Hi,
I'll be very grateful if somebody can explain me why my Opera 7.23
(runing under linux) doesn't show me inner tables. Using below code I
can see only "inner table 1". There is no problem with other browsers
(I checked it under Konqueror).
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards.
/Mariusz
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<TABLE BORDER=1 WIDTH=800 ALIGN="center">
<TR ALIGN="center">
<TD ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100>
<TABLE BORDER=1 ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%>
<TR ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%><TD ALIGN="left">in ner table 1</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
<TABLE BORDER=1 ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%>
<TR ALIGN="left" WIDTH=100%><TD ALIGN="left">in ner table 2</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Jul 20 '05
44  3894 
In article <W5************ *****@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote: As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"!
Nonsense.
To take just one example, consider a layout table designed to give
columns of text (three or even four is not unusual). Now consider
a reader with low vision, who can only read large print and get 50
characters across the width of a screen. Because the layout table
is inflexible, it can't be sized down that far and you've got
lots of horizontal scrolling.
Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
routinely bugger me up.
Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
the offending table.
Thank you for those URLs. They simply didn't say either way.
Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.
Noting your posting address, I could say by analogy: if children
were never neglected, it wouldn't enter anyone's head to have a
child support agency.
--
Nick Kew
In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Nick Kew wrote: In article <W5************ *****@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of
infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
<ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"!
Nonsense.
To take just one example, consider a layout table designed to give
columns of text (three or even four is not unusual). Now consider
a reader with low vision, who can only read large print and get 50
characters across the width of a screen. Because the layout table
is inflexible, it can't be sized down that far and you've got
lots of horizontal scrolling.
In that case, it isn't the layout tables that are screwing things up. It is
the lack of flexibility. Tables can be flexible, and CSS-P can be inflexible.
The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
side-by-side in the mark-up, while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS. (Even
that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).
Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based on things
I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with the font size
wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal scrollbar, and just
about everything that people complain about in tables.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...lexible_00.htm
Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
routinely bugger me up.
The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns. So do
other CSS-P layouts around. In fact, CSS often gets focused on pixels. One
problem is that floating needs widths, and it is common to use px values. And
if you use absolute positioning instead, you risk superimposition .
People abuse CSS-P just as much as they abuse layout tables. I guess some of
my pages screw you up too - I tend to prefer 2 rather than 3 columns, but the
sidebar, typically used for site navigation, tends to be of the order of
180px. Then, whether I am using a layout table or CSS-P, the main column takes
up the rest of the viewport. I would welcome your views on the following,
because I don't deliberately go around screwing people up!
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...umns_right.htm
Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
the offending table.
I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the capability of
disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development of things that run the
risk of leaving them behind.
Thank you for those URLs. They simply didn't say either way.
Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.
My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking about page
layout. They were so focused on moving information around that they neglected
human nature - which has a strong design/layout component. People will always
demand control of layout. The trick is to get a good balance between
satisfying the demands of the publisher and the needs of the users. I believe
that is best achieved by transmitting a higher level abstraction of the
publishers' desires than CSS currently provides. Layout tables are closer to
this than CSS1 & CSS2.
Noting your posting address, I could say by analogy: if children
were never neglected, it wouldn't enter anyone's head to have a
child support agency.
Chuckle! Don't let people entangled with the CSA hear you say that! (I'm
childfree so it doesn't matter here).
The CSA is just the latest method in child support systems for at least the
last 4 centuries in the UK, since the first Poor Law. Child support (in the UK
& elsewhere, and down through the centries) always has 2 separate strands: to
relieve child poverty; and at minimum cost to the community at large. http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...history_uk.htm
"Neglect" is misleading. Many people paying child support were forced to be
apart from their children, and would rather be spending the money directly on
them. And if a separated father and mother share the care of the children
equally, and even earn the same amount (or the mother earns lots more), the
father will end up paying the mother, because of *explicit* sex-bias in the
UK's child support legislation.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
In article <cN************ ******@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote: The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
side-by-side in the mark-up,
s/single/critical/ in the above. It's exactly what I complain of.
while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS.
Critical difference: CSS can be turned off.
(Even
that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).
Yes indeed: Opera's small-screen mode is rather similar to
mod_accessibili ty's linearisation option, although the mechanics
of it are entirely different.
Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based on things
I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with the font size
wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal scrollbar, and just
about everything that people complain about in tables.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...lexible_00.htm
You're on much firmer ground arguing that CSS is not the panacea for
every ill. FWIW, that page looks great in my "normal" browser (Konq) at
normal settings, but just narrowing the window too far messes it up
as it squeezes the middle column out. But there's still that crucial
difference: I as a user am empowered to turn it off, even if I don't
have the luxury of an advanced enabling technology like
mod_accessibili ty or Opera.
Look at that vs a 3-column table in Lynx. 3 text columns in
80-characters width is readable but not pretty, but your CSS page
linearises automatically and looks better. Reduce the size of
the Lynx terminal, and it becomes the difference between working
well and a total mess. Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
routinely bugger me up.
The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns. So do
Exactly. See above. Actually that does screw it up even in Konq:
Leaving out the middle part (just to get it into an 80-column usenet
post) I see:
Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. filler. Rightbar filler.
Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
filler.
.... which looks a little bit like a design that's "gracefully degraded"
by words wrapping differently on my display to yours. Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
the offending table.
I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the capability of
disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development of things that run the
risk of leaving them behind.
No disagreement there. Just over how to proceed, and it comes down to
that crucial issue of empowerment. Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.
My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking about page
layout. They were so focused on moving information around that they neglected
human nature
This begins to look much clearer. I'm one of those people who detests
control and presentation freaks, and will (for example) refuse to use
a shop that plays muzak at me. I suspect that's not untypical of the
innovators who created the web before the deezyners and marketroids
came in and covered it in layers of crap.
On a personal level, I (we?) probably don't even mix with the presentation
freaks. Someone who wears warpaint or a stripey shirt and loud tie,
or (worse) stinks of perfume or aftershave, just makes me (at best)
nervous/edgy, and wanting to get away.
I guess you loved all those "millennium " projects too, so full of
glitz but lacking firm foundations? That bridge that swayed so
alarmingly as soon as people tried to walk across it - has to be
a great analogy for deezyner websites. So does the extra millions
they had to spend on it to make it fit to use.
Human nature for you, maybe. Not for me. I'd rather see systems that
work - whether they be websites or bridges - than have someone's ego
thrust in the way. Sure, there's a place for personal and artistic
expression (mine include singing in opera - surely one of mankinds
most absurd activities:-), but that place should never be where it
makes life difficult for people who don't choose to participate.
--
Nick Kew
Nick Kew wrote: In article <cN************ ******@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one
of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
<ne**@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
side-by-side in the mark-up,
s/single/critical/ in the above. It's exactly what I complain of.
I suspect you are complaining about the number of columns, rather than whether
or not it uses layout-tables.
while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS.
Critical difference: CSS can be turned off.
So can tables. See below. If you don't like, turn them off! If you are using
technology that doesn't let you, get better technology! It is out there.
Or ... just hit the back button. You can't do this if you depend on the site,
for example if it is in any sense a "public service" site. But you can for the
rest. And even for the public service sites, it is probably rare that you are
compelled to use the site - there are always alternatives. The (valid)
complaint is that people with vision problems are discriminated against, not
that they can't access the services of the organisation. *No one* is forced to
use a web site, even for public service purposes! So *no one* is hurt -
perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*. Their
(valid) case is discrimination, not hurt.
(Even
that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).
This probably - actually inevitably - indicates where the future lies - better
& better technology for accessing content of all sorts, including that within
layout-tables. I estimate that at least 95% of web pages use layout-tables,
and at least 95% of new pages each day use layout-tables. I came to this
conclusion because I have spent a long time browsing the web using a style of
the form:
table { border: 1px dotted blue; }
I access *lots* of pages and *lots* of web sites each week, and hardly any of
them doesn't show with a blue dotted rectangle. It is very rare to find a news
site, or even a UK government site, that doesn't use layout-tables. "Wired",
of course, and "UKonline", but others are very rare. (I am desperately trying
to think of another! ESPN front page but not content, and ... er ...). I
actually believe the figure is closer to 99% than 95%. It has been the
dominant layout technique for about 8 years, and I suspect it will continue to
be for at least the next 8.
Therefore, user technology will (have to) adapt to match one of the most
important global information resources. It has no choice. And as it adapts,
this will reduce the pressure for change. I believe there is no credible
alternative. In other words, it is transforming the future direction, as well
as the current state, of the web. I hope that future techniques for proposing
page layouts build on layout-tables, not CSS.
These are not bad people. People who build and drive motorcars are not bad
people, even though this is an activity not really available to blind people.
(I'm a photographer ... a very discriminatory hobby. Some people are musicians
.... ditto). We all have to accept the we are excluded from some activities
because of our reduced abilities. You *really* would not like to have laws
that would compel people to accept me into a choir!
[snip] Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based
on things I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with
the font size wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal
scrollbar, and just about everything that people complain about in
tables.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...lexible_00.htm
You're on much firmer ground arguing that CSS is not the panacea for
every ill. FWIW, that page looks great in my "normal" browser (Konq)
at
normal settings, but just narrowing the window too far messes it up
as it squeezes the middle column out. But there's still that crucial
difference: I as a user am empowered to turn it off, even if I don't
have the luxury of an advanced enabling technology like
mod_accessibili ty or Opera.
Er ... luxury? I don't pay for Opera! And if I had to pay because of a
disability, perhaps I would petition the government to help me out.
Look at that vs a 3-column table in Lynx. 3 text columns in
80-characters width is readable but not pretty, but your CSS page
linearises automatically and looks better. Reduce the size of
the Lynx terminal, and it becomes the difference between working
well and a total mess.
Better than what? Here are some alternatives to that page - which of them
linearises worse than that one?
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_5_3/
[snip] The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns.
So do
Exactly. See above. Actually that does screw it up even in Konq:
Leaving out the middle part (just to get it into an 80-column usenet
post) I see:
Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. filler. Rightbar filler.
Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
filler.
... which looks a little bit like a design that's "gracefully
degraded"
by words wrapping differently on my display to yours.
But what about the article? The page exists for the article, not the leftbar &
rightbar! (It is interesting how many CSS-P layouts linearise with the article
late rather than early!)
[snip] I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the
capability of disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development
of things that run the risk of leaving them behind.
No disagreement there. Just over how to proceed, and it comes down to
that crucial issue of empowerment.
Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.
My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking
about page layout. They were so focused on moving information around
that they neglected human nature
This begins to look much clearer. I'm one of those people who detests
control and presentation freaks, and will (for example) refuse to use
a shop that plays muzak at me. I suspect that's not untypical of the
innovators who created the web before the deezyners and marketroids
came in and covered it in layers of crap.
My web pages are all very passive. They don't have any active content, no new
windows, no attempts to control the browser, etc.
I don't see a problem with those people, as long as they are not responsible
for public service web sites. They should have the right to do so (and indeed
*do* have that right). Users have the right the hit the back-button. Now we
are all happy. I would condemn any initiative to restrict those people, as
long as their web sites were not in any sense public service sites.
But layout is *vitally* important. It can make the difference between whether
people can navigate round the site or not. See:
"Criteria for optimal web design (designing for usability)"
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/print.htm
Also see:
<extract>
That strikes me as the Web's saving grace. With the Web poised to go from 4
million sites to 100 million in the next few years, as you note in your
article, the idea of enforcing usability rules will never get past the
"thought experiment" stage. However, as you are not merely a man of action but
also a theorist, I want to address why I think enforced conformity to
usability standards is wrong, even in theory. My objections break out into
three rough categories: creating a market for usability is better than central
standards for reasons of efficency, innovation, and morality.
</extract>
That was from: Clay Shirky, "An Open Letter To Jakob Nielsen"
http://www.shirky.com/writings/nielsen.html
[snip] I guess you loved all those "millennium " projects too, so full of
glitz but lacking firm foundations? That bridge that swayed so
alarmingly as soon as people tried to walk across it - has to be
a great analogy for deezyner websites. So does the extra millions
they had to spend on it to make it fit to use.
I laughed at them. That isn't how I work. I use sound engineering principles
to judge what I should do. I run with Flash & other active content switched
off. I just hit the back-button if necessary. So can anyone else, except for
public service sites.
I don't do glitz. I take the trouble to understand my target audience and
cater for them. Anyone outside my target audience is on their own - take it or
leave it. Their problem, not mine.
Human nature for you, maybe. Not for me. I'd rather see systems that
work - whether they be websites or bridges - than have someone's ego
thrust in the way. Sure, there's a place for personal and artistic
expression (mine include singing in opera - surely one of mankinds
most absurd activities:-), but that place should never be where it
makes life difficult for people who don't choose to participate.
I see a web comprising "implicit communities". When I publish my photographs,
I am in an implicit community of people with sight, possibly calibrated
monitors, who possibly don't have an language in common with me. We
communicate in images, not text. Anyone who decides they don't qualify can go
and pursue their own activities in their own implicit communities. We have no
responsibility, legally or ethically, towards such people. We don't damage the
web. We just use it, at our own expense.
But for other published material, I am publishing to a different implicit
community, with totally different criteria for access. All involving English,
in my case. And government sites have communities which are actually not
implicit, but comprise the citizens. But even then the scope typically stops
at the boundaries of the UK & its citizens.
Publishers only have limited responsibilitie s on the web. The trick is to
understand the limits.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
[article heavily snipped to save bandwidth; topic is tables for layout]
Barry Pearson wrote:
The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
discriminated against, not that they can't access the services of
the organisation. *No one* is forced to use a web site, even for
public service purposes! So *no one* is hurt - perhaps
inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*.
Their (valid) case is discrimination, not hurt.
My bogosity meter just pinned. I suppose by analogy that no African
Americans were hurt because they were denied a seat on the bus.[1]
"Perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*."
Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
them.
But what's interesting is the admission:
The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
discriminated against,
So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
against
Their (valid) case is discrimination
Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.
[1]This is an international forum, and there's no reason for me to
assume that everyone knows about discrimination in public
tranportation in the southern U.S.: Prior to the 1950s, African
Americans were confined to seats in the back of city buses, and had to
give up even those seats to whites if the bus was full.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Brian wrote:
[snip] Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
them.
I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple tables for
layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective, accessible, cost-effective,
and future-proof. See:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html
<extract>
Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
reality check, shall we?
Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
indeed.)
Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
up tabular material or for layout purposes." Web designers who used tables for
page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
sin.
Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.
Back to the HTML 3.2 spec: "A cell can contain a wide variety of other block-
and text-level elements including form fields and other tables." The fact that
nested tables take longer to display in a graphical browser is surely
undesirable, but you cannot ascribe that behaviour to the inevitable effect of
illegal coding. Nested tables have always been legal.
The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.
In fact, the strongest condemnation of tables in the WAI is as follows: "Do
not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized."
Linearizing refers to running the contents of cells together with no row or
column structure. (How? In languages reading from left to right, start with
the top row and read left to right. Then, in each successive row, concatenate
cells in left-to-right order.)
The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend. Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
tables in this chapter.
Using tables for truly tabular data is actually quite rare online. In the
immortal words of William Gibson, the street finds its own uses for things.
The use the street found for tables is graphic design, not data structure.
When you employ tables for layout, you can get away with minimal coding. Data
tables require significant markup skills that take a long time to acquire. On
the other hand, the information in data tables is intrinsically complex, and
print designers struggle to this day with the difficulty of typesetting tables
in existing desktop-publishing software. If no one's gotten data-table
creation right in desktop publishing, a technology nearly 20 years old, why
are we surprised that conditions are rough on the Web?
</extract>
But what's interesting is the admission:
The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
discriminated against,
So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
against
Their (valid) case is discrimination
Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.
[snip]
That wasn't a comment about the effects of tables. Nick Kew was complaining
about problems caused by multiple columns. Layout tables are neutral. See Joe
Clark's stuff above.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
In article Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
[snip] Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
them.
I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple tables for
layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective, accessible, cost-effective,
and future-proof. See:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html
Well, 99% of times, tables are abused, instead of used the way I hope
that link is telling. I think that it is just as easy to use CSS based
And, according to my dictionary, abuse is correct term even if used well.
Sometimes end justifies means. And most times not.
<extract>
Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
reality check, shall we?
Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
indeed.)
CSS1 in 1996, but it was not enaugh.
I wonder if JSSS has been chosen instead of CSS, would stylesheets be
more used nowadays? After all, Microsoft never has had any interest in
internet exept making money.
Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
up tabular material or for layout purposes."
And this quote from html3.2 goes on:
"Note that the latter role typically causes problems when rending to
speech or to text only user agents"
Too bad they didn't understant that it also causes problem when displayed
in graphical browsers in some conditions.
And, html3.2 was not spec in traditional sence. As it was done to
according to current situation, instead of for future. I think that's why
it is called "Reference Specification" instead "Specificat ion"
Web designers who used tables for
page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
sin.
Well, neither is George Bush the dumber & Co breaking law when they
accuse Greenpeace with some historical law. The question if it is sin is
totally different matter.
Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.
Of course, as they are necessary for certain kinds of tabular data.
Something like this is not possible whitout using nested tables:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~egea/timetable.html
The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.
True, tables are not necessarily syn, and neither is CSS layout
necessarily good accessibility.
The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend.
IMHO, that is exactly correct idée. *If* accessibility has been taken
account, table layout is not usually much worse than suitable CSS based
layout. But it needs to be proven. One way to prove it is to have such
table layout that it will work in my normal browsing situation. Most
sites fail that, at least if I don't use some powertools.
Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
tables in this chapter.
You apparently never really used browser window sized less than 600px. Or
have really used lynx. Or you have lots of patience to scroll.
I have had big problems with table-layout and lynx. And table-layouts and
Opera. Neither problem was because browser was bad, but becase table
layout was very stupid.
Using tables for truly tabular data is actually quite rare online.
OTOH, not using table for tabular data in web is even more rare. Almost
as rare as well done table layout.
The use the street found for tables is graphic design, not data structure.
When you employ tables for layout, you can get away with minimal coding.
Then why is it that site done with table layout usually takes at least
50% more code than one whitout?
Or do you mean that you can use wysinwyg program? Never seen any proper
code generated using wysinwyg in real use that has not been cleaned.
Data
tables require significant markup skills that take a long time to acquire.
OTOH, simple cases are very simple to learn.
If no one's gotten data-table
creation right in desktop publishing, a technology nearly 20 years old, why
are we surprised that conditions are rough on the Web?
WWW has advantages over print media. Big ones. And specs are on right
tracks. Unfortunately, browsers aren't interested in implementing goodies
in html4 spec etc, because there is no way to know which is layout table
and which not.
And also because data tables are not that popular. They are not that
popular in print design either. But what's interesting is the admission:
The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
discriminated against,
So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
against
Their (valid) case is discrimination
Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.
[snip]
That wasn't a comment about the effects of tables. Nick Kew was complaining
about problems caused by multiple columns. Layout tables are neutral. See Joe
Clark's stuff above.
Well, it doesn't make much sence to have normal table layout whiout
multible columns. Most used browsers don't linearize tables any case. So
people that can see, but badly, are discriminated against.
OTOH, you can't do 2 column layout that works well in small window
whitout tables any better than you can do with just tables.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
Lauri Raittila wrote: In article Barry Pearson wrote:
[snip] I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple
tables for layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective,
accessible, cost-effective, and future-proof. See:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html
Well, 99% of times, tables are abused, instead of used the way I hope
that link is telling. I think that it is just as easy to use CSS based
There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
been intended to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
"col" - that isn't an accident!)
See:
"A brief history of tables" http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
the defined nature of the web.
The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.
[snip] The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page
if it contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin -
necessarily. You will not be forced to turn in your trackball and
badge while WAI Internal Affairs conducts an investigation. But you
are not off the hook: You must code tables properly, which, for
layout tables, is not difficult at all.
True, tables are not necessarily syn, and neither is CSS layout
necessarily good accessibility.
The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent -
that they do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that
you're doomed to labour over them forever to get them working - is
an urban legend.
IMHO, that is exactly correct idée. *If* accessibility has been taken
account, table layout is not usually much worse than suitable CSS
based layout. But it needs to be proven. One way to prove it is to
have such table layout that it will work in my normal browsing
situation. Most sites fail that, at least if I don't use some
powertools.
I only quoted the above material from Joe Clark. I didn't write it. Joe (and
I) believe that most sites work, not fail.
How do we resolve this disagreement? Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you
that most layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical
tables or when linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make
even more sense with layout tables in this chapter.
You apparently never really used browser window sized less than
600px. Or have really used lynx. Or you have lots of patience to
scroll.
[snip]
I didn't write that - Joe did. But I always access my pages at a lot less than
that! Including 240 pixel wide (with Opera).
Firebird is cr*ap less than 476 pixels. In fact, Gecko browser tend to be
cr*ap at small viewport widths. They lose the vertical scrollbar. Firebird
often doesn't provide a horizontal scrollbar!
The only narrow viewport widths I feel confident with are IE handling
table-layout. Perhaps Opera too. The rest are cr*p.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
On Fri, Jan 16, Barry Pearson inscribed on the eternal scroll: There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed.
It holds no fears for me...
From the time that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in
November 1993, tables have been intended to display cells in a
horizontal + vertical grid.
Not quite. Tables have been intended to markup a logical
relationship; when the presentation situation is appropriate, it's
intended that the relationship would be depicted as a 2-dimensional
grid, but that's not a mandatory requirement of the logical markup.
See:
"A brief history of tables"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
If I'm going to say anything at all about this, then I'm going to have
to be candid.
In this respect I think I can claim the following -
1. I do know a little bit about the topics on which I choose to
comment, and I do have quite strong personal opinions about them,
2. Ihappen to be the principal author of several peer-reviewed FAQs in
which I deliberately throttled-back on my personal opinions and
managed, as it seems, to express an answer in terms that gained
widespread acceptance in the communities to which the various FAQs
were addressed.
On that basis, I think I can comment from both sides: the
strongly-held personal opinion, and the opinion-neutral presentation
of the facts.
And on that basis, my evaluation of your writings on this topic would
have to be this, I'm afraid: you formed a strong personal opinion of
what the answer had to be, and then you selected your evidence in
order to support it.
Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation.
They're designed to express a relationship which, in appropriate
circumstances, it's appropriate to present in a two-dimensional grid
relationship.
It isn't an accident
I don't disagree. But: when the presentation situation makes a visual
grid impractical, the *intention* was to present the relationships in
some alternative way.
If, in fact, there _is_ no such relationship, other than the
designer's visual intentions, then the tabular markup becomes not just
useless, but actively counter-productive.
- they were always intended to work like that! The proposals were,
and the browsers were. That is the defined nature of the web.
I'm going to have to disagree. Keep in mind that there are two kinds
of W3C specification, and they're hard to keep apart, "thanks" to the
fact that the W3C is not an independent standards-making body but an
industry consortium funded by its members. Sometimes their
specifications merely document what their members' software is
currently doing, and sometimes they sketch out more abstruse ideas
about the fundamental basis of what's going on. Compare, if you will,
HTML/3.2(spit), a fairly disgusting codification of what the
then-big-two were up to at the time, with CSS1, a somewhat idealised
specification that those big-two never did quite get around to
implementing.
Now look at what happened since. Do I need to spell it out? OK,
probably spelling it out would be pointless anyway: those who
understand it already, don't need to hear it from me, and those who
still think it's pseudo-HTML DTP, wouldn't listen to me anyway, so I
might as well save my breath/keyboard.
have fun
In article Barry Pearson wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote: In article Barry Pearson wrote: [snip] I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple
tables for layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective,
accessible, cost-effective, and future-proof. See:
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html
Well, 99% of times, tables are abused, instead of used the way I hope
that link is telling. I think that it is just as easy to use CSS based
There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
been intended to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid.
Well. I can't imagine any other way to display tabular data than using
rows and cols. Can you?
And from
that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff.
Of course. Just because data is tabular doesn't mean it is otherwise
meaningless. If it has meanings, they should be marked.
(Which
is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
"col" - that isn't an accident!)
Well row and col are pretty widely used when talking about tabular data.
I can't understand what you mean by this. Of course they are called row
and col. What else could they be caller?
See:
"A brief history of tables"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...es/history.htm
Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
the defined nature of the web.
There is correct use for headings etc in table. If you have long content
in your cells, they should be marked up correctly.
For example, if you have images in one col, and how to do it in other,
you could use list to mark up the procedure. This is not necessarily best
chois of markup, but it is right.
The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.
Of course. That has nothing to do with using them for layout. Every
version of HTML specs have dispiced tables, exept HTML2, that didn't have
them IIRC. I quoted you the part of HTML3.2 that said they shouldn't be
used for layout.
Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you
that most layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical
^^^^
Certainly not most.
tables or when linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make
even more sense with layout tables in this chapter.
You apparently never really used browser window sized less than
600px. Or have really used lynx. Or you have lots of patience to
scroll.
[snip]
I didn't write that - Joe did.
Well, you quoted it so I supposed you actually thought this was what you
thought what is correct.
But I always access my pages at a lot less than
that! Including 240 pixel wide (with Opera).
Your pages. You apparently have not used them to surf random pages, or
have you? If you would, you would know you are wrong. I have surfed 1.5
years using 550px wide window, and it doesn't work at all with table
layouts, unless I fix them at client side. If they also use lots of
images, it makes it too much problem to fix it, so I either need to
scroll, change my window size, or ignore site. Latter happens more often.
Firebird is cr*ap less than 476 pixels. In fact, Gecko browser tend to be
cr*ap at small viewport widths. They lose the vertical scrollbar. Firebird
often doesn't provide a horizontal scrollbar!
Never used Firebird, and only use Mozilla when testing my sites.
And this is exactly why you shouldn't use table layout.
It don't work on small viewport sizes. Neither does it work in big sizes.
The difference with CSS layout is that it works smaller window than table
layout, and bigger window that table layout. Of course it can't work on
extra small window either. But no webpage using table layout is usable in
less than 200px. If it is, there is no need to use tables for layout as
there is only one column. Having scrolbar don't usually help, as it is
pretty often that one needs to scroll it 9 times to read 5 lines of text.
I use many webpages in smaller than 200px window (the other side of the
screen, beside that 550px). To get table layouted stuff to fit it it need
to use Opera's small screen rendering mode, but that is not optimal. I
usually get better results using some extensive user stylesheet.
Unfortunately making such stylesheet for tablelayouted stuff is pretty
hard, as I need to get rid of the tables first, and try to get content in
sencible order.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: foldface |
last post by:
Hi
I'm working with a web site where 99% of the content is dynamic
and words can be of any size, e.g. thiswouldbeavalidword.
At the moment everything is done using inner tables, I want
to move to a css type design.
My issue is that I can't really use absolute positioning
because, as I say, the words can be of any size, and I have no
way of knowing how big the content is going to be. Plus I'd
just like to avoid it anyway.
I've used...
|
by: Daniel |
last post by:
when i set the BackgroundImage property in the designer the image still
doesnt show in the background of the textbox any other property must be set?
|
by: Daniel |
last post by:
how to make sure a xsl document has valid xsl syntax? i tried loading it
into an xml document but that doesnt show syntax errors inside attributes
such as "foo/bar" vs "bar\foo"
|
by: pmud |
last post by:
Hi,
I am using a compare validator in asp.net application(c# code). This Custom
validator is used for comparing a value enterd by the user against the
primary key in the SQL database. IF the VALUE ENTERED BY THE USER EXISTS IN
THE DB , then THE ERROR MESSAGE OF THE COMPARE VALIDATOR SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
For this, I used the reference artiicle
"http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-...
|
by: PAUL MITCHELL |
last post by:
Hello,
bit of strange one this, I have a VB .net application that has Sub
Main() as its startup procedure, this then creates and shows a form. Up till
now when I pressed F5 the form would duly appear.
Whats happening now is the project appears to start but the form doesnt
show. The process appears in Task manager but in VB .net the the blue bar at
the top still still says and the usual stop button isnt there and
the IDE just appears to...
| | |
by: hwDevelop |
last post by:
I have a toolstrip with several buttons on it, but when i changed the
images, most of them doesnt show on runtime. I tried several different
formats .bmp, .png, .ico for these buttons without any success, however
there are 1 to 2 images that display correctly. Does anybody know what
might be causing this and the fix for this problem.?
|
by: Stefan van Roosmalen |
last post by:
Hi there,
Is there a way to list the TEMPORATY tables?
I have tried SHOW TABLES, but this command only list the regular tables.
Thank you very much for your answer.
Regards,
Stefan.
|
by: kkshansid |
last post by:
<?php
session_start();
?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title></title>
<meta name="generator" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look !
Part I. Meaning of...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
| | |
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...
| |
