This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > December 2005 > tables for layout
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]
|
|
|
| I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
other better options are available?
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, hug exclaimed (23-Dec-05 11:04 PM):
> I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
> layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
> for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
> tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
> other better options are available?
>
Yes, they're still in common use. My main reason for not using them is
they're not particularly accessible, especially if using nested tables.
The other reason is the move toward xhtml + css - the separation of
content and format. It's nearly 1:30am here so I'll just leave it for
the experts to elaborate, much better than I ever could, especially in
the wee hours of the morning.
jmc
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-24, 3:39 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the . cafeteria
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
> I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
> layout.
bingo :)
> I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
> for layout... they work in every browser I've run into.
How do they work on my phone? Does your page fold into a small screen
format in a satisfactory manner or do I need to dig out the stylus and
invoke horizontal scroll?
> So please,
> tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing,
Think, for a moment, of the pprimary reason for tables - they are designed
to show a realtionship between data elements in rows and columns. Most
layout implementations have no such relationship.
The markup required adds a considerable load on the signal/noise ratio.
Maintenance is a headache (comparatively)
> and what
> other better options are available?
trivial markup - by which I mean discrete elements within your document
that say what they mean.
h1 to h6 define a cascading heading structure (aka document outline)
p defines a paragraph
ul/li defines a list of things
do you really need anything else to present your document?
ok, you'll want ...
img elements
a(nchor) elements
anything else?
well yes, but that's enough to get your content in front of your audience
in a meaningful manner.
now you'll want to apply some presentational thingies and that's where CSS
comes in. Although it's possible to style a document using only the
elements above you will find it convenient to group sections of your
content. For this you can use ...
div - defines a block (e.g. navigation)
span - defines an inline section (e.g. text you'd like to present in a
different colour)
both these say absolutely nothing about your document (or its content) and
can be considered 'noise'. However, they are neutral as opposed to tables
which do imply relationships between elements.
Disclaimer: all the above is IMO only. MMV and probably does.
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-12-24, 6:15 am |
| On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:29 -0700, hug
<contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
> I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
> layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
> for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
> tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
> other better options are available?
>
The problem, from my perspective, is in the use of convoluted nested
tables. Not in the use of simple tables.
There is also a great deal of bigotry about not using tables. Tables
are designed for presenting tabular data, rows and columns. In this
context they are perfectly acceptable.
CSS offers some positioning commands as extensions to basic HTML, but
these are not universally supported and can be problematic unless care
is taken, and can easily be broken by clients resizing their text size
and the like, (Note: 'can be', not 'always are').
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
|
| jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>Suddenly, without warning, hug exclaimed (23-Dec-05 11:04 PM):
>
>Yes, they're still in common use. My main reason for not using them is
>they're not particularly accessible, especially if using nested tables.
I don't understand what you mean by "accessible" here. Do you mean
that they're a XXXXX to maintain because of the complexity? Or did
you have something else in mind?
>The other reason is the move toward xhtml + css - the separation of
>content and format.
Separation of content and format is usually a good thing. Most of my
table code is generated by the server app based on the content of a
database. Tables is about the best I've found so far, but there could
be something better, I don't claim to know everything.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the . cafeteria
>hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
>
>
>bingo :)
>
>
>How do they work on my phone? Does your page fold into a small screen
>format in a satisfactory manner or do I need to dig out the stylus and
>invoke horizontal scroll?
>
>
>Think, for a moment, of the pprimary reason for tables - they are designed
>to show a realtionship between data elements in rows and columns. Most
>layout implementations have no such relationship.
>
>The markup required adds a considerable load on the signal/noise ratio.
>
>Maintenance is a headache (comparatively)
>
>
>
>trivial markup - by which I mean discrete elements within your document
>that say what they mean.
>
>h1 to h6 define a cascading heading structure (aka document outline)
>p defines a paragraph
>ul/li defines a list of things
>
>do you really need anything else to present your document?
>
>ok, you'll want ...
>
>img elements
>a(nchor) elements
>
>anything else?
>
>well yes, but that's enough to get your content in front of your audience
>in a meaningful manner.
>
>now you'll want to apply some presentational thingies and that's where CSS
>comes in. Although it's possible to style a document using only the
>elements above you will find it convenient to group sections of your
>content. For this you can use ...
>
>div - defines a block (e.g. navigation)
>span - defines an inline section (e.g. text you'd like to present in a
>different colour)
>
>both these say absolutely nothing about your document (or its content) and
>can be considered 'noise'. However, they are neutral as opposed to tables
>which do imply relationships between elements.
>
>Disclaimer: all the above is IMO only. MMV and probably does.
Boy this takes me back to the early '80s arguing with Truly about
content vs structure.
General documents are one thing. e-Commerce stores are another thing.
For a "store" you want specific layout, you don't just want the thing
scrolling down to china.
I'm not a bad guy, I'm just somewhat stupid and extremely determined,
often a bad combination. I'll offer an example here.
I need layout in three specific areas. A section at the top for a
picture, a section on the left for a description, a section on the
right for buttons. The description can be short or long. Currently
my code generates a table to display that. Is there a better method?
Let me take on last shot in this post at explaining where I'm coming
from. I get the content from files, primarily a database. The
back-end software views html as a "browser display language", it
generates html code that creates the desired display on most any
browser. That's not really the same thing as a "document".
I am not averse to change, though I do tend to avoid rework when
possible. If there's a better way I'd like to learn about it.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| comments@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert) wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:29 -0700, hug
><contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
>
>
>The problem, from my perspective, is in the use of convoluted nested
>tables. Not in the use of simple tables.
>
>There is also a great deal of bigotry about not using tables. Tables
>are designed for presenting tabular data, rows and columns. In this
>context they are perfectly acceptable.
>
>CSS offers some positioning commands as extensions to basic HTML, but
>these are not universally supported and can be problematic unless care
>is taken, and can easily be broken by clients resizing their text size
>and the like, (Note: 'can be', not 'always are').
>
>Matt
Thanks Matt. The convoluted tables in my sites tend to be generated
by a convoluted back-end program based on simple entries in a product
database.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, hug exclaimed (24-Dec-05 12:20 PM):
> jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "accessible" here. Do you mean
> that they're a XXXXX to maintain because of the complexity? Or did
> you have something else in mind?
>
Sorry, I was posting in the wee hours of the morning. By "accessible" I
mean, "accessible to people with disabilities" - more specifically those
who use a screen reader to 'hear' the pages. Tables for layout are, I
understand, difficult to translate. Gets worse the more complicated
and/or nested they are.
jmc
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, Matt Probert exclaimed (24-Dec-05 10:41 AM):
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:29 -0700, hug
> <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The problem, from my perspective, is in the use of convoluted nested
> tables. Not in the use of simple tables.
>
Yes. Though as I get better at css, if it's simple in tables, it's
simple in CSS, though that didn't seem to be the case in the beginning.
> There is also a great deal of bigotry about not using tables. Tables
> are designed for presenting tabular data, rows and columns. In this
> context they are perfectly acceptable.
>
Of course they are. I agree though, and still use them in this context.
> CSS offers some positioning commands as extensions to basic HTML, but
> these are not universally supported and can be problematic unless care
> is taken, and can easily be broken by clients resizing their text size
> and the like, (Note: 'can be', not 'always are').
>
Augh, tell me about it. I'm still learning those pitfalls.
jmc
| |
|
| jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>Suddenly, without warning, hug exclaimed (24-Dec-05 12:20 PM):
>
>Sorry, I was posting in the wee hours of the morning. By "accessible" I
>mean, "accessible to people with disabilities" - more specifically those
>who use a screen reader to 'hear' the pages. Tables for layout are, I
>understand, difficult to translate. Gets worse the more complicated
>and/or nested they are.
>
>jmc
Interesting, I wonder why that is. Is there a better way of obtaining
the layout you want than using tables? It isn't that I have no
sympathy for the blind, but most people who visit ecommerce stores can
read visually and one must satisfy the masses while doing the best one
can not to discomfort the handicapped. Blind people must love most
websites, filled with frames and graphics and animated videos. As the
wicked witch said, "Oooooh, what a world!"
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-24, 7:00 pm |
|
"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
news:9g0pq1p4fv69qgf46o1m7m1u1eruhpv1o6@4ax.com...
: I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
: layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
: for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
: tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
: other better options are available?
:
: --
: http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
Without too much wasted words - here you can find fine example and answer to
your question.
Make sure to click trough to the end.
http://www.stopdesign.com/present/2...seattle/tables/
--
http://www.media-marketing.biz
| |
| Houston Legal Secretary 2005-12-24, 7:00 pm |
|
"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
news:6afqq196l6g1nfee22ppdm54uloljvj17p@4ax.com...
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>
>
> General documents are one thing. e-Commerce stores are another thing.
> For a "store" you want specific layout, you don't just want the thing
> scrolling down to china.
>
> I'm not a bad guy, I'm just somewhat stupid and extremely determined,
> often a bad combination. I'll offer an example here.
>
[snipped]
> I am not averse to change, though I do tend to avoid rework when
> possible. If there's a better way I'd like to learn about it.
>
> --
> http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
Well, you DID ask. And you NEVER mentioned ecommerce specifically in your
original post, although they too can be designed to function without a
plethora of tables, nested and otherwise.
Ironically, there are plenty of web sites geared specifically toward people
with disabilities that aren't "accessible." And shame on them, because they
know their target audience and still haven't designed for it!
HLS
| |
|
| "Houston Legal Secretary" <houston.legal.secretary@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>Well, you DID ask. And you NEVER mentioned ecommerce specifically in your
>original post,
Yes, I did ask, and I appreciate the responses. I didn't mention
ecommerce because if there's a tables-are-evil pov it seems like it
would apply across the board. Mea-culpa if appropriate.
> although they too can be designed to function without a
>plethora of tables, nested and otherwise.
I'm listening, but I'm not hearing of any methods to control layout
that don't involve tables. I'm not an html wizard, I'll learn
whatever I can if it seems useful and I don't have to read an
encyclopedia to learn how to dot an i. So please, tell me more.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| hug wrote:
> I'm listening, but I'm not hearing of any methods to control layout
> that don't involve tables. I'm not an html wizard, I'll learn
> whatever I can if it seems useful and I don't have to read an
> encyclopedia to learn how to dot an i. So please, tell me more.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tableless+layout
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Ofra Haza - Im Nin'alu
| |
|
| "Nije Nego" <nijenego@net.hr***> wrote:
>
>"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
>news:9g0pq1p4fv69qgf46o1m7m1u1eruhpv1o6@4ax.com...
>: I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
>: layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
>: for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
>: tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
>: other better options are available?
>:
>: --
>: http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
>
>
>Without too much wasted words - here you can find fine example and answer to
>your question.
>Make sure to click trough to the end.
>
>http://www.stopdesign.com/present/2...seattle/tables/
I'm sorry. I couldn't stomach it all the way to the end. I did click
through a few dozen pages though, spent a lot of time waiting for
images to download. Read some talk about how to use tables and
javascript.
Thanks for the link. He might want to change the title from "CSS
Techniques" to "Unexplained Examples of CSS Usage".
However, it does seem like I should learn more about CSS, find out
better what it can do and how to do it. I'll see about doing that
when I can. If I actually find CSS techniques to replace tables,
it'll be a matter of modifying a little code since it's pretty much
all data-driven.
Thanks again.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
|
|
| Suddenly, without warning, hug exclaimed (24-Dec-05 1:32 PM):
> jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Interesting, I wonder why that is. Is there a better way of obtaining
> the layout you want than using tables? It isn't that I have no
> sympathy for the blind, but most people who visit ecommerce stores can
> read visually and one must satisfy the masses while doing the best one
> can not to discomfort the handicapped. Blind people must love most
> websites, filled with frames and graphics and animated videos. As the
> wicked witch said, "Oooooh, what a world!"
>
If you don't code for the disabled, you're blocking out a larger
percentage of your possible customers than you might think. In fact,
I'm fairly sure there's at least one, possibly more, visually disabled
folks on this newsgroup. I could be wrong, but as many people as there
are on this ng, I'm fairly sure I'm right. And there are more
disabilities than just the blind. There's the visually disabled, who
must use low resolutions and large fonts to see your content. If you
aren't careful with your color schema, you can make your site difficult
for the color blind. Certain types of animations can trigger epileptic
seizures. The list goes on.
Of course, you do have to balance accessibility with useability, but
that's not that hard to do:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ac...-usable-website
I'm probably more sensitive than many, though, as I manage a US Gov't
intranet site, so this is required for my work sites, plus I teach
selected bits of Section 508 (US Federal employees disabilities act) on
my web author class.
I'm guilty of not taking into account the visually disabled at my
personal website, but as it's essentially a big photo album, I'm not
sure anyone with that particular disability would be visiting (If
someone can tell me why I'm wrong, I'll be happy to make any new pages
accessible!)
jmc
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-24, 7:00 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the . cafeteria
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>
>
> Boy this takes me back to the early '80s arguing with Truly about
> content vs structure.
yep - tis almost certainly the same thing
> General documents are one thing. e-Commerce stores are another thing.
I don't see a difference - perhaps I could ask you for an example of a
page that is under consideration.
> For a "store" you want specific layout, you don't just want the thing
> scrolling down to china.
indeed - and you also want the whole page/document/whatever to make sense
in /any/ situation - with or without support for any of the 'advanced'
technologies.
> I'm not a bad guy, I'm just somewhat stupid and extremely determined,
> often a bad combination. I'll offer an example here.
>
> I need layout in three specific areas. A section at the top for a
> picture, a section on the left for a description, a section on the
> right for buttons. The description can be short or long. Currently
> my code generates a table to display that. Is there a better method?
Possibly - I'd like to see an example. It's not clear to me yet whether
you have described an entire page or just a small part of one.
> Let me take on last shot in this post at explaining where I'm coming
> from. I get the content from files, primarily a database. The
> back-end software views html as a "browser display language", it
> generates html code that creates the desired display on most any
> browser. That's not really the same thing as a "document".
hrmm - yes it is, but here/now is not the place/time to argue semantics -
let's just agree we are both discussing the same thing.
> I am not averse to change, though I do tend to avoid rework when
> possible.
I agree - there's little point in change for its own sake - much better to
make these changes when there is another compelling reason to visit the
markup generator
> If there's a better way I'd like to learn about it.
better is trivial markup IMO - presentation can be defined with CSS
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-24, 7:00 pm |
|
"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
news:gnsqq1183hbi5b9t1149l2n9d548gtu4n9@4ax.com...
: "Nije Nego" <nijenego@net.hr***> wrote:
:
: >
: >"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
: >news:9g0pq1p4fv69qgf46o1m7m1u1eruhpv1o6@4ax.com...
: >: I've picked up the idea that folks here dislike the use of tables for
: >: layout. I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I do use tables
: >: for layout... they work in every browser I've run into. So please,
: >: tell me why tables for layout is considered a bad thing, and what
: >: other better options are available?
: >:
: >: --
: >: http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
: >
: >
: >Without too much wasted words - here you can find fine example and answer
to
: >your question.
: >Make sure to click trough to the end.
: >
: >http://www.stopdesign.com/present/2...seattle/tables/
:
: I'm sorry. I couldn't stomach it all the way to the end. I did click
: through a few dozen pages though, spent a lot of time waiting for
: images to download. Read some talk about how to use tables and
: javascript.
:
: Thanks for the link. He might want to change the title from "CSS
: Techniques" to "Unexplained Examples of CSS Usage".
:
: However, it does seem like I should learn more about CSS, find out
: better what it can do and how to do it. I'll see about doing that
: when I can. If I actually find CSS techniques to replace tables,
: it'll be a matter of modifying a little code since it's pretty much
: all data-driven.
:
: Thanks again.
If you had no patience to go trough this, I doubt you'll ever have one to
start with css.
It is a whole new world and way of understanding and treating your code.
I gave you the link - just as an example to show how css does everything
tables did, even better.
This was a perfect example of "CSS techniques to replace tables" and I
really couldn't find any trace of "talk about how to use tables and
javascript".
If you are really interested in explanations of css tehniques, than you
should start at http://www.w3schools.com but I think you'll reply - to much
text and explanations there.
--
http://www.media-marketing.biz
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Possibly - I'd like to see an example. It's not clear to me yet whether
>you have described an entire page or just a small part of one.
Okay, here's an example:
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/zuzus_g...7,product=bunny
>better is trivial markup IMO - presentation can be defined with CSS
Can you (or anyone else) recommend a good online CSS tutorial?
Preferrably something that shows some examples of layout and says
here's what you do to make that happen? I've been known to RTFM and
figure it out from a list of machine instructions, but time seems to
be slipping, slipping into the future.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
|
|
| hug wrote:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, here's an example:
>
> http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/zuzus_g...7,product=bunny
>
>
> Can you (or anyone else) recommend a good online CSS tutorial?
There's a couple half-way this page:
http://locusmeus.com/html-css/list.html
Haven't tested them personally, nor have I checked the links for about
2 or 3 months.
> Preferrably something that shows some examples of layout and says
> here's what you do to make that happen? I've been known to RTFM
> and figure it out from a list of machine instructions, but time
> seems to be slipping, slipping into the future.
Long time no hear that song :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-24, 10:18 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the . cafeteria
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
> "Nije Nego" <nijenego@net.hr***> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, I'll check it out and see what I can learn.
it's a great reference site - never tried it as a tutorial resource
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-25, 3:17 am |
|
hug wrote:
> jmc <NOnewsgroupsSPAM@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting, I wonder why that is. Is there a better way of obtaining
> the layout you want than using tables? It isn't that I have no
> sympathy for the blind, but most people who visit ecommerce stores can
> read visually and one must satisfy the masses while doing the best one
> can not to discomfort the handicapped. Blind people must love most
> websites, filled with frames and graphics and animated videos.
Ahh.
I personally hate them. With a passion....... I think those web
designers who use images to display what should be normal text are
worse though.
I am a blind web designer, well it's mainly a hobby thing at the
moment. But I have used tables on my main site, well actually, on all
my sites, and they work fine. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc is my main
site.
As the
> wicked witch said, "Oooooh, what a world!"
Ha. Well their you go.
I think Tables for layout are OK. Provided they are not used as a
nested table. It just gets a bit nasty to try and navigate them. But my
sites work fine useing Text Only browsers and Screen Readers.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-25, 6:14 am |
|
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135484226.693751.207860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
:
: As the
: > wicked witch said, "Oooooh, what a world!"
: Ha. Well their you go.
: I think Tables for layout are OK. Provided they are not used as a
: nested table. It just gets a bit nasty to try and navigate them. But my
: sites work fine useing Text Only browsers and Screen Readers.
: --
: Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
:
You site does not work fine, it falls appart with every click, every pages
has different layout from the other, which is obvious in Firefox or Opera,
or any other decent browser.
Not only that your site shows lack of skills but also nicely represents whay
tables should not be used.
You have errors on your pages and they doesn't work fine, no matter if you
state: "Here at Free Web Design Online we make sure that all sites use
"Valid HTML" to make sure that all sites work on any web browser under any
condition..."
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-25, 6:23 pm |
|
Nije Nego wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1135484226.693751.207860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : As the
> : > wicked witch said, "Oooooh, what a world!"
> : Ha. Well their you go.
> : I think Tables for layout are OK. Provided they are not used as a
> : neste d table. It just gets a bit nasty to try and navigate them. But my
> : sites work fine useing Text Only browsers and Screen Readers.
> : --
> : Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
> :
>
> You site does not work fine, it falls appart with every click, every pages
> has different layout from the other,
What a load of crap!
I just had a look at my site in FireFox and siriously. It did not look
that bad. The layout was not that varied.
which is obvious in Firefox or Opera,
> or any other decent browser.
See above.
>
> Not only that your site shows lack of skills but also nicely represents whay
> tables should not be used.
Well. I can't see it anyway. Well not that well. So I am not too
woried.
>
> You have errors on your pages and they doesn't work fine, no matter if you
> state: "Here at Free Web Design Online we make sure that all sites use
> "Valid HTML" to make sure that all sites work on any web browser under any
Well. They do validate, and frankly. I could have done a lot worse!.
> condition..."
Oh. and for the most part. My site does work in text only browsers.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
|
| "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>I am a blind web designer, well it's mainly a hobby thing at the
>moment.
If you have a few unoccupied minutes, I'd appreciate it if you'd take
a look at my main site and tell me how it "looks" to you, it's
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com and I don't know that any blind folks have
looked at it, certainly none have ever contacted me about it one way
or another.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-12-25, 6:23 pm |
| Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Nije Nego wrote:
>
>
>
> What a load of crap!
> I just had a look at my site in FireFox and siriously. It did not look
> that bad. The layout was not that varied.
>
Sorry, I agree with Nije. While it doesn't "fall apart with every
click", every page does have a different layout. It is not consistent.
However, being blind, you wouldn't recognize the differences in font
sizes on different pages. But it doesn't look nice.
> which is obvious in Firefox or Opera,
>
>
> See above.
>
Yep. Using Firefox or IE.
>
>
> Well. I can't see it anyway. Well not that well. So I am not too
> woried.
>
Nope, don't worry. All it cost you is business.
>
>
> Well. They do validate, and frankly. I could have done a lot worse!.
>
No, they don't all validate. Check again.
>
>
> Oh. and for the most part. My site does work in text only browsers.
The bottom line is - you put your site up as an example of "good design
using tables". But I agree with Nije here, also. It's one of the best
examples of why NOT to use tables I've ever seen.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-12-25, 6:23 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 10:23:08 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> The bottom line is - you put your site up as an example of "good design
> using tables". But I agree with Nije here, also. It's one of the best
> examples of why NOT to use tables I've ever seen.
>
I say chaps, this isn't the day to be nasty.
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Gary Peek 2005-12-25, 6:24 pm |
| jmc wrote:
> Of course, you do have to balance accessibility with useability, but
> that's not that hard to do:
> http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ac...-usable-website
This web page crashes my Netscape 7.02 browser!
Not views poorly, but crashes it.
Once when I first loaded the page, again after
the page loaded and I used the Back button.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot possibly convince
myself to take advice from anyone that can't create
a web page that will display in most browsers.
(I'm not complaining about you of course, but I'm
just giving the group an example of the goofy things
that can happen when people insist on using the cool
new stuff instead of keeping it simple.)
I guess this is one of the reasons that people like
"hug" (and myself) just use tables for layout-
all the new fancy stuff has problems too, sometimes
worse problems than tables.
People keep finding ways to create new stuff with
amazing sets of problems. Heard of AJAX?
Gary Peek
Industrologic, Inc.
www.industrologic.com (with nested tables)
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, Gary Peek exclaimed (25-Dec-05 6:15 PM):
> jmc wrote:
>
>
>
> This web page crashes my Netscape 7.02 browser!
> Not views poorly, but crashes it.
>
> Once when I first loaded the page, again after
> the page loaded and I used the Back button.
>
> No matter how hard I try, I cannot possibly convince
> myself to take advice from anyone that can't create
> a web page that will display in most browsers.
>
> (I'm not complaining about you of course, but I'm
> just giving the group an example of the goofy things
> that can happen when people insist on using the cool
> new stuff instead of keeping it simple.)
>
> I guess this is one of the reasons that people like
> "hug" (and myself) just use tables for layout-
> all the new fancy stuff has problems too, sometimes
> worse problems than tables.
>
> People keep finding ways to create new stuff with
> amazing sets of problems. Heard of AJAX?
>
>
> Gary Peek
> Industrologic, Inc.
> www.industrologic.com (with nested tables)
>
Gary:
My fault. I guess I'm just not good enough to find where in this
dammmmmm template it's broke! To make matters worse, it works perfectly
fine for me now, since I cleared the cache.
Now, stubborn person that I am, I don't want to just start with a new
template, that'd be like losing. I want to *learn* what the heck is
causing these bazzare behaviors and BEAT that sucker until it bloody works!
::pant pant::
Ok, better now. Gotta remember that blood pressure :)
jmc
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, Gary Peek exclaimed (25-Dec-05 6:15 PM):
> jmc wrote:
>
>
>
> This web page crashes my Netscape 7.02 browser!
> Not views poorly, but crashes it.
>
> Once when I first loaded the page, again after
> the page loaded and I used the Back button.
>
Odd, I've viewed it in a couple browsers, never seen anything bad
happening. It's probably the javascript in it.
> No matter how hard I try, I cannot possibly convince
> myself to take advice from anyone that can't create
> a web page that will display in most browsers.
>
Don't blame you there, but the folks who contribute articles aren't
necessarily the webmasters of the site.
jmc
| |
|
| Gary Peek <mylastname@mycompanyname.com> wrote:
>This web page crashes my Netscape 7.02 browser!
>Not views poorly, but crashes it.
That's not a website problem, that's a browser Bug, plain and simple;
displaying like crap is a website problem, but if a browser *crashes*
it means the browser is plain old busted.
>I guess this is one of the reasons that people like
>"hug" (and myself) just use tables for layout-
>all the new fancy stuff has problems too, sometimes
>worse problems than tables.
Let me clarify in case there is anyone who doesn't understand my
viewpoint on this. I'm in the final (yeah, LOL) stages of developing
an ecommerce engine with lots of bells and whistles. I am not, and do
not claim to be, an html wizard. During development I've coded it to
use tables because they're what I know that works everywhere. At the
current time I'm working on simplifying configuration, it's too
complex and ugly right now. As part of that effort, I'm adding a
template implementation. The end-user will be able to put whatever
code he wants to use in the templates. Tables, some fancy CSS, it's
up to him. I'll definitely be offering default templates that use
tables because I know they work on every browser I've tried. If I'm
able to learn how to replace the tables with CSS coding, I'll offer
additional templates.
In other words, I'm not saying tables are the way to go, just that
they can be made to work across the browser board.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-25, 6:24 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the . cafeteria
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> If you have a few unoccupied minutes, I'd appreciate it if you'd take
> a look at my main site and tell me how it "looks" to you, it's
> http://www.ren-prod-inc.com
Lynx displays:
Renaissance Productions, Inc. -- Company
Home
[ren_logo.gif]
Home About Contact News Zuzu's Garden Random's Pipes Hug-Gorilla
Software
current page: home
_________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Renaissance Productions Inc web-site. Use the
selections at the top of each page for navigation. Please visit all of
our stores!
[col_woodlandfairycollectibles.jpg] Zuzu's Garden - Handcrafted
garden-inspired home accents that bring the beauty of nature indoors.
[pipe0082.gif] Random's Pipes - High quality hand made briar tobacco
pipes, each one made to the carver's highest standards.
[huggy_big.gif] Hug-Gorilla Software - If you need a code-monkey, but
can't afford a 600-pound gorilla, come visit huggy.
All materials Copyright (c) 2002-2005, Renaissance Productions Inc
(DE), except as otherwise noted; All Rights Reserved., Privacy Policy
top of page (This page last updated 09:16:10 Dec 08, 2005)
Page generation time: 4.136 sec, i/o time: 0.028 sec, store powered by
Hug-Gorilla Software
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Paul Ding 2005-12-25, 6:24 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:34:28 -0700, hug
<contact_info@sig_line.clickit> posted something that included:
>Gary Peek <mylastname@mycompanyname.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>That's not a website problem, that's a browser Bug, plain and simple;
>displaying like crap is a website problem, but if a browser *crashes*
>it means the browser is plain old busted.
Not millions, but *BILLIONS* of other web pages display OK in that
browser.
If I didn't want people to see my pages, I'd keep them on my hard
drive. A lot less hassle, and a lot less expense. But I *do* want to
have my pages visible to users.
That means either I need to write pages that the existing users can
view, or else I can send out guys with shotguns, to force users to
switch to the browser *I* want them to use.
I'd like to claim the moral high ground, but in fact, it's a matter of
economics. I can't afford to hire all those guys with shotguns.
Nor can I afford to have people not visit my websites. If it costs $80
a year to create and host a page for the two years it will remain
current, and I get $100 revenue if everyone can use it, having 95%
compatibility instead of 100% compatibility means I make $20 instead
of $15. I *really* don't want to take a 25% cut in pay because I've
excluded 5% of all users.
And it's actually much more significant than that. Someone who can't
see your site won't recommend it to others. It'll cost you traffic. On
the other hand, if you are compatible and your 9 competitors are not,
you not only get the $20 that's your share, but you'll get a big part
of the $5 part of the traffic that your competitors are discarding.
Sorta makes HTML/3.2 look a *whole* lot more appealing....
--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?
| |
|
| Paul Ding <lancastir@paulding.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:34:28 -0700, hug
><contact_info@sig_line.clickit> posted something that included:
>
>
>
>
>Not millions, but *BILLIONS* of other web pages display OK in that
>browser.
>
>If I didn't want people to see my pages, I'd keep them on my hard
>drive. A lot less hassle, and a lot less expense. But I *do* want to
>have my pages visible to users.
>
>That means either I need to write pages that the existing users can
>view, or else I can send out guys with shotguns, to force users to
>switch to the browser *I* want them to use.
>
>I'd like to claim the moral high ground, but in fact, it's a matter of
>economics. I can't afford to hire all those guys with shotguns.
>
>Nor can I afford to have people not visit my websites. If it costs $80
>a year to create and host a page for the two years it will remain
>current, and I get $100 revenue if everyone can use it, having 95%
>compatibility instead of 100% compatibility means I make $20 instead
>of $15. I *really* don't want to take a 25% cut in pay because I've
>excluded 5% of all users.
>
>And it's actually much more significant than that. Someone who can't
>see your site won't recommend it to others. It'll cost you traffic. On
>the other hand, if you are compatible and your 9 competitors are not,
>you not only get the $20 that's your share, but you'll get a big part
>of the $5 part of the traffic that your competitors are discarding.
>
>Sorta makes HTML/3.2 look a *whole* lot more appealing....
I don't disagree with what you're saying Paul. However, the fact
remains that if ANY page on ANY website causes a browser to CRASH the
browser is BROKEN. Do I recommend doing whatever it is that crashes
the browser? Of course not.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the . cafeteria
>hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
>
>
>Lynx displays:
>
> Renaissance Productions, Inc. -- Company
>Home
>
> [ren_logo.gif]
>
> Home About Contact News Zuzu's Garden Random's Pipes Hug-Gorilla
> Software
>
> current page: home
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Welcome to the Renaissance Productions Inc web-site. Use the
> selections at the top of each page for navigation. Please visit all of
> our stores!
>
> [col_woodlandfairycollectibles.jpg] Zuzu's Garden - Handcrafted
> garden-inspired home accents that bring the beauty of nature indoors.
> [pipe0082.gif] Random's Pipes - High quality hand made briar tobacco
> pipes, each one made to the carver's highest standards.
> [huggy_big.gif] Hug-Gorilla Software - If you need a code-monkey, but
> can't afford a 600-pound gorilla, come visit huggy.
>
> All materials Copyright (c) 2002-2005, Renaissance Productions Inc
> (DE), except as otherwise noted; All Rights Reserved., Privacy Policy
>
> top of page (This page last updated 09:16:10 Dec 08, 2005)
>
> Page generation time: 4.136 sec, i/o time: 0.028 sec, store powered by
> Hug-Gorilla Software
William, does Lynx highlight the links or does it not see the links at
all?
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-25, 10:34 pm |
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>
> Sorry, I agree with Nije. While it doesn't "fall apart with every
> click", every page does have a different layout. It is not consistent.
Yeah. But it is fairly consistent.
The navigation is on the left of every page and is easy to get too.
>
> However, being blind, you wouldn't recognize the differences in font
> sizes on different pages. But it doesn't look nice.
I have tried to use the same font sizes on every page. There may be
some difference where I have used a stronger font. That is said to be
good for Screen Readers.
>
>
> Yep. Using Firefox or IE.
>
>
> Nope, don't worry. All it cost you is business.
Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio I am
still working on that particular site but you can get the general idea.
That one does validate.
>
>
> No, they don't all validate. Check again.
Yeah. Well. Most of the main pages do.
>
>
> The bottom line is - you put your site up as an example of "good design
> using tables". But I agree with Nije here, also. It's one of the best
> examples of why NOT to use tables I've ever seen.
Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio
It's not finished yet but may give you a bit better example.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
|
| Suddenly, without warning, Chaddy2222 exclaimed (26-Dec-05 2:32 AM):
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah. But it is fairly consistent.
> The navigation is on the left of every page and is easy to get too.
>
>
>
> I have tried to use the same font sizes on every page. There may be
> some difference where I have used a stronger font. That is said to be
> good for Screen Readers.
>
>
>
> Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio I am
> still working on that particular site but you can get the general idea.
> That one does validate.
>
>
>
> Yeah. Well. Most of the main pages do.
>
>
>
> Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio
> It's not finished yet but may give you a bit better example.
It looks better, but the page with the tables and 'buttons' to the
various stations looks weird.
First table: cell with ACT, cell with NT, cell with SA stacked over Vic.
The second table has an empty cell, which creates a "wide spot" on the
table to the left. Empty cells are still visible.
Third table is fine.
Essentially, all three little tables look different from each other.
Is there a reason you did it this way? Would a table with 4 columns and
2 rows (or vice versa) be less accessible for this application?
jmc
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-26, 6:17 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the . cafeteria
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
> ...
> does Lynx highlight the links or does it not see the links at
> all?
Lynx highlights normal links made with a[nchor] elements
screen-cap: http://williamtasso.com/usenet/renaissance.png
meant to add before: your server seems to take an age acknowledging the
connection.
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-26, 6:18 am |
|
jmc wrote:
> Suddenly, without warning, Chaddy2222 exclaimed (26-Dec-05 2:32 AM):
>
> It looks better, but the page with the tables and 'buttons' to the
> various stations looks weird.
>
> First table: cell with ACT, cell with NT, cell with SA stacked over Vic.
> The second table has an empty cell, which creates a "wide spot" on the
> table to the left. Empty cells are still visible.
> Third table is fine.
> Essentially, all three little tables look different from each other.
>
> Is there a reason you did it this way? Would a table with 4 columns and
> 2 rows (or vice versa) be less accessible for this application?
Hmmmmmm. Probably not.
I set it up that way to avoid having to scrole sideways. But I haven't
really worked what I'll do with that site yet as far as the finished
product goes.
So I might take a look at setting the table up differently.
Thanks for the feedback though. Much appreeciated.
Oh and on the subject of my main site. I have been flat out writing new
content for it over the passed week or so and had not even checked
those new pages till today. Thank goodness I've only got a few errors
to fix up.
I am getting on to that at the moment.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
|
| "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>I have tried to use the same font sizes on every page. There may be
>some difference where I have used a stronger font. That is said to be
>good for Screen Readers.
Remember that fonts tend not to pass table boundaries intact, I'm not
saying this is what's wrong but it's something to keep in mind.
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the . cafeteria
>hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> said:
>
>
>Lynx highlights normal links made with a[nchor] elements
>
>screen-cap: http://williamtasso.com/usenet/renaissance.png
>
>meant to add before:
Thanks William. I should probably put alt/title tags on those pics,
but it's a case of the site having evolved over a 3-year period and
priorities taking priority.
> your server seems to take an age acknowledging the
>connection.
I'm on one of their older more heavily loaded servers and performance
has been quite variable lately... they've been trying to get me to
move to one of their newer less expensive better performing servers
but I just haven't had time to deal with it yet. Lately it's gotten to
the point where I don't have time to write down the things that need
done let alone do them, and sometimes I just sit and stare off into
space for quite some time trying to figure out what to do next. I
hate it when things get that way, and things always seem to get that
way... it's gonna get better Real Soon Now, yeah, that's it. <g>
--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_sof...?action=contact
| |
| Jerry Stuckle 2005-12-26, 6:52 pm |
| Chaddy2222 wrote:
>
> Yeah. But it is fairly consistent.
> The navigation is on the left of every page and is easy to get too.
>
"Fairly consistent" doesn't make it visually. It makes the site look
very amateurish.
>
>
> I have tried to use the same font sizes on every page. There may be
> some difference where I have used a stronger font. That is said to be
> good for Screen Readers.
>
If all of your customers are blind, that would be fine. But to the rest
of us it doesn't look good.
>
> Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio I am
> still working on that particular site but you can get the general idea.
> That one does validate.
>
Let's see... different top margins on each page causes everything to
jump around when you change pages. No real content to catch my eye or
keep me on your site. Not enough content to give it a decent SE rating.
And your "stations" page is VERY BORING.
>
> Yeah. Well. Most of the main pages do.
>
"Most of the main pages" doesn't make it.
>
>
> Take a look at: http://www.cjb.cc/members/freewebdesign/aus.radio
> It's not finished yet but may give you a bit better example.
See my notes above.
Again, I realize you are blind, and are doing your best to create sites
for blind readers. But you also need to remember that most of the web
users are not visually impaired. You need to attract their attention,also.
In a sense, you have the opposite problem of most of us. We need to
create a site which is visually pleasing and interesting, yet make it
usable to the visually impaired. That's not easy, but you have a much
harder job.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-26, 10:47 pm |
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>
> "Fairly consistent" doesn't make it visually. It makes the site look
> very amateurish.
>
>
> If all of your customers are blind, that would be fine. But to the rest
> of us it doesn't look good.
That's probably a fair enough staitment.
>
>
>
> Let's see... different top margins on each page causes everything to
> jump around when you change pages. No real content to catch my eye or
> keep me on your site. Not enough content to give it a decent SE rating.
>
> And your "stations" page is VERY BORING.
As I staited. I am still working on that page.
>
They should / do now.
I have been adding new content to the design tips section and so did
not get around too checking the code until yesterday.
[color=darkred]
>
> "Most of the main pages" doesn't make it.
I have since fixed it.
>
>
> See my notes above.
>
> Again, I realize you are blind, and are doing your best to create sites
> for blind readers. But you also need to remember that most of the web
> users are not visually impaired. You need to attract their attention,also.
>
> In a sense, you have the opposite problem of most of us. We need to
> create a site which is visually pleasing and interesting, yet make it
> usable to the visually impaired. That's not easy, but you have a much
> harder job.
Yep. Most certenly.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
>
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-27, 7:03 pm |
|
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: > In a sense, you have the opposite problem of most of us. We need to
: > create a site which is visually pleasing and interesting, yet make it
: > usable to the visually impaired. That's not easy, but you have a much
: > harder job.
: Yep. Most certenly.
: --
: Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
: >
:
I would warmly recommend switch to <div></div> instead <table> <tr> <td>.
It would most certainly make it much easier to you.
You would have all attributes in one file (if you choose external css) or on
one place inside you head content - much, much easier to control, than
searching for table structure. With changing just few lines in that file,
you could change the appearance of all your pages.
I have put a little effort (very little indeed) and uploaded one of your
pages made in css http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/more-info.html.
Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
Worse?
If you like it - save it to your disc, take its css file
http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/still.css and save in root (where your
html files are).
Use more-info.html as a template, copy content from other pages into div
with ID main, clear all attributes and you'll be fine.
Still, if you want to stick to tables - choose one page, use it as a
template, and then save it under your other pages names, as many times as
you need. Than copy the TD content from the old pages into these new pages,
just the content.
Hope this helps.
Regards
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-28, 3:44 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the Aioe.org NNTP Server cafeteria
Nije Nego <nijenego@net.hr***> said:
>
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
>
> : > In a sense, you have the opposite problem of most of us. We need to
> : > create a site which is visually pleasing and interesting, yet make it
> : > usable to the visually impaired. That's not easy, but you have a
> much
> : > harder job.
> : Yep. Most certenly.
> ...
> I have put a little effort (very little indeed) and uploaded one of your
> pages made in css http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/more-info.html.
Much easier on the eye, except for ..
> Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
> Worse?
the links are hard to read against a grey background
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-28, 3:44 am |
|
Nije Nego wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
>
> : > In a sense, you have the opposite problem of most of us. We need to
> : > create a site which is visually pleasing and interesting, yet make it
> : > usable to the visually impaired. That's not easy, but you have a much
> : > harder job.
> : Yep. Most certenly.
> : --
> : Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
> : >
> :
>
> I would warmly recommend switch to <div></div> instead <table> <tr> <td>.
>
> It would most certainly make it much easier to you.
>
> You would have all attributes in one file (if you choose external css) or on
> one place inside you head content - much, much easier to control, than
> searching for table structure. With changing just few lines in that file,
> you could change the appearance of all your pages.
>
>
>
> I have put a little effort (very little indeed) and uploaded one of your
> pages made in css http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/more-info.html.
>
>
>
> Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
> Worse?
>
Well actually. The readability is quite good. But for some reason my
Screen Reader reads the links, in the list as one big thing. One after
the other with no break in the middle. But I can solve that by stopping
the Reader and going throough the links manually.
Thanks for the effort though.
But I did noticed when your version of the page is re-sized in Firefox,
useing the contol and the = key too gether. The background does not
cover all of the body text. I presume you just set it up that way.. But
I am not sure. One thing I do like about tables, is that they re-size
good, for the most part and do work in most if not all major browsers.
>
>
> If you like it - save it to your disc, take its css file
> http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/still.css and save in root (where your
> html files are).
>
> Use more-info.html as a template, copy content from other pages into div
> with ID main, clear all attributes and you'll be fine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Still, if you want to stick to tables - choose one page, use it as a
> template, and then save it under your other pages names, as many times as
> you need. Than copy the TD content from the old pages into these new pages,
> just the content.
Thanks for the tip. I actually did do that for one of my other sites.
It seamed to work quite well. I'll look in too it.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-28, 3:44 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
> Nije Nego wrote:
> Well actually. The readability is quite good. But for some reason my
> Screen Reader reads the links, in the list as one big thing. One after
> the other with no break in the middle. But I can solve that by stopping
> the Reader and going throough the links manually.
I'd guess that's a fault in the reader software. Maybe a setting in its
config? or report it as a bug. Lists are clearly meant to be 'read' as
discrete items.
> Thanks for the effort though.
> But I did noticed when your version of the page is re-sized in Firefox,
> useing the contol and the = key too gether. The background does not
> cover all of the body text. I presume you just set it up that way.. But
> I am not sure. One thing I do like about tables, is that they re-size
> good, for the most part and do work in most if not all major browsers.
The designer has used a fixed size for the major doocument elements.
Easily fixed by using a resizeable unit (em perhaps) instead.
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-28, 3:44 am |
|
William Tasso wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
> Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
>
> I'd guess that's a fault in the reader software. Maybe a setting in its
> config? or report it as a bug. Lists are clearly meant to be 'read' as
> discrete items.
Well. They usually are:
I think the links just sound strange marked up as a list.
>
>
>
> The designer has used a fixed size for the major doocument elements.
> Easily fixed by using a resizeable unit (em perhaps) instead.
Hmmmm. Would % not be better then (em).
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| William Tasso 2005-12-28, 3:44 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
> William Tasso wrote:
>
>Well. They usually are:
> I think the links just sound strange marked up as a list.
My research indicates you are in a small minority - however if you stumble
across some punctuation or markup that appeals to your sensibilities then
please do pass it on :)
>Hmmmm. Would % not be better then (em).
depends on the content of the area in question.
I use 'em' units for nav bars to suggest I want the bar to contain the
link text - usualy around 10em does it - and let the main content fill the
remainder (unspecified).
There may be perfectly valid reasons for using '%' units - alistapart use
those IIRC
--
William Tasso
Save the drama
for your Mama.
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-28, 6:32 am |
|
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135742777.626906.268020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: Nije Nego wrote:
:
: > "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: > :
:: > Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
: > Worse?
: >
: Well actually. The readability is quite good. But for some reason my
: Screen Reader reads the links, in the list as one big thing. One after
: the other with no break in the middle. But I can solve that by stopping
: the Reader and going throough the links manually.
: Thanks for the effort though.
What usually makes your screen reader stop? Break, Horisontal Rule, end of p
tag? It should stop at the end of list item tag as well.
Is it just a matter of your's reader configuration or it is common to all
readers.
: But I did noticed when your version of the page is re-sized in Firefox,
: useing the contol and the = key too gether. The background does not
: cover all of the body text. I presume you just set it up that way.. But
: I am not sure. One thing I do like about tables, is that they re-size
: good, for the most part and do work in most if not all major browsers.
:
It didn't even occurred to me that blind people would use zoom. This is my
mistake, just did it in a hurry, very easy fixed (already is!).
In general I wanted css code to be clean and understandable - so that iz
could be compared to your table mark up.
Now you have few more lines in css - definition of a tag, which is white on
your site. I also added list item definition as a block, just to check will
it stop your reader.
Regards.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-28, 6:38 pm |
|
Nije Nego wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1135742777.626906.268020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : Nije Nego wrote:
> :
> : > "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> : > news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : > :
> :: > Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
> : > Worse?
> : >
> : Well actually. The readability is quite good. But for some reason my
> : Screen Reader reads the links, in the list as one big thing. One after
> : the other with no break in the middle. But I can solve that by stopping
> : the Reader and going throough the links manually.
> : Thanks for the effort though.
>
> What usually makes your screen reader stop? Break, Horisontal Rule, end of p
> tag? It should stop at the end of list item tag as well.
Yes. It usually does.
Also by placing the content of the links list in a block. That fixed
the problem.
> Is it just a matter of your's reader configuration or it is common to all
> readers.
Well. It probly is just a configeration thing. But it works now anyway.
>
> : But I did noticed when your version of the page is re-sized in Firefox,
> : useing the contol and the = key too gether. The background does not
> : cover all of the body text. I presume you just set it up that way.. But
> : I am not sure. One thing I do like about tables, is that they re-size
> : good, for the most part and do work in most if not all major browsers.
> :
> It didn't even occurred to me that blind people would use zoom. This is my
> mistake, just did it in a hurry, very easy fixed (already is!).
That's kool buddy. No dramas.
Oh. I think you will find that a lot of people, (those with loe
vision), such as myselft to some extent) use larger text sizes while
browsing the web.
I think if you did some searching in this NG you would even find some
cases of that happening.
> In general I wanted css code to be clean and understandable - so that it
> could be compared to your table mark up.
That's fine.
>
> Now you have few more lines in css - definition of a tag, which is white on
> your site. I also added list item definition as a block, just to check will
> it stop your reader.
See above on that note.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-28, 6:38 pm |
|
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135771659.257397.161090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: > "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
: > Worse?
: >
: Well actually. The readability is quite good.
Could you please be so kind to elaborate this a little bit further, and
maybe compare the readability with you text reader with regards to two
models of your html page.
you already know this one (table layout):
http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/more-info.html
and
this one (css layout) http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/more-info.html
It would really be a valuable input if you could put some effort and comapre
these two.
Regards.
| |
| Chaddy2222 2005-12-29, 6:19 am |
|
Nije Nego wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1135771659.257397.161090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> :
> : > "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> : > news:1135650796.551168.272310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : >
> : > Please comment - is it easier to read for you than your own page? Same?
> : > Worse?
> : >
> : Well actually. The readability is quite good.
>
> Could
you please be so kind to elaborate this a little bit further, and
> maybe compare the readability with you text reader with regards to two
> models of your html page.
>
> you already know this one (table layout):
> http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/more-info.html
>
> and
>
> this one (css layout) http://www.mediamarketing.ba/temp/more-info.html
>
> It would really be a valuable input if you could put some effort and comapre
> these two.
Hmmm. Interesting:
Ok then. Here goes.
Well. When I load my current version of the page, my Screen Reader
reads the links first. It leaves a pause after reading each link.
It then goes on to read the headings followed by the rest of the text
on the page.
With your version of the page, the Screen Reader, announces that there
is a list, reads the links, with a pause after each. Then it goes on
and announces the end of the list.
Then it reads the content with the headings. Not much differently too
how it read my version of the site.
That's about all I can think of with regards too the Screen Reader.
One thing I did notice though, your page is slightly smaller. it's 3KB
of html where mine is 4KB.
Which I don't think makes a lot of difference, but, then again. With a
larger site with say, 50 pages, I think it would make quite a
difference, as the browser would not have to render the table markup.
But, I may take a closer look at the css markup as it will probly mean
I don't need to update the content of every page if I want to make
changes. Which I think would be the main advantage.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
| Nije Nego 2005-12-29, 6:48 pm |
|
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135826795.069036.51370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: But, I may take a closer look at the css markup as it will probly mean
: I don't need to update the content of every page if I want to make
: changes. Which I think would be the main advantage.
: --
: Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
:
You will most certainly save yourself a lot of effort, if you compare your
html at your domain and your html (cleaned) at my domain, you'll notice the
difference. Not only 30% lesser file but much, much cleaner html.
All you have to do is link css file to your pages and make the neccesary
changes in css file (font, markup, colour, backround, positioning and ...
many more, if and when needed).
CSS can also be arranged to read the content first, or whatever you wish to,
but that'll require a little bit more effort (just alittle bit).
I would warmly recomend to proceed as you planned ("take a closer look at
the css markup"), and after you do, you would be happy that you did.
There are plenty of css resources out there and you could play with it,
really.
Regards.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|