By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,723 Members | 1,655 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,723 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

putting my footer in

P: n/a
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen) as long as the content has enough volume to push it down. The
moment I take out content, the container obviously wraps itself around the
little bit that is left, and shoots upwards on the screen or viewport - if
I use that term correctly.

This seems to be a complex issue. AListApart has a wonderful article on
it, but their solution uses javascript, which I want to avoid.

I am a (relatively) new to css and have a very basic question: - Is it OK
to rely (for now) on the content to keep the footer down?

It does feel like cheating a bit (putting in more text to hold up the
structure), but at least it works, and I can only learn one thing at a
time, now that I am trying to go without tables.

If someone can put my mind at ease on this score, I would be very grateful.
--
Groet, Adriana. [throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
60 Replies


P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Els
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


It doesn't look stupid unless the content is like 1 or 2
lines only, and even then, only sometimes. In that case, use
a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px wide
is enough.
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the
bottom of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's
window is. It just serves to make sure the bottom doesn't
touch the top.

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Els
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


It doesn't look stupid unless the content is like 1 or 2
lines only, and even then, only sometimes. In that case, use
a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px wide
is enough.
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the
bottom of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's
window is. It just serves to make sure the bottom doesn't
touch the top.

--
Els

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:16:06 +0200, Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...

The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


It doesn't look stupid unless the content is like 1 or 2
lines only, and even then, only sometimes. In that case, use
a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px wide
is enough.
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the
bottom of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's
window is. It just serves to make sure the bottom doesn't
touch the top.


Thank you. I had thought about that remedy, but feel it to be cheating
also... Nevertheless, I will have to cheat for now, I think.

And believe me: it does look stupid on the page I am thinking about :-)
I would not have asked otherwise.

Thanks, especially for reminding me about not knowing the visitor's window
height.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:16:06 +0200, Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...

The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


It doesn't look stupid unless the content is like 1 or 2
lines only, and even then, only sometimes. In that case, use
a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px wide
is enough.
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the
bottom of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's
window is. It just serves to make sure the bottom doesn't
touch the top.


Thank you. I had thought about that remedy, but feel it to be cheating
also... Nevertheless, I will have to cheat for now, I think.

And believe me: it does look stupid on the page I am thinking about :-)
I would not have asked otherwise.

Thanks, especially for reminding me about not knowing the visitor's window
height.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer. So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)


No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer. So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer. So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the> screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until
the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at
the bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a

page long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.


Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the>> screen)
>
> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the
footer.
> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Because it looks stupid.

When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page?
I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most
unusual to do so.

What would be the reason to do it anyway?
Because you find it the logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or someone
else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way that
pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first things one
learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you *never*
know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot control* it.

Given that, I try to please everybody's eye, but mine first.

Now who is getting his foot in ;-) ?
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer. So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?


Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the> screen)

No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until
the
user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at
the bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the footer.
So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Because it looks stupid.


When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a

page long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.


Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
>>> screen)
>>
>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,

until
the
>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at

the
>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the
footer.
>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?>
> Because it looks stupid.

When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a
page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath?
Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?

Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to

the eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you, signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page?
I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most
unusual to do so.
How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when they
do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more to say
than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise should
arrive in two weeks"?)

What would be the reason to do it anyway?
Because you find it the logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or someone else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way that
pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first things one learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you *never*
know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot control* it.


I'm confused. Controlling the footer is exactly what you are trying to do,
isn't it? Instead of just letting it appear where it does naturally?

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the>> screen)
>
> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible, until the
> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the
footer.
> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?

Because it looks stupid.

When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a page long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you put it at the bottom of the page?


Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the
eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page?
I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most
unusual to do so.

What would be the reason to do it anyway?
Because you find it the logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or someone
else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way that
pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first things one
learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you *never*
know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot control* it.

Given that, I try to please everybody's eye, but mine first.

Now who is getting his foot in ;-) ?
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:32:25 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom
>>>> of
the
>>>> screen)
>>>
>>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,
until
> the
>>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at
the
>>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and
>>> the
> footer.
>>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?>>
>> Because it looks stupid.
>
> When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third
> of a page
> long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
> put it at the bottom of the page?

Yes.

Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing
what is pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.

That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page? I don't get
any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most unusual to
do so.


How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when
they do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more
to say than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise
should arrive in two weeks"?)


It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual. While I of course do not know what you base your
verdict of 'unusual' on (I believe you even pronounced it "most unusual")
, it seems likely it has something to do with frequency.

I would put aside any letter with a lay out like that, you wouldn't, I
gather. What does it matter? And more to the point: what does it have to
do with my question?
What would be the reason to do it anyway? Because you find it the
logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or

someone
else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way
that pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first
things

one
learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you
*never* know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot
control* it.


I'm confused. Controlling the footer is exactly what you are trying to
do, isn't it? Instead of just letting it appear where it does naturally?


I am indeed trying to control the position of the footer, but I am well
aware of the impossibility of totally controlling it. I want to achieve a
certain effect, and - being no expert on css - wanted to know if my method
would work. In other words: if the end result in most UA's would be more
or less like what I have in mind. What is wrong with that?

What on earth do you mean when you say: "Instead of just letting it appear
where it does naturally?" What does nature have to do with it? You don't
honestly think there is a natural habitat for footers?

Or do you mean: "Where it would appear if you let your css determine what
is going on?" What css? The css of today, yesterday or tomorrow? For what
browser? Using what hack?

I think making web pages that other people can read, get information from
and possibly enjoy, is a wonderful thing. But I don/t want to do it
restricted by a rigid harnass. I just don't think that makes for a better
web life.

Can you tell me what the advantage is of your way of doing things?
--
Groet, Adriana. [throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom of the
>>> screen)
>>
>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,

until
the
>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at

the
>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and the
footer.
>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?>
> Because it looks stupid.

When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third of a
page
long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath?
Do you
put it at the bottom of the page?

Yes.


Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing what is pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.
That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to

the eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you, signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page?
I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most
unusual to do so.
How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when they
do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more to say
than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise should
arrive in two weeks"?)

What would be the reason to do it anyway?
Because you find it the logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or someone else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way that
pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first things one learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you *never*
know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot control* it.


I'm confused. Controlling the footer is exactly what you are trying to do,
isn't it? Instead of just letting it appear where it does naturally?

Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:32:25 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom
>>>> of
the
>>>> screen)
>>>
>>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,
until
> the
>>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at
the
>>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and
>>> the
> footer.
>>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be short?>>
>> Because it looks stupid.
>
> When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third
> of a page
> long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath? Do you
> put it at the bottom of the page?

Yes.

Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing
what is pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.

That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to the eye.


Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page? I don't get
any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most unusual to
do so.


How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when
they do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more
to say than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise
should arrive in two weeks"?)


It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual. While I of course do not know what you base your
verdict of 'unusual' on (I believe you even pronounced it "most unusual")
, it seems likely it has something to do with frequency.

I would put aside any letter with a lay out like that, you wouldn't, I
gather. What does it matter? And more to the point: what does it have to
do with my question?
What would be the reason to do it anyway? Because you find it the
logical way to arrange things?

I try and do things as well as I can, but I am no slave to logic or

someone
else's idea of what makes a good lay out. I try to do things in a way
that pleases my eye, yes. It is the only eye I have: one of the first
things

one
learns when one starts dabbling in webdesign is the fact that you
*never* know what the visitor to your page will see, that you *cannot
control* it.


I'm confused. Controlling the footer is exactly what you are trying to
do, isn't it? Instead of just letting it appear where it does naturally?


I am indeed trying to control the position of the footer, but I am well
aware of the impossibility of totally controlling it. I want to achieve a
certain effect, and - being no expert on css - wanted to know if my method
would work. In other words: if the end result in most UA's would be more
or less like what I have in mind. What is wrong with that?

What on earth do you mean when you say: "Instead of just letting it appear
where it does naturally?" What does nature have to do with it? You don't
honestly think there is a natural habitat for footers?

Or do you mean: "Where it would appear if you let your css determine what
is going on?" What css? The css of today, yesterday or tomorrow? For what
browser? Using what hack?

I think making web pages that other people can read, get information from
and possibly enjoy, is a wonderful thing. But I don/t want to do it
restricted by a rigid harnass. I just don't think that makes for a better
web life.

Can you tell me what the advantage is of your way of doing things?
--
Groet, Adriana. [throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1k***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:32:25 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom
>>>>> of
the
>>>>> screen)
>>>>
>>>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,
until
>> the
>>>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
>>>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and
>>>> the
>> footer.
>>>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be

short?
>>>
>>> Because it looks stupid.
>>
>> When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third
>> of

a
page
>> long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath?

Do
you
>> put it at the bottom of the page?
>
> Yes.

Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing
what

is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.

> That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
> presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to

the
> eye.

Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page? I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most unusual to
do so.


How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when
they do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more
to say than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise
should arrive in two weeks"?)


It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:1k***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:32:25 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:15***************@www.translatoria.com...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:00:05 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
news:12***************@www.translatoria.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:39:32 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1t****************@www.translatoria.com...
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:59:37 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:o2**************@www.translatoria.com...
>>>>> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the bottom
>>>>> of
the
>>>>> screen)
>>>>
>>>> No, usually it's below the bottom of the screen, and not visible,
until
>> the
>>>> user reaches the end of your page. Where it is *consistently* is at the
>>>> bottom of your *page*, with no major gap between the content and
>>>> the
>> footer.
>>>> So why should there suddenly be a gap when a page happens to be

short?
>>>
>>> Because it looks stupid.
>>
>> When you write a letter to someone, and the letter is only a third
>> of

a
page
>> long, does it look stupid to put your signature directly underneath?

Do
you
>> put it at the bottom of the page?
>
> Yes.

Really? That's most unusual. Be sure, therefore, that you are doing
what

is
pleasing to "the" eye, not just your eye.

> That is: I will arrange my lay out in such a way, that the content is
> presented in a way that is not only informative, but also pleasing to

the
> eye.

Really? How many letters do you get with a letterhead, dear Sir, thank

you,
signature? All in two or three lines at the top of the page? I don't get any like that: where I live and communicate it would be most unusual to
do so.


How is the frequency of such letters relevant to their appearance when
they do come? (Anyway, what's unusual about someone having nothing more
to say than, "Dear Sir, We've received your order and your merchandise
should arrive in two weeks"?)


It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:49:53 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.


OK, now we have that cleared up: you don't see the need.
I don't see the need: there *is* no need.
But I would like it to appear that way in most browsers and asked if my way
of doing it - although not perfect, as I am ready to admit - would have the
desired result in most browsers,on most screens and what have you.

It is just something I want because I like the look of the page that way
(yes, in my browser, with my settings, screen etc.).

Your not seeing the need does not answer my question.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:49:53 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.


OK, now we have that cleared up: you don't see the need.
I don't see the need: there *is* no need.
But I would like it to appear that way in most browsers and asked if my way
of doing it - although not perfect, as I am ready to admit - would have the
desired result in most browsers,on most screens and what have you.

It is just something I want because I like the look of the page that way
(yes, in my browser, with my settings, screen etc.).

Your not seeing the need does not answer my question.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
bottom of the screen)
use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.
That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

..content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the bottom
of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's window is. It just
serves to make sure the bottom doesn't touch the top.


which bottom, which top? If you mean, it ensures that there's a bit of
space between content and footer, then yes. But the css solution is a
bit more graceful, and more flexible, too.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:49:53 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.


OK, now we have that cleared up: you don't see the need.
I don't see the need: there *is* no need.
But I would like it to appear that way in most browsers and asked if my way
of doing it - although not perfect, as I am ready to admit - would have the
desired result in most browsers,on most screens and what have you.

It is just something I want because I like the look of the page that way
(yes, in my browser, with my settings, screen etc.).

Your not seeing the need does not answer my question.


Granted, but sometimes when people come to Usenet asking how to do
something that seems either odd or unnecessarily difficult, it turns
out that their idea that they *should* do that something was based on
a misunderstanding or a misperception or a failure to reflect on the
implications of their idea. That includes, for example, people who got
the idea that they have to protect their users from some feature built
into their own browsers, without reflecting on the fact that somehow
those same users manage to browse the *rest* of the Internet without a
nanny. In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
bottom of the screen)
use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.
That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

..content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the bottom
of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's window is. It just
serves to make sure the bottom doesn't touch the top.


which bottom, which top? If you mean, it ensures that there's a bit of
space between content and footer, then yes. But the css solution is a
bit more graceful, and more flexible, too.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:49:53 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:

It was you who thought my behaviour (ie not using just the top couple of
lines on a page) unusual.


I didn't say that at all. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one
who didn't see why you need to have the footer at the bottom *even when* you
only have a couple of lines at the top.


OK, now we have that cleared up: you don't see the need.
I don't see the need: there *is* no need.
But I would like it to appear that way in most browsers and asked if my way
of doing it - although not perfect, as I am ready to admit - would have the
desired result in most browsers,on most screens and what have you.

It is just something I want because I like the look of the page that way
(yes, in my browser, with my settings, screen etc.).

Your not seeing the need does not answer my question.


Granted, but sometimes when people come to Usenet asking how to do
something that seems either odd or unnecessarily difficult, it turns
out that their idea that they *should* do that something was based on
a misunderstanding or a misperception or a failure to reflect on the
implications of their idea. That includes, for example, people who got
the idea that they have to protect their users from some feature built
into their own browsers, without reflecting on the fact that somehow
those same users manage to browse the *rest* of the Internet without a
nanny. In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:39:26 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.


Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other people
solve this problem without making the page ugly.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:39:26 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.


Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other people
solve this problem without making the page ugly.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
> bottom of the screen)

use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.


That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}


I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}

You may view the result in example 2. This is all the code that should be
needed to position a footer with CSS. Unfortunately this technique doesn¢t
work for Internet Explorer and Safari because of their lack of support for
the min-height attribute.

---------------------------------------------------
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
> bottom of the screen)

use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.


That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}


I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}

You may view the result in example 2. This is all the code that should be
needed to position a footer with CSS. Unfortunately this technique doesn¢t
work for Internet Explorer and Safari because of their lack of support for
the min-height attribute.

---------------------------------------------------
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
> bottom of the screen)

use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.


That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the bottom
of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's window is. It just
serves to make sure the bottom doesn't touch the top.


which bottom, which top? If you mean, it ensures that there's a bit of
space between content and footer, then yes. But the css solution is a
bit more graceful, and more flexible, too.


Your example code has a content and a footer class, but only the content
class is defined (as far as I can see). How do I implement it?
Thank you.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
Els wrote:
A.Translator wrote:
> The footer on my page stays where I want it to be (at the
> bottom of the screen)

use a transparent gif with the desired minimum height, 1px
wide is enough.


That's a bit clunky, isn't it? How about using css instead? (This is a
css group, after all.)

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}
Mind you, that is _not_ a solution to keep the footer at the bottom
of the screen, as you don't know how high anyone's window is. It just
serves to make sure the bottom doesn't touch the top.


which bottom, which top? If you mean, it ensures that there's a bit of
space between content and footer, then yes. But the css solution is a
bit more graceful, and more flexible, too.


Your example code has a content and a footer class, but only the content
class is defined (as far as I can see). How do I implement it?
Thank you.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:39:26 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.


Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other people
solve this problem without making the page ugly.


I seem not to be making myself clear. I'm saying that people don't
find this to be a problem to be solved. That was the perspective I was
attempting to share with you. On almost any site you visit that has
short pages, you'll find that the footer is right where it goes
naturally, right at the bottom of the text, regardless of how short
the text happens to be with respect to the height of the browser.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
"A.Translator" <ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:39:26 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
In your case, you asked about something that I already know is
virtually impossible, and I thought it was worth suggesting that the
thing you think is ugly is really something most people are quite used
to and consider normal because, after all, that's the way short web
pages *usually* appear.


Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other people
solve this problem without making the page ugly.


I seem not to be making myself clear. I'm saying that people don't
find this to be a problem to be solved. That was the perspective I was
attempting to share with you. On almost any site you visit that has
short pages, you'll find that the footer is right where it goes
naturally, right at the bottom of the text, regardless of how short
the text happens to be with respect to the height of the browser.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:36:42 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
On almost any site you visit that has
short pages, you'll find that the footer is right where it goes
naturally, right at the bottom of the text, regardless of how short
the text happens to be with respect to the height of the browser.


I understood what you said, but would like to see examples, for my page
with little content looks idiotic with the footer half way up the screen.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:36:42 -0400, Harlan Messinger wrote:
On almost any site you visit that has
short pages, you'll find that the footer is right where it goes
naturally, right at the bottom of the text, regardless of how short
the text happens to be with respect to the height of the browser.


I understood what you said, but would like to see examples, for my page
with little content looks idiotic with the footer half way up the screen.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote (re short pages and footers):
Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other
people solve this problem without making the page ugly.


http://www.julietremblay.com/site/

http://www.julietremblay.com/exhibits/doesnotexist
http://www.julietremblay.com/misc/

The last 2 are error documents, the first is not linked because it was
never developed, but they are short pages.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/visual

Not terribly short, but not terribly long, either.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/accessibility

Shorter. (Attention, hon. usenauts, This is also a "legacy" document of
sorts. I haven't gotten around to putting something more meaningful here.)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote (re short pages and footers):
Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other
people solve this problem without making the page ugly.


http://www.julietremblay.com/site/

http://www.julietremblay.com/exhibits/doesnotexist
http://www.julietremblay.com/misc/

The last 2 are error documents, the first is not linked because it was
never developed, but they are short pages.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/visual

Not terribly short, but not terribly long, either.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/accessibility

Shorter. (Attention, hon. usenauts, This is also a "legacy" document of
sorts. I haven't gotten around to putting something more meaningful here.)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:15:29 -0400, Brian wrote:
A.Translator wrote (re short pages and footers):
Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other
people solve this problem without making the page ugly.


http://www.julietremblay.com/site/

http://www.julietremblay.com/exhibits/doesnotexist
http://www.julietremblay.com/misc/

The last 2 are error documents, the first is not linked because it was
never developed, but they are short pages.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/visual

Not terribly short, but not terribly long, either.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/accessibility

Shorter. (Attention, hon. usenauts, This is also a "legacy" document of
sorts. I haven't gotten around to putting something more meaningful here.)


Thank you. The error pages are good examples of well designed pages with a
clever layout. Here the 'high' footers do not really disturb me, but in the
last two examples they do. These pages appear 'off balance' to me, I am
put on the wrong foot, as it were, and feel something is missing.

The page I was worried about would look odd (to my eye) with such a high
footer, so I am still looking for a solution.

Thanks for your illustrations!

--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:15:29 -0400, Brian wrote:
A.Translator wrote (re short pages and footers):
Can you point me to some examples? I would like to see how other
people solve this problem without making the page ugly.


http://www.julietremblay.com/site/

http://www.julietremblay.com/exhibits/doesnotexist
http://www.julietremblay.com/misc/

The last 2 are error documents, the first is not linked because it was
never developed, but they are short pages.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/visual

Not terribly short, but not terribly long, either.

http://www.tsmchughs.com/site/accessibility

Shorter. (Attention, hon. usenauts, This is also a "legacy" document of
sorts. I haven't gotten around to putting something more meaningful here.)


Thank you. The error pages are good examples of well designed pages with a
clever layout. Here the 'high' footers do not really disturb me, but in the
last two examples they do. These pages appear 'off balance' to me, I am
put on the wrong foot, as it were, and feel something is missing.

The page I was worried about would look odd (to my eye) with such a high
footer, so I am still looking for a solution.

Thanks for your illustrations!

--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}


Your example code has a content and a footer class, but only the content
class is defined (as far as I can see). How do I implement it?


Exactly as I've shown above, although you might want to change the css
values to suit your tastes. What problems are you having?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:

<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}


Your example code has a content and a footer class, but only the content
class is defined (as far as I can see). How do I implement it?


Exactly as I've shown above, although you might want to change the css
values to suit your tastes. What problems are you having?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}

I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}


My code does not put the footer at the bottom of the viewport on short
pages, since I don't regard that an a problem to be solved. It does,
however, ensure that there is some space between content and footer, and
that the footer is not near the top of the page.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a
A.Translator wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:12:53 -0400, Brian wrote:
<div class="content">
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Morbi nibh velit, hendrerit eu, interdum eget, posuere nec,
nibh. Mauris et nisl. Ut in leo quis massa laoreet mollis.
Aliquam aliquet libero vel nisl.
</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
copyright 2004
</div>

.content {
min-height: 10em;
margin-bottom: 2em;
}

I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}


My code does not put the footer at the bottom of the viewport on short
pages, since I don't regard that an a problem to be solved. It does,
however, ensure that there is some space between content and footer, and
that the footer is not near the top of the page.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:58:03 -0400, Brian wrote:
I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}


My code does not put the footer at the bottom of the viewport on short
pages, since I don't regard that an a problem to be solved. It does,
however, ensure that there is some space between content and footer, and
that the footer is not near the top of the page.


OK, that is what I get here.
I do regard the footer not being at the bottom of the viewport as a problem
to be solved, so I am looking for another solution.

Thanks for your effort, though.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:58:03 -0400, Brian wrote:
I will explore it, but A list Apart says:
--------------------------------------------------
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
#container {
position: relative;
min-height: 100%;
}


My code does not put the footer at the bottom of the viewport on short
pages, since I don't regard that an a problem to be solved. It does,
however, ensure that there is some space between content and footer, and
that the footer is not near the top of the page.


OK, that is what I get here.
I do regard the footer not being at the bottom of the viewport as a problem
to be solved, so I am looking for another solution.

Thanks for your effort, though.
--
Groet, Adriana.
[throw rubbish out if you want to reach me by e-mail]
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:33:13 +0200, A.Translator
<ad******************@yaBISHhoo.com> wrote:
The page I was worried about would look odd (to my eye) with such a high
footer, so I am still looking for a solution.


Perhaps you should add more content...
Jul 20 '05 #50

60 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.