Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

dorayme wrote:

In article <oO-dnduYXYzmh6LanZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,
Kevin Scholl <kscholl (AT) comcast (DOT) DELETE.net> wrote:

http://www.singlebarrelsoftball.com/index.php

It's not THAT difficult, certainly not so difficult as to depend on
table structures when they are not necessary. Not to mention your
documents will be far more semantically correct.

That last link looks very nice indeed Kevin. Well done. (I have
not looked at the code much but I took a quick peek... is there
any particular reason not to use 4.01 Strict? After minor /
adjustments and removable of border="0" from the img tags?

Thanks ... that site was a very rapid development, so I'm sure that
you'll find a lot that could be refined and/or cleaned up.

To be honest, the primary reason for the doctype was that that site was
put together before I started going to Strict a few projects back. I
tend, however, to use XHTML; at work, many of my prototypes are
converted to true XML for use with Java Faces, so providing XHTML gives
the developers a head start. And personally, I like the defined
characteristics it has to offer, so I just go with it in my own projects
as well.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

VK wrote:

On Nov 18, 1:07 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net
wrote:
ul class="menu"
li>...
/ul

div class="content"
...
/div

It far more flexible. A tiny bit of CSS will give you the same
presentation as yours above; BUT if you wish to show the menu
horizontally along the top, or float to the right, or even at the bottom
it can be done without touching the markup but just by editing the
stylesheet. Not possible with your table, you must rewrite.

Sorry, this is an argument of a kind "our umbrella may not always open
on the rain but it is also a great tool to fix the door, remember
that" :-)

You need to open your mind a bit. You're stuck in a one-track thought
process.

From what sky blue would one need to orient the left side menu
horizontally in the same three columns layout? Reasons could be found
of course: but too far of the real life to bother about. In any case,

Extensibility is hardly "too far...to bother about".

what about a three columns div based layout I asked about? Particular
solutions for the content inside of containers - this is what your
post is answering to - is another lesser important problem.

You've been provided several examples by myself and others. Open your
eyes (and your mind)!

P.S. Hallvarsson & Hallvarsson (a.k.a. H&H) recently posted the next
annual list of most informative, usable and accessible corporate
sites, as it does it the last 10 year.
http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
Oh, I know that for a real WEB SPECIALIST no opinion may be important
except for his own one - if sustained by "a group of carefully

Reads like your own self description there.

selected people" ;-) From the other side if trying to get the contract
the opinion of ciwas may get surprisingly low rating against of
H&H ;-)
Do you mind to calculate the amount of div layouts among the most
prominent corporate sites in the list?
Why do you think it is so?

Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Just sayin'...

What relation does it have with my previous explanations?
An intensive homework to do :-)

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... (AT) comcast (DOT) DELETE.net> wrote:

Why do you think it is so?

Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song
are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.

On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is.

I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page". Any page can
(better say "must") be as wide or as narrow as it is needed for the
chosen design. Maybe it is a contamination of text line width
requirements? Indeed for a single column text of the regular 12pt size
the line width should not exceed 6 inches nor be shorter than 2.5
inches. If ported to some lesser exact but more universal form:
"For a single column text the line width should not exceed 50
characters in total and should not be shorter than 20 characters in
total".
Any bigger or smaller value impact the readability = usability.
With longer lines eyes starting to "get lost", so going to the next
line one arrives higher or lower than needed.
With shorter lines eyes have to jump to often to the next line, so
getting more tired.

Please make your challenge as clear as possible.

I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least. So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.

<table width="90%" border="0"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center">
<thead>
<tr>
<th colspan="3">Header</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tfoot>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="3">Footer</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="20%">Menu</td>
<td width="60%">Content</td>
<td width="20%">Splash zone</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

VK wrote:

On Nov 18, 7:12 am, Kevin Scholl <ksch... (AT) comcast (DOT) DELETE.net> wrote:
Why do you think it is so?
Perhaps because the people they hire to design and develop their sites
are as narrow-minded and stubborn as you? Or as satisfied with the old
status quo and unwilling to learn potentially better ways?

Alas, a wrong answer: think over again.

Twelve years of experience and evolution dictates otherwise.

An extra hint: webpunks with their "All You Need Is Lynx" love song

As I do not meet the above criteria, it is (as you say) irrelevant.

are completely out of interest of the online business: what includes
any business, not just big corporations. That eliminates a whole layer
of regular possible spooky-booh including but not limited by non-
graphical UAs, graphical UA with CSS turned off, black-and-white
monitors 600width x 1800height and so on.

Again, you make suppositions based on limited old-school thinking.

Try to think over the rest. http://www.webranking.eu provides
explanations of the used criteria. Also go through the top 10-20
companies of this year. They mostly have "Accessibility" section on
their site and special blocks of code on pages for visitors with
vision and hearing impairments. But with all my respect and sincere
sorry for such people, a regular site is primarily made for regular
visitors, so first analize H&H basic criteria.

You continue to display your narrow-mindedness. A well-built site
doesn't need "special blocks of code on pages for visitors with vision
and hearing impairments". A well-built site will cater to the regular
visitor AND those with accessibility concerns.

--

Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/

In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e-bb7b-feb8145cdfc7 (AT) d50g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On Nov 18, 2:12 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
VK, the first on this list that came up for me was, incredibly,
one that failed the simplest of all basic criteria for a web
page, namely do not make one that does not need to be as wide as
it is.

I am not aware of such "basic criteria for a web page".

Surely you are aware of this, it is plain commonsense and does
not have to be written down somewhere in some rule book. If a
webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise to
require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary. Full stop.
What is unnecessary or of no help to anyone is bad whether it be
written or not.

--
dorayme

In article
<8d0eb19d-60ec-490e-bb7b-feb8145cdfc7 (AT) d50g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Please make your challenge as clear as possible.

I guess my challenge would be to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.

What does this mean, sorry?

So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.

What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

--
dorayme

On Nov 18, 11:08 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

I guess my challenge would be
to do not have any challenge - not with
the basic template construct at least.

What does this mean, sorry?

It means that there are challenges that are not challenging. Say to
learn a new completely unknown language is a challenging challenge.
From the other side to learn to write by pen in your mouth just like
with your own hand is definitely a challenge but it is not challenging
- at least not to me.

Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,
endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me. But if I'm
wrong and this few-liner table layout for three columns can be
achieved in a simple, context independent and reliable way then let's
us just look at it, agreed upon its claimed reliability and the topic
is closed.

So I would like to see some
equally safe and accessible (up to the very old browsers),
semantically clear *and easy to use* div layout.

What does "up to the very old browsers" mean quite? Please be
clearer.

"New browser" - the version currently proposed by the producer for
free download.

"Old browser" - the version preceding to the "New browser"

"Very old browser" - the most recent version with the support
officially discontinued by the producer.

IE sample:
New browser - IE7
Old browser - IE6
Very old browser - IE5.5

FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x

You may continue yourself for other browser. Normally for the site
development one doesn't go below "Old browser" for each UA from the
list of UA one wants to support: this is why I stressed up "up to the
very old browsers".

On 17 nov, 05:39, VK <schools_r... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On Nov 17, 6:54 am, eholz1 <ewh... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hello Styleists!

I am trying to get a page going similar to this nice tutorial at A
List Apart.

URL:http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html

This is sorta what I would like. When I navigate to the page above
using Firefox, all is well -
the left side (a div column) has text and is colored blue, the center
is white, and the right column (a div as well) is red. This is a
three-column sample, which is fairly nice. BUT!!

When I navigate to this page using IE 7! the left side is completely
gone!

http://www.alistapart.com/d/holygrail/example_1.html
From CSS for #left column: margin-left: -100%;

Seehttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/
Bug #39

Exactly. I was going to post on this but you were faster than me.

The second thing you never should use is negative margin value unless
you are Ok with part of your content disappearing for 80%-95% of your
visitors (IE users). btw on the demo for bug #39 under IE 6 SP1 we are
having the same peekaboo effect ("X" is not on the page) - despite the
bug is claimed only for IE7.

I am going to update this very shortly. VK, your remark is noted and
appreciated.

Regards, Gérard

On Nov 18, 11:05 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

If a webpage simply does not have the material in it width-wise
to require horizontal scrolling then it is unnecessary.

I do agree with that, but what site from H&H list are you referring
to?