9331
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 29 March, 2005, 01:35:20 AM »
crill - try moving the position of the menu by adjusting the left property - you should see how it's working then
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
9332
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 29 March, 2005, 01:34:09 AM »
If IE would just go ahead and implement position:fixed that would be problem solved.
9333
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 29 March, 2005, 12:26:23 AM »
I must say, personally I'm not against using tables for page layout: as sometimes they simply work better.
My rule of thumb for web design nearly always comes back to "what works?"
Example: check out the following two examples, one built using table.
Scroll down on each of them, and note that the "proper" method (div tags) causes a glitch whereby that div ends and the background colour of the body shows through, whereas in the table version this does not occur.
Now, this may not be a problem, but it might cause issues which are hard to resolve without falling back on hacky code (like in my previous example where I start messing around with the overflow property of the body).
Not only that, but the hacky version doesn't allow mouse-scrolling in Firefox - tut!
Summary: if it ain't broke...
My rule of thumb for web design nearly always comes back to "what works?"
Example: check out the following two examples, one built using table.
Scroll down on each of them, and note that the "proper" method (div tags) causes a glitch whereby that div ends and the background colour of the body shows through, whereas in the table version this does not occur.
Now, this may not be a problem, but it might cause issues which are hard to resolve without falling back on hacky code (like in my previous example where I start messing around with the overflow property of the body).
Not only that, but the hacky version doesn't allow mouse-scrolling in Firefox - tut!
Summary: if it ain't broke...
9334
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 28 March, 2005, 11:26:53 PM »
Short question but long answer.
Many people do use tables for the layout of their page. In fact, even professional sites often to this (probably as it's relatively easy to achieve).
However, mbanners is correct: tables should not be used to influence overall page layout, as that is not what a table is for. It's for displaying tabular information.
One of the alternatives is frames, but let's not go there: frames are a prime "usability crime".
The preferred method of page layout is use of CSS to position <div> elements, which become the containers for your content. This is slightly more complex that using tables, but worthwhile learning.
If you decide to stick with tables, there's no reason to have a table with a single cell for the banner - just have the banner. Then for the 2nd half of your page a single table split into two cells would do fine. Plus, of course, you are free to place tables within tables within tables. (Another reason not to use tables for page layouts: it cna get messy quickly with all those td and tr tags all over the place.)
Here's a basic example of a site where the content is split up using div tags and css styling: divTest3.html
Many people do use tables for the layout of their page. In fact, even professional sites often to this (probably as it's relatively easy to achieve).
However, mbanners is correct: tables should not be used to influence overall page layout, as that is not what a table is for. It's for displaying tabular information.
One of the alternatives is frames, but let's not go there: frames are a prime "usability crime".
The preferred method of page layout is use of CSS to position <div> elements, which become the containers for your content. This is slightly more complex that using tables, but worthwhile learning.
If you decide to stick with tables, there's no reason to have a table with a single cell for the banner - just have the banner. Then for the 2nd half of your page a single table split into two cells would do fine. Plus, of course, you are free to place tables within tables within tables. (Another reason not to use tables for page layouts: it cna get messy quickly with all those td and tr tags all over the place.)
Here's a basic example of a site where the content is split up using div tags and css styling: divTest3.html
9335
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 25 March, 2005, 03:39:05 AM »
It all depends on what you want the site to do, really.
If all you are doing is displaying a limited amount of (fairly) static information, then basic html (plus CSS) will do nicely. Limited dynamic content can be achieved using a scripting language such as JavaScript.
HTML is client-side: in other words what the page looks like is interpreted by the browser on the user's machine. (This is also true for CSS, JavaScript and VBScript.)
ASP, PHP & ColdFusion are server-side: they are interpreted by the server, translated into straight html and then sent to the user's machine. Therefore, they all require that the server supports those technologies, and not all servers (eg free web space servers such as blueyonder) do.
Server side languages are useful if the pages are highly dynamic, in that perhaps they are gathering information from a database to display on the page.
In order to successfully implement server-side technologies, it is (probably) essential that you first understand basic programming concepts (loops, variables et al).
HTML is only a markup language, so it's easier to learn, write and implement.
If all you are doing is displaying a limited amount of (fairly) static information, then basic html (plus CSS) will do nicely. Limited dynamic content can be achieved using a scripting language such as JavaScript.
HTML is client-side: in other words what the page looks like is interpreted by the browser on the user's machine. (This is also true for CSS, JavaScript and VBScript.)
ASP, PHP & ColdFusion are server-side: they are interpreted by the server, translated into straight html and then sent to the user's machine. Therefore, they all require that the server supports those technologies, and not all servers (eg free web space servers such as blueyonder) do.
Server side languages are useful if the pages are highly dynamic, in that perhaps they are gathering information from a database to display on the page.
In order to successfully implement server-side technologies, it is (probably) essential that you first understand basic programming concepts (loops, variables et al).
HTML is only a markup language, so it's easier to learn, write and implement.
9336
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 25 March, 2005, 01:18:03 AM »
D'oh...I made a greenie mistake and my example code didn't show up for the re-sizing (where there's a blank line in my previous post).
Here it is:
<body onLoad="resizeTo(800,600)">
Here it is:
<body onLoad="resizeTo(800,600)">
9337
Off Topic / Re: Web design
« on: 25 March, 2005, 01:16:10 AM »
800 * 600 is indeed the recommended minimum resolution you should cater for. To this end, a little bit of JavaScript during development only can fix your browser window to a specific size.
Once development is over and you "go live" this bit of JavaScript should be removed (in order to avoid basic usability issues for the end-user):
On Windows XP Service Pack 2, any JavaScript will cause an Active X blocker message in Internet Explorer (unless security protocols are turned off in the Tools | Internet Options menu) when you run the html file on the desktop (ie by double-clicking it). (You won't get an error if running 'live' through http.)
Splash pages are considered a "usability crime" because they force repeat users to view and click through the splash on each visit.
CSS is very useful once you've mastered basic HTML, and there are good tutorials here: www.w3schools.com.
Once development is over and you "go live" this bit of JavaScript should be removed (in order to avoid basic usability issues for the end-user):
On Windows XP Service Pack 2, any JavaScript will cause an Active X blocker message in Internet Explorer (unless security protocols are turned off in the Tools | Internet Options menu) when you run the html file on the desktop (ie by double-clicking it). (You won't get an error if running 'live' through http.)
Splash pages are considered a "usability crime" because they force repeat users to view and click through the splash on each visit.
CSS is very useful once you've mastered basic HTML, and there are good tutorials here: www.w3schools.com.
9338
General / Re: I found this interesting pictu...
« on: 24 March, 2005, 04:43:24 PM »
S'funny...I don' see no steenking droids.
9339
General / Re: I found this interesting pictu...
« on: 24 March, 2005, 03:55:58 AM »
Where do they make the Megazine: in a portaloo outside?
9340
General / Re: What's the best 2000AD one-off...
« on: 24 March, 2005, 09:39:37 PM »
A sequel to Leviathan? Tell me more.
As for one-offs, I highly rate Snow/Tiger, 13/Thirteen, From Grace (was it called?) and Skizz (the sequels never happened in my world).
And Shakara.
And some of the ones other people have mentioned.
The best, though? That's tough. I can't choose a single one. I am impressed with the quality of recent one-offs over the past few years of 2000AD, though. Not everything has to be a never-ending saga. Memento, by Talbot, was a tour de force, in my humble onion.
As for one-offs, I highly rate Snow/Tiger, 13/Thirteen, From Grace (was it called?) and Skizz (the sequels never happened in my world).
And Shakara.
And some of the ones other people have mentioned.
The best, though? That's tough. I can't choose a single one. I am impressed with the quality of recent one-offs over the past few years of 2000AD, though. Not everything has to be a never-ending saga. Memento, by Talbot, was a tour de force, in my humble onion.
9341
General / Re: Dredd end?
« on: 24 March, 2005, 04:09:10 PM »
That's what Anderson thought when she channeled the power of the murdered populace of Deadworld way back when.
9343
Suggestions / Re: Art of 2000AD book
« on: 25 March, 2005, 01:23:32 AM »
Lost the films?
I've often wondered if Tharg has a full collection of 2000AD's or not.
I've often wondered if Tharg has a full collection of 2000AD's or not.
9344
Suggestions / Re: Art of 2000AD book
« on: 23 March, 2005, 04:15:34 PM »
I'd buy it. You could have comparisons between early and late work where there have been dramatic changes in style (where an obvious example would me Mike McMahon.)
I was also pondering recently how a book of classic covers might be groovy. This would probably require some sort of text discussion to make it viable, but then again maybe not.
I also thought something like the 2000AD Diary but without the diary. I could never write in it anyway: it seemed like sacrilege (sp?).
I was also pondering recently how a book of classic covers might be groovy. This would probably require some sort of text discussion to make it viable, but then again maybe not.
I also thought something like the 2000AD Diary but without the diary. I could never write in it anyway: it seemed like sacrilege (sp?).
9345
General / Re: Watchmen II
« on: 24 March, 2005, 01:05:19 AM »
I think what happend afterwards is best left to the individual reader to ponder on.
What might work would be various flashback tales, although to a great extent the key episodes in each character's life has already been covered.
Plus, of course, all the heroes in Watchmen are takes on already well established superheroes such as Batman, Superman and Captain America: so it would be a bit derivative.
I always end up back at the conclusion that Watchmen should be left alone: it went as far as it needed to.
What might work would be various flashback tales, although to a great extent the key episodes in each character's life has already been covered.
Plus, of course, all the heroes in Watchmen are takes on already well established superheroes such as Batman, Superman and Captain America: so it would be a bit derivative.
I always end up back at the conclusion that Watchmen should be left alone: it went as far as it needed to.