Oh, sorry.  I didn't realize you meant you were nesting them four levels, etc.

In that case, I might have to recommend IE7, if you can't move to divs.  That should definitely handle it, even if for the penalty (which will go away once MSIE 7 is released.)

You could put classes on the tds themselves, which would fix this issue...

Sorry, there isn't a good solution to this problem for your usage after all, that I know of.  Forgive me for misunderstanding.

-[Unknown]

In article <optasqjczv23k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
>
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:25:54 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote:
>> Anyway, let me know if it works out :).
>
>It doesn't work. The page in particular on which it's a problem goes:
>
><table class="invisible">
><tr>
>	<th>..etc..</th>
></tr>
><tr>
>	<td><table class="invisible">
>	<tr>
>		<td><table class="visible">
>		<tr>
>			<td><table class="invisible">
>			<tr>
>				<td>..A..</td>
>			</tr>
>			<tr>
>				<td>..B..</td>
>			</tr>
>			</table></td>
>		</tr>
>		<tr>
>			<td>..C..</td>
>		</tr>
>		</table></td>
>	</tr>
>	<tr>
>		<td>..etc..</td>
>	</tr>
>	</table>
>	</td>
></tr>
>
>The CSS is:
>
>table.invisible {
>   background-color: none;
>   border: none;
>}
>table.invisible td {
>   background-color: none;
>   border: none;
>}
>
>table.visible {
>   background-color: silver;
>   border: 2px outset silver;
>   border-spacing: 1px;
>}
>table.visible td {
>   border: 1px inset silver;
>   padding: 2px;
>}
>
>I want borders around the table enclosing A and B and around C, but not around A and B individually.
>
>The above CSS puts borders around A and B individually, if I reverse the order, placing the ".visible" rules before the ".invisible" ones I get no borders at all.
>
>:(
>
>Regan.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 02:02:16 +0000 (UTC), Unknown W. Brackets <Unknown_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
> Oh, sorry.  I didn't realize you meant you were nesting them four levels, etc.

Well.. I kinda implied only 2 levels initially. Don't you get the same problem with 2 levels as you do with 4? Both rules will be applied and the latter will override the former? (I haven't actually tested it..)

> In that case, I might have to recommend IE7, if you can't move to divs. That
> should definitely handle it, even if for the penalty (which will go away once MSIE 7 is released.)

I'll have a look at it. I'd never heard of it before now.

> You could put classes on the tds themselves, which would fix this issue...

Yeah, that still seems overly heavy handed to me.. but then again it may be the only solution which actually works :(

We can conditionally output css data based on browser, except I'd like to avoid taking that step as some browsers (opera) often masquerade as others (like IE)..

> Sorry, there isn't a good solution to this problem for your usage after all, that I know of.  Forgive me for misunderstanding.

No worries. I can't really complain about help freely given, can I. ;)

Regan

> In article <optasqjczv23k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz>, Regan Heath says...
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:25:54 -0700, Unknown W. Brackets
>> <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote:
>>> Anyway, let me know if it works out :).
>>
>> It doesn't work. The page in particular on which it's a problem goes:
>>
>> <table class="invisible">
>> <tr>
>> 	<th>..etc..</th>
>> </tr>
>> <tr>
>> 	<td><table class="invisible">
>> 	<tr>
>> 		<td><table class="visible">
>> 		<tr>
>> 			<td><table class="invisible">
>> 			<tr>
>> 				<td>..A..</td>
>> 			</tr>
>> 			<tr>
>> 				<td>..B..</td>
>> 			</tr>
>> 			</table></td>
>> 		</tr>
>> 		<tr>
>> 			<td>..C..</td>
>> 		</tr>
>> 		</table></td>
>> 	</tr>
>> 	<tr>
>> 		<td>..etc..</td>
>> 	</tr>
>> 	</table>
>> 	</td>
>> </tr>
>>
>> The CSS is:
>>
>> table.invisible {
>>   background-color: none;
>>   border: none;
>> }
>> table.invisible td {
>>   background-color: none;
>>   border: none;
>> }
>>
>> table.visible {
>>   background-color: silver;
>>   border: 2px outset silver;
>>   border-spacing: 1px;
>> }
>> table.visible td {
>>   border: 1px inset silver;
>>   padding: 2px;
>> }
>>
>> I want borders around the table enclosing A and B and around C, but not
>> around A and B individually.
>>
>> The above CSS puts borders around A and B individually, if I reverse the
>> order, placing the ".visible" rules before the ".invisible" ones I get no
>> borders at all.
>>
>> :(
>>
>> Regan.
>
>

Ok, I pretty much dislike the new Digitals Mars D site layout. Am I the only one?
I don't like on-mouse-over highlighting of any kind for functional websites (pointless eyecandy?) Also, the highlighted area doesn't even seem to be well centered (or framed) around it's respective text.
And there are "empty link spaces" between (all) menu entries, that is, areas where there is no hyperlink/menu-selection (I've found that that bothers me, although this issue could be just change-nausea(unlikely though)).
Plus, I don't like the "button" look of the "Home | Downloads | Search | D | Comments" header, as the buttons look ugly.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

"Bruno Medeiros" <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote in message news:e6ke0t$30ub$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I don't like on-mouse-over highlighting of any kind for functional websites (pointless eyecandy?)

On the contrary, feedback like that often improves the experience for graphical interfaces.  It's not "pointless eyecandy," it's letting you know what you can interact with by showing it in an interactive way.  We get the same kind of feedback from things like keyboard keys; they kind of wiggle if you put your finger on them, and they make a nice "click" and have a good springiness when pushed.  Feedback is an important part of graphical interface design as well.

> Also, the highlighted area doesn't even seem to be well centered (or framed) around it's respective text.

Not sure what you mean.  Maybe it's a browser display issue?

> And there are "empty link spaces" between (all) menu entries, that is, areas where there is no hyperlink/menu-selection (I've found that that bothers me

The alternative is cramming all the links together, which looks awful.

> Plus, I don't like the "button" look of the "Home | Downloads | Search | D | Comments" header, as the buttons look ugly.

They do look a bit ugly.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros" wrote:
> 
>>I don't like on-mouse-over highlighting of any kind for functional websites (pointless eyecandy?)
> 
> On the contrary, feedback like that often improves the experience for graphical interfaces.  It's not "pointless eyecandy," it's letting you know what you can interact with by showing it in an interactive way.  We get the same kind of feedback from things like keyboard keys; they kind of wiggle if you put your finger on them, and they make a nice "click" and have a good springiness when pushed.  Feedback is an important part of graphical interface design as well.

IMHO, too, on-mouse-over highliting is convenient. AS LONG AS the designer didn't make the links otherwise hard notice within text.

O-m-o is also very good for the visually or motorically impaired. (Ever tried to surf badly decorated sites after a "night out" and with sore eyes?)

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Bruno Medeiros" <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote in message news:e6ke0t$30ub$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> I don't like on-mouse-over highlighting of any kind for functional websites (pointless eyecandy?)
> 
> On the contrary, feedback like that often improves the experience for graphical interfaces.  It's not "pointless eyecandy," it's letting you know what you can interact with by showing it in an interactive way.  We get the same kind of feedback from things like keyboard keys; they kind of wiggle if you put your finger on them, and they make a nice "click" and have a good springiness when pushed.  Feedback is an important part of graphical interface design as well.
> 

The thing that "let's you know what you can interact with" is called the hyperlink text underline, a standard issue of HTML, and is a better feedback.

>> Also, the highlighted area doesn't even seem to be well centered (or framed) around it's respective text.
> 
> Not sure what you mean.  Maybe it's a browser display issue?
> 

No it's not a browser display issue. Hum, I didn't explain myself too clearly. The left side of the highlighted area starts just about where the text starts, which doesn't look good, In My UI Opinion. To see what I think should look better, see the page with the attached style.css (tested for IE and Firefox).

>> And there are "empty link spaces" between (all) menu entries, that is, areas where there is no hyperlink/menu-selection (I've found that that bothers me
> 
> The alternative is cramming all the links together, which looks awful.
> 

No it doesn't (look awful).
Even if it did, it didn't matter for the point. I'm not asking that the
links have little vertical interval, I just want the vertical interval
to be all or mostly "link" space, that is, with no blank, non-link spaces.

>> Plus, I don't like the "button" look of the "Home | Downloads | Search | D | Comments" header, as the buttons look ugly.
> 
> They do look a bit ugly.
> 
> 
Indeed.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D