CSS and browsers continued....

puggybwJanuary 7, 2004

LazyGardens has some very valid points and it's simply a matter of how you write the HTML code. Different browsers and versions will display pages differently, but this is not what LazyGardens is referring to.

For example, the table on your index page is set to 792. This isn't even defining the unit of measurement, which I assume is pixels, so it should more aptly be 792px. This table size is just fine if you are going to assume ALL people are using 800x600 screen size, BUT..........anyone NOT using 800x600 will see your page totally different. Now instead of 792px, if you simply changed the table size to 100%, the size would ALWAYS be full screen for everyone no matter what their individual settings on their computer are.

When I look at your page, I see 3 columns, but when I look at your code, I see something like 10 columns, with everyone of them defined by a different absolute size. I'm not sure of the reason for this other than just complicating matters.

I would guess when you were setting this up, that your lines were breaking where you didn't want them, so you added "nowrap" to the <td>. Now you have a column with an absolute size, that is not allowed to line break - this is going to cause problems. If your table sizes were defined with % and you used only 3 columns, you would find that you probably didn't need to use "nowrap". "nowrap" is a deprecated tag as well.

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
puggybw

Here's a rough idea of your page minus about half of the coding that is totally un-necessary in the original.

If you compare the HTML between the 2, you'll see what I mean.
Sample

    Bookmark   January 8, 2004 at 7:57AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lazy_gardens

And with absolute pixel sizes, those with high-res monitors like the one I use at work see itty-bitty little tables because the browsre can't expand the number of pixels.

The problem with the WYSIWYG editors is that they give the illusion of control to the author, and the page will look great on the designer's system, they stuff things into the code behind the page that makes the page look bad on othre systems.

It's an eye-opener to go to a friend's house and see the page the way they do ... different system, different monitor, etc.

We used to keep an old system, a collectoin of diffreent browsers, and an AOL account, just to check out page design to make sure it wasn't breaking for the users.

    Bookmark   January 8, 2004 at 10:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ray_Scheel

We still keep an old Mac around for testing certain sites, as well as testing on representative versions of Netscape and IE on Linux, a Mac, and Win 95, ME, and 2000 Professional.

My wife and I still tangle about absolute table sizes in the sites we design. Its "easy" to do to get something looking good on a particular computer setup, but if you are designing a site where it doesn't look acceptable on yesterday's screen resolutions, it is probably designed so it won't look good on the screen sizes of tomorrow either (nevermind that 80% of web browser *are* using yesterday's screens).

    Bookmark   January 8, 2004 at 6:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lazy_gardens

Ray -
Keep chanting the web designer's mantra:

"Pixels are NOT ink, and CRTs aren't paper."

Expesting a page to look equally good for evreyone is like trhying to have something that looks eaually good in a 2-page spread and on a postcard. Ain't gonna happen.

    Bookmark   January 12, 2004 at 9:53AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ray_Scheel

I gave up on looking "equally good" years ago, my goal now is being readable and decent in any sane browser configuration, with it looking its best at 800x600 and larger. Formatting with CSS was the first big step in that direction, and relative sizes for everything else is the other. After that came judicious use of alt text and modularizing content and format elements as much as possible. The only things I have that are fixed sizes are images, since there is no getting around that simply.

    Bookmark   January 12, 2004 at 11:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lazy_gardens

"The only things I have that are fixed sizes are images, since there is no getting around that simply."

SVG for some things, but not all browsers can see them. For GIF, JPG an dPNg, you are stuck with one sive.

    Bookmark   January 23, 2004 at 9:01AM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Links from an undesirable site
I don't know any where else to post this. I need some...
samtom_gw
Cloud Computing
What is the Advantages of Cloud Computing ?
Tinaustin
Checking for the presence of adblocker.
Asteroids This post was edited by chuggerguy on Fri,...
Richard (chuggerguy)
GardenWeb needs your feedback!
Hi everyone, As you may have noticed, we've been sprucing...
gwannouncements
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™