By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,677 Members | 1,890 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,677 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Fatal move to have "table" in editable region in Dreamweaver MX..Graphics & text didnt wrap in "table", why?

P: n/a
HI there..

l was just wondering, if l place a "table" in the "editable region" of my
template, will the text, graphics placed inside the this "table" MOVE BY
ITSELF??

l mean, recently l had a "table" insert in my "editable region", have it
placed in the "center" of the page..

while it display correctly on my browser, with setting at 1024x768 (IE6),

Days later, at a library where they have internet access, l discovered that
table MOVE (shift) to the right with some of the text, graphics didn't wrap
at the edge of the "table and went "missing" at the end of it??

From what l saw was the PC in the library was using a much lower setting
than 1024 x768 (which l cant determined how much)..unfortunately, l was not
allowed to change the setting of the PC (cos it's a public property)

So my queries are: based on the symptoms told,

- where does the fault laid??
- is it a fatal move to have the "table" placed in the eitable area??
- why the text and graphics didnt wrap according when shown on other browser
than mine??
- Should l re-design my template? if yes, how? l would like to utilise the
use of tables in it
- when using "table" in editable region, which is the preferred width (not
90%)??

Thanks for any feedback and suggestion, thanks
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
17 Replies


P: n/a
black tractor wrote in message ...
Thanks for any feedback and suggestion, thanks


Let us have the URL so *we* can see what happens, then we will try to
advise.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named black tractor:
while it display correctly on my browser, with setting at 1024x768 (IE6),
Don't design for a monitor resolution. Design for... any size of
browser window. That means design for /no/ size. Not everyone surfs
with their browser maximized, especially those with high resolution
monitors.

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
Days later, at a library where they have internet access, l discovered that
table MOVE (shift) to the right with some of the text, graphics didn't wrap
at the edge of the "table and went "missing" at the end of it??

From what l saw was the PC in the library was using a much lower setting
than 1024 x768 (which l cant determined how much)..unfortunately, l was not
allowed to change the setting of the PC (cos it's a public property)
The library's monitor was probably a max resolution of 800x600, as
somewhere around 40% of the world's population is still using.
So my queries are: based on the symptoms told,

- where does the fault laid??
Your design.
- is it a fatal move to have the "table" placed in the eitable area??
- why the text and graphics didnt wrap according when shown on other browser
than mine??
- Should l re-design my template? if yes, how? l would like to utilise the
use of tables in it
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
- when using "table" in editable region, which is the preferred width (not
90%)??


You don't say what you are using for editing. Providing the URL would
help as well.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
You don't say what you are using for editing. ...


Ah. I've noticed that the Subject line says Dreamweaver. My newsreader
cut it off and I didn't notice that.

"Fatal move to have "table" in editable regi"

Please try to keep subject lines short. Thanks.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Hi there..

it's at http://surf.to/bolasepako

just to set to setting any of than lower than 1024 x 768, and see if the
symptoms mentioned to appear?? as the results varies browsers to
browsers..thanks

Black tractor (aka POhui)

"Steve R." <stevie_ritchie(NOSPAM)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qp*********************@news-text.cableinet.net...
black tractor wrote in message ...
Thanks for any feedback and suggestion, thanks


Let us have the URL so *we* can see what happens, then we will try to
advise.

Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Fq*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Quoth the raven named black tractor:
Don't design for a monitor resolution. Design for... any size of
browser window. That means design for /no/ size. Not everyone surfs
with their browser maximized, especially those with high resolution
monitors.

Then how do l know if my design can be display correctly in all browser
setting?? thanks :)

Black Tractor (aka Pohui)
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Oops.. sorry for that.. :P
to eager to have my queries answer..'
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:D8*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:
You don't say what you are using for editing. ...


Ah. I've noticed that the Subject line says Dreamweaver. My newsreader
cut it off and I didn't notice that.

"Fatal move to have "table" in editable regi"

Please try to keep subject lines short. Thanks.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
kopohui wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Fq*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Quoth the raven named black tractor:
Don't design for a monitor resolution. Design for... any size of
browser window. That means design for /no/ size. Not everyone surfs
with their browser maximized, especially those with high resolution
monitors.


Then how do l know if my design can be display correctly in all browser
setting?? thanks :)


Look at your page in Lynx. If it's alright there, it will probable
render fine in other browsers to. If you applied your style on proper
markup a browser knows what to do. That's what they're there for.

Besides: your visitor doesn't know what a page looks like in an other
browser than his/her own, so there is absolutely no need to make a pixel
perfect design that 'will look the same in all browsers'. It is
impossible anyway.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named kopohui:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:Fq*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Quoth the raven named black tractor:

Don't design for a monitor resolution. Design for... any size of
browser window. That means design for /no/ size. Not everyone
surfs with their browser maximized, especially those with high
resolution monitors.


Then how do l know if my design can be display correctly in all
browser setting?? thanks :)


Make your browser window smaller - not maximized - and see if your
page grows a horizontal scrollbar. Your page gets one about 891 pixels
wide, so all your visitors with small monitors, or small browser
windows, will have to scroll sideways. Not pleasant.

The page is also way too large, in bytes, for an entry page.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:29:39 +0800, "kopohui" <ko*****@singnet.com.sg>
wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Fq*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com.. .

Don't design for a monitor resolution. Design for... any size of
browser window. That means design for /no/ size. Not everyone surfs
with their browser maximized, especially those with high resolution
monitors.

Then how do l know if my design can be display correctly in all browser
setting?? thanks :)


If you follow the points in my checklist, you can be fairly confident
that it will display OK for the vast majority of readers:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/checklist.html

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Stephen Poley:
If you follow the points in my checklist, you can be fairly confident
that it will display OK for the vast majority of readers: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/checklist.html


That's a good list. But I think you need to add something about checking
with various settings for font size, text zoom, minimum font size etc,
especially with extreme settings.

I often find pages that break or at least display very strangely or ugly
when I use text zoom or a large minumum font size in Firefox (I use a
minimum of 14px most of the time). Far too often those pages are made by
authors that (say they) care a lot about accessibility, usability, web
standards etc.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
black tractor wrote:

HI there..

l was just wondering, if l place a "table" in the "editable region" of my
template, will the text, graphics placed inside the this "table" MOVE BY
ITSELF??

l mean, recently l had a "table" insert in my "editable region", have it
placed in the "center" of the page..

while it display correctly on my browser, with setting at 1024x768 (IE6),

Days later, at a library where they have internet access, l discovered that
table MOVE (shift) to the right with some of the text, graphics didn't wrap
at the edge of the "table and went "missing" at the end of it??

From what l saw was the PC in the library was using a much lower setting
than 1024 x768 (which l cant determined how much)..unfortunately, l was not
allowed to change the setting of the PC (cos it's a public property)

So my queries are: based on the symptoms told,

- where does the fault laid??
- is it a fatal move to have the "table" placed in the eitable area??
- why the text and graphics didnt wrap according when shown on other browser
than mine??
- Should l re-design my template? if yes, how? l would like to utilise the
use of tables in it
- when using "table" in editable region, which is the preferred width (not
90%)??


Thanks for any feedback and suggestion, thanks


First of all, get rid of the frames. Then get your page to validate.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...o%2Fbolasepako

Two problems right away - no DOCTYPE specified, and no character
encoding specified.

--

To reply, delete the 'x' from my email
Jerry Stuckle,
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
Member of Independent Computer Consultants Association - www.icca.org
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:41:10 +0100, Bertilo Wennergren
<be******@gmx.net> wrote:
Stephen Poley:
If you follow the points in my checklist, you can be fairly confident
that it will display OK for the vast majority of readers:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/checklist.html


That's a good list. But I think you need to add something about checking
with various settings for font size, text zoom, minimum font size etc,
especially with extreme settings.

I often find pages that break or at least display very strangely or ugly
when I use text zoom or a large minumum font size in Firefox (I use a
minimum of 14px most of the time). Far too often those pages are made by
authors that (say they) care a lot about accessibility, usability, web
standards etc.


Font size is mentioned. I guess it might also be worth mentioning
minimum font size. I'm not sure about text zoom: my current view is that
that is something that should not be needed for well-designed pages
which adopt the reader's preferred text size, but possibly I've missed
something.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Stephen Poley wrote:
Font size is mentioned. I guess it might also be worth mentioning
minimum font size. I'm not sure about text zoom: my current view is that
that is something that should not be needed for well-designed pages
which adopt the reader's preferred text size, but possibly I've missed
something.


Possibly this is a misunderstanding - I'd advise web _authors_ to use
text zoom to assess how their pages would likely behave with different
_readers'_ choices of text size.

cheers
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:03:27 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Stephen Poley wrote:
Font size is mentioned. I guess it might also be worth mentioning
minimum font size. I'm not sure about text zoom: my current view is that
that is something that should not be needed for well-designed pages
which adopt the reader's preferred text size, but possibly I've missed
something.


Possibly this is a misunderstanding - I'd advise web _authors_ to use
text zoom to assess how their pages would likely behave with different
_readers'_ choices of text size.


OK sorry, I'm confusing the Opera zoom with the Mozilla zoom. Yes, using
the Mozilla text zoom is a quick way of checking different choices of
text size.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Stephen Poley:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:41:10 +0100, Bertilo Wennergren
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/checklist.html
That's a good list. But I think you need to add something about checking
with various settings for font size, text zoom, minimum font size etc,
especially with extreme settings.

I often find pages that break or at least display very strangely or ugly
when I use text zoom or a large minumum font size in Firefox (I use a
minimum of 14px most of the time). Far too often those pages are made by
authors that (say they) care a lot about accessibility, usability, web
standards etc.

Font size is mentioned.
OK. The heading however says "Try varying fonts" (I confess that I only
looked at the checklist at the start of the page, not at the
explanations below). I think you should use "Try varying font sizes"
since that's what you're actually talking about.
I guess it might also be worth mentioning
minimum font size. I'm not sure about text zoom: my current view is that
that is something that should not be needed for well-designed pages
which adopt the reader's preferred text size, but possibly I've missed
something.


If (almost) all sizes are set with relative values, there is most of
the time little need to check what happens with text zoom. But in some
cases things can get hairy, e.g. with some uses of absolute or fixed
positioning (the navigation menu on my own pages actually becomes partly
unusable at an extreme text zoom in Gecko browsers!).

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> wrote in news:c2*************@news.t-
online.com:
Stephen Poley:
I guess it might also be worth mentioning
minimum font size. I'm not sure about text zoom: my current view is that
that is something that should not be needed for well-designed pages
which adopt the reader's preferred text size, but possibly I've missed
something.


If (almost) all sizes are set with relative values, there is most of
the time little need to check what happens with text zoom. But in some
cases things can get hairy, e.g. with some uses of absolute or fixed
positioning (the navigation menu on my own pages actually becomes partly
unusable at an extreme text zoom in Gecko browsers!).


Another case where zoom behavior can be important is when the browser isn't
set for the user's preferred text size because the user is working on
someone else's machine, set for that someone else's different preferred
text size. Don't forget that in much of the world, most Web access occurs
through Internet cafes, and that library computers aren't just used by poor
people, they're also used by people who happen to be in the library for
some reason.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:02:02 +0100, Bertilo Wennergren
<be******@gmx.net> wrote:
Stephen Poley:
Font size is mentioned.


OK. The heading however says "Try varying fonts" (I confess that I only
looked at the checklist at the start of the page, not at the
explanations below). I think you should use "Try varying font sizes"
since that's what you're actually talking about.


Good point. I've changed it.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #18

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.