Cells messing up layout

Kirk wrote:

Having spent hours on end sorting out layout issues caused by having
different amount of cells in different rows
<snip>
Here's the basic code for my table:
<snip layout table>
Anyone know what I can do?

You could try using the right tool for the job.
Have a read of: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

Jul 20 '05 #2

Barry Pearson

Kirk wrote:

Having spent hours on end sorting out layout issues caused by having
different amount of cells in different rows, I've finally got a
webpage looking as it should. However, when I add an image to a cell,
it messes up a different cell. I have some of the cells set to
definite sizes but that fails to keep them as they should look. [snip] This works a treat, but when I come to putting an image in 'cell 3' it
for some reason resizes 'cell 11', which, when they both have
backgrounds in, messes up the site.

Is there a 'NORESIZE' attribute like for forms, or something similar
that will force cells to remain at a particular size or something
along those lines?

Anyone know what I can do?

Others will comment on the advantages of tableless page formatting. I'm not
qualified to do so, because only my simpler pages don't use tables for
page-formatting.

When I copied your code into Dreamweaver, it had a number of errors in it.
(You don't have proper matching of correct <td ..> and </td> tags). I don't
know if that is part of your problem.

I had problems with images causing disruptions in a table-oriented format. In
my case, the tables were an explicit feature of the presentation of the pages,
so it was important to get the sizing accurate horizontally, and preferably
vertically too. See:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

I finally gave up trying to get the horizontal spacing accurate via sanitary
means, and used a spacer GIF. (The only one I've ever used). I think with
enough care over CSSs I ought to have been able to do it that way, but
browsers were not on my side. (Especially browsers that didn't use CSSs!)

Have a look at the 2 URLs above and see if they give you any clues.

(I'm currently trying to work out how to achieve the same presentation without
tables. Not because I think it makes sense here - I think tables are perfectly
valid in these cases. But because if I can do it with these I can probably do
it with lots of cases).

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

Jul 20 '05 #3

From: kr**@hotmail.com (Kirk)
Having spent hours on end sorting out
layout issues caused by having different
amount of cells in different rows, I've
finally got a webpage looking as it should.
However, when I add an image to a cell, it
messes up a different cell.

Using a height attribute for cells is meaningless, browsers don't
support it... look here for help on table layouts:

http://davmagic.com/PAGES47.html

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #4

EightNineThree

"Kirk" <kr**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85**************************@posting.google.c om...

Having spent hours on end sorting out layout issues caused by having
different amount of cells in different rows, I've finally got a
webpage looking as it should. However, when I add an image to a cell,
it messes up a different cell. I have some of the cells set to
definite sizes but that fails to keep them as they should look.

Here's the basic code for my table:

<snip>

http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
--
Karl Core

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche

eightninethree AT eightninethree.com

Jul 20 '05 #5

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Davmagic .Com pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

http://davmagic.com/PAGES47.html

How about losing all the <center> elements on that page? They make a
garish page even harder to read. Kill the bold text as well.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #6

From: a.*********@example.invalid
(Beauregard*T.*Shagnasty)
Davmagic .Com pounced upon this
pigeonhole and pronounced:
http://davmagic.com/PAGES47.html
How about losing all the <center>
elements on that page? They make a
garish page even harder to read. Kill the
bold text as well.

Sorry, but the page looks OK and reads OK for everyone else... perhaps
it's the old saying: "uglyness lies in the eye of the beholder" ...
ahem?

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #7

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Davmagic .Com pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

From: a.*********@example.invalid (Beauregard*T.*Shagnasty)
Davmagic .Com pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
http://davmagic.com/PAGES47.html
How about losing all the <center> elements on that page? They make a
garish page even harder to read. Kill the bold text as well.
Sorry, but the page looks OK and reads OK for everyone else...

Define "everyone else."
perhaps
it's the old saying: "uglyness lies in the eye of the beholder" ...
ahem?

Certainly true. Should we take a poll?

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #8

Davmagic .Com wrote:

How about losing all the <center>
elements on that page? They make a
garish page even harder to read. Kill the
bold text as well.

Sorry, but the page looks OK and reads OK for everyone else... perhaps
it's the old saying: "uglyness lies in the eye of the beholder" ...
ahem?

Ugliness may be in the eye of the beholder, but readability isn't (at least
for the most part). Paragraphs of centred text are hard to read.

.... but keep them that way. Hopefully it will drive people towards sites
that teach using the right tool (CSS) for the job (layout).

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

Jul 20 '05 #9

DL**@webtv.net (Davmagic .Com) wrote:

From: a.*********@example.invalid
(Beauregard*T.*Shagnasty)
Davmagic .Com pounced upon this
pigeonhole and pronounced:
http://davmagic.com/PAGES47.html
How about losing all the <center>
elements on that page? They make a
garish page even harder to read. Kill the
bold text as well.

Sorry, but the page looks OK and reads OK for everyone else...

No they don't. They look ugly and clumsy to me.
Center aligned text for code examples? Yikes.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Jul 20 '05 #10

From: do*****@yahoo.com
(David*Dorward)
Ugliness may be in the eye of the
beholder, but readability isn't (at least for
the most part). Paragraphs of centred text
are hard to read.
... but keep them that way. Hopefully it
will drive people towards sites that teach
using the right tool (CSS) for the job
(layout).

Book learned web design is for book worms... the real world tells the
truth... today CSS is not supported (not even close) on all the hundreds
of browsers out there... while tables remains steadfast... until this
changes, using a tables layout will better enable browser support...

As for readability, your concept may be supported partially in theory,
but in reality only people who have great difficulty adapting, will find
simple centered text perhaps difficult to read.... just go out and look
at some of the bill boards on the road side for example... they "fly by"
as fast as (or even faster) than webpages, and yet their centered text
seems to get the message across... to you Dave....>

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #11

Davmagic .Com wrote:

As for readability, your concept may be supported partially in theory,
but in reality only people who have great difficulty adapting, will find
simple centered text perhaps difficult to read.... just go out and look
at some of the bill boards on the road side for example... they "fly by"
as fast as (or even faster) than webpages, and yet their centered text
seems to get the message across...

There is significant difference between a few words on a bill board, and a
page containing many paragraphs of text.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

Jul 20 '05 #12

From: st***@pugh.net (Steve*Pugh)
No they don't. They look ugly and clumsy
to me. Center aligned text for code
examples? Yikes.

If you want to see "Ugly" go look at your webpages on a MSNTV Browser...
and Dave Dorward's too... they are typical examples of so called browser
compatable webpages that fail miserably in the current Real World of
browsers!

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #13

Davmagic .Com wrote:

If you want to see "Ugly" go look at your webpages on a MSNTV Browser...

So on the one hand we have "Ugly by design" and on the other we have "Ugly
because MSNTV Browser doesn't work properly". Fixing one is the
responsibility of the author, the other is the responsibility of the
software publisher.

(And I have no intention on compromising on efficiency and quality for the
sake of a statistically insignificant user agent)

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

Jul 20 '05 #14

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Davmagic .Com pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

From: st***@pugh.net (Steve*Pugh)
No they don't. They look ugly and clumsy
to me. Center aligned text for code
examples? Yikes.

If you want to see "Ugly" go look at your webpages on a MSNTV Browser...
and Dave Dorward's too... they are typical examples of so called browser
compatable webpages that fail miserably in the current Real World of
browsers!

MSNTV is the current Real World? <rof,l>

I *do* know one MSNTV subscriber.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #15

From: do*****@yahoo.com
(David*Dorward)
So on the one hand we have "Ugly by
design" and on the other we have "Ugly
because MSNTV Browser doesn't work
properly". Fixing one is the responsibility
of the author, the other is the
responsibility of the software publisher.
(And I have no intention on compromising
on efficiency and quality for the sake of a
statistically insignificant user agent)

Gee that is too bad for all the WebTv users who might want to learn from
your expertise... do you feel the same about other "handicapped" users?
What exactly is your position on accessibility anyway?

You see my friend, you have severely handicapped YOURSELF by being so
uncompromising.... or should I say bull-headed... and ugly by nature!
Fixing your website is Y O U R responsibility... not MSNTV's....

The Real World rules and until you can do better to satisfy more users,
you are failing miserably ( and contradicting sound design practice ) in
teaching the ones who could best be taught from your information
store-house... too bad!

Real World web designers please browsers.... not visa-versa...

Bye Dave...................>

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #16

Brian

Davmagic .Com wrote:

Gee that is too bad for all the WebTv users who might want to learn from
your expertise... do you feel the same about other "handicapped" users?

Does this mean that using the MSN WebTV browser makes one handicapped?
:-D

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

Jul 20 '05 #17

From:
us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove
this-part (Brian)
Does this mean that using the MSN
WebTV browser makes one handicapped?
:-D

Well... I guess so since they don't have what some others have as far as
CSS goes...

I am trying to make the point that accessibility issues can have many
different "sides" to them... and some posters here are certainly
hippocrites, if they knowingly choose to ignore issues like this in
particular...

For example I read so much about making your pages acessible to the
deaf, blind etc. but what about making them accessible to those who use
browsers that have limited support (to date) for CSS?

If you claim to give out correct knowledge about web design, and then
turn around and blantly ignore facts like this... you are deceiving
others.... and yourself, subsequently losing respect for your comments
elsewhere...

Web Designers must ultimately satisfy web browsers.... as much as
desired... if a Designer chooses to ignore how accessible his/her pages
are for certain browsers, OK... but they should be consistant in their
teachings and advice-giving, and back up their decisions with sound
practice... not claim that being unaccessible (for physically
handicapped users) is bad practice, while on the other hand choosing to
blame others for not using browsers that have what their browsers
have...

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #18

Davmagic .Com wrote:

Gee that is too bad for all the WebTv users who might want to learn from
your expertise... do you feel the same about other "handicapped" users?
What exactly is your position on accessibility anyway?

If the solution to make my site accessible to WebTv users is to make it less
accessible to users of other systems, then I'm going to target users of
browsers capable of coping with semantically accurate, easy to maintain,
lower bandwidth, standards compliant markup and make only reasonable
allowances (i.e. the media hack, and a few MSIE hiding hacks) for broken
browsers.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/

Jul 20 '05 #19

Mark Parnell

Sometime around Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:38:59 GMT, Brian is reported to have
stated:

Does this mean that using the MSN WebTV browser makes one handicapped?
:-D

No arguments here. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 20 '05 #20

Mark Parnell

Sometime around Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:50:40 -0400 (EDT), Davmagic .Com is
reported to have stated:

Fixing your website is Y O U R responsibility... not MSNTV's....

Yes, but his web site isn't broken. Your "browser" is.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Jul 20 '05 #21

Alan J. Flavell

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Davmagic .Com wrote:

Well... I guess so since they don't have what some others have as far as
CSS goes...
CSS is designed to be optional. As long as client agents follow the
design principle of interpreting what they understand and makes sense
in their context, and ignore what they don't understand or doesn't
make sense, then it shouldn't impede access to the content, even if
the detains of the presentation aren't as nice as one might wish.

(Unfortunately, some developers don't seem to be able to get out of
the habit of trying to interpret things they don't understand. Which
I think started with IE3 setting the fashion for reading 1em, not
understanding what em meant, and interpreting it as 1px. Or something
like that)
For example I read so much about making your pages acessible to the
deaf, blind etc. but what about making them accessible to those who use
browsers that have limited support (to date) for CSS?

Pages that are designed for the WWW can do both. But the browser
developers need to play their part in the concordat.

Jul 20 '05 #22

Brian

Davmagic .Com wrote:

From: us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove
this-part (Brian)
Does this mean that using the MSN
WebTV browser makes one handicapped? :-D
Well... I guess so since they don't have what some others have as far as
CSS goes...

Quite an admisstion from someone who seems to have made it his mission
to evangelize MSN WebTV.
For example I read so much about making your pages acessible to the
deaf, blind etc. but what about making them accessible to those who use
browsers that have limited support (to date) for CSS?
This statement is incongruous. A conforming browswer with limited css
support will still present the content. Or have you confused
presentation with accessibility to content?
Web Designers must ultimately satisfy web browsers.... as much as
desired...
Strange to reify browsers like that.

The web works if author and reader agree on a set of rules. If the
author follows e.g. html rules, and the browser programmer follows
html rules, than the browser will correctly process the html document.
It cannot be a one-way street. There is only communication when you
have a message producer and a reader (I intend those terms in their
broadest sense).
while on the other hand choosing to
blame others for not using browsers that have what their browsers
have...

Noone's blaming the users. But if MSN WebTV's actual tv browser is
like the windows-based emulator, then shame on them. Never mind css;
that thing cannot cope with html 4.01, and proclaims it loudly when it
loads valid documents.

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

Jul 20 '05 #23

Eric Bohlman

Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
news:hW********************@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net:

Web Designers must ultimately satisfy web browsers.... as much as
desired...

Strange to reify browsers like that.

Nitpick: I think the term you're looking for is "anthropomorphize."
Reification means treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete
thing, which doesn't really apply here since a Web browser is in fact
concrete. It's a similar form of category mistake, though.

Jul 20 '05 #24

From: do*****@yahoo.com
(David*Dorward)
If the solution to make my site accessible
to WebTv users is to make it less
accessible to users of other systems, then
I'm going to target users of browsers
capable of coping with semantically
accurate, easy to maintain, lower
bandwidth, standards compliant markup
and make only reasonable allowances
(i.e. the media hack, and a few MSIE
hiding hacks) for broken browsers.

So who's really ahead of the game here? My site is accessible to ALL
browsers, getting over 140,000 hits and 45,000 page views average per
month... using tables for layout; ...your site fails to satisfy non CSS
compliant browsers, probably getting far less traffic and frustrating
users who see it with a MSNTV browser...

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #25

Alan J. Flavell

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Davmagic .Com wrote:

[addressing David Dorward...]

So who's really ahead of the game here? My site is accessible to ALL
browsers,
__
/

logo Search Site
____________________
[search.gif]-Submit
Web
Design Magic
Secrets Paint A
House Art Of
Junking Play
Games Our
Store

text images

\___
Several things wrong already. And this:

<input type="image" src="/images/search.gif" alt="" />

doesn't work, in WWW terms.

This is an amusing variation on the usual presentational crud:

<b style="font-style: italic">

Well done. :-}
getting over 140,000 hits and 45,000 page views average per
month...
Lucky you. The numbers were undoubtedly helped along by this
masterpiece:

<meta http-equiv="Expires" content="Thu, 01 Dec 1994 16:00:00 GMT" />
<meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="no-cache" />

Your claim to be accessible to all browsers is still wrong, though.
If I thought you understood web design, I'd have to conclude that you
were lying. As it is, I'm going to rate you as lacking in knowledge.
The killfile is itching a bit, though.
...your site fails to satisfy non CSS compliant browsers,

You really don't get it.

Jul 20 '05 #26

DL**@webtv.net (Davmagic .Com) wrote:

So who's really ahead of the game here? My site is accessible to ALL
browsers,

You've tested it in ALL browsers? I don't believe you.

It most certainly is not accessible.

Have a look in Lynx (the user has to go down to the third screen to
even find out what the site is about),
or in a speaking browser (what is someone meant to think when they
hear "davmagic dot com info two thousand for you" ?),
or Netscape 4 (blue links on a blue background, and most pages trigger
the charset burp),
or with images turned off (what on earth does alt="text images" mean?)
or with JS disabled (the quick find menu is totally unusable),
or with Google (I did a search for ' magic dave web design ' which
surely should return your site, but it wasn't in the first 7 pages of
results).

Please don't change your page, it's always useful to have an example
of what not to do.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Jul 20 '05 #27

Brian

Eric Bohlman wrote:

Brian wrote:
Web Designers must ultimately satisfy web browsers....

Strange to reify browsers like that.

Nitpick: I think the term you're looking for is "anthropomorphize."
Reification means treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete
thing, which doesn't really apply here since a Web browser is in fact
concrete. It's a similar form of category mistake, though.

<embarrassed look /> Exactly right. Where was my brain last night?

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

Jul 20 '05 #28

To: Steve and Alan...........

You may "pick apart" my site to your heart's content, but in the Real
World, it proves to be a success to not only myself but to all the
thousands of users who frequent it...

I think you both are just too peeved because I am not afraid to
challenge your typical book learned practices, and because I stick-up
for MSNTV's Browser, which I use in conjunction with my PC... and which
I find to be a great alternative for many WWW users who can't or won't
use a PC: http://davmagic.com/PAGES20.html

Too bad to find that highly intellegent folks like you, have to stoop so
low to try and make a point... which will never be made in my
"book"..............>

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #29

DL**@webtv.net (Davmagic .Com) wrote:

I think you both are just too peeved because I am not afraid to
challenge your typical book learned practices,
What book learned practices? I've been making web sites for eight and
a half years and learning my living from it for six. I have hands on,
real world commercial experience. None of my clients would ever pay a
penny for a site that looked or functioned anything like yours.

I was involved with a trial run of what was then still WebTV in the UK
back in 1999 in conjunction with Microsoft and a number of large UK
companies. Following that trial WebTV was never launched over here.
and because I stick-up
for MSNTV's Browser, which I use in conjunction with my PC... and which
I find to be a great alternative for many WWW users who can't or won't
use a PC: http://davmagic.com/PAGES20.html
If there was a simple way to hide CSS from MSNTV we would use it, the
same that we hide CSS from Netscape 4. But no such method exists, to
the best of my knowledge, for the latest version of MSNTV. And a large
portion of the blame has to lie with MS for making the browser support
media=screen rather than the more logical media=tv.

You say that http://steve.pugh.net/ looks bad in MSNTV, well it does
to a certain extent. Some of the text get's chopped off at the left
hand edge. This is simply because MSNTV supports CSS margins but not
CSS padding. And more fundamentally why would anyone program a browser
to be able to position content off screen when that browser can not
scroll horizontally? That's just rank stupidity. But my site is still
usable in MSNTV and looks about as bad as it does in Netscape 4. So
I'm not going to be losing any sleep over it.

I'm much more concerned about the fact that the content of any floated
element disappears entirely. e.g. my experimental layout at
http://steve.pugh.net/vtt/

As far as I can see the only solution is to use content negotiation
based on user agent strings to server a blank stylesheet to MSNTV.
This is less than ideal.

But freezing web development technologies at 1997 levels until MSNTV
catches up with everyone else is not an option. Have you any idea how
much junk code, nested tables and single pixel gifs it would take to
produce that seamless raised border effect using your sort of HTML
coding?

MSNTV is limited. And tables are not the answer. A simple table used
to hold data such as http://steve.pugh.net/idle/sharePrices.html still
looks crap on MSNTV. It's okay on a palmtop computer though.
Too bad to find that highly intellegent folks like you, have to stoop so
low to try and make a point... which will never be made in my
"book"..............>

The point is that your site has problems. Problems that will affect
more people than the total size of the MSNTV user base.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Jul 20 '05 #30

Isofarro

Eric Bohlman wrote:

Reification means treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete
thing,

Blimey. I'm one step closer to understanding RDF. Thanks!
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010

Jul 20 '05 #31

Brian

Davmagic .Com wrote:

I find to be a great alternative for many WWW users who
can't or won't use a PC: http://davmagic.com/PAGES20.html

rotfl

I was actually going to post that link for anyone wanting a good
laugh, but you went ahead and posted it for me.

You win the "silver lining" award for that one. Some highlights:

* Tv has lower resolution
That's an advantage, giving a more "eye appealing picture that viewers
appreciate...."

* Web TV has no mouse
It's so simple without that extra pointing device! Instead, scroll
with arrow buttons on a remote control device. "It's SO SIMPLE...No
MOUSE...and there's NO SIDEWAYS SCROLLING...only up and down." [I kid
you not, fellow usenauts, that's quoted from the link above.]

* Web TV cannot run software (except a [cough] web browser)
Think of the money you'll save!

There's various other points made on the page that are laughably
presumptuous.

* portability
"If you want to Travel, just unplug the WebTv Box and tuck it under
your arm and off you go... can't do that with a PC!"

Really? My laptop fits quite nicely under my arm. I can take it
anywhere. And I don't need to bring my tv with me, either.

Thanks for the laughs.

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

Jul 20 '05 #32

From: st***@pugh.net (Steve*Pugh)
The point is that your site has problems.
Problems that will affect more people than
the total size of the MSNTV user base.

Pure hogwash! My site has no problems, ..when checked out on MSNTV2.8+,
IE5+, NN7+, Mozilla1.4+ or Opera7.1 it renders fine.... except for an
image problem on Opera on a few of my Design Series pages... and as
another poster exclaimed in this thread: "I'm not going to change my
design for a browser that statistically ranks low on the usage scale"...

Well, I don't have as much experience as you in Web Design, but I still
think I have created a more Popular, Eye-Appealilng, Functional,
Entertaining and Content-Worthy Website than all of those that you have
supposedly created combined!

When users read pages they really don't care what code is behind them,
all they really care about is how well the page appears, functions and
satisfys their needs for content...

Based on my user stats, guestbook entries and email feedback, I think my
site is doing quite well despite any false claims otherwise from anyone
including you.......................>

Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
INFO 2000 For You
http://www.davmagic.com
See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp

Jul 20 '05 #33

Nick Kew

In article <17****************@storefull-2376.public.lawson.webtv.net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of DL**@webtv.net (Davmagic .Com) wrote:

So who's really ahead of the game here? My site is accessible to ALL
browsers, getting over 140,000 hits and 45,000

So it's willy-waving time then?

I run a proxy that fixes pages like yours, empowering the users. I set it
up to mirror some popular sites as a demo, expecting a small trickle of hits.

Much to my surprise, after less than a month it was up to 200,000 hits per day.
I still don't know why - I guess it could have been slashdotted - but it
demonstrates there are real users out there who like their pages fixed,
and are prepared to do something unusual to get it.
--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

Jul 20 '05 #34

Brian

Nick Kew wrote:

I run a proxy that fixes pages like yours, empowering the users. I
set it up to mirror some popular sites as a demo
Neat idea!
I guess it could have been slashdotted

slashdotted? What does that mean?

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

Jul 20 '05 #35

Mad Bad Rabbit

Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
news:4X6fb.484335$cF.170293@rwcrnsc53:

Nick Kew wrote:

I run a proxy that fixes pages like yours, empowering the users. I
set it up to mirror some popular sites as a demo
Neat idea!
I guess it could have been slashdotted

slashdotted? What does that mean?

Overloaded by too many people visiting it at once.
(for example, because the extremely popular site
http://slashdot.org posted a link to it...)

;K

Jul 20 '05 #36