Re: Using Tables

Let me just add my two cents worth here.

When it comes to tables, Netscape has been known to turn the best of well
intentioned tables into something resembling *very* secondhand spaghetti. 

So, how to overcome this dilemma, other than to scream that Netscape is
useless and IE *rules* ?

As you construct your table and browser check it, check it with Netscape
*first*. If it works, you're looking pretty good. Then check it in Opera.
If it works, you're bordering on genius...go to the top of the class, but
don't take your books, you'll be back :)

By this time, it's pretty much a given that it works in IE, but best you
check to make sure :) 

This does not mean that Netscape sucks and IE is *wonderful*.   What it
means is, that IE is more forgiving of sloppy code and why wouldn't it
be..it's a Microshaft product and having produced FrumpPage, they have to
have a browser to deal with the junk code their software produces...*grin*

Oh boy! ...now I'm gonna cop it ....LOL 

Kym <who has *all* browsers installed for testing purposes>


The solution :

Tables *do* work in Netscape...test in Netscape *first*. If it works in
Netscape, chances are, that it will work in IE.  That doesn't mean that IE
is better, it just means that it is more forgiving.



At 11:25 AM 05/23/2000 , Paul Wilson wrote:
>> from what I have seen using tables is best for working with Images can
>> anyone explain
>
>Now that several people have said tables are good, a few words on how to use
>them seem to be in order.
>
>The info below is not the only way, but its a way that works for me most of
>the time, we will probably hear from others how they do it - which is good.
>There is no absolute right way, rather what experience has shown works in
>different circumstances for different people.
>
>Decide the size page you want.  I use a 620 pixel width to build most
>tables.  Its a little crowded looking for the 640X480 video mode, but almost
>perfect for 600X800 which most people are using now.  Some folks might have
>trouble printing with a width of 620 but we are talking a small number of
>viewers.   WebTV viewers may have to do a little more with the horizontal
>positioning bar, but its still usable for them.
>
>Three years ago everyone was recommending around 500 pixels to ensure good
>printing, trouble is that looks bad in 800X600 mode and ridiculous in
>1024X768.  Just too much unfilled screen territory.
>
>You can alternately set the width of the table to a percentage rather than
>pixels, trouble is that every screen mode formats differently. You have
>little control over what it will look like and many advanced layout
>techniques won't work.  If you use few  graphics and they are small, using
>percentages can work, but these are very plain looking pages.  I abandoned
>using percentages a long time ago except where the information is primarily
>text.
>
>Build the table with navigation in mind.  Do you want buttons at top or one
>of the sides?  Buttons on the side is the most popular and works well with
>the shape of the monitor being in a 5/4 ratio.  If doing side buttons,  you
>need to set the column width where the buttons are slightly larger than the
>button width.  Do not set the width of the other column(s) because it drives
>browsers nuts if the math is incorrect. If I have a large image like a map
>or product picture, I let that image size control the column's width.
>
>Button size is important.  The bigger the buttons, the more time it takes to
>download and the more screen size they take up.  On large sites they can
>consume a lot of turf. Labels need to be short, yet meaningful.  This can
>create a lot of head scratching.  Buttons also need to be recognizable as
>buttons.  Nothing bugs me more than a button that is not a button, or a
>graphic that is linked to another web page, that does not look like its a
>link.
>Why do so many of us intentionally make it hard to navigate???
>
>Very Important!  Test your pages with both Netscape and IE.  If it works
>well for both, your probably OK.  I also test using old versions of browsers
>on another machine.  I shoot for near 100% viewability.
>
>Well, this is a start, there are a lot more subtle things that you will
>learn as you go along, hope this helps you get started with tables.
>
>==============================
>| Paul Wilson
>| webgooru(at)gte.net
>==============================






FoJo Media -  for Creative Web Design and Marketing Services
http://www.fojomedia.com

Visit my garden to enhance your website with FREE graphics...
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/makinwaves/garden.html

In conjunction with Makin' Waves Studio
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/makinwaves/index.html

A tribute to my Mother who recently passed away
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/4441/tribute.html

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA