text-align in ul

[A.Translator]

I am still struggling with an unordered list
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~hogen/TaalVlinder/).

The top navbar contains 4 divs with each an ul,
and no padding or margins.

But I get far too much white to the left and right of the lists, especially
noticeble in the two right hand menu's 'flora & fauna' and afkortingen
etc.'

I tried to solve the problem by setting text-align:left on the list, but
that does not seem to have any effect, not when set on the li, nor when
applied to the ul as a whole, nor to both.

Any idea where I go wrong?
Could it have to do with the width of the divs containing the menu's being
set in html rather than with css? I have tried fiddling with that, but got
nowhere.

Your help will be most welcome.

--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]

[Brian]

A.Translator wrote:

I am still struggling with an unordered list
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~hogen/TaalVlinder/).

The top navbar contains 4 divs with each an ul, and no padding or
margins.
A look with Mozilla dom inspector suggests that things have gone awry.
I see boxes for meny layer 2 and 3 not containing any text, but
overlapping the content. What do you want? Where do you want the
menus? You're using lots of position: absolute. That is more
complicated than perhaps you realize. Keep it simple (kiss).
But I get far too much white to the left and right of the lists,
especially noticeble in the two right hand menu's 'flora & fauna'
and afkortingen etc.' Any idea where I go wrong?

You need to simplify the menu.

Other things to consider:

don't misuse tables for layout

don't set text size below 100% for the body. And don't set anything
below 85-90%, and even then only for a few words of text (e.g.,
copyright notice)

do choose colors for a greater contrast (grey on white is difficult to
read)

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[A.Translator]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:04:23 GMT, Brian wrote:

A look with Mozilla dom inspector suggests that things have gone awry. I
see boxes for meny layer 2 and 3 not containing any text, but
overlapping the content. What do you want? Where do you want the menus?
You're using lots of position: absolute. That is more complicated than
perhaps you realize. Keep it simple (kiss).
Thank you very much for the trouble you took. Really appreciate it, but
cannot understand what you mean about menu layers in Mozilla not
containing any text.

I have Mozilla 1.5 as my standard browser and it is - alas! - the only
browser things show up in as intended.

I try to keep things simple, believe you me!
don't misuse tables for layout
I did consider that, but it doesn't agree with the other axiom: keeping
things simple...
do choose colors for a greater contrast (grey on white is difficult to
read

Good point. I will reconsider because of your comment. This is only a
test-layout. Mind you: it is not a commercial site, but an informational
one targeted at a very specific group - i.e. my colleagues.

First I need to address the menu-problem. You remark on my usage of
position absolute: you are right. I learnt that method following a
particular tutorial, but do not really grasp it. On the other hand: I do
not *really* understand most of the things that do work!

Thanks again, I'll try and keep things simple, while trying to find out why
you don't see any text in menulayers 2 and 3.
--
Groet, Adriana. [throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]

[Brian]

A.Translator wrote:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004, Brian wrote:

A look with Mozilla dom inspector suggests that things have gone
awry. I see boxes for meny layer 2 and 3 not containing any text,
but overlapping the content. What do you want? Where do you want
the menus? You're using lots of position: absolute. That is more
complicated than perhaps you realize. Keep it simple (kiss).
but cannot understand what you mean about menu layers in Mozilla
not containing any text.

I have Mozilla 1.5 as my standard browser and it is - alas! - the
only browser things show up in as intended.

FYI, I'm using Mozilla 1.3/Win2k.

don't misuse tables for layout

I did consider that, but it doesn't agree with the other axiom:
keeping things simple...

I beg to differ. Nested tables (3 layers deep, as I recall) is not
simple. What I saw was a navigation on the left, and content on the
right. That's 2 div elements. Plus a 3rd if you want some navigation
above the content (the menus that I cannot see).

Dump all the table markup. Put the nav in a div, or in several divs if
you need to. Put the content in a separate div. Validate your html
(you don't have alt specified on your images, but otherwise the code
seems ok on quick inspection). After that, start working on your
positioning/floats etc.
I'll try and keep things simple, while trying to find out why you
don't see any text in menulayers 2 and 3.

If you have Mozilla, open the dom inspector (ctrl-shift-i). Select
divs and watch the borders blink. That should help you troubleshoot.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[A.Translator]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:47:10 GMT, Brian wrote:

I did consider that, but it doesn't agree with the other axiom:
keeping things simple...

I beg to differ. Nested tables (3 layers deep, as I recall) is not
simple. What I saw was a navigation on the left, and content on the
right. That's 2 div elements. Plus a 3rd if you want some navigation
above the content (the menus that I cannot see).

I may give it a try, once I've got the confidence, but you are obviously
much more experienced than I am. There seems to be a pro-and anti table
debate going on that is way over my head.

You are right of course about alt's not being defined and so on, but please
bear in mind this is only a mockup - not the definitive version. I will
start again once I've got the menu's going - in all versions of Moz too...

Thanks again.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]

[Brian]

A.Translator wrote:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004, Brian wrote:
[re tableless layout]
I may give it a try, once I've got the confidence
Your choice. But if I were you, I would not try to learn nested table
layout, *then* learn css, which is quite a different way of doing
things. It's been a couple of days, and my memory is failing me -- is
this a personal site? If so, then it seems like a good way to learn
proper html with css. Start with just the necessary markup (<p>, <ul>,
etc.). Group things into <div> where appropriate. Add *no* styling.
Validate the html. When all's well there, load it up in a browser for
the basic rendering. Decide what you don't like, and use css to change it.

If this is a professional site, and time is important, you may need to
get something up more quickly.
There seems to be a pro-and anti table debate going on that is way
over my head.
Not quite. There is no anti-table advocates. They are useful for
presenting tabular data in a flexible, portable way. But I'd caution
against using *any* html element -- <table>, <blockquote>, etc. -- to
achieve formatting effects that those elements have in graphical
browsers. Presentation is something that HTML does not do well, and no
surprise, since it was not designed as a desktop publishing language.
You are right of course about alt's not being defined and so on,
but please bear in mind this is only a mockup - not the definitive
version.

I see. From looking at your code, it seems pretty solid. And the only
validation issue was missing alt attributes. That leads me to believe
that you may be more capable then you think you are at learning css.
That said, I cannot say that it is a cakewalk.[1] But it is possible
to get the hang of it.

[1]Your sig makes me think you are German? A "cakewalk" in (American?)
English means something very easy. We Americans seem to really like
our dessert metaphors.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Neal]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:49:42 GMT, Brian
<us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote:

[1]Your sig makes me think you are German? A "cakewalk" in (American?)
English means something very easy. We Americans seem to really like
our dessert metaphors.

The "cakewalk" was a game played at parties about a hundred-plus years ago
or so. Couples would strut across the room with the most stylized, even
silly, walk possible, and the declared winners would take home a cake. The
basic walk was derived from African tribal dances where the body was slung
back. Slave owners picked up the tratition from their slaves, and the
cakewalk became a parody of "society" people strutting around. As the
elite who were being imitated had it pretty easy, the word "cakewalk"
refers to anything which requires no effort to do.

[Brian]

Neal wrote:

The "cakewalk" was a game played at parties about a hundred-plus
years ago or so. Couples would strut across the room with the most
stylized, even silly, walk possible, and the declared winners would
take home a cake.

I found that rather interesting. Thanks! :)

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Harlan Messinger]

Neal <ne*****@spamrc n.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:49:42 GMT, Brian
<us*****@julie tremblay.com.in valid-remove-this-part> wrote:

[1]Your sig makes me think you are German? A "cakewalk" in (American?)
English means something very easy. We Americans seem to really like
our dessert metaphors.

The "cakewalk" was a game played at parties about a hundred-plus years ago
or so. Couples would strut across the room with the most stylized, even
silly, walk possible, and the declared winners would take home a cake. The
basic walk was derived from African tribal dances where the body was slung
back. Slave owners picked up the tratition from their slaves, and the
cakewalk became a parody of "society" people strutting around. As the
elite who were being imitated had it pretty easy, the word "cakewalk"
refers to anything which requires no effort to do.

If you've seen "Meet Me In St. Louis", you've seen Judy Garland and
Margaret O'Brien do a cakewalk to the song "Under the Bamboo Tree".

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

[A.Translator]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:49:42 GMT, Brian wrote:

A.Translator wrote:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004, Brian wrote: [re tableless layout] I may give it a
try, once I've got the confidence
Your choice. But if I were you, I would not try to learn nested table
layout, *then* learn css, which is quite a different way of doing
things.

I am quite confident with some aspects of css, but have great difficulty
with using it to positioning elements. I am learning, though, thanks to
several books and people like you.
Is this a personal site?
Yes. I am a translator by profession (although retired) who designs only
non-commercial sites for very specific groups. I want my sites to
validate, though!
If so, then it seems like a good way to learn proper html with css.
Your encouragement may change my mind. I am going to have another go at
changing the lay out and get rid of the table-structure. I am using tables
for other pages, though, where I have lists of words (columns with English
on the left and their translation on the right hand site). That is proper
usage, is it not?
Presentation is something that HTML does not do well, and no surprise,
since it was not designed as a desktop publishing language.
Point taken.
That said, I cannot say that it is a cakewalk.[1] But it is possible to
get the hang of it.
Thanks again for the encouragement. One does need to be reminded once in a
while that it is at all possible ;-)
[1]Your sig makes me think you are German?

I am Dutch. We are friends now but until very recently Dutch people would
get very upset about being mistaken for Germans...

(thanks for the explanation of 'cakewalk' - as a translator I am very
interested in language).
--
Groet, Adriana. [throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]