Web design GURUs: going from HTML to...less work :0)

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    I'm still try to get www.turborodent.com to render properly



    Tables for layout...



    *shakes head sadly*



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 32
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    *grin*



    I have a dream that one day I can use CSS instead of tables...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 32
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    *grin*



    I have a dream that one day I can use CSS instead of tables...




    its alot easier then it sounds...i've done it on some websites i'd made for run and never looked back...then again i used the help of fireworks too
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 32
    Yeah, I know it isn't really that hard. I've done it before. It's just, through my evaluations, I don't think we're ready to abandon tables just yet. A lot of others in the industry agree with me on this one as well. One day, but not today
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 32
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    Yeah, I know it isn't really that hard. I've done it before. It's just, through my evaluations, I don't think we're ready to abandon tables just yet. A lot of others in the industry agree with me on this one as well. One day, but not today



    to true.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 32
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    I have to admit that I'm not the greatest with HTML I know enough to code by hand, but with Dreamweaver, I just do it with a GUI then edit the code to be a little more pretty. I don't know much about CSS, but I would really like to learn. I know how to do basic text stuff and a few things just by looking at the code Dreamweaver generates and the code of other websites...



    This is a template for my current project (hence no subsections or actual content, just demonstration.) Layout mostly done with HTML (I guess I'm really behind the times ) and a bit of CSS for the text...which isn't finished yet. This was originally XHTML, but I found that using just a normal <html> tag fixed my problems with 100% tall tables (anyone know why only Safari actually makes the table 100% tall? Gecko based browsers and IE practically ignore the flag..)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 32
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    That's because setting height="100%" is not part of the XHTML specification; if you define your document as XHTML, the browsers will treat it as one and will therefore not acknowledge your height variable because it isn't legal.



    You have to define that with CSS now. You should go read all about the XHTML specification. Also, I highly recommend defining your documents as XHTML Transitional, not Strict. It's just going to make it easier, and let's face it, we are in a transitional period.



    Your homework for this long weekend...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 32
    No tables here, have a look:



    http://www.eccentrick.co.uk/sites/ritter3/
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 32
    tompagetompage Posts: 50member
    I do recommend Dreamweaver MX. I agree that it's user interface could still do with some improvements both in overall design and also on a micro level there are some glitches in the Aqua interface - presumably as a result of it being a Carbon application and not fully Mac OS X native. It does also have a few annoying habits, but the use of templates, libraries and other automatic code-generating features are invaluable for mainting a fast-growing site (500 html pages and growing!)



    I have recently moved most of the website I work on most of the time (www.smirnoffunderbelly.co.uk) to XHTML and CSS and layers rather than tables for layout where possible, but I am still finding problems with browsers rendering CSS and layers slightly differently.



    On a page like this it appears to render fine in Internet Explorer but in Safari the same page has the main image moved down by 5-10 pixels so that the image is almost touching the layers.



    I appreciate that tables equally suffer from different rendering, but somehow it is still reassuring for layout purposes that table cells always adjoin and never overlap, thus preventing the problems you can sometimes have with layout using layers below containing the buttons and time/price info.



    I was hoping that Safari 1.0 might have fixed it, but as it has not I am not sure whether it is the browser or my code (generated by DW so maybe that's why?! )



    I think tables will always survive - even if only for genuine tables if not for the purposes of layout tricks, but it would be nice to see more consistency in the CSS rendering in browsers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 32
    http://www.smirnoffunderbelly.co.uk/



    It looks the same to me in IE and Safari.



    Big sliced-up images on the web, yikes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 32
    Jessica - I too was taught and had to learn html first. Then came the WYSIWYG. DreamWeaver was it. I thought it was complicated, then I tried GoLive (before Adobe bought it, am I dating myself? ) I tried frontpage as well, but found it too stiff and not enough creative freedome given. Then, I took a haitus from web stuff..for a couple years..went back to dreamweaver - it has taken some getting used to, but trust me -nothing- is better than dreamweaver. Even the second time around. Give it time, I truly think you will like it.





    `tommy
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 32
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    That's because setting height="100%" is not part of the XHTML specification; if you define your document as XHTML, the browsers will treat it as one and will therefore not acknowledge your height variable because it isn't legal.



    You have to define that with CSS now. You should go read all about the XHTML specification. Also, I highly recommend defining your documents as XHTML Transitional, not Strict. It's just going to make it easier, and let's face it, we are in a transitional period.



    Your homework for this long weekend...




    Thanks for not using a holier-than-thou attitude about telling me what I'm doing wrong.



    I'm only 16 and doing design for a few people that can't afford to pay to have it done, and in the case of Solidsun, a freeware developer whose applications I use regularly and that I have made icons for. Still good to learn how to do it right, though.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.