www.seowebsitepromotion.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Michael Donnermeyer
Sent: 12 May 2004 02:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Forms, labels headers
using a CSS for the sake of it approach creating multi column
layouts and faffing about
I don't
That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the
real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it
contains no relevant data.
Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that
any person who might be potentially interested in the
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Rimantas Liubertas
Sent: 12 May 2004 10:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Forms, labels headers
That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the
real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it
contains
Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can
these be easily achieved using current CSS?
Yes.
Because I need to look to the future.
Well, then we see different future. I see increasing usage of handheld browsers for
which one column is the best bet so far.
You are
] Forms, labels headers
Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can
these be easily achieved using current CSS?
Yes.
Because I need to look to the future.
Well, then we see different future. I see increasing usage of handheld
browsers for which one column is the best
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:33 +1000, Jake Badger wrote:
It's not as though if we hadn't had tables for layout we would
have sat around doing nothing. If it hadn't been for table layout
CSS would have been developed sooner and taken up a lot faster.
Assuming that the web would have been popular
in as great a range or browsers (including Lynx) as possible.
Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
www.seowebsitepromotion.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Bert Doorn
Sent: 09 May 2004 16:23
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Forms, labels
hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single
wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS for the sake
of it approach creating multi column layouts and faffing about s=as
Mike says
standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem
1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout for
handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The content
will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a new
stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff or a
hyperlink for
using a CSS for the sake of it approach creating multi column
layouts and faffing about
I don't look at it that way...it's quite easy to get everything to work
right without tables if you're willing to put the effort in. Since mid
03 I have stopped using tables for anything other than what
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 21:19 -0400, Michael Donnermeyer wrote:
The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using
tables for layout...
That's a bold statement. Without designers using tables for layout, the
web would have been a boring place visually for a very long time. We're
It's not as though if we hadn't had tables for layout we would have sat around
doing nothing. If it hadn't been for table layout CSS would have been developed
sooner and taken up a lot faster.
Quoting Andrew Sione Taumoefolau [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 21:19 -0400, Michael
El dom, 09-05-2004 a las 05:56, Bert Doorn escribió:
Really, what is the practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference
between the two methods?
Hi Bert,
are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-)
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
--
Manuel González Noriega
Hi,
are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-)
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
I know using multiple tables, nested n levels deep is stupid and results
in lots of excess code. So is using font tags etc. That's why I don't
design that way. But sometimes it is (to me)
I know using multiple tables, nested n levels deep is
stupid and results
in lots of excess code. So is using font tags etc. That's
why I don't
design that way. But sometimes it is (to me) unavoidable to
use a table,
because the alternatives just don't work consistently enough across
I seriously just have to add, those toons are priceless :) excellent
resource Manuel!
-Ryan
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
El dom, 09-05-2004 a las 05:56, Bert Doorn escribió:
Really, what is the practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference
between the two methods?
Hi Bert,
Hi Bert,
With Netscape 7.01 your select boxes are not working - they get
selected, but the options don't drop down and cannot be chosen. Is
this a fieldset issue? Visited Russ's example too, but he's not using
select boxes.
Bert Doorn wrote:
Russ (maxdesign) suggested I
used fieldset (and
G'day
With Netscape 7.01 your select boxes are not working - they get
selected, but the options don't drop down and cannot be chosen.
Hmmm. Interesting. The request a quote page has valid XHTML1.1 and the
CSS is valid too. It works fine for me in Mozilla 1.6 and Firefox (on Win2K
and
I might revert to tables for layout - no headaches with those.
quote
Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can do for your
learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take time, and b) you will
be frustrated along the way.
/quote
Thanks Russ
quote
Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can
do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take
time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. /quote
Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code that makes
sense. But
Hi Bert,
Beautiful layout btw.
Bert Doorn wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting. The request a quote page has valid XHTML1.1 and the
CSS is valid too. It works fine for me in Mozilla 1.6 and Firefox (on Win2K
and WinXP respectively). Is this ALL select elements, or just one or two of
them?
It is all of
quote
Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can
do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take
time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. /quote
Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code
that makes
sense. But if
Bert
Works for me in Mozilla 1.7 and Firefox. My OS is Fedora.
As for tables, use them for tabular data, not presentation. cells can't
exist outside their tables - boxes can be placed anywhere on the page
allowing you to completely separate the presentation logic from the content.
Try picking
Selects work fine with Netscape 7.1 on Win XP.
Rob
Robert Reed
SiteStart
www.sitestart.co.uk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Tenley Shewmake
Sent: 08 May 2004 12:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Forms, labels headers
Hi Bert
The voices are telling me that Bert Doorn said on 5/8/2004 9:28 AM:
Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code that makes
sense. But if it takes me 5 hours of experimenting to get a CSS Only
layout working in multiple browsers, I can't help but think why bother.
Because the
G'day
Especially when that same layout takes 5 minutes using tables and most
visitors can't tell the difference.
You have a defined, repeatable process (even if it's only fire up
$STEAM_AGE_WEB_PAGE_EDITOR) for making tag-soup web pages.
What I was talking about is not tag-soup
26 matches
Mail list logo
