Dropdown menu javascript menus a bad choice?

[sandy]

This sounds like a frequently asked question, but I
didn't find the answer in any faq I've looked at.

I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.

Question:
Does google interpret javascript?
Or, in other words, are client-side-javascript-generated links
invisible to search engines?

Isn't this a strong argument for not using javascript, at
least for generating links of any kind?
Seems like css-positioned menus would be a better choice.

[Jedi Fans]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

The umpire wears ladies underpants. Maybe someday style sheets will
be suitable for page layout. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

Incidentally, there is a novel, pop-out menu on the left age. Uses
javascript but it's not essential for navigation.

See this on any of the sub-pages such as:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/istanb.../ArtIndex.aspx

<URL: http://yahoo.com> <URL: http://www.csszengarde n.com> (second has
many many alternate styles...

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Mason A. Clark
<ma************ *@ix.netcom.com > writing in
news:ns******** *************** *********@4ax.c om:

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page
layout.

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

If the developer doesn't use Interdev, I'm sure it's a nightmare to
maintain. The tables are nested four deep, with lovely markup such as:
<TR>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=67 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=22 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=35 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=10 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=13 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=37 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=34 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=33 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=36 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=12 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=5 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=6 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=38 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=62 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=101 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=124 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=31 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD valign="top"> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=1
ALT=""></TD> <TD></TD>

I write a lot of server side code, and believe me, not having to cobble
tables for positioning, and not having to worry about presentational
markup has made my life _a lot_ easier.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[rf]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/screenshot/ist.jpg

Cheers
Richard.

[David Dorward]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

The umpire wears ladies underpants. Maybe someday style sheets will
be suitable for page layout. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

Almost all the sites on the web use tables for page layout ...
http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/but-most/

Meanwhile: http://www.cssreboot.com/

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Mason A. Clark]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:08:57 GMT, "rf" <@invalid.com > wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/screenshot/ist.jpg

Cheers
Richard.

Wow ! I had only viewed it with Opera. The home
page graphics are broken in MSIE and Firefox. The
other pages look ok. I've called this to the attention
of the webmaster. Odd that they must have done
their testing only in Opera??

A beautiful site nevertheless.

Mason C

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma************ *@ix.netcom.com > said:

The umpire wears ladies underpants.
That's none of the business of the players, and is irrelevant to the
umpire's ability to do his/her job.
Maybe someday style sheets will be suitable for page layout.
For at least the last few years, and for a long time to come yet.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system.
There are certainly flaws in the CSS concept. But it's the best we've
got for now. Yes, that includes being better than tables for layout.
In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

The lemming mentality doesn't become you.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Mason A. Clark]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:14:46 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma*********** **@ix.netcom.co m> said:

The umpire wears ladies underpants.

That's none of the business of the players, and is irrelevant to the
umpire's ability to do his/her job.

Maybe someday style sheets will be suitable for page layout.

For at least the last few years, and for a long time to come yet.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system.

There are certainly flaws in the CSS concept. But it's the best we've
got for now. Yes, that includes being better than tables for layout.

In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

The lemming mentality doesn't become you.

Your use of tables for what is not *data* surprised me. Surely you
could use css? Then you use css for a table of actual data -- ok, but
tables would be suitable there.

Bottom line: use what works for you.

Mason C

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma************ *@ix.netcom.com > said:

Your use of tables for what is not *data* surprised me. Surely you
could use css?
You talking to me? Where have I done that?
Then you use css for a table of actual data
Again, where have I done that?
ok, but
tables would be suitable there.

Absolutely. That's what they are designed for, and I don't know of
anyone here who has ever suggested otherwise.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Bruce Lewis]

Jedi Fans <"news[at]jedifans[--=dot==-]com"> writes:

Bruce Lewis wrote:

Recently I changed a form that is used to classify press releases,
replacing the OPTION elements with tables of radio buttons. It's proved
a lot more usable since the change.

tables should only be used for tabular data, not for layout etc...

A radio button and a description of its value form a row of tabular
data.

As it turns out I didn't use tables, just <br> at the end of each
description. Tables would have been more correct than what I actually
did.