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

[kchayka]

Barry Pearson wrote:

Dennis is trying to solve problems with his web sites.

That wasn't the impression I got. It sounded more like he got a notion
in his head that having all content visible on one screen would make
whatever that content was instantly more usable. Instead of identifying
any real issues (including what the content was or what the target
audience might be), he decided on a Flash solution without any further
thought.

He is more likely falling into the pit of fixing the wrong problem, but
since he hasn't provided any details about the site, it's hard to tell.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

[kchayka]

Dennis wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:44:06 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@si hope.com>
wrote:

Whatever you do on this front will be inadequate, since Flash's
accessibili ty features on the authoring side are inadequate.
Accessibili ty features in the Flash player are pretty much non-existent,
so we users are at your mercy.
There are plusses and minuses on that and I think it comes out a
wash. For example, did you know that you can zoom in on a Flash
movie? I mean way close, and scroll through words 5 inches high.

If you've ever had to use it on a regular basis, you might agree with me
that Flash's zoom feature leaves a lot to be desired. The user has no
control over the zoom factor or the size of the zoom area. What most
often happens is you end up with only small portion of the text that's
in a huge text size. You have to pan (not scroll) to see more. It is a
horrible way to use a site. Nobody would choose to use a site made this
way, unless they were masochists.
HTML can't do that.
With HTML, I have control over text size. I can make text whatever size
it needs to be for me to read it. Flash can't do that.
Keep an open mind, I'll be back with a URL before long....

My expectations are not any higher than they were before...

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

[Jonathan Snook]

"Matthias Gutfeldt" <sa************ @gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bn******** ****@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de...

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?

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/21/

'Nuff said.

[Jonathan Snook]

"Brian" <us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message

Seriously though, wouldn't it be better to try and educate the people who post questions
We are. Haven't you been reading?

Yes, yes I have. Here, lemme grab another post of yours in this thread:
That's swell. But since Flash has nothing to do with html, nor
stylesheets, why don't you bring your nifty "solution" elsewhere?

Ah, yes. Quite educational. Let's send the user off to a flash board to
continue his development of unfriendly, unusable sites.

[Brian]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

wouldn't it be better to try and educate the
people who post questions

Brian wrote: We are.
Please note the plural.
Haven't you been reading?
Yes, yes I have. Here, lemme grab another post of yours in this
thread:

That's swell. But since Flash has nothing to do with html, nor
stylesheets, why don't you bring your nifty "solution" elsewhere?

Fair enough. But others had already told Dennis why Flash was a bad
idea. He wasn't listening. And since he was convinced that Flash was
the way to go, and that HTML and CSS were not, then the thread was
off-topic.
Ah, yes. Quite educational. Let's send the user off to a flash
board to continue his development of unfriendly, unusable sites

Sorry, but I only go so far. If the other end isn't going to meet us
half-way, then (s)he's on his/her own. There's no point in arguing
for its own sake.

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

[Jonathan Snook]

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in message
news:SP******** *******@newsfep 3-gui.server.ntli .net...

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.

The problem with 99% of the sites that we as developers create really get no
accurate feedback as to what works and what doesn't. If you look at the
stats and see people leaving after viewing one page, is it because of the
flash or is it because they've figured out what's on your site and know that
it doesn't meet their needs?

Jonathan

[Brian]

Jonathan Snook wrote:

The problem with 99% of the sites that we as developers create really get no
accurate feedback as to what works and what doesn't. If you look at the
stats and see people leaving after viewing one page, is it because of the
flash or is it because they've figured out what's on your site and know that
it doesn't meet their needs?

Don't (ab)use Flash and the you can eliminate the first possibility.

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

[Barry Pearson]

Nick Kew wrote:

In article <hI************ ******@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli .net>, one
of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
<ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:

I now tend to assume that Flash is used as a substitute for valuable
content,

Bingo!

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

This isn't just about Flash, and it isn't just about the web, is it? I think
many of us link together the questions "is this material about information?"
and "is this artistic material?" Take a couple of extreme cases:

1. What is the ultimate in content-rich material? Perhaps the "paper",
especially the academic paper. It may be saying something that has never been
known before. It is sought by people who are hungry for such knowledge. And it
typically has the most raw presentation possible, stripped of artistic effects
& variation. This applies whether it is published on paper, shown as a slide
presentation, or published on the web.

2. If a gallery shows a painting or photograph of someone reading a newspaper,
do we treat the text in the newspaper seriously? Perhaps it has some ironical
references to the overall scene, but typically it is probably "filler". It has
the same status as the other components in the image, such as the carpet, the
person's hair, etc. (And do we try to click on the buttons or keys in an
on-line photograph of a computer or phone?)

I think I, and many others, tend to put material onto a single axis, something
like "informatio n rich" to "artistic". I also think that I am guided about
where the author thinks material should be on that axis by how artistic it
appears, since that is the easiest to see. So if it is artistic, I don't even
expect it to be information rich.

I've just had another look at the CSS Zen Garden site. Surely firmly in the
category of artistic works. (I don't see them primarily as technically clever
uses of CSS. I might learn that much about CSS one day. But since I lack the
artistic talent needed, I will never do pages like that). As I look at one of
those artistic works, the text appears to be as irrelevant as the text in the
newspaper in the painting in "2" above. It is "filler", while I look at the
use of colour, balance, texture, selectivity, etc. To read the words, I went
back to the home page, which has less emphatic artistic vision - even though
the words are the same throughout!

It isn't as simple as this! Raw information can appear amateurish. I think a
key is that I need to be able to make 2 judgements:

- First: "does the author care enough about this page to present it
competently?" (This is related to: "does the author take the viewer
seriously?")

- Second: "does the author consider this to be information-rich or artistic?"

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

[Dennis]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:46:51 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clar kecomputers.com .au> wrote:

Without Flash (or a more mature CSS) I have to aim at the
middle of the bell curve (what, 800 by 600?) and let automatic
scrolling and huge empty borders do the rest.

Not at all. The web is fluid by nature. If you don't specify fixed sizes,
then the page will flow automatically.

While that is true, you must admit that most all the top websites opt
for an "800-wide non-horizontal flowing" format (typically aligned
left) and let any flowing happen vertically (and waste all the rest of
the horizontal space). Why is that?

It's very ironic
because I attempting to accomplish in a more thoroughgoing way
precisely what you are saying that I am ignoring.

And what of the users that don't have Flash? You are ignoring them?

97%+ of web users have Flash installed and the rest can get it for
free with a single click. Anyone who knowingly doesn't have it is
just being honery. And for them, I'd say get PopUpCop.
http://www.popupcop.com/
When you come to an obnoxious flash advertisement, freeze it in its
tracks.

Dennis

[Dennis]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:27:10 -0500, kchayka <kc*********@si hope.com>
wrote:

Dennis wrote:

There are 2 relevant
Flash ActionScript commands, stage.width and stage.height. These tell
you within a pixel how big the user's window is.

So what are the relevant commands that tell you what the user's
preferred text size is?

Touche! Another one along the same line is that from Flash I can't
get to the user's system colors (as I can from JavaScript). But are
you familiar with the zoom feature in Flash? With it you can make
EVERYTHING larger, not just text. So images (which aren't affected by
the user's preferred text size) also get magnified for the user's
benefit. It seems like kind of a wash in my opinion.

Dennis