How to detect table width or height?

[Dennis]

Is there some way --using, say, DOM or javascript-- to detect the
current pixel width and/or height of a relatively sized table or of
one of its columns or rows. I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions and this
would sure be great information to have.

Thanks ....
Dennis

[Dennis]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:00:43 -0400, Stan Brown
<th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote:

In article <52************ *************** *****@4ax.com> in
comp.infosyste ms.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis @removeForSpam_ mindspring.com> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:50:26 -0400, Stan Brown
<th********** **@fastmail.fm> wrote:

So your choice by using Flash is for complete success or complete
failure, as opposed to 100% success or partial success if you don't
use Flash.
Something like 97% of web surfers out there do. And those few who
don't can easily get it. End of problem.

97%, huh? Why did you make up that particular number? Why didn't you
say 95%? or 99.2% or 67.1%?

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? Alright, may it please the court:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/
But what will _really_ happen is that people will go to your site,
see that it depends on Flash, and go elsewhere, unless you offer
content that they want and can't get anywhere else, which seems
unlikely.
OK Mr. Statistics, how many web surfers turn away when they see a
Flash site? Give us a source and not just a personal opinion.
Why do you post here if you don't want to listen to the feedback you
get?

What have I said that makes you think that I don't want to listen? Is
that I am taking a view different from the mainstream in this NG? Is
that "not wanting to listen"?

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:17:23 -0700, Dennis is reported to have
stated:

http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/

This report has been discussed here previously. The statistics are based
on 2000 participants - not a very large number considering the total number
of internet users - who are supposedly a "representa tive Internet sample".
I find that unlikely. I bet they all have perfect/near-perfect eyesight,
for starters.

And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not be,
they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the search
engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed. :-)

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

[Brian]

Dennis wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:51:20 GMT, Brian
<us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Something like 97% of web surfers out there do.
Source, please. Or did you just make this up?

Here ya go,
http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/

rotfl
A real unbiased source that is!

Whether they actually go to the trouble of downloading and
installing software for your content is another matter.

Well all you can do is make something available to people.

My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.
If they refuse to use it, that's not your problem.

It is if I want them to visit.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Mikko Rantalainen]

Dennis wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:26:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@si hope.com>
wrote:

You have decided that this look you envision is more important than
usability and accessibility?

No. I am doing it in Flash precisely for usability. A page is more
usable if the user can see at a glance where everything is and not
have to scroll around to find it. And steps can be taken to make it
also accessible.

Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]

If there aren't any such site in existence yet, how did you figure out
that you can come up with one or that even trying to do that with Flash
would be a great idea?
[1] The only thing that has even remotely nice features and uses Flash
is http://www.kartoo.com/. I think that the usability could be much
better but using Flash makes some sense in this case. (HTML version
could be much better though, so the comparision between the Flash and
HTML versions of that site isn't fair.)

--
Mikko

[Barry Pearson]

Mark Parnell wrote:

Sometime around Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:17:23 -0700, Dennis is reported
to have stated:

http://www.macromedia.com/software/p...s/flashplayer/

This report has been discussed here previously. The statistics are
based on 2000 participants - not a very large number considering the
total number of internet users - who are supposedly a "representa tive
Internet sample". I find that unlikely. I bet they all have
perfect/near-perfect eyesight, for starters.

And of course, no matter how accurate the figures might or might not
be, they ignore one of the most important visitors to your site - the
search engine robots. I guarantee they don't have Flash installed.
:-)

I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So statistics on
Flash availability may exaggerate its use.

I have only come across 2 sites in the last few months where this has been a
problem. In one case, I persuaded the site owner to add alternative links (it
used Flash buttons). The other case is ... Macromedia! I have to switch on
Flash to access the Dreamweaver extensions. It is the only case for a long
time where I have needed to use Flash.

I now tend to assume that Flash is used as a substitute for valuable content,
and treat the site accordingly. I may sometimes be wrong (eg. Macromedia), and
so miss something important. But there are millions of other sites out there,
and I can't evaluate each one thoroughly. So, like many people, I apply crude
measures - and that includes "Flash = bad news".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Jonathan Snook]

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in message
news:hI******** **********@news fep2-gui.server.ntli .net...

I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So statistics on
Flash availability may exaggerate its use.

Why do you run with it switched off?

[Jonathan Snook]

"Brian" <us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message > My sites are written in HTML. No additional software required.

Really? Cuz I had to download this thing called a "browser" to view it. I
suppose I could've just used Notepad to view your site but it seems that a
"browser" enhances my ability to view your site.

Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less
knowledgable sources that would actually encourage poor design.

Jonathan

[Jonathan Snook]

"Mikko Rantalainen" <mi**@st.jyu.fi > wrote in message

Well, color me skeptical but I have yet to see Flash used in such a way
that the usability is *better* than without Flash. Could you give us a
hint and throw us an URL to *any* site that uses Flash and has good
usability in your opinion. I haven't yet seen any. [1]

The charts on http://www.infosoftglobal.com/FusionCharts/Gallery.html can be
an effective way of displaying tabular or more complex information. I've
also seen a Flash-based application for reporting gate information for an
airport. And I like the navigation on Macromedia.com. I've also seem some
chat apps (like the one at teknision.com) that would be downright hideous in
HTML.

Your Jakob-ian response that because the technology is abused it shouldn't
be used is just as applicable to HTML.

Jonathan

[Barry Pearson]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in message
news:hI******** **********@news fep2-gui.server.ntli .net...

I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off. So
statistics on Flash availability may exaggerate its use.

Why do you run with it switched off?

Because I want as much control as possible over movement & delays. (Until
recently, when I was being a "web user" rather than a "web developer", I used
{IE 6 + Free Surfer + Google Toolbar}. Free Surfer also enabled me the inhibit
animated GIFs. Now I'm using {IE 6 + Avant Browser + Google Toolbar}, and
can't do this).

I am normally seeking information presented in a sensible way, not
entertainment or special effects. For the latter, I watch "Matrix Reloaded"
(wow!) or whatever. I want things that stay still, and stay quiet. (I dislike
being in the same office as a moving screen-saver, or the same room as a TV
with the sound turned down).

Flash is used for various purposes, from Flash Buttons (is there a point to
these?), through showing information in a value-added way, to showing
information that could at least as well be shown without Flash (in which case
some sites offer the option), to just demonstrating the size of the
developer's ego (enough said). The genuine "value-added" case appears to exist
for specialised purposes, but for some reason I am not interested those
particular specialisms.

The Macromedia site is just about one of the few sites that demands Flash that
I can't walk away from. Grrrrggh!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who
post questions here instead of badgering them and scaring them off to less

Is "badgering" the Word of the Week or something?
Matthias