width 590 !! FIX IT

FlavorFlav

Why is there this all over the place on quake.ie:

> TD WIDTH=590 VALIGN=MIDDLE

ffs, I dont pay good money for a 17in monitor and 1280x1024 graphics card, to have people restrict their damn html pages.

Why dont you use a percentage width. I remember from looking at the html spec that this is possible and I think I remember actually using it in the small bit of html I have done.

FlavorFlav

LegacyUser

: Why is there this all over the place on quake.ie:

: > TD WIDTH=590 VALIGN=MIDDLE

: ffs, I dont pay good money for a 17in monitor and 1280x1024 graphics card, to have people restrict their damn html pages.

: Why dont you use a percentage width. I remember from looking at the html spec that this is possible and I think I remember actually using it in the small bit of html I have done.

: FlavorFlav

Because we don't want to just yet (and yes,
you _can_ do WIDTH=100% if so desired).

It's designed to line up with the navigation bar
at the top.

I have a 17" and it's fine, quit yer whinging
and start playing Quake loooooozer!

C.
--

Hobbes

: Why dont you use a percentage width. I remember from looking at the html spec that this is possible and I think I remember actually using it in the small bit of html I have done.

Yep Percent works fine in loads of places. The HTML world is made up two kinds of people. The HTML designers, and the HTML programmers.

The Designers write thier site based on size of thier screen and that they have the whole thing on the harddrive. They don't bother checking other screen resolutions, because let's face it if you can't see their work of art your obviously not worthy enough. Designers tend to use a GUI program like FrontPage. You tell how experienced a designer is based on the diskspace thier site takes up. If they can turn a one sentance web page into 200K then they are quite experienced. The clever ones are able to get this to at least 1MB (they take a screen shot in high res mode and slap that on the page).

HTML Programmers use notepad, or Vi (for the sadists). The page they create will work on almost any browser at any screen resolution (and in some case braile readers). The page will load in the smallest amount of time possible (using Width+Height tags in Images to increase speed).

Both tend to hate each other.... HTML Designers are Tossers (I would of said W*nkers but the censor proberly wouldn't let me).

*ahem*

Hobbes.

LegacyUser

Then of course there are the more diverse HTML men who make use of good software to design web pages and have a good enough knowledge of HTML that they can tweak things about if necessary with the raw HTML. Yeah guilty as charged.
I don't hate HTML programmers but what gets me is the attitude that all WYSIWYG software is crap. Point of fact it is not nor is an educated decision to use notepad if desired. Even cheapo mags. with basic "design a web page" sections nearly always mention that you should check the way it looks on various res.'s. Don't say that someone who uses FP does'nt bother. Pure nonsense.

LegacyUser

Erm - My boss is of the 'Designer' school.
Believe it or not, once he made a page in Paint Shop Pro
(yes you read right) and wanted to put it straight up
on the web. He NEVER checks other resolutions and
uses FP.

Personally I use Allaire homesite, which is NOT a
WYSISWYG editor - it's really cool.

LegacyUser

I really fucckin hate this "written totally w/notepad" attitude from so-called web programmers. There is no one perfect solution for web authoring yet (although CyberStudio 3.0 comes damn close). It's about striking a balance between content, layout, d/load speed and portability, NOT whether u use frontPAGE, homePAGE, PAGEmill or a text editor. And I also suspect that most of these HTML jocks use wysiwyg editors and edit out the creation info to cover their tracks....like coding HTML is major fucckin rocket science.
Anyways everyone knows that MacOS is the No.1 authoring platform.

FlavorFlav

: : Why dont you use a percentage width. I remember from looking at the html spec that this is possible and I think I remember actually using it in the small bit of html I have done.

: Yep Percent works fine in loads of places. The HTML world is made up two kinds of people. The HTML designers, and the HTML programmers.

: The Designers write thier site based on size of thier screen and that they have the whole thing on the harddrive. They don't bother checking other screen resolutions, because let's face it if you can't see their work of art your obviously not worthy enough. Designers tend to use a GUI program like FrontPage. You tell how experienced a designer is based on the diskspace thier site takes up. If they can turn a one sentance web page into 200K then they are quite experienced. The clever ones are able to get this to at least 1MB (they take a screen shot in high res mode and slap that on the page).

: HTML Programmers use notepad, or Vi (for the sadists). The page they create will work on almost any browser at any screen resolution (and in some case braile readers). The page will load in the smallest amount of time possible (using Width+Height tags in Images to increase speed).

: Both tend to hate each other.... HTML Designers are Tossers (I would of said W*nkers but the censor proberly wouldn't let me).

: *ahem*

: Hobbes.


Just to invite more "discussion", would someone like to comment on "productivity" for both races of html'ers?

FlavorFlav
(who is starting to tire of the name, seeing as how i have used it for at least 6 months now)

FlavorFlav

: Because we don't want to just yet (and yes,
: you _can_ do WIDTH=100% if so desired).

I was thinking of something more like WIDTH=80%, but you knew that and just threw-up a quick non-thought-out example, right?

: It's designed to line up with the navigation bar
: at the top.

Ah the kernel (kernal?) XXX nucleus of the problem, YOU WANT A RES-INDEPENDENT BANNER, DONT YOU MATE!

: I have a 17" and it's fine, quit yer whinging
: and start playing Quake loooooozer!

It looks like there are great big docking areas either side of everything.

: C.
: --

FF. no wait scrap that it might be Fianna Fail - FlavorFlav

and get back to playing quake you student-eh
"stop eating chocolate, eat salad instead"

hmm, maybe i'll use the alias Mark E. Smith again.

Boba Fett

: : Why dont you use a percentage width. I remember from looking at the html spec that this is possible and I think I remember actually using it in the small bit of html I have done.

: Yep Percent works fine in loads of places. The HTML world is made up two kinds of people. The HTML designers, and the HTML programmers.

: The Designers write thier site based on size of thier screen and that they have the whole thing on the harddrive. They don't bother checking other screen resolutions, because let's face it if you can't see their work of art your obviously not worthy enough. Designers tend to use a GUI program like FrontPage. You tell how experienced a designer is based on the diskspace thier site takes up. If they can turn a one sentance web page into 200K then they are quite experienced. The clever ones are able to get this to at least 1MB (they take a screen shot in high res mode and slap that on the page).

: HTML Programmers use notepad, or Vi (for the sadists). The page they create will work on almost any browser at any screen resolution (and in some case braile readers). The page will load in the smallest amount of time possible (using Width+Height tags in Images to increase speed).

: Both tend to hate each other.... HTML Designers are Tossers (I would of said W*nkers but the censor proberly wouldn't let me).

: *ahem*

: Hobbes.

You mentioned frontpage 97 in the same sentence
as wysiwyg editor?, no way. Frontpage is one of the worst html editors you can get, the best, imho
is a combination of Macromedia Dreamweaver, notepad and ur own common sense.

SeP

its called not useing the head!!
i have to do most of my html in an editor (i use DreamWeaver) and i make sure it haas an option to see what HTML code is being produced
anyway, i tin hobbes is right about the sizing, its done for a small monitor (extremely small cos it only fits half my page on a 14" ffs)

percent is easier and looks alot better (its used on out great unt page so do drop in later we need the hits to catch up to the wwwboard)
damned if i can remmeber the code now!!

SeP

LegacyUser

: Why is there this all over the place on quake.ie:

: > TD WIDTH=590 VALIGN=MIDDLE

: ffs, I dont pay good money for a 17in monitor and 1280x1024 graphics card, to have people restrict their damn html pages.

Flav - this is excellent design, so hush. If I, or anyone with
any sense had a 17 inch monitor, running hi-res then I would
strenously object to a webpage taking more than half the screen.

The reason we use windowing systems is so we can multitask, having
an app like a web browser in full-screen mode is just plain daft.
(I'll stop sort of arguing that win95's MDL layout is the greatest
load of rubbish ever forced upon a user)

using 100% severly curtails what you can do with a document design-wise.
When I design a document, I want it to look identical whether the user
has 640x480 or 1600x1200, or whether the app is maxed, or in a small
window. And I mean *identical*, having my hard wrought text streched
across a screen because of % tables is an awful effect, it is exceptionally
unprofessional - check any of the top sites around, and you'll see that
they do not use % tables.

To answer one of the follow-up posts to this - I am an n'th level zealot of the
programmer school, I've spent weeks making sites look *identical* in ns2/3/4 and
ie 2/3/4, and that's no mean feat. Anyone who's done this kind of works *knows*
that a HTML suite such as frontpage/cyberstudio/homepage etc. is inadequate - We're
talking writing code down to the level that inserting a single return character in the
code means that a page looks fine in ns 3 but fu(ks up in ie 2 here.

So, to be brief, fixed tables are A GOOD THING. Keep your browser to the size of
an A4 page, and use the rest of your screen space for other apps. Oh, and another thing,
fixed tables of around width 550 mean that your document will *always* print to A4
without cropping, regardless of how the browser views the page - another feature of
professional design.

Teeth.
(oh yeah, and the Macintosh interface *still* rules, even if the OS is dated.
Scoff if you will, but you just don't get it..)

LegacyUser

: Just to invite more "discussion", would someone like to comment on "productivity" for both races of html'ers?

Would you like to comment on the elegance, efficiency,
readablity, correctness and maintainablity of that machine-made
drivel? Forgive me if I laugh at people who advocate the
use of those tools to the exclusion of all else. They are
both poor designers AND programmers.

Moreover, I challenge you find a GUI system that can turn out
code that is compatible across different browers or even different
versions of the same browser - or even one that exhibits graceful
degradation of features to match different browsers. I'm sorry, GUI
tools are child's toys on their own.

By all means use them to turn out bulk material, but for fine code,
all's you need is a decent text-editor. (of which there are *none* on
windows). If anyone here as ever used BBEdit 4.0 or later on the Macintosh,
they'll know what I mean.

Teeth.

LegacyUser

: I really fucckin hate this "written totally w/notepad"
: attitude from so-called web programmers.

Yeah FFS! You'd think if they were going for geek
credo they'd put 'made with vi' or 'typed in edlin'
or 'produced on a VT100'. Putting 'written in notepad'
on their pages makes 'em look like totally pathetic
lame-ass win95 drones. Still, it's the most they can
aspire to, if all they know, and all their friends
know, is windows. Sad really.. tragic.. that's the word..

: There is no one perfect solution for web authoring yet
: (although CyberStudio 3.0 comes damn close). It's about
: striking a balance between content, layout, d/load speed
: and portability, NOT whether u use frontPAGE, homePAGE,
: PAGEmill or a text editor.

True, Cyberstudio is a rare example - a GUI editor that
know's it's place. I still reckon you can't beat
getting down and dirty with the code though, when it comes
to creating good pages. It's a Quality vs Quantity deal.

: And I also suspect that most of these HTML jocks use
: wysiwyg editors and edit out the creation info to cover
: their tracks....

Er yeah, whatever.

: like coding HTML is major fucckin rocket science.

Doing it right is _not_ easy. Doing it so that it
looks nice on the browser you have in front of you
is quite easy though.

: Anyways everyone knows that MacOS is the No.1 authoring platform.

Right on. BBEdit 4 ever!

Teeth.

Hobbes

: Would you like to comment on the elegance, efficiency,
: readablity, correctness and maintainablity of that machine-made
: drivel?

Which one? The GUI based created web pages, or the notepad?

:Forgive me if I laugh at people who advocate the
: use of those tools to the exclusion of all else. They are
: both poor designers AND programmers.

Actually I wasn't. I was just poking fun at people who use WYSIWYG type HTML editors and consider themselves HTML experts.

: Moreover, I challenge you find a GUI system that can turn out
: code that is compatible across different browers or even different
: versions of the same browser - or even one that exhibits graceful
: degradation of features to match different browsers. I'm sorry, GUI
: tools are child's toys on their own.

Yea I agree. I've looked at couple of GUI's and don't really like any of them. The better of the lot I've used is Net Objects, as it's extremly easy to use, the HTML output is fairly clean and has an Optimize mode. eg. Design it using IE4, yet optimize the page for NetScape. So it's pretty nice in both browsers. The only downside is it's a "Designers" program. So if you set the page to 640x480, then that's all it will ever be. Hopefully the new version should be nicer.

: all's you need is a decent text-editor. (of which there are *none* on
: windows). If anyone here as ever used BBEdit 4.0 or later on the Macintosh,
: they'll know what I mean.

Oooh A Machead Lynch him! Actually there is a really good editor called Brief. Sadly it's a Dos editor, but there was a shareware Win95 clone of it somewhere.

.... GUI or text editor? Is this just symptoms of a bigger problem? Anyone remember the speccy days? Remember how 48K was all there was for a long time, and just before the 128K came out the level of games that were created within that memory constraint were fantastic (crap by today's standards). Now days, if the programmer hasn't enough room , it's just "Ahh sod improving the code, let's just get them to upgrade thier system". So the end user is forking out money for a better machine to play a game or left downloading a a massive web page for the sake of making it easier for the creator.

Hobbes.

FlavorFlav

: : Why is there this all over the place on quake.ie:

: : > TD WIDTH=590 VALIGN=MIDDLE

: : ffs, I dont pay good money for a 17in monitor and 1280x1024 graphics card, to have people restrict their damn html pages.

: Flav - this is excellent design, so hush. If I, or anyone with
: any sense had a 17 inch monitor, running hi-res then I would
: strenously object to a webpage taking more than half the screen.

The beauty of percent is that it scales. Whether you have hig-res full screen or low-res small window.

: The reason we use windowing systems is so we can multitask, having

Re-think that.

: using 100% severly curtails what you can do with a document design-wise.
: When I design a document, I want it to look identical whether the user
: has 640x480 or 1600x1200, or whether the app is maxed, or in a small
: window. And I mean *identical*, having my hard wrought text streched
: across a screen because of % tables is an awful effect, it is exceptionally
: unprofessional - check any of the top sites around, and you'll see that
: they do not use % tables.

Now I would expect from a good html designer, that one of their talents and abilities would be to design for a dynamic situation, that is the benefit of percentage widths. Anyway aren't forma factors, and percentages and ratio not more aesthetically pleasing? Are you guys nit-picking perfectionist programmers or deisgners. Maybe you should read more art/design/architecture books.

Oh yea, all those other sites that do it - They p^ss me off too. "There were lots of people on the Titanic" as my father would say.


: So, to be brief, fixed tables are A GOOD THING. Keep your browser to the size of
: an A4 page, and use the rest of your screen space for other apps. Oh, and another thing,
: fixed tables of around width 550 mean that your document will *always* print to A4
: without cropping, regardless of how the browser views the page - another feature of
: professional design.

Work with the system not against it, things are usually easier that way.

FlavorFlav
(who really hasn't got time to be getting involved in a discussion that has prob;y been covered numerous times on numerous html mailing lists)

LegacyUser

Unfortunately, I'm forced to do our site in vi cos it's
mirror is on the only server I can ftp through the
work firewall from and it's a hick 1980 unix box (I
couldn't be bothered keeping two mirrors).

I reckon the best web authorer is homesite from www.allaire.com though.

It's the business. Frontpage sucks.



: : I really fucckin hate this "written totally w/notepad"
: : attitude from so-called web programmers.

: Yeah FFS! You'd think if they were going for geek
: credo they'd put 'made with vi' or 'typed in edlin'
: or 'produced on a VT100'. Putting 'written in notepad'
: on their pages makes 'em look like totally pathetic
: lame-ass win95 drones. Still, it's the most they can
: aspire to, if all they know, and all their friends
: know, is windows. Sad really.. tragic.. that's the word..

: : There is no one perfect solution for web authoring yet
: : (although CyberStudio 3.0 comes damn close). It's about
: : striking a balance between content, layout, d/load speed
: : and portability, NOT whether u use frontPAGE, homePAGE,
: : PAGEmill or a text editor.

: True, Cyberstudio is a rare example - a GUI editor that
: know's it's place. I still reckon you can't beat
: getting down and dirty with the code though, when it comes
: to creating good pages. It's a Quality vs Quantity deal.

: : And I also suspect that most of these HTML jocks use
: : wysiwyg editors and edit out the creation info to cover
: : their tracks....

: Er yeah, whatever.

: : like coding HTML is major fucckin rocket science.

: Doing it right is _not_ easy. Doing it so that it
: looks nice on the browser you have in front of you
: is quite easy though.

: : Anyways everyone knows that MacOS is the No.1 authoring platform.

: Right on. BBEdit 4 ever!

: Teeth.

LegacyUser

:the best, imho is a combination of Macromedia Dreamweaver, notepad and ur own common sense.

Where do I download common sense from?