can't get text field to align with textarea field

[jlemay]

if you look at
http://www.emrose.net/contact1.html
the last field is a textarea field and I can't make it align with the
other text fields. it's pretty close, but this comes from trial and
error. what do I have to do to make these fields align both right and
left? does the size= attribute in a text input give you the same
dimension as the cols= attribute in a textarea? seems like it doesn't.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

jl****@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:

if you look at
http://www.emrose.net/contact1.html
Then I think you should stop worrying about minor alignment issues now
and fix the real problems first. I can't see the form unless I widen
the browser window usually and inconveniently wide, and just because
you are wasting an indecent amount of horizontal space to create a
large black area. Moreover, the field labels are horrendously small and
hard to read, especially since they are dark on black, and they aren't
even marked up as <label> elements. And you don't specify the E-mail
address for contacts, so the awful form would be the _only_ way to
contact the company; so why would a user bother?

In a word, the only way to fix the page is to redesign it from scratch.
The markup is far too messy and browser-dependent to be fixed in any
other way.
the last field is a textarea field and I can't make it align with
the other text fields.
You mean you can't make it take the same width. Why should it? The
width of a field should depend on its content, not on some Procrustean
esthetics. For example, making the phone field as wide as the field for
the (full) name of a person is unnatural.
does the size= attribute in a text input give
you the same dimension as the cols= attribute in a textarea?

It does, in the defined sense that they specify the width of the field
in (average-width) characters. The physical dimensions may vary if
different fonts are used in the fields. If you wish to do something
about this, then you would need CSS. But it's too early to consider
such nuances before you have a page that works and has reasonable
markup.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[jlemay]

> And you don't specify the E-mail

address for contacts, so the awful form would be the _only_ way to
contact the company; so why would a user bother? this was done to help reduce spam. why would a user bother? "I would
have gotten in touch with you, but I didn't like your form." - I just
can't see that happening, and if that were the case, it's probably
someone we're better off now knowing.
In a word, the only way to fix the page is to redesign it from scratch. The markup is far too messy and browser-dependent to be fixed in any
other way.

that can't be right. must be a way to fix this without redesigning it
from scratch.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

jl****@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:

And you don't specify the E-mail
address for contacts, so the awful form would be the _only_ way to
contact the company; so why would a user bother? this was done to help reduce spam.

Foolish. Spam needs to be dealth with anyway, somehow. What you achieve
is extra trouble to potential customers.

Of course, there is a 100% sure way of getting rid of spam: disconnect
from the Internet now, and never return. That's what you should do if
you want to avoid spam at any cost.
why would a user bother?
He won't. That was my point.
"I would have gotten in touch with you, but I didn't like your form."
So the customer is wrong? Besides, there are dozens of reasons why the
form simply won't do, and it's not a matter of like or dislike. But you
are apparently not interested. You didn't even get the point that what
you are asking for is (besides being a non-problem that you wish to
turn into a small problem) not an HTML issue, hence off-topic here.
Setting an <input> field width equal to a <textarea> width is _not_
something you can do in HTML, and I even told you why.
- I just can't see that happening, and if that were the case, it's
probably someone we're better off now knowing.

You are certainly sending quite a message.

In a word, the only way to fix the page is to redesign it from
scratch. The markup is far too messy and browser-dependent to be
fixed in any other way.

that can't be right. must be a way to fix this without redesigning
it from scratch.

You don't seem to want to fix anything. You just want to increase the
confusion. The page is really broken by design, and you are wasting
everyone's time if you simply insist on fine tuning something that
needs no tuning, and keep doing that in a wrong group.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[me]

<jl****@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

if you look at
http://www.emrose.net/contact1.html
the last field is a textarea field and I can't make it align with the
other text fields. it's pretty close, but this comes from trial and
error. what do I have to do to make these fields align both right and
left? does the size= attribute in a text input give you the same
dimension as the cols= attribute in a textarea? seems like it doesn't.

Congratulations on fixing the problem you had with the width of your fields
on this page: http://www.emrose.net/contact.html You are correct that the
cols attribute controls the width of a multi line text field. To match a
single line text field you must set the width of your multi line field to a
greater value. In this case the multi line field cols must be set to 43 and
all the other fields must be set to a size of 40 characters.

That page has some strange code. What are the anchors for? Why put the text
next to the fields inside div's? When I use a form I try to place the tags
so that they're just before and after where the form objects begin and end.
Why did you make the form tags encompass almost the whole page? What is
this?

<CSOBJ occur="46" w="1244"
t="Component" h="62" csref="../emr.data/Components/AAW.html">
<DIV id=AAWText>Site Design by </DIV>
<DIV id=AAWLogo><A href="http://www.aawinc.com/" target=_blank><IMG
height=34
alt="" src="Welcome to E_M_&nbsp;Rose Building
Company_files/LogoAAWsmall.gif"
width=108 align=bottom border=0></A></DIV>
<DIV id=copyright>© 2003 E.M. Rose Building Company, LLC All rights
reserved.</DIV></CSOBJ>

I've never heard of a csobj tag, am I showing my ignorance? To my eyes
there's a lot of empty space on the left of that page but then I build my
pages to fit a screen size of 800x600. And instead of divs I would have used
tables to build a site like that.

Read this to see how I build with tables: news:11*************@corp.supernew
s.com

I must sound nit picky. I'll shut up now.
Good Luck,
me

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

In this case the multi line field cols must be set to 43 and
all the other fields must be set to a size of 40 characters.

Are you sure it's 43? I think I read the number 42 somewhere.

Clue: You are completely lost. Any relationship between the widths of
an <input> box and a <textarea> box as set in HTML attributes is just
coincidental, since it depends on the font properties, as I explained.
It is futile to try to address such problems in HTML.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[me]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

In this case the multi line field cols must be set to 43 and
all the other fields must be set to a size of 40 characters.

Are you sure it's 43? I think I read the number 42 somewhere.

Clue: You are completely lost. Any relationship between the widths of
an <input> box and a <textarea> box as set in HTML attributes is just
coincidental, since it depends on the font properties, as I explained.
It is futile to try to address such problems in HTML.
Yucca

Works fine in IE6 so IMO the OP has fixed his problem.
Signed,
me

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

Works fine in IE6 so IMO the OP has fixed his problem.
This simply indicates that you did not do actual testing.
Signed,
me

Please do not fix your bogus From field before you have a clue and some
willingness to make positive contributions. Thank you in advance.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[me]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

Works fine in IE6 so IMO the OP has fixed his problem.

This simply indicates that you did not do actual testing.

Signed,
me

Please do not fix your bogus From field before you have a clue and some
willingness to make positive contributions. Thank you in advance.

--
Yucca

I viewed the page in the only browser I have which also happens to be the
most widely used browser. I try to help those who come here asking
questions. Your contributions consist of ridicule.
Signed,
me

[Tim]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted back at Yucca:

I viewed the page in the only browser I have which also happens to be the
most widely used browser. I try to help those who come here asking
questions.
If you're authoring for the WWW, you need to understand that not everyone
uses the same version of MSIE on the same version of Windows that you're
playing with (they all behave differently), and that you need to get your
hands on more than one browser.

My web logs, for example, currently show MSIE as only accounting for 54% of
the visiting public (it's been steadily declining since last year). To
author just for it / ignore others, means I'd be ignoring 46% of the
visitors. That's not a smart move when authoring something for *other*
people to read.
Your contributions consist of ridicule.

Though deservedly so.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[me]

"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:1d******************************@40tude.net.. .

"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted back at Yucca:

I viewed the page in the only browser I have which also happens to be the most widely used browser. I try to help those who come here asking
questions.
If you're authoring for the WWW, you need to understand that not everyone
uses the same version of MSIE on the same version of Windows that you're
playing with (they all behave differently), and that you need to get your
hands on more than one browser.

IMO the differences between newer versions IE are of no consequence to my
clients but YMMV. In my contract I specify that my work is intended for IE6,
my clients understand this, in fact they insist on it. Years ago I use to
waste time installing other browsers, the last time I did this was with NN4
and I spent hours returning my file associations to their original state.
Then I would spend countless hours testing my work, looking for workarounds
and trying to make sure that it looked/worked the same in different
browsers. Now I build sites for the only browser my clients care about, IE6.
If one of their customers has trouble with their site they tell them to use
IE6, problem solved.
My web logs, for example, currently show MSIE as only accounting for 54% of the visiting public (it's been steadily declining since last year). To
author just for it / ignore others, means I'd be ignoring 46% of the
visitors. That's not a smart move when authoring something for *other*
people to read.

My clents have a target audience in mind so this is not an issue for them,
YMMV.

Your contributions consist of ridicule.

Though deservedly so.

You clipped the prior post from Jukka that I originally responded to but
since you commented on it then why do people who come to this NG asking
legitimate questions (some for the first time) deserve ridicule?
Signed,
me

[Eric B. Bednarz]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:

Years ago I use to
waste time installing other browsers, the last time I did this was with NN4
and I spent hours returning my file associations to their original
state.

There's actually no need to run scandisk, disk defragmenter and format
on your 160GB HD subsequently and reinstall losedoze to do that, you can
also change them during your favourite soap's upcoming commercial in
the exploiter somewhere in the folder actions menu, if memory serves.
Finding another hobby might be a good alternative (in case it took you
hours doing it like that, incl. RTFM, the latter might even be
mandatory :-).

--
Hello world

[me]

"Eric B. Bednarz" <be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote in message
news:m1************@email.bednarz.nl...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:

Years ago I use to
waste time installing other browsers, the last time I did this was with NN4 and I spent hours returning my file associations to their original
state.

There's actually no need to run scandisk, disk defragmenter and format
on your 160GB HD subsequently and reinstall losedoze to do that, you can
also change them during your favourite soap's upcoming commercial in
the exploiter somewhere in the folder actions menu, if memory serves.
Finding another hobby might be a good alternative (in case it took you
hours doing it like that, incl. RTFM, the latter might even be
mandatory :-).
--
Hello world

Thank you for your enlightened post.
Signed,
me

[Tim]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:

I viewed the page in the only browser I have which also happens to be
the most widely used browser.
"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message

If you're authoring for the WWW, you need to understand that not everyone
uses the same version of MSIE on the same version of Windows that you're
playing with (they all behave differently), and that you need to get your
hands on more than one browser.
"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:

IMO the differences between newer versions IE are of no consequence to my
clients but YMMV.
Everyone's mileage varies, and that's the point. Not only the different
performances in different versions, on different versions of Windows, but
all the different combinations of settings.
In my contract I specify that my work is intended for IE6,
my clients understand this, in fact they insist on it.
As the so-called expert in web mastering (since they've asked you, or
someone else, to author pages for them, instead of doing it themselves),
you'd have to make sure that they understand the flaws in that mentality.
But it seems you don't understand it yourself.
Years ago I use to
waste time installing other browsers, the last time I did this was with NN4
and I spent hours returning my file associations to their original state.
Then I would spend countless hours testing my work, looking for workarounds
and trying to make sure that it looked/worked the same in different
browsers. Now I build sites for the only browser my clients care about, IE6.
If one of their customers has trouble with their site they tell them to use
IE6, problem solved.
No, problem created, or passed on. Because many people cannot use IE6.
They can't figure out how to install software, they're not allowed to
install software, their PC can't handle it, don't want to have all their
associations ballsed up to suit you, and they sure as hell ain't going to
spend an hour downloading a new browser just to make you happy. They'll
ignore your site and go elsewhere.
My web logs, for example, currently show MSIE as only accounting for 54%
of the visiting public (it's been steadily declining since last year). To
author just for it / ignore others, means I'd be ignoring 46% of the
visitors. That's not a smart move when authoring something for *other*
people to read. My clents have a target audience in mind so this is not an issue for them,
YMMV.
Most people who have this idea about their target audience really just
don't understand what they're talking about, particularly in a WWW
situation. If you were making a website about customising MSIE6 then you
just *might* have an argument towards optimising sites to suit its foibles.
Your contributions consist of ridicule.

Though deservedly so.

You clipped the prior post from Jukka that I originally responded to but
since you commented on it then why do people who come to this NG asking
legitimate questions (some for the first time) deserve ridicule?

I read the lot, and in general, you put forth *stupid* assertions, and were
told information that was correct but you didn't want to hear, then argued
in a stupid manner and got the treatment you deserved. You're trying it
with me now, and I've got better things to do.

You can bury your head in the sand, if you like, and carry on authoring in
a foolish manner, despite all the advice you've had about doing it
properly, and *why* what you're doing is the wrong way to do it. All
you're doing is harming yourself and those having to put up with the work
you're doing. You're not doing anyone any favours.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[me]

"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:pk****************************@40tude.net...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:

I viewed the page in the only browser I have which also happens to be
the most widely used browser.
"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
If you're authoring for the WWW, you need to understand that not everyone uses the same version of MSIE on the same version of Windows that you're playing with (they all behave differently), and that you need to get your hands on more than one browser.
"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:

IMO the differences between newer versions IE are of no consequence to my clients but YMMV.
Everyone's mileage varies, and that's the point. Not only the different
performances in different versions, on different versions of Windows, but
all the different combinations of settings.

In my contract I specify that my work is intended for IE6,
my clients understand this, in fact they insist on it.

As the so-called expert in web mastering (since they've asked you, or
someone else, to author pages for them, instead of doing it themselves),
you'd have to make sure that they understand the flaws in that mentality.
But it seems you don't understand it yourself.

Years ago I use to
waste time installing other browsers, the last time I did this was with NN4 and I spent hours returning my file associations to their original state. Then I would spend countless hours testing my work, looking for workarounds and trying to make sure that it looked/worked the same in different
browsers. Now I build sites for the only browser my clients care about, IE6. If one of their customers has trouble with their site they tell them to use IE6, problem solved.

No, problem created, or passed on. Because many people cannot use IE6.
They can't figure out how to install software, they're not allowed to
install software, their PC can't handle it, don't want to have all their
associations ballsed up to suit you, and they sure as hell ain't going to
spend an hour downloading a new browser just to make you happy. They'll
ignore your site and go elsewhere.
My web logs, for example, currently show MSIE as only accounting for 54% of the visiting public (it's been steadily declining since last year). To author just for it / ignore others, means I'd be ignoring 46% of the
visitors. That's not a smart move when authoring something for *other*
people to read.

My clents have a target audience in mind so this is not an issue for them, YMMV.

Most people who have this idea about their target audience really just
don't understand what they're talking about, particularly in a WWW
situation. If you were making a website about customising MSIE6 then you
just *might* have an argument towards optimising sites to suit its

foibles. Your contributions consist of ridicule. Though deservedly so.

You clipped the prior post from Jukka that I originally responded to but
since you commented on it then why do people who come to this NG asking
legitimate questions (some for the first time) deserve ridicule?

I read the lot, and in general, you put forth *stupid* assertions, and

were told information that was correct but you didn't want to hear, then argued
in a stupid manner and got the treatment you deserved. You're trying it
with me now, and I've got better things to do.

You can bury your head in the sand, if you like, and carry on authoring in
a foolish manner, despite all the advice you've had about doing it
properly, and *why* what you're doing is the wrong way to do it. All
you're doing is harming yourself and those having to put up with the work
you're doing. You're not doing anyone any favours.

We must agree to disagree. The difference between us is that I have not
insulted or ridiculed you while stating my opinions. It is unfortunate that
you are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy.
Signed,
me