Charlie wrote:
>> that the template you suggest
>> will be impossible to implement well with just CSS.
> 
> What is the crazy need for just CSS ?  And when did tables become the devil ?
> 
> Honestly - using just CSS for layout sounds perverse.
> 
> I know , do the whole thing in XML and we'll just use XSLT to display it!
> 
> Charlie

I think this will answer your questions.

http://www.webcredible.co.uk/benefits/css-design.shtml

Tiberiu Gal wrote:
> http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
> 
> 
I think it looks great.
Color scheme is very easy on the eyes.

-DavidM

"Brian Hay" <bhay@construct3d.com> wrote in message news:446C8BA5.2090900@construct3d.com...

> Tables are for tabular data, not layouts.
> ...

Of course, the main advantage for using tables for layouts?  Portability.  I have had so many problems getting divs to work right, or at least the same way, in all browsers (IE especially..).  Tables almost _always_ work the same way.

But for something large, like an expansible, wiki-based site, I would definitely recommend using CSS layout, if for nothing else, making it simpler to generate the pages from the internal databases, and making the pages smaller (by not cluttering them with all the presentation code).

Dave wrote:
> Tiberiu Gal wrote:
>> In article <e4hahl$uci$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
>>> Tiberiu Gal wrote:
>>>> http://dworks.marte.ro/template3
>>>>
>>> The most immediate problem is that you seem to rely on a lot of images; how will you handle font size scaling without using tables?
>>>
>>> Have you considered using an existing template? http://www.hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
>>
>> just css? why? what's wrong with tables?
> 
> Great question (what's wrong with tables?) - served me well over many
> years and many web pages.

I frequently use a PDA (which has a 240x320 screen) to view web pages and the like when I'm at uni and don't have access to my desktop.  It annoys me NO END when someone uses huge tables instead of flowing DIVs and CSS.  Even if I pull all of the stylesheets out of the page, it still formats as if it was on a desktop, and makes it unreadable on the small screen.

On the other hand, every single site that uses clean HTML for structure and CSS for layout has displayed *without a problem*, since I can just strip off the CSS.

I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
 My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:

1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
2/3 of my main monitor)?
2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
colour blind people?
7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?

If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)

	-- Daniel Keep

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

Daniel Keep wrote:

> I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
>  My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:
> 
> 1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
> 2/3 of my main monitor)?
> 2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
> 3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
> 4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
> 5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
> 6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
> colour blind people?
> 7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?
> 
> If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)
> 
> 	-- Daniel Keep

I think my layout passes 1, 2(tested in safari a while back), 3
(especially with fonts set to -1 size), 4, 5.

I haven't tested it for 6 or 7, but I would like to know how that turns out.

nick wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>> I agree that tables make things easier, but easier isn't always better.
>>  My personal measure for how good a website of mine is thus:
>>
>> 1. Does it display correctly with my default browser window size (about
>> 2/3 of my main monitor)?
>> 2. Does it display correctly in a maximized window across both monitors?
>> 3. Does it display reasonably in a 800x600 window?
>> 4. If I pull out the stylesheets, is it still usable?
>> 5. Can I read it in lynx without difficulty?
>> 6. Is it suitable for people who are disabled: particularly blind and
>> colour blind people?
>> 7. Can I strip off all formatting and view it on my PDA?
>>
>> If it passes those seven tests, then it's gold :)
>>
>> 	-- Daniel Keep
> 
> I think my layout passes 1, 2(tested in safari a while back), 3
> (especially with fonts set to -1 size), 4, 5.
> 
> I haven't tested it for 6 or 7, but I would like to know how that turns out.

6. You can use http://colorfilter.wickline.org/.

7. If you use Firefox, you can usually get away with grabbing the Web Developer toolbar, and resizing your window down to ~240px wide, selecting "View" -> "Page Style" -> "No Style", and dropping the default font size once (using Ctrl+-).

That said, although I haven't put it on my PDA (it's a pain in the arse... stupid not having wireless have to find stupid dock), it looks fine at low res.  Code examples push out to the side, but that's fine since they'd look *worse* wrapped.

Also, I quickly ran the site through the colour blindness checker, and it looks... almost exactly the same, which is quite good :)

As for blind people, the layout could use one change: put the content first, then the navigation.  Here's how to test if you've done it right:

1. Grab a copy of lynx (I use Cygwin, so I'm not sure how to get it
otherwise).

2. Run this command:
   lynx -dump URL > page.txt

   I believe there is a website somewhere that will run a URL through
lynx for you, and display the result.  Can't remember where, tho.

3. Read page.txt.  Literally.  Read it out loud.  Every single word. And read it slowly, just like a computer would.  For extra effect, put the word "LINK" in front of all hyperlinks.  In fact, for best results, feed the page directly into a text to speech engine.

Yes, this is roughly what blind people have to put up with.  Just imagine listening to the site navigation being read out to you over and over again every time you visit a new page...

If you can't work out how to coax the HTML into the right structure, you can cop out and put a link at the top of the page like this:

<a href="#content" style="display:none;">Skip to content</a>.

Of course, the CSS should be in a separate file.

Hope this helps, rather than hinders :)

	-- Daniel Keep

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 7. If you use Firefox, you can usually get away with grabbing the Web Developer toolbar, and resizing your window down to ~240px wide, selecting "View" -> "Page Style" -> "No Style", and dropping the default font size once (using Ctrl+-).
Well I tried that since it's easy. Seems alright

> Code examples push out to the side, but that's fine
> since they'd look *worse* wrapped.
Agreed; they are using the <pre /> tag which is intended for code and such.

> Also, I quickly ran the site through the colour blindness checker, and it looks... almost exactly the same, which is quite good :)
I did too, gray stays gray, for the most part.

> As for blind people, the layout could use one change: put the content first, then the navigation.  Here's how to test if you've done it right:
> 
> 1. Grab a copy of lynx (I use Cygwin, so I'm not sure how to get it
> otherwise).
> 
> 2. Run this command:
>    lynx -dump URL > page.txt
> 
>    I believe there is a website somewhere that will run a URL through
> lynx for you, and display the result.  Can't remember where, tho.
It's all good, I am a nerd. I use lynx. (I used to have the navbar on the right for lynx but moved it back.)

> 3. Read page.txt.  Literally.  Read it out loud.  Every single word. And read it slowly, just like a computer would.  For extra effect, put the word "LINK" in front of all hyperlinks.  In fact, for best results, feed the page directly into a text to speech engine.
Easy, use a mac =).
Yeah, the sidebar can go on the right.

> Yes, this is roughly what blind people have to put up with.  Just imagine listening to the site navigation being read out to you over and over again every time you visit a new page...
Yeah, but I can't imagine programming using a text to speech engine; so this group of people may not be our target audience. Shouldn't be too much work to support them either way.

> If you can't work out how to coax the HTML into the right structure, you can cop out and put a link at the top of the page like this:
> 
> <a href="#content" style="display:none;">Skip to content</a>.
> 
> Of course, the CSS should be in a separate file.
> 
> Hope this helps, rather than hinders :)
This helps. The knowledge that someone here besides me understands the badness of table-based layouts also helps.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Brian Hay" <bhay@construct3d.com> wrote in message news:446C8BA5.2090900@construct3d.com...
> 
>> Tables are for tabular data, not layouts.
>> ...
> 
> Of course, the main advantage for using tables for layouts?  Portability.  I have had so many problems getting divs to work right, or at least the same way, in all browsers (IE especially..).  Tables almost _always_ work the same way.
<snip>

Try telling that to:
- somebody using a device with a small screen on which it becomes harder to read
- somebody using some accessibility feature that may be confused about the structure of the content
- somebody listening to a website on a speaking browser
- a search engine robot

Moreover, even within UAs of the same kind, what matters is not that it looks (or feels or sounds) exactly the same in them all.  What matters is that it works in them all.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Tiberiu Gal wrote:
> http://dworks.marte.ro/template3

I dont like that "boxed" layout at all (DFL 1.4, Thinking in D, etc..).

Those boxes seem like a waste of space to me.

I think this is quite a bit better: http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png