?
| |
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM 2004-03-20, 5:28 pm |
| Barry Pearson wrote:
> Linda Rathgeber - TMM wrote:
>
> Chuckle! Do *any* anti-table arguments stand up to scrutiny?
Definitely. For example, pages built with tables, especially nested
tables, take longer to download.
> ps: You have opinions about people who think they can't draw. What about
> people who can't think *what* to try to draw? Or anthing else creative?
We could all draw and create as children. Something happened between
then and now to convince a lot of people they aren't creative.
> I find that most graphical design tutorials assume that people don't know how
> to implement their ideas. My problem is that I don't know how to have ideas
> that need implementing.
Want to bet that you stopped having ideas when you became convinced that
you couldn't implement them? :-)
> I can't hope to design an original button.
Hogwash. :-)
> But I have a single visual
> ability - my type of photography. It isn't creative photography. (I don't tell
> my models how to pose). It is selective & analytical photography. (I ask my
> models to pose themselves, and I capture the best bits).
Sounds creative to me.
> I'm looking for tutorials of the form "I have these photographs, now how can I
> exploit them to maximum effects for all aspects of web page design?" A pretty
> simple version is seen here. (Hover over the buttons):
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/templates/
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...ound_images.htm
>
> Views?
I'd like to see the whole photo. It's been done before, but I still
think it's interesting to change the non active slices rather than
obscure them. Make them lighter than the active slices, or invert the
colors.
--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-20, 7:28 pm |
| Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> In article <c3ffv6$ge9$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
> "Barry Pearson" <webmaster@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, yes, some of them do. But they don't stand up to
> prejudice any more than do anti-CSS arguments.
Fair comment, sort-of ... but the anti-table arguments that stand up to
scrutiny tend to get lost in the noise.
My number one argument against layout-tables isn't a technical one. It is
probably that they encourage the wrong mind-set for designing websites & web
pages. They encourage a 2-dimensional instead of a 3-dimensional (or more) way
of thinking. They encourage the arrangement of visible components according to
a grid, instead of also thinking about "stacking", from body backgrounds to
the superimposition of positioned elements. And they discourage the thinking
about non-grid layouts.
But technical arguments against tables tend to be justified by poor
exploitation of table-layout, or by poor support by tools such as browsers.
There is some mind-boggling bad use of layout-tables "out there". (Some of it
may be mine, but I'm not confirming this). So what? Do we ban motorcars
because there are some bad drivers?
For me, the single most important "technical" argument against layout-tables,
perhaps second to the reason above, is their relative lack of "potential for
change". They layout material in a rigid inflexible grid formation. Don't they
....? No.
I'm a relative beginner at CSS in general, and certainly CSS positioning in
particular. But even I can use CSS2 to swap the display on a page of the left
and right columns of a 3-column table. Or fix the centre column of a table at
the bottom right hand corner of the viewport. (In a competent browser, of
course).
http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...es/disable1.htm
If all common browsers properly supported CSS2, perhaps we would simply think
about layout-tables as a *default* layout scheme, in the absence, for some rea
son, of CSS. And then authors or others would add CSS2 and transform the
table-content.
We don't have full browser support for CSS2, so we can't (yet) think about
layout tables in this way. And for precisely the same reason, we can't treat
tableless-layout as a competent system. Table-layout and tableless-layout are
both being damaged by the same type of browser deficiency.
I wish there was a competent page-layout language. There isn't. It isn't
simply because browsers don't properly support CSS2. It is because CSS2 is not
the language that would be designed by someone trying to design a competent
page-layout language. If it had been, I believe that browser support for such
a language would have taken off faster, and we wouldn't be having this
discussion now.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-03-20, 8:28 pm |
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM wrote:
> Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip]
>
> Definitely. For example, pages built with tables, especially nested
> tables, take longer to download.
It is obviously possible to make a mess of anything. Even *you* could make a
bad button if you decided to! What matters is the good stuff that can be
achieved with any particular method. We shouldn't compare a beginner at HTML
3.2 with an expert at HTML 4.01 Strict. My survey suggests that simple layout
tables add less that 25 bytes per item being positioned, on average. So a
simple layout table to render 3 columns may add about 75 bytes to the size of
the HTML document.
I accept that most browsers will make a double-pass through the table elements
before starting the rendering. Even if the { table-layout: fixed; } property
is used. (I understand IE 5.2 on Mac doesn't suppprt that?)
>
> We could all draw and create as children. Something happened between
> then and now to convince a lot of people they aren't creative.
Fascinating! Where did you get that from? I know that at the age of 7 I became
interested in photography. But ...
But I don't believe that at any time before or after that I have been able to
develop any skills in drawing, etc. While the children round me were
practising their handwriting and drawing skills, I was practising illegible &
inconsistent handwriting. Practise makes perfect - I have become perfect at
illegible & inconsistent handwriting. My handwriting has a half-life of about
a week. After a week, I can only read about half of it. In another week, only
about half of that.
How do you make a pen, or pencil, or paintbrush, go where you want? Or a Wacom
pen? (I guess you use something like that, as I obviously do). How do you
determine that it should go from "here" to "there", and make it do so? In
decades, I have never discovered the trick of stopping the pen from having a
mind of its own.
At some things, I am very creative. I have created ideas about computing that
earned me a living for decades. I can create abstract models & IT
architectures. And methods of thinking about political issues that challenge
politicians. I get invited to speak on radio & TV & present evidence to
government as a result. But that isn't visual design.
"Creativity" is a huge spectrum. Unfortunately, I am deficient in one
particular area that I care about. Visual design. I have two left brains. I
have integrated in 3N dimensions, where N is the number of molecules in a gas.
Hence a *very* large number. I think mathematics is fun. I have devised new
computer systems architectures & interfaces. But ....
>
> Want to bet that you stopped having ideas when you became convinced
> that you couldn't implement them? :-)
I would win that bet! I *know*, beyond any doubt, that if I have an idea I can
implement it if there is no external force stopping me. I know, from my track
record, that I can systematically & relentlessly implement any technical or
analytical thing I decide to. But ... I need to find the idea in the first
place!
>
> Hogwash. :-)
I wish that were true. I suspect that you are revealing your own prejudices.
Or perhaps judging from the self-selecting people you come into contact with.
>
> Sounds creative to me.
Unfortunately, I can't ask buttons to pose for me then capture them! That is
the difference. If you created new buttons every second, and did so for days
or weeks, I would probably capture your best 10% or even best 1%. And I would
still wonder how you created those buttons.
>
> I'd like to see the whole photo. It's been done before, but I still
> think it's interesting to change the non active slices rather than
> obscure them. Make them lighter than the active slices, or invert the
> colors.
I'm working on something similar. I am trying to place a lighter photo over a
normal photo, then reveal it. Unfortunately, once I rely on slices of a
photograph in the foreground, changes in text size over the buttons blows the
affect apart.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM 2004-03-20, 9:28 pm |
| pspl04 wrote:
> Well yeah but how long would it take your table image(s) (with graphics to
> enable the rounded corners) take to load that one time vs my rounded-corners
> CSS box that contains only TEXT??? I mean we all know that it takes much
> longer for graphics to load. :-)
Not necessarily. Haven't you ever visited a site that was nothing but an
online spreadsheet. Basically a long, multi rowed table filled with
nothing but text? I've seen pages like that take longer to load than
graphics intensive ones.
--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Linda Rathgeber - TMM 2004-03-20, 9:28 pm |
| Barry Pearson wrote:
> It is obviously possible to make a mess of anything. Even *you* could make a
> bad button if you decided to!
Certainly. I've made many bad buttons. :-) I'm going through a
minimalist phase now, and using just styled text links.
> I accept that most browsers will make a double-pass through the table elements
> before starting the rendering. Even if the { table-layout: fixed; } property
> is used. (I understand IE 5.2 on Mac doesn't suppprt that?)
I'm no expert at HTML markup.
> Fascinating! Where did you get that from? I know that at the age of 7 I became
> interested in photography. But ...
Children are pretty uninhibited, and until they learn otherwise (begin
the socialization process of school), express themselves freely and
creatively.
> But I don't believe that at any time before or after that I have been able to
> develop any skills in drawing, etc.
Try a taking a course in drafting. Lots of the time, people who think
they can't draw are simply lacking basic drafting skills.
> Or a Wacom
> pen? (I guess you use something like that, as I obviously do).
I've never used one.
> I wish that were true. I suspect that you are revealing your own prejudices.
Probably. :-)
> I'm working on something similar. I am trying to place a lighter photo over a
> normal photo, then reveal it. Unfortunately, once I rely on slices of a
> photograph in the foreground, changes in text size over the buttons blows the
> affect apart.
Maybe I'll do a tutorial for something like that on my Web site.
--
Cheers,
Linda Rathgeber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Fireworks Visual Effects with "RAZZLE DAZZLE"
http://www.webdevbiz.com/pwf/
Victoriana | http://www.projectseven.com
Playing with Fire | http://www.playingwithfire.com
Team MM Fireworks Volunteer | www.macromedia.com/go/team
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Eric A. Meyer 2004-03-22, 12:28 am |
| In article <c3iimi$16j$1@forums.macromedia.com>,
"Barry Pearson" <webmaster@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm a relative beginner at CSS in general, and certainly CSS positioning in
> particular. But even I can use CSS2 to swap the display on a page of the left
> and right columns of a 3-column table. Or fix the centre column of a table at
> the bottom right hand corner of the viewport. (In a competent browser, of
> course).
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/artic...es/disable1.htm
In a competent brower, the width and height of the second table in
your example is zero, because you've taken all three cells out of its
normal flow by positioning them. You can certainly do this, but it
strikes me as being no better an idea than positioning three 'div'
elements, which would require fewer characters to do anyway.
> If all common browsers properly supported CSS2, perhaps we would simply think
> about layout-tables as a *default* layout scheme, in the absence, for some rea
> son, of CSS. And then authors or others would add CSS2 and transform the
> table-content.
Actually, if all common browsers properly supported CSS2, you could
get grid-based layout without using table markup. It would go something
like this:
div.grid-row {display: table-row;}
div.grid-row > div {display: table-cell;}
<div class="grid-row">
<div>column 1</div>
<div>column 2</div>
<div>column 3</div>
</div>
....not that I know why you'd want to, exactly, when table markup would
be more compact. But hey, you could!
Well, okay, there is one reason you might want to do so. You could
write your own XML-based layout language and use the table-related
'display' values to drive it. So you'd have something like:
layout {display: table;}
lr {display: table-row;}
ld {display: table-cell;}
<layout>
<lr>
<ld>#banner</ld>
</lr>
<lr>
<ld>#navbar</ld>
<ld>#maincontent</ld>
<ld>#sidenotes</ld>
</lr>
<lr>
<ld>#footer</ld>
</lr>
</layout>
I'm not sure if the #banner and #footer 'ld' elements would need some
sort of spanning attribute or not, although I suspect not if the
language defined 'ld' elements as taking up as much space as is
available in their parent 'lr' element box (in the absence of explicit
widths). Then again, the intersection of table display roles and
non-table markup is a bit vague in my mind.
Even if that seems a bit weird, it's still a pointer to how a real
grid-layout system might be constructed with minimal alterations to what
CSS2 already makes possible.
> We don't have full browser support for CSS2, so we can't (yet) think about
> layout tables in this way. And for precisely the same reason, we can't treat
> tableless-layout as a competent system. Table-layout and tableless-layout are
> both being damaged by the same type of browser deficiency.
Boy, ain't that the truth.
--
Eric A. Meyer (eric@meyerweb.com) http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/
Author, "Cascading Style Sheets: The Definitive Guide,"
"Eric Meyer on CSS," "CSS 2.0 Programmer's Reference," and more
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/books/
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|