Re: How do I place a footer after many absolute DIVs ???

On 20 Aug 2006 04:22:16 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

Nije Nego ha scritto:

On 20 Aug 2006 03:17:54 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

User cannot change
it.

You'd be suprised!

eh? I do not want surprises. Tell me if there is anything I should take
care of

-Pam


--
buy, bought, bye

When it comes to www - the only way to protect your design (in graphic
point of view), is to upload it as graphic file.

This goes for font sizes as well.

And, even so, user has the last word, he can choose not to view images.

--
buy, bought, bye

On 20 Aug 2006 04:37:02 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

Good to know that. The pages are web rendering that try to clone
pages made with a page setter. The user should not have interest to
spoil his layout work, done on the page setter.

By the way is there some tag I can insert to avoid some of these
problems?

If you have a genuinely good reason for maintaining a completely fixed
layout (it does happen occasionally - I can't judge from your post
whether this is the case here) then the best approach is probably to
provide a PDF document to the reader.

Or you might provide two versions: a flexible HTML layout for easy
on-screen reading and a PDF for producing nice printed copies.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

If you have a genuinely good reason for maintaining a completely fixed
layout (it does happen occasionally - I can't judge from your post
whether this is the case here) then the best approach is probably to
provide a PDF document to the reader.

We already do. But enterprises want web pages mostly.

Or you might provide two versions: a flexible HTML layout for easy
on-screen reading and a PDF for producing nice printed copies.

The relative positioning is not possible in my specific context, where
the precise relative position of several items of different nature is
crucial.

I know that if you could see all the code generated you would have some
tons of criticism, but I have to balance a lot of other things and
considerations. This is not a page manually created, but an attempt to
render as close as possible a design made in a composer.

There are also interactivity problem as I have to handle the click on
each cell. and there could be thousands of cell arranged in any
possible layout, not necessarily "tables".

Cells can have pictures and alarms inside. There can be label
superposed precisely on charts,... So a mess.

I am always trying to do the best compromise between many factors.

You are like artists. It's more less like telling Michelangelo to go
buy a paint at a shop. But most people are not Michelangelo, ... and
they do have to go buy it to the shop...

I bet 95% of you (in this group) would throw Front Page directly in the
dubstin, but nevertheless it's an indispensable tool to million of
persons who focus their life on other things (like money for instance).

I understand all the instances of you artists, and I try to get as
close as possible, because I admire you, but on the other hand must do
fight with a lot of other factors...

-Pam

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

Do not understand the meaning of "top post". What does that mean?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22top%20post%22 - first hit

Ah I see. That stuff "David Dorward ha scritto:" is inserted
automatically by Google. Perhaps they want all posters to look "idiot".

Yes, but there isn't any need to put the entire response above it.

As to the definition:
"This term is generally used pejoratively with the implication that the
offending person is a newbie, a Microsoft addict (Microsoft mail tools
produce a similar format by default), or simply a
common-and-garden-variety idiot.",

I would be curious to know in which category I could fall according to
your opinion

Newbie (to Usenet), in a non-pejorative fashion.

But they might have interest in having the text large enough to read. Or
they might have a minimum font size set.

They can be set it in the Designer.

I mean set in their browser (and it would apply to all websites).

There are many elements whose position cannot be jeopardized (like a
magazine page) otherwiae the report become a
mess. It's not an artistic web page, it's a precisely designed
enterprise report.

Perhaps, but HTML/CSS isn't a very good tool for achieving that type of
result.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

Hi David,

As to fonts, No the user cannot change sizes. Everything is done
absolutely with pixel precision. Fonts are fixed defined in pixels.
This is a very precise layout (enterprise report). User cannot change
it. User can only interact with it with some onclick onmousedown
events.

An Enterprise Report with precise laayout requirements should be
published as PDF, not HTML. PDF is customary for ssuch purposes. You are
mistaken in your belief that the user cannot change the font size in an
HTML page.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

Nije Nego wrote:

On 20 Aug 2006 04:22:16 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

Nije Nego ha scritto:

On 20 Aug 2006 03:17:54 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

User cannot change
it.
You'd be suprised!
eh? I do not want surprises. Tell me if there is anything I should take
care of

-Pam

--
buy, bought, bye

When it comes to www - the only way to protect your design (in graphic
point of view), is to upload it as graphic file.

This goes for font sizes as well.

And, even so, user has the last word, he can choose not to view images.

Indeed she can choose not to view PDF documents - or even HTML pages.

I am still recommending PDF for the OP's purposes.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

If you have a genuinely good reason for maintaining a completely
fixed layout (it does happen occasionally - I can't judge from your
post whether this is the case here) then the best approach is
probably to provide a PDF document to the reader.

We already do. But enterprises want web pages mostly.

With PDF, you can get precise control of typography, spacing and so on.
With HTML, you provide a flexible layout that should aim to look "good
enough" on as wide a variety of popular browsers s possible.

You need to explain to your "enterprises", that they can have one, or
the other, or both; but they can't have both using the same technology
and the same URL.

If you're selling your services to these enterprises, then it's in your
interest to encourage them to go for both. Then you get to charge them
for two different designs.

There are also interactivity problem as I have to handle the click on
each cell. and there could be thousands of cell arranged in any
possible layout, not necessarily "tables".

Cells can have pictures and alarms inside. There can be label
superposed precisely on charts,... So a mess.

I thought you described these things as "enterprise reports" - what you
are talking bout seems to be some kind of applicattion, not a normal report.

There are web-based reporting tools that allow you to interactively
drill down into corporate databases, produce consolidated ready-to-print
regional sales figures, and all that; but they are expensive, and tend
not to work cross-browser, and tend not to respect the fact that some
users need to override the author's rendering suggestions. The fact that
these solutions are expensive *and* sell, suggests that the enterprises
that buy them aren't entirely on-the-ball.

The situtions in which I've seen these things demo-d and sold have some
or all of these characteristics:
* The solution is used exclusively by in-house staff
* The material being presented is more-or-less confidential
* In-house staff are required to use Internet Explorer version $LAST-1
* IE settings must allow all kinds of executable content to execute
uninterrupted
* The resulting page is often intended for use in sales proposals and
bids

Such software is expensive because it's complex and hard to write well.
The best solutions also have a "Render to PDF" option anyway.

If you output your report as XML, you can then use XSLT to generate
either nice, versatile HTML that will work in (nearly) any browser,
although it won't necessarily be anything like pixel-perfect; or PDF,
which will appear exactly as specified by the murketing department.
Generating PDF from XSL can be done with free/libre tools (there are
also expensive commercial tools that don't do a better job of it).

I am always trying to do the best compromise between many factors.

You are like artists.

Who? Me? I think not, somehow; I wish I had even the vestiges of good taste.

It's more less like telling Michelangelo to go buy a paint at a shop.
But most people are not Michelangelo, ... and they do have to go buy
it to the shop...

It's more like asking Leonardo to produce a gallery-grade masterpiece
rendition in oil of his latest prototype design for a flying machine.
He'd try to presuade you that not only would the design not be properly
readable if painted in oil; but that the proper medium for an
engineering drawing is - well - a drawing.

I bet 95% of you (in this group) would throw Front Page directly in
the dubstin,

Yer probably right.

but nevertheless it's an indispensable tool to million of persons who
focus their life on other things (like money for instance).

That is wrong. There is nothing that can be done with Front Page that
can't be done better and more easily using better tools. Front Page is
not only obsolete; it generates awful, unmaintainable HTML, and it ties
you into expensive technology from a single vendor (or at least it tries
to). Doing things better and more easily is the key to beating the
competition, and so to making money, and Front Page is unhelpful in
meeting that objective.

What it has going for it is that it comes for "free" with a certain
expensive office-productivity suite; and on the face of it, it seems to
be a drag-and-drop application. But even in the drag-and-drop world,
there are better HTML editors.

I understand all the instances of you artists, and I try to get as
close as possible, because I admire you, but on the other hand must
do fight with a lot of other factors...

Most of the people here are engineers of one kind or another (as far as
I can tell). And my sense is that you are neither an artist nor an
engineer, but an office functionary of some kind, who has been asked to
perform a task that is (currently) outside of their skill-set.

-Pam

Is that single hyphen your sig-separator:-?)
--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

On 20 Aug 2006 09:46:59 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:

This is not a page manually created, but an attempt to
render as close as possible a design made in a composer.

- cut

I bet 95% of you (in this group) would throw Front Page directly in the
dubstin, but nevertheless it's an indispensable tool to million of
persons who focus their life on other things (like money for instance).

When it comes to pixel precision:

Front Page is definitely not the tool for what you want to achieve.
Web is definitely not the medium for what you want to achieve.

This is one example how some people did it (not that I am advertising - try
to look at the site with images turned off - some people do so!)
http://www.farfungplaces.com/

You should try to explain further more to your clients, or train yourself
better, since pixel precision on www is Mission Impossible.

--
buy, bought, bye

Thank you to all guys for the interesting discussion. I do not come
often to this group, but I must admit it's always a pleasure to
interact with you. You are always so helpful. I feel this group has
something different from others I frequent more often, although I have
not yet fully realized what it is...

I will be monitoring this thread .. in case there are further
contributions... Thanks!!

Pam


Nije Nego ha scritto:

On 20 Aug 2006 09:46:59 -0700, pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it wrote:


This is not a page manually created, but an attempt to
render as close as possible a design made in a composer.

- cut

I bet 95% of you (in this group) would throw Front Page directly in the
dubstin, but nevertheless it's an indispensable tool to million of
persons who focus their life on other things (like money for instance).

When it comes to pixel precision:

Front Page is definitely not the tool for what you want to achieve.
Web is definitely not the medium for what you want to achieve.

This is one example how some people did it (not that I am advertising - try
to look at the site with images turned off - some people do so!)
http://www.farfungplaces.com/

You should try to explain further more to your clients, or train yourself
better, since pixel precision on www is Mission Impossible.

--
buy, bought, bye

pamelafluente (AT) libero (DOT) it schrieb:

As to fonts, No the user cannot change sizes. Everything is done
absolutely with pixel precision.

That is almost always a mistake.


Agree with that from the perspective of a web artist. My perspective is
that
of a document prepared in a page setter (like quark Xpress) and
outputted to web.
There are many other things (pictures, label, text) to match: so
precision is a feature.

You can't do that in a reliable way with HTML and CSS; if
pixel-perfection is crucial you need to choose another file format, such
as PDF, Flash or GIF.

There is an important difference between print and screen design: In
print design you have control over the viewing situation (your prepared
layout printed by your favorite printer on a fixed-size piece of paper),
while in screen design the viewing situation can vary a lot - imagine
your boss wanting his/her site to look good both on the 20 inch desktop
screen and the Palm.

Fonts are fixed defined in pixels. This is a very precise layout
(enterprise report). User cannot change it. User can only interact
with it with some onclick onmousedown events.

The user can always change it, unless you have some way of
absolutely controlling the users' browser and environment.


That I have just tried. Changing the font size from the menu has no
effects (tried with IE).

Try it with Firefox. Google this group and you find tons of discussions
about this behaviour of IE being correct or not - anyway you can't even
know if future versions of IE will behave like the same.

If you code for IE6 behaviour you might get the desired look for a
majority of today's users, but it is a good idea to make sure it does
not break for the others.

Thanks for the advice. If all of you experts think there is no clean
solution in js/css, I will resort
to compute the last div position programmatically. Let me know...

How do you want to do this?

--
Markus