...

View Full Version : three simple questions......



althera
10-09-2004, 04:13 AM
i have three relatively simple questions --

i want to put thumbnails on my page inside the main container-- (2 column layout)

i have used some code from REAL WORLD (www.realworldstyle.com/thumb_float.html)


its close but not quite there--
also the thumb sizes will be different - they are stamps- like postage stamps so some
horizontal and some square -- just need a tweak here


also i have a gray line running thru the site--- not sure where it is coming from but i think it might be from the link container on the sidebar--

and speaking of side bar list container-- i would like it to be centered instead of up against right side-- i played with margins and padding - i am still wading thru that concept-- but coudlnt get anything to work---

so i SURE WOULD appreciate help on these three items-- many thanks in advance--

here is link to page
THE PAGE (www.creativedistortion.com/artistamp.html)


CSS CODE (http://www.creativedistortion.com/artistamp.css)

Candied_RAM
10-09-2004, 01:48 PM
I disagree with the W3 standards (violently, vehemently, foaming at the mouth rabidly) and here I finally have proof that they don't really do their job. This validated (I assume?) but you've still got a mess on your hands.

First recomendation: Ditch the divs, go with tables. You'll have a much easier time controling the elements gone wildly awry upon your page. With any luck you can align your elements more correctly and clean things up quite a lot, including getting rid of the gray line in question.

I know W3 is very fond of CSS, and how useful it indeed is, but in my humble opinion and seven years of experience there is a time for HTML... and this is it.

Next, I didn't look at your CSS but if you're having problems with image dimensions, open your file with PSP8, hit Shift + I, check the dimensions of the image, and add width and height variables to your image tags. You don't always need to define size with inline CSS or your style sheet. I would chuck any image demensions you've defined in your style sheet, by the way.

Next, and I know you didn't address this, it's just my observation, why not put the e-resize cursor in your style sheet? If you don't want it on every link, you could always make a class. Just thought it might be easier.

Lastly... I wouldn't align my page with CSS if I were you. A center tag on either end of your tables (or psuedo-tabley CSS if you choose not to take my sage advice above) will suffoncify your sufficiency, or you can just add a div tag around your content and align it to the center.

I shall hope that you have concentrated enough on HTML, and not put 90% of your learning energies on CSS, for that to have made sense to you. I also hope your take my advice... I really think you'll find life easier if you do.

althera
10-09-2004, 01:59 PM
well THANKS a bunch for ur input--
i had really considered tables--
as i agree with u in this instance they might just be alot easier....
and serve my purpose better

the html has not validated-- so am working on that too...i
i am sure the problem is one little thing i have overlooked--
its just finding it -- ya know :)

i have another web page that is all html--
and i have to admit it is much easier than css---

i have spent hours and hours attempting to learn css--
and they have been long and frustating believe me

again thanks so much for your input-- i am off to do tables now--

gohankid77
10-09-2004, 04:24 PM
CSS is becoming/has become a necessity in Web authoring. It presents easier and more flexible ways to position and style elements. A good example is border control. In HTML, it is restricted to images and tables only whereas in CSS it isn't restricted at all.

CSS isn't hard to learn actually (just debug ;)). It's like you are learning a new programming language and when you miss something in writing a program, the program screws up. The same is true for CSS. You just need to take the time to relax and continue working on it. You'll eventually get it working. Besides, if you don't get it working, you can just recode the page, right? It's just a matter of minimizing the work you need to do!

althera
10-09-2004, 04:35 PM
hi kid
i totally understand what u are talking about -
and i have come a long way since i first began learning css--

obviously i am still floundering some and although i hate to rely
on others to figure things out for me-- right now i am stuck

tables seem easier for the pictures---unless you would be
willing to give me some idea of how to code css for the
layout---

i have looked around net- i always look for answers on my own
before posting on message boards--
but i havent found the solution to the problem--

hence my post here

appreicate your ideas and suggestions--
i know learning a new "language" is difficult-- and
frustrating-- but i plan to stick with this until
i pretty much have it down :thumbsup:

Candied_RAM
10-10-2004, 04:18 AM
Althera: Glad to hear it, although I'm surprised. CSS has always struck me as uncomplicated... much more intuitive than many languages and distinctly related to HTML.

Anyway, my recomendation is decidedly not to go with 100% HTML. What I always do is define my styles with CSS, and create my layout with HTML, except for elements that can be more easily or effectively controlled with CSS, in which case classes and inline style come into play, creating a mixture of the two.

I've made entire pages defined almost entirely in CSS, and it can and does work. HTML, though, in the end, is easier, more compact (imagine that!), and simply more effective.

So in the end it's best to use the codes for what they were originally designed for. HTML is the work horse, and CSS - as the name suggests - provides your style and dynamics.

For instance, you wouldn't want to define all your fonts in HTML... talk about increasing your file size! So do that with CSS. Anything like that.

And in that simple capacity, of using it to do what it was meant to do, I think you'll find CSS to be quite friendly.

Candied_RAM
10-10-2004, 04:38 AM
Gohan: Yes, CSS has become more practical than HTML alone (although still not entirely indespensable, considering it's primary function) but to attempt to create an entire webpage using CSS virtually exclusively is to unnessasarily frustrate oneself. Even if you're well-versed in CSS.

And, as I said before... I've done it. I have created whole webpages with nothing but CSS and style, head, body, bold, italic and underline tags. Successfully. But grudgingly and drudgingly. Under most circumstances, it would have been unessasary (you may have guessed it was nessasary in this situation) and impractical.

If you look at a page with a lengthy style sheet (containing most of the layout) and then look at a visually virtually identical page laid out with HTML (both clean and well-made)... the HTML will be cleaner and more effective where layout is concerned, and the CSS will be cleaner and more consise where style is concerned.

Therefore... as much as it makes sense to use CSS with HTML, it makes sense to use HTML with CSS. And, I dunno if you looked at Althera's page, but there was a distinct attempt to all but eliminate the HTML. Ouch.

HTML is not obsolete, and won't be for a long time. So why treat it as though it is? Especially when some older browsers don't even support some/all of CSS's features (and even most new ones don't support them all).

tsguitar2004
10-10-2004, 06:22 AM
Actually, I rather like the code for his page. It's clean, simple, and easy to work with. Why use tables and mess all that up?

Furthermore, CSS has made life *much* easier in terms of cross-browser and cross-platform compatability. For a site like Althera's, the CSS should be a snap.

Why in the world would you use CENTER tags when it's so easy to center a page with CSS? Go to http://www.bluerobot.com and look at the centering examples. The CENTER tag is old and not necessary anymore. CSS can do it quickly and easily.

The modern browsers that don't support all of CSS's capabilities miss a few things that can be worked around.

It's daft to ignore CSS for what it's capable of doing. Underutilized CSS is crazy. It should be used for more than font-family and color. It's daft to call on HTML to do more than it should be doing. A table version of a page is huge and hard to edit. HTML is markup. CSS is style. Content vs. presentation. When the two can be separated to the benefit of the design and bandwidth, that's a good thing.

Honestly, I don't see that many problems with the layout (IE6 and NS7.1 on PC). The content is centered, just like you wanted. The padding and margins look nice. I don't understand why the two columns aren't floating right next to each other (probably a "clear: both;" problem), but you may have more content you want to add.

And why such a rabid disagreement with the standards? The site does not validate, nor is it a total mess. "elements gone wildly awry"? Where!? Once the site validates, it will be much closer to the design expectation. Tables are clunky, hard to look through later, and large. Tables used for layout is a bad choice. That's not what they were meant for and it's created a lot of sloppy code out there. I've certainly created my fair share of that. I don't see how moving back to tables just because it is easier should be advocated. Keeping this layout in CSS should be easy and I'm sure there are only a few small adjustments to make this work as desired. But I don't see any major problems so I have no suggestions.

There are my random thoughts on this... I just got back from a nice dinner, nice company, nice wine. G'night.
-ts

Candied_RAM
10-10-2004, 10:06 AM
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. At least you were polite about it, I can't ask for more than that.

I agree that tables can be clunky. But not always, and not in this case. Judging from the code on this page, I think things would be shortened and simplified a great deal with a table. There are now div tags within div tags within div tags. It's enough to make my head spin, personally. One table, a few cells, and a center tag could fix it all in a snap. Probably with less code.

And you're right about cross-browser elements being enhanced by CSS. In some cases. But very old browsers don't support it at all. That's no doubt a very small percentage of visitors, but it's still a good reason to lay out with HTML and add style with CSS. So you're visitors with dinosaur browsers can at least navigate the website, even if they don't see the fancier elements.

And a lot of browsers don't support a lot of CSS... especially those fascinating things that only work with IE 5.5 or 6+. Which of course can't be done with HTML, anyway. I'm merely pointing out that CSS does still have some distinct limitations as far as cross-browser compatibility goes.

Next, I disagree regarding what tables were and were not designed for. A table is all about organization, no? So why not use one to organize your page? It's a logical step.

I'm not villifying CSS. I've said over and over again that it's a great thing. But CSS being good doesn't make HTML bad. Tables are not the root of all evil. And I see no reason for Althera to force herself to use CSS when she wants to use HTML.

In short... I see no reason why you should try to replace HTML with CSS when they work so beautifully together. Really, a page that carefully balances and truly uses both HTML and CSS can be a thing of real beauty, when viewing both the page and the source.

As far as W3... don't ask. Suffice it to say this: I think W3 got many things right. There's an emphasis on some really good things. However I think they got a number of things wrong. I'm not even going to begin going into it here. I just very much disagree with some of their standards.

bradyj
10-10-2004, 10:39 AM
I agree that tables can be clunky. But not always, and not in this case. Judging from the code on this page, I think things would be shortened and simplified a great deal with a table. There are now div tags within div tags within div tags. It's enough to make my head spin, personally. One table, a few cells, and a center tag could fix it all in a snap. Probably with less code.

Not in a handheld device, or in a screen reader, or for any other handicap accessible device for that matter, would it be less clunky. Much less, drop the divs and improve your semantic code, and you can make it drastically smaller in size othr than them both. Charts, however, can be the exception -- and of course if it's data, then a table is optimal. A center tag is just useless, and a good way to add more time for you to update later on ever page or template with that when I can do it in one.


And you're right about cross-browser elements being enhanced by CSS. In some cases. But very old browsers don't support it at all. That's no doubt a very small percentage of visitors, but it's still a good reason to lay out with HTML and add style with CSS. So you're visitors with dinosaur browsers can at least navigate the website, even if they don't see the fancier elements.

Who's still building for older browsers? I don't build PDF files for older customers who have acrobat 3, they can download the new one just fine, even on old computers:)... just playing devil's advocate here...


Next, I disagree regarding what tables were and were not designed for. A table is all about organization, no? So why not use one to organize your page? It's a logical step.

It was used to organize content, not organize the visual display of someone's graphic design -- that's not what it was designed for at all with the original intent, and the very reason why it's taken aggressive actions to change the way we've thought about building and designing sites.


I'm not villifying CSS. I've said over and over again that it's a great thing. But CSS being good doesn't make HTML bad. Tables are not the root of all evil. And I see no reason for Althera to force herself to use CSS when she wants to use HTML.

I agree that HTML (or XHTML) isn't bad, and that no one should be forced to use CSS if she wants to use tables... but it is BETTER to use CSS than tables not only for accessibility, and for reaching a larger marketing audience by other devices, but because it improves SEO, lowers bandwidth (if done right)... and, I think the best part, is that I can make my page look visually good, without affecting my content, or update my content without affecting the visual look -- if done right, it's separated, clean, quicker to adjust and easier to work with... and that may be depending on your experience, but all this knowledge is free to ask for and to find on here and the web, so there's no real excuse why not then.


As far as W3... don't ask. Suffice it to say this: I think W3 got many things right. There's an emphasis on some really good things. However I think they got a number of things wrong. I'm not even going to begin going into it here. I just very much disagree with some of their standards.

Who's would you agree with then? Microsoft's, netscape's, or your own? I think they've gotten some things wrong too, and I question some in the XHTML 2.0, but I'm not as talented to do anything better. However, their standards alone have made my job significantly faster, and far more skilled.

Don't ditch the divs and go with tables -- lose the tables idea. Just because it'll be easier for you now, doesn't mean it'll be easier for you in a few months from now. Doesn't mean it'll be accessible, doesn't mean it'll be easier. This way you don't have to keep adjusting your page -- page by page. You can do a complete redesign without losing the content. If you want to lose the divitis, that can easily be done -- Your header and some of your menus could just be styled with the h1 and the ul as needed -- multiple divs aren't always helpful, and this will be addressed more so in XHTML 2.

HTML will not be obsolete, you're absolutely right -- but mixing style and content is. Short of one bug here or there, I have little problems with CSS anymore with the exception of IE 5, and I could care for it -- so I don't see where your issues are?

I do see bloated HTML and CSS still as a problem with those who are still learning, or don't care -- but usually when they begin to understand semantic markup, and how CSS really works, it's drastically easier (with the exception of minimum 100% height) to build advanced sites quicker and faster.

Back on topic -- did all your issues get fixed, althera? I'm not seeing a gray line, or a centering issue on my Mac at home?



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum