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

[Tina Holmboe]

Dennis <theonlyDennis@ removeForSpam_m indspring.com> exclaimed in <4d************ *************** *****@4ax.com>:

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.

He won't, and he can't. And neither can *you* - which is the entire
point. The web, statistically, isn't accurate, and there is no way
to improve upon it.

Let us take the "fact" that IE is the most popular browser there is. If
you run a site with alot of visitors, look at your server logs, and
notice that IE has 80% of the market, you'd be well advised to remember
that there is *no way* you can know whether or not those 80% are not
really Lynx with a faked UA string.

You can assume it as likely, but you cannot *know*.

How about the statement "Most people use 800x600", which is often
taken at face value ? Well, the method used to *determine* this is to
ask the UA using Javascript. This means that:

(a) A site need to install the Javascript,
(b) An UA need to visit that site,
(c) The UA need to have Javascript enabled.

Sites like thecounter.com claim that, in some months, as many as 13% run
without Javascript enabled. This leaves us with several interesting
variables for (a), (b) and (c) above:

- Are sites that install the counter script typical of websites ?
- Are visitors to these sites typical of users ?
- What about the 13% that might have Javascript turned on or off ?

Those 13% are also determined by way of Javascript, btw ... you SURE
you want to trust statistics gathered on use of various web technologies ?

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"?

It has less to do with "mainstream " and more to do with the topic of
these newsgroups. Mainly we deal with technical, objective, issues.

You're basically saying that the Earth is flat after testing the theory
with your Captain Zoom's Elite Corps of Engineers Chronoscope. It's not
going to win a popularity contest amongs a bunch of astronomers, I can
tell'ya.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower. net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

[Tina Holmboe]

Dennis <theonlyDennis@ removeForSpam_m indspring.com> exclaimed in <1n************ *************** *****@4ax.com>:

I was wrong, it's 98.6%. And if that isn't enough, those other 1.4%
are not locked out in any way. All they have to do is click on a link
You are wrong, yes. It isn't 98.6% - noone *know* how much it is.
that says "get Flash." But I would be very appreciative if you could
elaborate on my "arrogance. " I really don't understand the hostility
I have generated in this NG. How am I being arrogant?

Because you are saying: "I want to use a technology which is not part of
the standard web tools. Anyone else should just adapt to me"

Consider this. If every TV broadcast were, suddenly, in HDTV format
and the TV companies told you that "Oh, but all you have to do is get
a new TV set!" you'd be pretty miffed.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but think about it.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower. net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Nick Kew wrote:

Welcome to the Experienced Users club. Now you too can take your share of
abuse from the "but everyone has XYZ..." brigade.

Quite. However, "everyone has it" can be as much a threat as a
promise. If it was only those who really wanted "it" that had "it",
(for quite a number of different values of "it"), then one could
incorporate "it" with merry abandon, knowing that only those who
wanted it would get it.

But when "it" has been forced down everyone's throat, despite a clear
proportion of users hating "it", one needs to take much more care in
how one uses "it". N'est-ce pas?

[Isofarro]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Mark Parnell wrote:

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.

This is such a useful tool for Firebird:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/exten...ck%20To%20View

almost as good as HTTP Live Headers
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

[Barry Pearson]

Isofarro wrote:

Barry Pearson wrote:

[snip]

I have Flash installed. I also run with it switched off.

This is such a useful tool for Firebird:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/exten...ck%20To%20View

almost as good as HTTP Live Headers

Thank you! Very nice. Now installed in my Firebird 0.7.

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

[Stan Brown]

In article <ko************ *************** *****@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@ removeForSpam_m indspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:51:20 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julie tremblay.com.in valid-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/

Well, now _there's_ an unbiased source.

Ja, you betcha.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

In article <bn************ @ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-
sp**@gmx.net> wrote:

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?

I think "badgering" means "telling people something that disagrees
with their preconceptions" . :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

In article <4d************ *************** *****@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Dennis
<theonlyDennis@ removeForSpam_m indspring.com> wrote:

Stan Brown had written:

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.

I don't have a number -- unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I
don't know.

But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Jonathan Snook]

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message

But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.

It's a relatively small sample of users and within a specific segment that
is knowledgable enough to disable the technology. It doesn't really tell me
anything. Just like all statistics! :)

Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/

[Barry Pearson]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message

But several people in this very thread have said they do not have
flash or do not routinely use it. That should tell you something.

It's a relatively small sample of users and within a specific segment
that is knowledgable enough to disable the technology. It doesn't
really tell me anything. Just like all statistics! :)

The key is that they don't like it, not that they know how to disable it.
Users who don't like Flash but can't disable it can often just go elsewhere,
as I typically did before I disabled it.

The point about the small sample is well made. Dennis is trying to solve
problems with his web sites. Success or failure depends on what he does to the
web sites, and how his target audience reacts to what he does. So Dennis'
challenge is to get the best advice he can, develop his web sites accordingly,
and hope that the target audience likes the result.

Debates here don't influence his target audience. They will accept or reject
his web sites completely oblivious to who has scored how many debating points
in Usenet! So he needs to judge whether his potential users like Flash - not
try to persuade people here to like Flash, or criticise them by implication.

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