Header, Footer, Content Layout using DIV and CSS?

[Grischa Brockhaus]

Hi,

I'm trying to produce a div layout containing a header on the top with fixed height, a footer on the
bottom using fixed height and a content layer using what's left of the browsers window.

So my header div is defined at top:0; height:40px , my footer is defined as bottom:0; height:40px
and the content is defined as top:40px;bottom :40px;

This works very well with firefox but doesn't work with IE, as IE ignores the bottom statement of
the content div, if a top statement is given.

How do I realize it correctly?

[Spartanicus]

Grischa Brockhaus <z0****@arcor.d ewrote:

>I'm trying to produce a div layout containing a header on the top with fixed height, a footer on the
bottom using fixed height and a content layer using what's left of the browsers window.

A footer that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a valid
reason to keep a footer visible at all times.

>So my header div is defined at top:0; height:40px , my footer is defined as bottom:0; height:40px
and the content is defined as top:40px;bottom :40px;

Given that the header and/or the footer contain text, using px units is
a bad decision, remember that you only have limited say over the text
size at the client end.

>This works very well with firefox but doesn't work with IE, as IE ignores the bottom statement of
the content div, if a top statement is given.

How do I realize it correctly?

IE doesn't support CSS2 well enough to do what you want. You's also need
"position:fixed " support for the footer which IE also doesn't do.

The layout you want suffers from a serious problem, it requires
generating a scrollbar on the "content" div, in-document scroll bars are
a usability nightmare. The only half decent browser support for
in-document scrolling panes is through frames, and as I hope you know,
frames come with a raft of problems of their own.

So you'd do well to bin the idea.

--
Spartanicus

[Grischa Brockhaus]

Spartanicus schrieb:

>I'm trying to produce a div layout containing a header on the top with fixed height, a footer on the
bottom using fixed height and a content layer using what's left of the browsers window.

A footer that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a valid
reason to keep a footer visible at all times.

It holds advertisement images.

>So my header div is defined at top:0; height:40px , my footer is defined as bottom:0; height:40px
and the content is defined as top:40px;bottom :40px;

Given that the header and/or the footer contain text, using px units is
a bad decision, remember that you only have limited say over the text
size at the client end.

Header and footer (nearly) contains images only.

>This works very well with firefox but doesn't work with IE, as IE ignores the bottom statement of
the content div, if a top statement is given.

How do I realize it correctly?

IE doesn't support CSS2 well enough to do what you want. You's also need
"position:fixed " support for the footer which IE also doesn't do.

"absolute" works with firefox, too.

The layout you want suffers from a serious problem, it requires
generating a scrollbar on the "content" div, in-document scroll bars are
a usability nightmare. The only half decent browser support for
in-document scrolling panes is through frames, and as I hope you know,
frames come with a raft of problems of their own.

Scrollbars are no problem, too, the content div only holds an iframe (having scrollbars itself).

So.. Is there an answer to my problem not only a discussion about good and bad layout? I *have* to
do it that way, as the customer wants it that way. Is there a solution? Or do I have to go back to
tables and frames for this? :-/

Thanks for input..

Grischa

[Spartanicus]

Grischa Brockhaus <z0****@arcor.d ewrote:

>A footer that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a valid
reason to keep a footer visible at all times.

It holds advertisement images.

Let them scroll.

>Given that the header and/or the footer contain text, using px units is
a bad decision, remember that you only have limited say over the text
size at the client end.

Header and footer (nearly) contains images only.

Nearly doesn't suffice.

>IE doesn't support CSS2 well enough to do what you want. You's also need
"position:fixe d" support for the footer which IE also doesn't do.

"absolute" works with firefox, too.

Try scrolling this: http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/temp2.htm

>The layout you want suffers from a serious problem, it requires
generating a scrollbar on the "content" div, in-document scroll bars are
a usability nightmare. The only half decent browser support for
in-document scrolling panes is through frames, and as I hope you know,
frames come with a raft of problems of their own.

Scrollbars are no problem, too, the content div only holds an iframe (having scrollbars itself).

Iframes have all the problems that regular frames suffer from with the
added disadvantage that clients support is not as good.

>So.. Is there an answer to my problem not only a discussion about good and bad layout?

This is a usenet discussion group, not your personal help desk. Propose
something here and we will discuss the implications, like it or not.

>I *have* to do it that way, as the customer wants it that way.

Customers rarely have a clue about web design, you don't have that
excuse. It's your job to deliver something that works well.

>Is there a solution? Or do I have to go back to
tables and frames for this? :-/

See my previous message.

--
Spartanicus

[Grischa Brockhaus]

Spartanicus schrieb:

>Is there a solution? Or do I have to go back to
tables and frames for this? :-/

See my previous message.

Okay.. I have to find the solution on my own, I guess.. I didn't want to discuss abstract layout
stuff, I just had a simple question about fixing a DIV. I understand your point of view, but this
doesn't help here really..

To make it more accurate: I need an iframe in the middle of the page, having an dynamic height and
fixed distance to top and bottom. There is no way of getting rid of the IFrame, as this is the
meaning of the page.

At the moment I put it into a div and give the iframe a height of 100%, but I am not able to fix the
div the way I would like to have it. If there is another way of fixing an iframe this way, I would
be happy to hear about this. I know how to do this with javascript, but this is and looks very nasty
for my taste (dynamically adjusting the iframes height by reading the browser window height).

Thanks for your input anyway..

Grischa

[Grischa Brockhaus]

Spartanicus schrieb:

>So.. Is there an answer to my problem not only a discussion about good and bad layout?

This is a usenet discussion group, not your personal help desk. Propose
something here and we will discuss the implications, like it or not.

Oh, I overlooked this one.

Yes, of course, you are right at this point. I didn't meant to disallow this, of course, I just
asked, if there is some input *beside* of this, that helps solving my problem.

Sorry, if I sound too rude, English is not my mothers tongue.

Grischa

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Grischa Brockhaus
<z0****@arcor.d ewriting in
news:44******** **************@ newsspool1.arco r-online.net:

To make it more accurate: I need an iframe in the middle of the page,
having an dynamic height and fixed distance to top and bottom. There
is no way of getting rid of the IFrame, as this is the meaning of the
page.

You have to be sure that the content is available for those that cannot
access an Iframe, it its content is that important.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[AES]

In article <p3************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

A footer that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a valid
reason to keep a footer visible at all times.

1) Many professional-caliber applications display workspace windows
with one or more toolbars across the top, another toolbar in a footer
across the bottom, and a scrollable workspace in between. These "footer
toolbars" may contain secondary tools, information boxes, buttons, or
useful links. I find this a very useful design concept (in competition
with floating palettes all over the screen or the workspace for example).

2) Many search engines, online forums, bibliographic reference sites,
travel booking sites, and professional-caliber online databases may
respond to a query with many tens of pages of information, often with
page lengths longer than normal screen heights at comfortable type sizes
and widths (with Google as just one prime example).

To step ahead by one or several pages in these applications, you
typically have to scroll to the bottom of the current page to get to the
Next and Previous buttons or the array of clickable page numbers -- and
the page you jump to will typically open scrolled to the top of the
page, so you have to scroll down again if you need to make another jump.

I can see why new pages should open this way; I have less understanding
why the links for further navigation can't be at the top rather than the
bottom of these pages. But it's another frequently occurring situation
where a fixed footer with navigation links in it could be very useful.

[Spartanicus]

AES <si*****@stanfo rd.eduwrote:

>A footer that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a valid
reason to keep a footer visible at all times.

1) Many professional-caliber applications display workspace windows
with one or more toolbars across the top, another toolbar in a footer
across the bottom, and a scrollable workspace in between.

"Foot'er noun a line of type printed at the foot of each page
(printing); football (colloquial)."

(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

A UI bar at the bottom of the screen in so called "web-applications" is
not a footer.

--
Spartanicus

[Number 11950 - GPEMC! Replace number with 11950]

"Spartanicu s" <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote in message
news:u1******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...
[SNIP]

"Foot'er noun a line of type printed at the foot of each page
(printing); football (colloquial)."

(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved

A UI bar at the bottom of the screen in so called "web-applications" is
not a footer.

What is it called to differentiate it from the banner at the top, the
sidebar for onsite navigation on the left, and the adbar for offsite
navigation (eg. sponsored sites, eCommerce, advertisements) on the right?

Thanks in Advance...

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! >11950 is the nu****@fieldcra ft.biz 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover valid interoperable web menus, IE security, TSR Control,
& the most advanced speed reading application @ www.fieldcraft.biz