table debate
Gerard P. Nagle
Which to use?? pixel or percentage values??? I've gotten two totally
different opinions both for the same reason: different resolutions
Tell me what you think at gna...@erols.com
Thanks!
Liam Quinn
>Which to use?? pixel or percentage values???
Neither.
>I've gotten two totally
>different opinions both for the same reason: different resolutions
Well-authored Web pages naturally adjust to any resolution without
having to specify table widths.
[Follow-ups narrowed.]
--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Lanny Chambers
In article <6g6qm5$7n8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Gerard P. Nagle"
<gna...@erols.com> wrote:
>Which to use?? pixel or percentage values??? I've gotten two totally
>different opinions both for the same reason: different resolutions
There is no simple answer. Where possible, it's better not to use any
dimensions at all for tables or cells, and simply allow the table to
"breath" on any size screen. But if your site design requires a fixed
table width to hold its formatting together, I'd use pixels *and* a design
that fits within a 640-pixel-wide screen. That means a maximum table width
of about 580 pixels, to allow for a vertical scrollbar, browser margins,
and window borders. Another case for limiting width is to keep blocks of
text from becoming so wide that visitors have trouble following the lines
with their eyes. In most cases, full-screen-width text is poor ergonomic
design, just as it is in print. Snaking columns are even worse, if the
entire text cannot be seen without scrolling on a small monitor. White
space is A Good Thing. :-)
Within such a fixed-width table, it does not matter how you specify cell
widths, by pixels or percentages--neither works very well, because
browsers can perform unpredictably, and display cells at unexpected
widths, unless the first row uses no colspan attributes and each cell
contains a graphic to "prop" it open to the desired width. This means
calculating the width of each cell (don't forget about cellpadding and
cellspacing) and dimensioning a single-pixel transparent GIF in those
cells not already containing visible graphics of sufficient width. If you
do this, you need no cell or table width dimensions at all. Remember that
browsers display text at different sizes across platforms and user
preference settings.
IMHO, it is almost never a good idea to fool with height dimensions in
tables or table cells. Use normal HTML text spacing: <BR> and <P> with
non-breaking spaces as necessary. One exception: sometimes it's useful to
vertically center a small table, regardless of user monitor size, by
surrounding it with a one-celled table with width and height of 100%. Some
browsers do not recognize table height attributes, so don't rely too
heavily on this trick. Or any trick, for that matter. :-)
--
---
Lanny Chambers (la...@derived.com) St. Louis, USA
Visit the Hummingbird Page: <http://www.derived.com/hummers/>
Gerard P. Nagle
Thanks everyone! I didn't know this was such a heated argument, dumbass (see
const. reply)
Gerard P. Nagle wrote in message <6g6qm5$7n8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Which to use?? pixel or percentage values??? I've gotten two totally
>different opinions both for the same reason: different resolutions
>
J. Kivi Shapiro
In article <lanny-05049...@iits01122.inlink.com>,
Lanny Chambers <la...@derived.com> wrote:
>But if your site design requires a fixed table width to hold its
>formatting together, I'd use pixels *and* a design that fits within a
>640-pixel-wide screen.
Although if your site design requires tables in the first place "to hold
its formatting together", you've got bigger problems. :-)
- Kivi, adding a caveat to an otherwise excellent response.
(followups trimmed)
--
ksha...@julian.uwo.ca or ki...@pobox.com (Kivi Shapiro)
HI! I'm a .signature body thetan. Copy me into yours and join the fun!
Vince Tifer
If you want to be sure it will look the same on all resolutions... use exact
width... If you want it to spread across the window... no matter how wide,
use percentages...
check out this table setup
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Plaza/4417/leaderboard.html
On big resolutions... you will just get more black border, giving it a feel
of an actual page... Now if I could just learn how to make transitions...
Lanny Chambers wrote in message ...
>In article <6g6qm5$7n8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>, "Gerard P. Nagle"
><gna...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Which to use?? pixel or percentage values??? I've gotten two totally
>>different opinions both for the same reason: different resolutions
>
>There is no simple answer. Where possible, it's better not to use any
>dimensions at all for tables or cells, and simply allow the table to
>"breath" on any size screen. But if your site design requires a fixed
>table width to hold its formatting together, I'd use pixels *and* a design
C.H.E.B.
In article <6gapbe$m...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Vince Tifer <vinc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you want to be sure it will look the same on all resolutions... use exact
>width... If you want it to spread across the window... no matter how wide,
>use percentages...
Thing is, if my browser window isn't big enough to occupy your stated
width, it won't look the same. Part of it will be lopped off. Not good.
Why is having it look the same so important anyway?
Bill, president of the "people who add "Bill, president of..." to the end of
messages" society.
Alan J. Flavell
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Vince Tifer wrote:
> If you want to be sure it will look the same on all resolutions... use exact
> width...
If you think it's that easy to be "sure" on the WWW, you haven't
had much experience yet.
Lanny Chambers
In article <6garll$5...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>, c...@coventry.ac.uk
(C.H.E.B.) wrote:
>Why is having it look the same so important anyway?
Pardon me for being frank, but you don't don't have much experience doing
this for a living, do you? Our commercial clients want their sites to look
the same *everywhere*. They consider their websites to be part of their
corporate identities, and I think that's a reasonable concept. We must
advise them that strictly speaking, that isn't possible in all the details
(PMS colors, etc.), but that we'll do the best we can within the
constraints of the popular browsers in use.
Commercial companies are paying good money for stylish sites, and to a
large extent, their investment is footing the Internet bill for everyone
else. If we cannot (or will not) provide what they want, someone else
surely will. For better or worse, the days of first generation
university-type websites are over.
bill.g...@motel.overflow.com
In article <lanny-06049...@iits01134.inlink.com>,
Lanny Chambers <la...@derived.com> wrote:
[Bill G]
>>Why is having it look the same so important anyway?
[Lanny C]
>Pardon me for being frank, but you don't don't have much experience doing
>this for a living, do you?
Depends. How you count http://www.angelfire.com/sd/HamsterTimes/ ?
(Before you say it, plans are underway to move to a "proper" web server.)
>Our commercial clients want their sites to look
>the same *everywhere*.
As you state later on, it's impossible. I would also add that it's
undesirable.
There are many different monitors of varying quality, of different sizes
and possible resoutions. On top of that, the browser can be resized to
any given size that will fit on the screen.
Some people have varying tastes regarding typefaces. Personally, I don't
like Arial, and HTML goves me the freedom to specify the font I like.
Result, one happier customer.
Some people have tastes regarding colours. I'm rather fond of a blue
background, and I can view documents in my favourite colour schemes.
Result, one happier customer.
>They consider their websites to be part of their
>corporate identities, and I think that's a reasonable concept. We must
>advise them that strictly speaking, that isn't possible in all the details
>(PMS colors, etc.), but that we'll do the best we can within the
>constraints of the popular browsers in use.
HTML's big selling point is that it allows the reader to indulge thier
presentaional whims. Why throw that away?
By all means, suggest a presentation, but in the end, what I say, goes
(as far as my own computer)
I am the ultimate expert on what I like.As regards my personal
preferences, I rule. I have a brain capable of making choices. I have a
medium which allows me to indulge my choices.
If I pick a bad presentation for myself, who cares? The fault is mine and
it won't affect anyone else.
>Commercial companies are paying good money for stylish sites, and to a
>large extent, their investment is footing the Internet bill for everyone
>else. If we cannot (or will not) provide what they want, someone else
>surely will. For better or worse, the days of first generation
>university-type websites are over.
If that's what they want, who am I to convince them otherwise.
(Except as a potential customer.)
Lanny Chambers
In article <6gbse4$3...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>,
bill.g...@motel.overflow.com wrote:
>HTML's big selling point is that it allows the reader to indulge thier
>presentaional whims.
I don't think so, not in today's commercial market. HTML's big selling
point is that it enables any company to advertise 24/7 worldwide, at a
fraction of the cost of any other medium, on a level playing field (i.e.,
a mom-and-pop operation can look just as professional as a multinational
conglomerate, because "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog").
Commercial clients usually have definite ideas about how their pages
should look; for the clients with a modicum of taste, that means they want
to mimic their annual report or their printed marketing pieces, for
continuity's sake. These folks send me emails about how they want lines of
text to break, and I have to educate them about window sizes and so forth.
(The others want several dozen animated GIFs and paisley divider
bars...over my dead mouse!) They largely do not care about what a visitor
wants the site to look like, as long as it doesn't break with the most
recent two versions of the Big Two browsers. They expect, I advise, we
compromise--that's the reality of it.
>I am the ultimate expert on what I like.As regards my personal
>preferences, I rule. I have a brain capable of making choices. I have a
>medium which allows me to indulge my choices.
OK fine, Bill, I respect that. But you don't sign my paycheck. Truly, it
was easier to argue with clients when I was freelancing. But I make a
*lot* more money now... :-)
Good luck with your job hunting.
C.H.E.B.
In article <lanny-07049...@iits01134.inlink.com>,
Lanny Chambers <la...@derived.com> wrote:
>I don't think so, not in today's commercial market. HTML's big selling
>point is that it enables any company to advertise 24/7 worldwide, at a
>fraction of the cost of any other medium, on a level playing field (i.e.,
>a mom-and-pop operation can look just as professional as a multinational
>conglomerate, because "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog").
Very true, but that sort of things comes with many other sort of media
types. I meant to say, the big advantage HTML has over other media.
>Commercial clients usually have definite ideas about how their pages
>should look; for the clients with a modicum of taste, that means they want
>to mimic their annual report or their printed marketing pieces, for
>continuity's sake. These folks send me emails about how they want lines of
>text to break, and I have to educate them about window sizes and so forth.
Ahhhh... Those folk who think the web is just another DTP package.
It can be used as such (some of the time) but to do so would be to throw
out some of the great ideas Tim BL had.
>OK fine, Bill, I respect that. But you don't sign my paycheck. Truly, it
>was easier to argue with clients when I was freelancing. But I make a
>*lot* more money now... :-)
I could be one of your clients customers.
Seriously, I've been looking for commercial web servers to host the HT in
future. At the moment, I'm using my old university account. Only the
shell access account has survived so long. My old login to the X
terminals expired a long time ago. The upshot of this is that I'm stuck
with Lynx for now.
Some ISP's have been very difficult to navigate, with me having to guess
the content of a link by the URL, since all I get is [LINK] several times.
I would imagine that a lot of ISP custom would be from graduates looking
to replace the account that thier university gave them.
>Good luck with your job hunting.
Ah! You saw my "Give Bill a job now!" subliminal message. I was offered a
job two hours after Neil finished it. It seemed such a shame to lose it
since he spent so long working on it.
Ralph Hickok
c...@coventry.ac.uk (C.H.E.B.) wrote:
>In article <lanny-07049...@iits01134.inlink.com>,
>Lanny Chambers <la...@derived.com> wrote:
>>I don't think so, not in today's commercial market. HTML's big selling
>>point is that it enables any company to advertise 24/7 worldwide, at a
>>fraction of the cost of any other medium, on a level playing field (i.e.,
>>a mom-and-pop operation can look just as professional as a multinational
>>conglomerate, because "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog").
>Very true, but that sort of things comes with many other sort of media
>types. I meant to say, the big advantage HTML has over other media.
I can't imagine which other media you're talking about. If you look
through even a local newspaper, where ads are reasonably priced, you
can tell the mom-and-pop operations from the multi-national
conglomerates, and you can also identify several layers in between,
simply by the size and placement of the ads, use or non-use of color,
professionalism of layout, etc.
When you get above the level of the local newspaper or local radio,
the smaller companies just disappear entirely.
I believe the point is that money means much less on the Web than in
any other medium. If you throw a lot of money into TV, for example,
you'll certainly get professionally-produced spots, and money will buy
glossy, full-color, full-page (or multi-page) ads in magazines.
But throwing a lot of money into a Web site doesn't necessarily make
it better. In fact, it's likely to make it worse, because the money
will be spent on glitzy stuff that interferes with the real purpose.
On the Web, money is likely to buy noise that obscures the message.
--
Ralph Hickok
Author "The Pro Football Fan's Companion"
Macmillan, 1995 (Paper--Green & Gold Cover)
Hickok's Sports History: http://www.ultranet.com/~rhickok/
l_...@yahoo.com
In article <lanny-06049...@iits01134.inlink.com>,
la...@derived.com (Lanny Chambers) wrote:
> Pardon me for being frank, but you don't don't have much experience doing
> this for a living, do you? Our commercial clients want their sites to look
> the same *everywhere*. They consider their websites to be part of their
> corporate identities, and I think that's a reasonable concept. We must
It depends on how you "sell" the site to your client. One could take the
approach, of not using tables for layout and point out how the browser takes
care of putting everything in a reasonable place.
I did just that, showing how resizing the window caused the content to be
reformatted to fit the available display space. The response from the
marketing dude was. Cool! Sell it as a benefit. In the long run, you win
because you don't have to do "tricks" to get things to "work"; your client
wins because they get a site that is more accessible and the potential
audience for the web site is larger.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Lanny Chambers
>I did just that, showing how resizing the window caused the content to be
>reformatted to fit the available display space. The response from the
>marketing dude was. Cool! Sell it as a benefit. In the long run, you win
>because you don't have to do "tricks" to get things to "work"; your client
>wins because they get a site that is more accessible and the potential
>audience for the web site is larger.
Yes, sometimes that will work. But the client's "education" can be more
trouble and take more time than the web design! <sigh>
Nick Kew
In article <lanny-06049...@iits01134.inlink.com>,
la...@derived.com (Lanny Chambers) writes:
> In article <6garll$5...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>, c...@coventry.ac.uk
> (C.H.E.B.) wrote:
>
>
> this for a living, do you?
Can't speak for C.H.E.B., but the 'Net is my bread-and-butter.
And that includes authoring webpages.
<insert>
Faust: I want me a perfect 14-year-old girl...
Mephistopheles: Take her - she's yours
Reputable agency: I'm sorry, that's illegal, and at your age unrealistic.
Let's see if we can help you revise that target.
</insert>
> Our commercial clients want their sites to look
> the same *everywhere*.
.. and as their paid consultant, I consider it an important responsibility
to explain to my Clients when they can or can't achieve what they ask for,
and when (in my view) fine-tuning for their browser is acceptable vs.
when it would be (too) detrimental to others:
They _expect_ to be advised about such things. In my view, this is what
a prefessional must do, and anyone who does what the Client thinks he
wants without due consideration for its feasibility is at best a charlatan.
> They consider their websites to be part of their
> corporate identities, and I think that's a reasonable concept. We must
> advise them that strictly speaking, that isn't possible in all the details
> (PMS colors, etc.), but that we'll do the best we can within the
> constraints of the popular browsers in use.
I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a variant on what I just said..
> Commercial companies are paying good money for stylish sites,
and all-too-often getting a raw deal. When the press (and hence the
masses) catch hold of this, it could do a lot of harm to the public
image of the 'Net.
> and to a
> large extent, their investment is footing the Internet bill for everyone
> else.
Really?
> If we cannot (or will not) provide what they want, someone else
> surely will. For better or worse, the days of first generation
> university-type websites are over.
Well, the arrival of MS in any market means the packaging has become
more important than the product - and the Web is no exception.
But there is still something close to an inverse relationship between
content and innovation (in substance) and glitzy insubstantial
presentation. And in real life, there's still always a balance to
be struck.
--
Nick Kew
REBUS
Lanny Chambers <la...@derived.com> wrote in article
<lanny-07049...@iits01134.inlink.com>...
> In article <6gbse4$3...@leofric.coventry.ac.uk>,
> bill.g...@motel.overflow.com wrote:
>
> >HTML's big selling point is that it allows the reader to indulge thier
> >presentaional whims.
>
> I don't think so, not in today's commercial market. HTML's big selling
> point is that it enables any company to advertise 24/7 worldwide, at a
> fraction of the cost of any other medium, on a level playing field (i.e.,
> a mom-and-pop operation can look just as professional as a multinational
> conglomerate, because "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog").
Nope. Same stuff that people trotted out during the Desktop Publishing
Revolution about 10 years ago. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. With very
few exceptions, its easy to tell mom+pop from IBM.
On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog with a 3000 word vocabulary and
very dexterous paws.
> Commercial clients usually have definite ideas about how their pages
> should look; for the clients with a modicum of taste, that means they
want
> to mimic their annual report or their printed marketing pieces, for
> continuity's sake. These folks send me emails about how they want lines
of
> text to break, and I have to educate them about window sizes and so
forth.
> (The others want several dozen animated GIFs and paisley divider
> bars...over my dead mouse!)
Bravo, I salute you (seriously). One of the most difficult roles a "Web
Developer/Designer/Whatever" has is educating the client. (That's also the
same as in DTP)
They largely do not care about what a visitor
> wants the site to look like, as long as it doesn't break with the most
> recent two versions of the Big Two browsers. They expect, I advise, we
> compromise--that's the reality of it.
>
> >I am the ultimate expert on what I like.As regards my personal
> >preferences, I rule. I have a brain capable of making choices. I have a
> >medium which allows me to indulge my choices.
>
> OK fine, Bill, I respect that. But you don't sign my paycheck. Truly, it
> was easier to argue with clients when I was freelancing. But I make a
> *lot* more money now... :-)
>
> Good luck with your job hunting.
>
bill.g...@motel.overflow.com
>I can't imagine which other media you're talking about. If you look
>through even a local newspaper, where ads are reasonably priced, you
>can tell the mom-and-pop operations from the multi-national
I meant HTML vs text/plain, postscript, pdf, ms word, etc.
>When you get above the level of the local newspaper or local radio,
>the smaller companies just disappear entirely.
There is still a differential, only less marked.
http://www.HamsterTimes.com/
http://www.HamsterTimes.co.uk/
http://www.HamsterTimes.demon.co.uk/
http://www.some-server.com/HamsterTimes/
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/HamsterTimes/
We are considering buying one of the above. Each costs differently, and
will have a different impact on the potential reader.
Mark Waterous
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 12:57:18 GMT, to...@not.earthlink.net (toddh)
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>>Our commercial clients want their sites to look the same *everywhere*.
>
>Then they will have to provide the computer and its software
>(pre-configured, of course) to all its viewers. You cannot control
>what the user is viewing without controlling the hardware/software he
>is using to view it.
Perhaps you should read the whole message before replying in
such a mannerism. He went on to straight out state that he knows he
cannot do so, and that he lets his clients know that it is not
entirely possible.
_________________________________
Mark Waterous - Silas Productions Online
[http://silas.hypermart.net/]
"Your entrance to a world of information..."
morgan
"Vince Tifer" <vinc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>check out this table setup
>http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Plaza/4417/leaderboard.html
This is a beautiful use of tables. I struggle with them always. Do you
think you could explain to a novice how you get the large center cell
placed properly? I'm reviewing your code and I don't understand how it
works.
Thanks, morgan
Jeremy Clulow
No problem as far as I am concerned. I use both. On my
site www.webswonder.co.uk I use fixed sizes either side of a
100% center. (Within the center I also use nested table with
cells of 15%, 70% and 15% to form margins either side of my
text).
Pixels and percents both have their place in my view, though
I suspect Senator George Mitchell will be needed to sort out
the protagonsists in this debate :-)
All the best
Jeremy Clulow
jer...@webswonder.co.uk
www.webswonder.co.uk
Gerard P. Nagle wrote in message
<6g6qm5$7n8$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Which to use?? pixel or percentage values??? I've gotten
two totally
>different opinions both for the same reason: different
resolutions
>
David R. Newman
Lanny Chambers wrote:
> Our commercial clients want their sites to look
> the same *everywhere*. They consider their websites to be part of their
> corporate identities, and I think that's a reasonable concept.
Well, that's only reasonable if they are still thinking in terms of mass
markets. As soon as a company realises that they could be doing relationship
marketing, they will need their pages customised to the personal needs of
every reader. Then you have to make sure that for every group of readers (by
taste, interests, computer setup) there is something that attracts them. But,
in general, it is only the advertisers with direct mail experience who
understand this.----
Dr. D. R. Newman, Queen's School of Management. http://www.qub.ac.uk/mgt/
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, David R. Newman wrote:
> Well, that's only reasonable if they are still thinking in terms of mass
> markets. As soon as a company realises that they could be doing relationship
> marketing, they will need their pages customised to the personal needs of
> every reader. Then you have to make sure that for every group of readers (by
> taste, interests, computer setup) there is something that attracts them.
I just tried to get some technical information from microsoft. The web
server refused to give it to me because I had cookies turned off. It
told me to get a different browser (probably a good idea, as I was using
MS Internet Explorer for this purpose ;-) or turn on cookies.
Here's part of their justification for refusing:
We use that information to focus our site's content, and even to
suggest pages or sites where you'll find the precise information you
need. We save you time; you help us decide what information is
valuable to microsoft.com visitors.
Were you giving MS a course of lectures on this? ;-)
I'd call it "optimised for arguing with customers", but then who am
I to argue with MS?