Firefox and IE 7 and divs, etc!

In article
<11c981b3-81ec-4f07-9d81-bf3f5d1f1797 (AT) n20g2000hsh (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

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.

Are you saying you found it easy to write with a pen in your
mouth? <g>

If you are saying it is challenging to write good html and css,
yes it is. If you are saying it is easy to write good tables
html, how come it is so badly done all the time? Perhaps the
things that are difficult to achieve are more worthwhile.

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.

It depends on what you mean by "context independent and reliable

way". What context? A blind person with a screen reader? No? OK,
a person with a pda or mobile phone? No? A person with a 17"
screen with at least 800px across spare and Windows, Linux or
Mac.

And what are you including in the output of the table?
Differently coloured equi-length columns? This one is harder to
do, especially when trying to satisfy IE, without table layout.
But why would you want to able to duplicate everything that a
table layout can achieve? Perhaps some things are not so worth
achieving.

--
dorayme

In article
<6ae8ba8e-20ea-4fe7-9453-ae068f745eee (AT) d61g2000hsa (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

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?

The first on the list.

--
dorayme

VK wrote:

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".

If this be your criteria, then, solutions have already been presented.
Several times over, in fact. You simply don't want to accept them.

--

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

VK wrote:

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.

Challenging or overwhelming, (for you)? I am sorry but I don't think the
analogy is quite correct. It is more like updating practices, why should
I go to a mechanic that only works with carburetors when all modern cars
nowadays are fuel-injected with computerized fuel controls? As with any
"trade" you have to keep up with the technology. I'd worry about the
surgeon who is still working with ether, bone-saw and sulfur-powder!

Same way to spend time in building agglomeration of divs, style rules,

Then you don't know what you are doing... Dividitus and classitus is
just as bad as nested tables and pages riddled with FONT elements.

endless per-UA fixes and patches just to get a working equivalent of
the trivia table layout I posted - it doesn't challenge me.

You don't. Any anyway if you do need a UA fix it's for IE.

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.

As long as the page will ALWAYS be three columns...

"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
should be "New browser[ sort'a ]"

Old browser - IE6
Some folks have no choice, I was a very happy camper on Win2K.

Very old browser - IE5.5
No one has reason to use this and stats will show they don't <1%

FF sample:
New browser - 2.0.0.9
Old browser - 2.0.0.8
Very old browser - 1.5.x
Browser updates why would anyone use this, FF2.x works even on Win98! I

guess a few folks with OS8 or 9 But look at your Safari stats these Mac
folks are going to be to somewhere near the Netscape4.x and IE3 crowd!

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".

With CSS your page should still be legible without any stylesheet! So
these ancient browser should be able to view the page, not in your
glorious styling, but still viewable.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

It's not THAT difficult

I am ready to believe. So where is that commonly approved div layout
template for the most used page structure?

Though I write my own code for each project, you might start here: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts

Why exactly here? Because "Holy Grail" from http://www.alistapart.com
is already proven to suck by OP? OK, let's try the new hope. I remind
the standard table layout we are trying to replace (width of each
column is project-dependent of course):

<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>

So let's see http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ThreeColumnLayouts
....
Actually: thank you - that is a perfect page to use as a proof of the
statements I have made in this thread. If anyone wonders why, just
follow this link and compare with the posted table layout.

Thank you again.

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?

The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

I do not see any horizontal scroll bar neither in Firefox nor in IE6.
What browser and what monitor are you using?

In article
<93f4c874-982c-49be-a650-b5302137ed15 (AT) d61g2000hsa (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> 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?

The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com

I do not see any horizontal scroll bar neither in Firefox nor in IE6.
What browser and what monitor are you using?

I guess you are replying to something I said. You using a browser
and google for newsgroup? You do not quote context.

Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide. What material in
the page justifies it? It is no use saying that the author has
desingned it so, the question is why. How can something as
annoying as this be put at the *top* of a good web design
ranking? Does it mean nothing to these rankers that people have
smaller screens, that even people with bigger screens like to
view not at fullscreen? Is the cost for viewing at less than
1000px wide going to be scrollbars? Why is there *this* cost for
the *actual* material on this site?

--
dorayme

On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.

Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger and because
the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout rather
than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
visitor. It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO. We
may discuss this im more details at
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design because this question is OT
to the original subject (table layout VS div layout) and truthfully is
out of competence of ciwas. I am not saying that there are not
adequate specialists in here, but tools to get the desired design and
the choice of the design itself are quite different topics, and for
each topic - the most appropriate NG, this is the rule of the
Usenet ;-)

I guess you are replying to something I said.
You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
You do not quote context.

It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed. In
the previous message I quoted:

-------------------------------

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?

The first on the list.

In the H&H ranking at http://www.webranking.eu/widepage.aspx?id=1215
the first is Telecom Italia http://www.telecomitalia.com
-------------------------------

The amount of information and >>>/>>/> marks are right enough to get
onto the subject for any outside reader, even if he/she did not follow
the whole thread. IMHO

In article
<33ce16d9-2250-4edf-9fcb-06b40975563f (AT) i29g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
VK <schools_ring (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:44 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
Look again and tell me why would the Telecom Italia page need to
develop scrollbars at not far under 1000px wide.

Because the expected display size is 1024x768 or bigger

Given my question, this is a surprising thing to say. I was
asking how a page that simply does not have the material in it to
justify scrollbars coming on at just under 1000px could be ranked
first in a list of good web design. The context, I remind you is
you cited (right here on this usenet group) this ranking page as
an authority and I am pointing to something that shakes the
confidence in this.

and because
the design group has chosen so called "freely breathing" layout

If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths. If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath? Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)

rather
than crowding everything in fear of an occasional 800x600 or 640x480
visitor.

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?

I guess you are replying to something I said.
You using a browser and google for newsgroup?
You do not quote context.

It absolutely doesn't matter what software or web-interface is used to
participate in the Usenet, as long as the Usenet rule are followed.

But that is what I was mildly hinting at, that you were not
following best practice. Do you know, for example, that some
newsreaders are just online readers and they do not store the
thread. Sometimes threads can be seen by various not wholly
convenient methods, including of course, going to Google Groups.

--
dorayme

On Nov 20, 11:55 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

If most people view the site on 1280px, then it will breathe as
freely as the designers want *even if* it was designed to also
shrink fit better at lesser widths.

No, it is a common mistake to think and especially to make a page
layout where forming blocks either "collapse" into some bag pack or
"extends" to the density of stars on the night sky at the bad weather:
all following the available size.
A too crowded design is irritating to eyes, so the same for a design
where your eyes have to navigate across huge empty areas from one
block to another. If asked what is the worst from two I would be
really hesitating what to say. There is some min-width you don't want
to go below in any case: user has to either scroll, or to extend the
browser window, or to buy a descent monitor, or to go to hell
whatsoever ("Webpunks are not welcome!", remember ;-) Same there is
some max-width you don't want to exceed.

If it is viewed at 900 or 800
or less than how does it actually breath?

Why asking me? Just check it yourself. Lesser than some min-width, the
blocks stop collapsing on each other and one has to scroll or see
other options a bit atop.

Is it a sort of
counterfactual breathing? (if I use my mouse to scroll
horizontally. I will experience the liberating spaces that are
there, bit by bit....)

See atop ;-)

See anything a bit unfair about you reducing my complaint about
"less than 1000" to things like "the occasional 640.."?

640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, further the series of all modern monitors
with bigger numbers. I am not aware of any models between 640x480 and
800x600, or between 800x600 and 1024x768 - I am not just talking about
"being in any use" but simply ever produced by any manufacturer. So to
what else should I reduce your complain?

It is the right choice for the chosen layout model IMHO.

I am complaining about the choice and you think it worthwhile to
say that it is the chosen model?

For each design will be always who just love it, who doesn't like it
and who just hate it. The question is who are they and how many of
these from the first group and how much do you bother for the last two
groups. H&H has 125 position questionnaire where the company has to
define their target audience, expected site usage etc. Atop H&H put
the common requirements (easy to find the information, accessibility
etc) and they monitor the feedback from users by usage categories
(because a stock holder, a journalist, a potential investor etc. may
have very different ideas where and how something should be
presented). Telecom Italia is on the top this year because by all this
H&H criteria they did better than others. Of course can be and should
be a number of dorayme, Dick and Stanley who dislike it. But this is
also what is paid to H&H by the company - and H&H prices are not low
at all - this is the guarantee that this last category of visitors
will be safe to disregard, both by possible income loss criterion and
by legal responsibility criterion.