Ahh...thanks for the clarification. I didn't think it would be
overlooked, but better to be safe than sorry.
Mike
Jacob Farber wrote:
In this case, I knew before hand the site is locked to 950px wide, so
that severely limits the usefulness of flexible width content, but
normally this would be ideal.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Michael S Elledge <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You may also want to use percentages rather than pixels to keep
your layout liquid...
Mike
Jacob Farber wrote:
If your looking for 7 containers, then I would use the
technique you mentioned in #2, and overwrite the width to
135px instead of keeping the 150/100 px width.
Jacob
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Laurel A. Williams
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
Hi Jacob,
Actually, the original examples (sent Friday) both did have
7 columns.
What I really wanted was 7 columns of approximately equal
widths
in a 950px wide container.
Since the flex columns only go up to 5 in the fss, I tried a
grouping of 4 columns and a grouping of 3 columns - as per your
suggestion. You can see an example of this at:
http://fluidproject.org/dev/index.php/partners in the Fluid
Academic partner institutions section.
I used the second style on:
http://fluidproject.org/dev/index.php/collaborate to
position the
images and text at the bottom of the page. I used 100 and 150
width containers alternately because 100 was way too small (700
total width ended up too narrow) and 150 was too big (total
would
have been 1050px - larger than 950px container).
So - would the more simple technique be to write my own fss
classes for 7 columns?
Laurel
Jacob Farber wrote:
The most critical mechanism in the fss files for laying
something out is just to use one of the many
"fl-container..."
or "fl-col..." class names, so that we can easily linearize
it. It's not as critical how you use them, just that
you do.
That being said.....
Occam's razor is king when it comes to laying out css +
markup. It is very important to map out the simplest
solution
to avoid big cross-browser headaches, bloat, css
errors, and
performance.
Truth is, the example above looks incomplete and the two
techniques do different things (#1 is 7 containers, #2 is 5
containers.). If your looking for the difference between
columns and containers, then the answer lies in what your
laying out and how it should behave. Columns are great for
flexible consistent width containers. Containers are more
general purpose. Many times, the two are interchangeable.
In this example, if you just want to lay things out side by
side of alternating widths, then you have to go with
technique
#2 since columns are even and this doesn't look like that's
what you want.
Sometimes it's good to have a strong idea of how the
grid for
a site should behave: This article on grids might help
<http://www.markboulton.co.uk/articles/detail/five_simple_steps_to_designing_grid_systems/>
I hope that sheds some light!
Jacob
-- Jacob Farber
University of Toronto - ATRC
Tel: (416) 946-3002
www.fluidproject.org <http://www.fluidproject.org>
<http://www.fluidproject.org>
<http://www.fluidproject.org>
-- Laurel A. Williams
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto
--
Jacob Farber
University of Toronto - ATRC
Tel: (416) 946-3002
www.fluidproject.org <http://www.fluidproject.org>
<http://www.fluidproject.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
--
Jacob Farber
University of Toronto - ATRC
Tel: (416) 946-3002
www.fluidproject.org <http://www.fluidproject.org>
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
