This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Stylesheets > November 2004 > Align DIV center?
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]
|
|
| Axel Dahmen 2004-11-23, 7:26 pm |
| Hi,
I'd like to align a <div> within the center of the visual canvas. The text
within the div should be left-aligned. How can I possibly achieve this? So
far I can only align text blocks centrally by using <table align="center"
.... .
Is this also possible for vertical alignment?
TIA,
Axel Dahmen
| |
| Stephen Poley 2004-11-23, 7:26 pm |
| On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:02:14 -0000, "Phil Thompson"
<philSPAM@doublonegative.com> wrote:
>Oh my god, sorry. I didn't realise I'd just brought about the apocalypse.
>Fluid is a great idea and yes it works sometimes but there are times, when
><big breath> shock horror, a fixed width layout works best.
Perhaps you'd like to offer a few examples of sites where this is the
case?
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
| |
| kchayka 2004-11-23, 7:26 pm |
| Phil Thompson wrote:
>
> Fluid is a great idea and yes it works sometimes but there are times, when
> <big breath> shock horror, a fixed width layout works best.
>
> Read other peoples opinions here: http://www.designbyfire.com/000032.html
Opinions of web deezyners aren't worth the paper they're written on. ;)
BTW, it's hard to give any credence to what these blokes say when the
text size on their sites is so bloody small I can't read it. When I zoom
text to a comfortable size, the stoopid fixed width makes for a really
short line length, which is just as bad as long lines.
It's beyond me why some folks think this is a good thing... :(
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
| |
|
| Phil Thompson wrote:
> "Brian" wrote...
>
>
>
> Isn't CSS about visual design?
Yes, visual design of documents on the www, documents created with HTML
or XHTML. And designing on the www means accepting it for what it is,
and for what it is not. Anyone can choose to ignore its strengths and
weaknesses, but there's a cost to that approach, naturally.
If someone doesn't understand why <h2-6> is better than <span
class="subtitle">, then they have not yet grasped that strengths v.
weaknesses concept.
> True his markup may be wanting
It's more serious than that, I think. I wouldn't take advice from him
for HTML, nor for CSS. If he were a consultant, and suggested a color
scheme or general layout, I'd be all ears (not least because I do not
have an eye for such things). But for the technical stuff regarding www
authoring, this guy is an amateur.
> but someone must have noticed I linked to a page on his site because
> it contained lots of links to other webpages where others had
> expressed their opinions on this subject matter, not because I
> thought his page or his opinion was gospel.
Fair enough, but it's also fair play to critique the site for its
shortcomings.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
| |
|
|
| Gus Richter 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
|
>
>
> Oh my god, sorry. I didn't realise I'd just brought about the apocalypse.
> Fluid is a great idea and yes it works sometimes but there are times, when
> <big breath> shock horror, a fixed width layout works best.
>
> Read other peoples opinions here: http://www.designbyfire.com/000032.html
>
> p.s. Sorry I spoke.
>
You are quite correct in pointing out this other method, Phil.
Really disappointing isn't it, to get such condascending comments such
as "get a clue" and the one above, instead of a sensible comment such as:
Yes, it does work, but has a drawback when the page is reduced to a
certain point, etc., etc. In certain situations however, it is a viable
and at times possibly the only option.
--
Gus
| |
| Stephen Poley 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
| On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:02:14 -0000, "Phil Thompson"
<philSPAM@doublonegative.com> wrote:
>Oh my god, sorry. I didn't realise I'd just brought about the apocalypse.
>Fluid is a great idea and yes it works sometimes but there are times, when
><big breath> shock horror, a fixed width layout works best.
Perhaps you'd like to offer a few examples of sites where this is the
case?
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
| |
| Phil Thompson 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
|
"Gus Richter" <gusrichter@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:L5ydncn1W8ZeZD3cRVn-sw@golden.net...
>
>
> You are quite correct in pointing out this other method, Phil.
> Really disappointing isn't it, to get such condascending comments such as
> "get a clue" and the one above, instead of a sensible comment such as:
> Yes, it does work, but has a drawback when the page is reduced to a
> certain point, etc., etc. In certain situations however, it is a viable
> and at times possibly the only option.
>
> --
> Gus
Thankyou Gus. Fact of the matter is my solution was a bit shit but I didn't
think I deserved the abuse I got.
But seems how it came from such excellent designers http://www.1point1c.org/
not to mention http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/
| |
| Phil Thompson 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
|
"Lauri Raittila" <lauri@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0b274923bc548c98a182@news.individual.net...
> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Phil Thompson wrote:
>
> 500px is very bad idea:
> 1) Most people use much bigger window, so they get large unusable space
> 2) People using smaller screen will get scrollbar.
>
> There is very little number of people using browser that would be good.
>
> And if you center using the way you showed earlier, people using under
> 500px window can't use your site. Anything handheld fits that.
Not technically anything handheld, as some handheld devices do recognise CSS
handheld media styles and ignore CSS set for the screen. N.B. Some not all.
>
>
> No, fixed width works never best. Totally fluid is not best always
> either, but it is much better than fixed width
Well it actually depends on the design. I notice that the perosnal websites
of the two people haranging me, for advocating fixed-width design, aren't
very image intensive. A design with few images is a great candidate for a
fluid layout but a site with lots of background images (giving a design a
bit of character) sometimes needs fixed width.
>
>
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-
> bin/validate.cgi?url=http://www.designbyfire.com/000032.html&warnings=yes
>
> Don't take advice from people that use nested blockquotes to indent
> stuff. CSS1 was published 8 years ago, and margins were supported good
> enaugh in very first implementions.
Have you see this man's resume? http://www.designbyfire.com/andrei.php I
think I will take advcie from him. He seems a lot more knowledgeable than me
and you put together.
>
> From there:
> Fixed:
> | Pros
> | Guarantees line length readability
>
> You can do that without fixing layout. Read on max-width, and IE
> alternative
>
> | Guarantees ability to place images into the layout in relation to other
> | design elements and type size
>
> Unless user changes type size, in which case layout breaks.
>
> | Allows for predictable printed results from screen to paper
>
> Most likely one third on right hand side clipped.
>
> | Allows for a predictable presentation as intended by the designer
>
> If user has same fontsize and other settings as user.
What you have go to remember is to design for your audience, this site has
an audience of web professionals who probably are goig to have very similar
settings to the designer, that means large screen resolutions. Amazon and
Google et al have a wider audience and so must design with that in mind.
Google can't afford to make their site inaccessible to someone with a screen
resolution of 640*480 but designbyfire.com can.
>
<snip />
>
> Because said site uses fixed layout, I get scrollbar, and can scroll to
> see about 30px of orange margin on right. It looks much better when I
> force it to fit window. If this had been done differently, it would not
> force me to scroll to see margin.
What screen resolution are you using? 800*600?
>
> --
> Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
| |
| Lauri Raittila 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
| in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Phil Thompson wrote:
>
> "Lauri Raittila" <lauri@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c0b274923bc548c98a182@news.individual.net...
>
> Well it actually depends on the design. I notice that the perosnal websites
> of the two people haranging me, for advocating fixed-width design, aren't
> very image intensive.
That is because they aren't. That irrelevant.
> A design with few images is a great candidate for a
> fluid layout but a site with lots of background images (giving a design a
> bit of character) sometimes needs fixed width.
No, it doesn't. It sometimes needs some fixed elements. But I have yet to
see any sensible reason to fix width of whole page to some width...
>
> Have you see this man's resume? http://www.designbyfire.com/andrei.php I
> think I will take advcie from him. He seems a lot more knowledgeable than me
> and you put together.
So, he has been doing webpages since 1999. That is just 5 years less than
me. He mentions mambo.com, which did not succeed. Then he mentions
impresse.com, which doesn't seem to have same UI anymore. Then he has
done web application. So, there is no website in public done by him,
exept his own?
See what person with real knowledge say:
http://www.useit.com/
> What you have go to remember is to design for your audience, this site has
> an audience of web professionals who probably are goig to have very similar
> settings to the designer, that means large screen resolutions. Amazon and
> Google et al have a wider audience and so must design with that in mind.
> Google can't afford to make their site inaccessible to someone with a screen
> resolution of 640*480 but designbyfire.com can.
Well, designbyfire.com would be very easy to make more fluid. And only
thing people would miss is ability to scroll to see that right margin.
His problem is that he sees this issue black and white. Either totally
fluid or totally fixed. That is common, as all arguments against liquid
layout depend on that.
>
> What screen resolution are you using? 800*600?
Resolution is 1600*1200, which is irrelevant. Viewport is about 800*1150.
But that is not the point, the point is that I get unnecessary scrollbar.
There is absolutely no need for it.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
| |
|
|
| Alan J. Flavell 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
| On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> What is so cool about horizontal scrollbars?
They show the reader in no uncertain terms who's the boss.
And that's what such deezyners seem to be aiming at.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
|
"Brian" <usenet3@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:o_7od.949852$Gx4.23199@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Phil Thompson wrote:
<snip />[color=darkred]
> I'd take advice from this guy for visual design/interface, but I
> wouldn't rely on him for markup advice.
>
> --
> Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
Isn't CSS about visual design? True his markup may be wanting but someone
must have noticed I linked to a page on his site because it contained lots
of links to other webpages where others had expressed their opinions on this
subject matter, not because I thought his page or his opinion was gospel.
--
Phil Thompson
http://www.doubleonegative.com/
| |
| Lauri Raittila 2004-11-26, 4:16 am |
| in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Phil Thompson wrote:
> Brian wrote:
I would too, if you meaned interface for some program. But even then, I
would not take it as granted. He has done stuff for Adobe, and if their
other UIs are as bad Adobe Acrobat Reader, I wouldn't take any advice.
Only other Adobe product I have used was PhotoShop 4 (or was it 3), and
it's UI was not as bad...
And then webpages are totally different than program UIs. So hes
expertice would be more suited on designing Browser than Webpage.
[color=darkred]
Certainly not.
[color=darkred]
> Isn't CSS about visual design?
Yes. But it is totally different that application interface design.
> True his markup may be wanting but someone
> must have noticed I linked to a page on his site because it contained lots
> of links to other webpages where others had expressed their opinions on this
> subject matter, not because I thought his page or his opinion was gospel.
Of course he has links to sites that think same as he does. Everybody
has. But all those pages are just as bad. Or at least it is very likely.
If there was some better, you would propably shown us that one.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
| |
|
| Phil Thompson wrote:
> "Lauri Raittila" wrote...
>
Nor one who uses empty paragraphs, presumably to create visual margins.
[color=darkred]
> Have you see this man's resume?
> http://www.designbyfire.com/andrei.php I think I will take advcie
> from him.
He's a talented visual designer. But he is not exactly an expert on
markup. I'm surprised that he is unclear about concepts that are pretty
elementary in HTML.
<quote from http://www.designbyfire.com/000064.html>
I like to use subheaders in my articles, as you can see from above. In
the older version of my blog, I used <span class="subtitle">. Now I’ve
switched to using <h#>. I’m told this is more semantically correct.
</quote>
He's "told this is..correct"? You mean he didn't already know? <h1-6>
goes back to the original HTML draft. How could he not know this?
I'd take advice from this guy for visual design/interface, but I
wouldn't rely on him for markup advice.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
| |
| Stephan Bird 2004-11-26, 7:16 am |
| In news:pbt1q0l5kmkregh5gbpbrnvrkg5vgm87rj@4ax.com,
Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl>wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:02:14 -0000, "Phil Thompson"
> <philSPAM@doublonegative.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Perhaps you'd like to offer a few examples of sites where this is the
> case?
(I originally posted this exact text in <cna6b5$rf8$1@titan.btinternet.com>,
but had no follow-up (possibly because I changed the subject as well?))
I'm interested in this. Whilst fixed width design, I agree is not a good
thing; what are your feelings on divs with percentage widths (see e.g. one
of a set of pages I'm trying to put together for a small project at
<URL:http://www.stephanbird.org.uk/Album/caravans1.html> )?
On a related note, is it possible to find out the height (of a horizontal
scrollbar) server-side i.e. without javascript or variants (naturally things
like height: 110% don't work)?
Stephan
--
Stephan Bird
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 19/11/04
| |
| Phil Thompson 2004-11-26, 7:16 am |
|
"Lauri Raittila" <lauri@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0b3a0074cecf5598a183@news.individual.net...
> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Phil Thompson wrote:
>
>
> That is because they aren't. That irrelevant.
Why is that irrelevant? Your preference for fluid layouts affects your
design decisions blatantly. If you were to start making your site more
image-intensive you will come across more dificulties trying to make your
design fluid. Please read why alistapart.com uses a fixed width design
http://www.alistapart.com/qa/#question21
>
>
> No, it doesn't. It sometimes needs some fixed elements. But I have yet to
> see any sensible reason to fix width of whole page to some width...
>
>
> So, he has been doing webpages since 1999. That is just 5 years less than
> me. He mentions mambo.com, which did not succeed. Then he mentions
> impresse.com, which doesn't seem to have same UI anymore. Then he has
> done web application. So, there is no website in public done by him,
> exept his own?
>
> See what person with real knowledge say:
> http://www.useit.com/
>
>
> Well, designbyfire.com would be very easy to make more fluid. And only
> thing people would miss is ability to scroll to see that right margin.
> His problem is that he sees this issue black and white. Either totally
> fluid or totally fixed. That is common, as all arguments against liquid
> layout depend on that.
>
>
> Resolution is 1600*1200, which is irrelevant. Viewport is about 800*1150.
> But that is not the point, the point is that I get unnecessary scrollbar.
> There is absolutely no need for it.
Once again why is that irrelevant? Your resolution governs the maximum size
your browser viewport could be.
>
> --
> Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
| |
| Lauri Raittila 2004-11-26, 7:16 am |
| in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Phil Thompson wrote:
>
> "Lauri Raittila" <lauri@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c0b3a0074cecf5598a183@news.individual.net...
>
> Why is that irrelevant?
Because in Internet, there is n+1 pages. The fact that 2 people have non
graphic intensive pages, means nothing. Of course, even fixed layout
advocate understand that page with just text shoudl not be fixed width.
And if you used some other browser than IE, you would notice that my page
does not have overly long lines.
> Your preference for fluid layouts affects your
> design decisions blatantly.
No, my design has little graphics, because I don't have digital camera,
and I haven't bothered to do layout images for my personal site. I am
working on quite complex, more graphic intensive site though. Will
hopefully be ready before new year. It is of course not fixed.
> If you were to start making your site more
> image-intensive you will come across more dificulties trying to make your
> design fluid. Please read why alistapart.com uses a fixed width design
> http://www.alistapart.com/qa/#question21
I know that they are getting it wrong. There is no need to fix whole site
to limit text lenght, which I think I have said you at least twice.
As usual, they see just the opposite ends.
So, you didn't have answer to this question. I am not surprised.
[color=darkred]
Again, when real authority does something, you have nothing to say?
[color=darkred]
>
> Once again why is that irrelevant? Your resolution governs the maximum size
> your browser viewport could be.
But, it does not mean that I use window that size. The window size is
meaningful, not the resolution. Of course, I can make my viewport bigger,
and quite easily too. But what is relevant is still the size of viewport
(viewport = windows client area, where website is drawn)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
| |
| Lauri Raittila 2004-11-26, 7:16 am |
| in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin Honnen wrote:
> You get IE 6 or other newer
> browsers like Mozilla or Opera into standard compliant rendering mode by
> including a DOCTYPE declaration (referring a HTML 4.01 DTD for instance).
Transitional DTD whitout URL won't work though, use one with URI or
strict.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|