For some reason my page looks ultra demented in IE. How do I fix this while letting it look normal in Mozilla? My site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://projep.t35.com/">http://projep.t35.com/</a><!-- m -->)The only differences I could see, at a quick glance,
were the scrollbars on the boxes top left and right.
Look at it in Opera if you want to see some real problems!You have attempted to create your site without the use of tables... This is not always a good decision to make. In this case, it definetely was not a good idea.
Why have you not used <table>'s in your markup? I see alot of people doing it these days.. I dont see the point of it.
I have fallen behind times with modern day design techniques.I have fallen behind times with modern day design techniques
Yes!I havent wrote <html> or any other markup language for a long time..
All my brain power has been put towards a object oriented programming. I have moved on from web design now and i look back and realise i have fallen behind the times..
Anyway, can someone please tell me why not using <table> elements can be beneficial to your page.
Regards,
Andrew Buntine.Tables are for tabulated data not for layout.
The modern method is to use css for layout.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/As">http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/As</a><!-- m --> said before many times on this forum tables are not bad for their intended purpose which was to display tabular data e.g spreadsheets etc. But to use tables for layout is different please check this link to see why. Why tables are bad for layout? (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html">http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html</a><!-- m -->)
Thats why many web designers use CSS for layout.
Hope this helps
Opps sorry never seen that fang had posted14Yes, i understand that. But i still do not see any benefit of writing HTML in this way..
It seems to to take the same amount of code and the output is far from desirable in most cases..The idea is to use an element for it's designated purpose: a table is a table, a link is a link, etc.
The change from table layout to css layout is initially difficult, in the long term you and your users will benefit.
I recently rewrote a table site to xhtml css design. The load times were nearly halved and x-browser rendering was identical.Ok, makes more sense to me now.. Thanks guys.
The web design industry standards are changing so rapidly these days..Originally posted by buntine
Ok, makes more sense to me now.. Thanks guys.
The web design industry standards are changing so rapidly these days..
I mainly do OO programming in Java myself so let me put it in an OO perspective. The thrust of the "new web design paradigm" is separation of content from presentation. I see it being exactly like MVC separation of the model from the view. In the case of the purely static web page or site the model is the semantic content of the page, the view is the presentation of that content. Visit <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://csszengarden.com">http://csszengarden.com</a><!-- m --> to see the power of this new thinking. Read Jeffery Zeldman's "designing with web standards" to see the why and how.It seems designers are slowly moving back into usability and portability rather than over-complexed layouts..
Between 1993 and 2000, thousands of hopeful web companies emerged. Its interesting how the web sites which were focused on being visually pleasing slowly faded away and the ones which were more focused on results and usability (google.com, ebay, amazon.com) were the sites which ultimately survived the highs and lows.
Inspiring stuff...Originally posted by omega
For some reason my page looks ultra demented in IE. How do I fix this while letting it look normal in Mozilla? My site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://projep.t35.com/">http://projep.t35.com/</a><!-- m -->)
In lower resolution (800x600) it looks "ultra demented" in Mozilla as well.
Three suggestions for improvement:
1. Flat canvas layout!!! Your web page should have only one vertical scrollbar for browser widths ~750+. I consider it ok to have a horizontal scrollbar appear if the width is less than ~750 if your content does not exceed ~500 pixels so that it can be read by someone with 640x480 resolution by srolling navigation out of the way.
2. Contrast!!!
3. Paddings!!!
And following up on your validation post:
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site.Originally posted by Vladdy
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site. Very, very true.Originally posted by Vladdy
In lower resolution (800x600) it looks "ultra demented" in Mozilla as well.
Three suggestions for improvement:
1. Flat canvas layout!!! Your web page should have only one vertical scrollbar for browser widths ~750+. I consider it ok to have a horizontal scrollbar appear if the width is less than ~750 if your content does not exceed ~500 pixels so that it can be read by someone with 640x480 resolution by srolling navigation out of the way.
2. Contrast!!!
3. Paddings!!!
And following up on your validation post:
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site.
Ok, 1: What was up with randomly saying contrast, don't get it. 2: I wanted my site to fit together the way it does.
But, basically you're saying I have to rip apart my layout and start over? that sucks. It's gonna be really hard to make it for 800*600... my pc simply enlarges everything, including the font; very annoying. *sigh* i'm debating whether to leave it alone and let the few ppl who see my site see a funny looking messed up site, or to rip it apart and start over. decisions, decisions.Originally posted by omega
But, basically you're saying I have to rip apart my layout and start over? that sucks. It's gonna be really hard to make it for 800*600...
I wouldn't really say that. The idea behind CSS is that you don't have to design for a specific resolution, or serve up different pages/content for different resolutions.
You don't have to design for 800*600, just keep it in mind and check your site in it, and other resolutions, as you're testing.
Yeah.. I'm not gonna even try to make the page fit into the viewport for 800*600, just make it so your able to see everything by scrolling.
were the scrollbars on the boxes top left and right.
Look at it in Opera if you want to see some real problems!You have attempted to create your site without the use of tables... This is not always a good decision to make. In this case, it definetely was not a good idea.
Why have you not used <table>'s in your markup? I see alot of people doing it these days.. I dont see the point of it.
I have fallen behind times with modern day design techniques.I have fallen behind times with modern day design techniques
Yes!I havent wrote <html> or any other markup language for a long time..
All my brain power has been put towards a object oriented programming. I have moved on from web design now and i look back and realise i have fallen behind the times..
Anyway, can someone please tell me why not using <table> elements can be beneficial to your page.
Regards,
Andrew Buntine.Tables are for tabulated data not for layout.
The modern method is to use css for layout.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/As">http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/As</a><!-- m --> said before many times on this forum tables are not bad for their intended purpose which was to display tabular data e.g spreadsheets etc. But to use tables for layout is different please check this link to see why. Why tables are bad for layout? (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html">http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html</a><!-- m -->)
Thats why many web designers use CSS for layout.
Hope this helps
Opps sorry never seen that fang had posted14Yes, i understand that. But i still do not see any benefit of writing HTML in this way..
It seems to to take the same amount of code and the output is far from desirable in most cases..The idea is to use an element for it's designated purpose: a table is a table, a link is a link, etc.
The change from table layout to css layout is initially difficult, in the long term you and your users will benefit.
I recently rewrote a table site to xhtml css design. The load times were nearly halved and x-browser rendering was identical.Ok, makes more sense to me now.. Thanks guys.
The web design industry standards are changing so rapidly these days..Originally posted by buntine
Ok, makes more sense to me now.. Thanks guys.
The web design industry standards are changing so rapidly these days..
I mainly do OO programming in Java myself so let me put it in an OO perspective. The thrust of the "new web design paradigm" is separation of content from presentation. I see it being exactly like MVC separation of the model from the view. In the case of the purely static web page or site the model is the semantic content of the page, the view is the presentation of that content. Visit <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://csszengarden.com">http://csszengarden.com</a><!-- m --> to see the power of this new thinking. Read Jeffery Zeldman's "designing with web standards" to see the why and how.It seems designers are slowly moving back into usability and portability rather than over-complexed layouts..
Between 1993 and 2000, thousands of hopeful web companies emerged. Its interesting how the web sites which were focused on being visually pleasing slowly faded away and the ones which were more focused on results and usability (google.com, ebay, amazon.com) were the sites which ultimately survived the highs and lows.
Inspiring stuff...Originally posted by omega
For some reason my page looks ultra demented in IE. How do I fix this while letting it look normal in Mozilla? My site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://projep.t35.com/">http://projep.t35.com/</a><!-- m -->)
In lower resolution (800x600) it looks "ultra demented" in Mozilla as well.
Three suggestions for improvement:
1. Flat canvas layout!!! Your web page should have only one vertical scrollbar for browser widths ~750+. I consider it ok to have a horizontal scrollbar appear if the width is less than ~750 if your content does not exceed ~500 pixels so that it can be read by someone with 640x480 resolution by srolling navigation out of the way.
2. Contrast!!!
3. Paddings!!!
And following up on your validation post:
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site.Originally posted by Vladdy
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site. Very, very true.Originally posted by Vladdy
In lower resolution (800x600) it looks "ultra demented" in Mozilla as well.
Three suggestions for improvement:
1. Flat canvas layout!!! Your web page should have only one vertical scrollbar for browser widths ~750+. I consider it ok to have a horizontal scrollbar appear if the width is less than ~750 if your content does not exceed ~500 pixels so that it can be read by someone with 640x480 resolution by srolling navigation out of the way.
2. Contrast!!!
3. Paddings!!!
And following up on your validation post:
Validation shows that you code does not contain any errors and should be rendered the same by compliant browsers, it DOES NOT mean that such rendering will result in a good web site.
Ok, 1: What was up with randomly saying contrast, don't get it. 2: I wanted my site to fit together the way it does.
But, basically you're saying I have to rip apart my layout and start over? that sucks. It's gonna be really hard to make it for 800*600... my pc simply enlarges everything, including the font; very annoying. *sigh* i'm debating whether to leave it alone and let the few ppl who see my site see a funny looking messed up site, or to rip it apart and start over. decisions, decisions.Originally posted by omega
But, basically you're saying I have to rip apart my layout and start over? that sucks. It's gonna be really hard to make it for 800*600...
I wouldn't really say that. The idea behind CSS is that you don't have to design for a specific resolution, or serve up different pages/content for different resolutions.
You don't have to design for 800*600, just keep it in mind and check your site in it, and other resolutions, as you're testing.
Yeah.. I'm not gonna even try to make the page fit into the viewport for 800*600, just make it so your able to see everything by scrolling.