Brandon Blatcher wrote:
> I'm at bit of a loss when it comes to building a website. I've mocked
> up a layout in an old program called Layout Master and the layout
> seems to work fine in most browsers. However, the layout uses
> absolute positioning and z-indexes to achieve the layout. Is this
> wrong and if so why?
If you have a mock up and some ideas to go with it, then presenting it
here on css-d may be a good start. It is always easier to give clear
advices when we can see the actual problem.
Basically:
• right = what works or can be made to work.
• wrong = what doesn't work and can't be made to work.
What works will always depend on what we want the actual layout to
contain, how we organize it, and what we want it to look like.
All methods have strengths and weaknesses, so absolute answers can't be
given with any degree of authority - unless all variables are known and
one knows the ins and outs of every method.
Absolute positioning of large parts may, or may not, work.
A:P based layouts are easy to understand and create, but tend to show
weaknesses when it comes to scaling (a layout's ability to handle
font-resizing, changes in types and amount of content, etc.).
Some of these weaknesses can't be overcome within an A:P based layout,
which is why many of us only use A:P to position smaller, more
controlled, parts within layouts based on other methods.
Float-based layouts can be made quite strong and flexible, but can be
difficult to understand and create first time. This usually means it
takes longer to learn, but the extra time and effort will usually result
in more reliable creations "ever after".
Experienced designers tend to keep all available methods at hand, and
use them according to a complete design-plan. Without some form of a
design-plan such an approach tends to fail, so this is where your
existing plans and mock up comes in.
> Also, are there current, basically agreed upon standards for building
> websites, i.e. how to spec fonts (%,em or pts?), or what positioning
> system to use? Or is it more of a wild west, whatever works for that
> particular project idea?
There are (as you know) de-facto W3C standards for just about every
element, attribute, property and whatever, but it is still pretty much
up to us to combine, test, correct for eventual browser-bugs, and make
it all work. So, "whatever works" is probably the most correct answer.
• 'pt' may work well for print, but not for screen.
• '%' works well for screen.
• 'em' works well for screen.
To some of us "whatever works" means "whatever works under stress when
browsers' font resizing and other options are used, and doesn't prohibit
these browser options from being used as intended".
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
