[WSG] Forms, labels & headers
I have a huge form page https://www.willtrav.com/form-corp-profile.php that uses table headers to define the text boxes and how do I or should I include labels on those text boxes? -- Jack Kennard Web Designer & Marketing dba/ Web Sailing Designs http://www.websailingdesigns.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Bert, I take a pragmatic approach to tables and columnar design: use a single table with a single row and as many cells as I need (although invariably a max of 3). Gets rid of all sorts of cross browser problems. I have had a couple of Gecko purists efforting a table-less design for me just to prove it can be done. What's the point? They've both since agreed it's far simpler, involves far less fudging and is far more efficient to use the single table approach -- especially as I use alternate skinning incorporating vertical borders: www.seowebsitepromotion.com. This layout uses two elastic and one fixed width column. Why fixed for column 3? Because I need to accommodate as much text as possible in the first two columns and use the right column to display fixed size images, and I need to maintain an aesthetically satisfactory display at 640, 800 and 1024+ screen resolutions. CSS isn't up to natural multi-columnar structures without a lot of faffing around. Once CSS evolves to adopt columns and browsers incorporate the changes I'll happily use them. Until then it's a matter of commonsense. I don't need to prove a point, I just make sites standards-compliant and accessible in as great a range or browsers (including Lynx) as possible. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bert Doorn Sent: 09 May 2004 16:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers Hi, > are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-) > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ I know using multiple tables, nested "n" levels deep is stupid and results in lots of excess code. So is using font tags etc. That's why I don't design that way. But sometimes it is (to me) unavoidable to use a table, because the alternatives just don't work consistently enough across browsers. Thanks for the link. http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/14transitional.html sums it up for me, while the pages following it don't apply to sites I design. I've seen plenty like that, including a site that has a home page with 40k of HTML that includes 40 tables, some of which only hold ONE word (4 characters of content hidden in a total of 262 bytes of tag soup) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS "for the sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing about" s=as Mike says standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy Mike Pepper wrote: Bert, I take a pragmatic approach to tables and columnar design: use a single table with a single row and as many cells as I need (although invariably a max of 3). Gets rid of all sorts of cross browser problems. I have had a couple of Gecko purists efforting a table-less design for me just to prove it can be done. What's the point? They've both since agreed it's far simpler, involves far less fudging and is far more efficient to use the single table approach -- especially as I use alternate skinning incorporating vertical borders: www.seowebsitepromotion.com. This layout uses two elastic and one fixed width column. Why fixed for column 3? Because I need to accommodate as much text as possible in the first two columns and use the right column to display fixed size images, and I need to maintain an aesthetically satisfactory display at 640, 800 and 1024+ screen resolutions. CSS isn't up to natural multi-columnar structures without a lot of faffing around. Once CSS evolves to adopt columns and browsers incorporate the changes I'll happily use them. Until then it's a matter of commonsense. I don't need to prove a point, I just make sites standards-compliant and accessible in as great a range or browsers (including Lynx) as possible. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout for handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The content will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a new stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff or a hyperlink for the user. 2. I have a multi-column layout... when I push the site to a layout for handheld I'll have to change the markup so that the table rows have only one cell in them each. This will also affect the screen and print versions of the site (so I'll have to do mutiple markup for the same content). Which one is easier and better in the long run? faffing around with rowspans and colspans can be frustrating as well. The difference being that one method has a future, the other doesn't. Cheers James Neerav wrote: hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS "for the sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing about" s=as Mike says standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
using a CSS "for the sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing about" I don't look at it that way...it's quite easy to get everything to work right without tables if you're willing to put the effort in. Since mid 03 I have stopped using tables for anything other than what they're supposed to contain...tabular data. That's their purpose in the world, just like ours is to pay outrageous taxes and work our butts off for low pay (isn't it?). I've had very few issues arise since...less than the layouts before, that's for sure. The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using tables for layout, although frames are a very close second. Accessibility should be the primary concern of every developer for the web. The web was intended to make sharing information/data/etc. simple and far-reaching. Why a developer would make so much more work for him/her self is beyond me when there's a valid, easy, better, standardized alternative. ~MD On May 11, 2004, at 20:49, James Ellis wrote: 1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout for handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The content will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a new stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff or a hyperlink for the user. 2. I have a multi-column layout... when I push the site to a layout for handheld I'll have to change the markup so that the table rows have only one cell in them each. This will also affect the screen and print versions of the site (so I'll have to do mutiple markup for the same content). Which one is easier and better in the long run? faffing around with rowspans and colspans can be frustrating as well. The difference being that one method has a future, the other doesn't. Cheers James Neerav wrote: hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS "for the sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing about" s=as Mike says standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 21:19 -0400, Michael Donnermeyer wrote: > The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using > tables for layout... That's a bold statement. Without designers using tables for layout, the web would have been a boring place visually for a very long time. We're now able to produce documents that are visually attractive, accessible and structurally meaningful, but this just wasn't possible in the past (without CSS, structurally meaningful documents look really plain!). If advanced formatting had not been possible using HTML, we would be looking at a very different web today, and it would not be an open, accessible, semantically-conscious one. It would be Flash and Java, Flash and Java as far as the eye can see. People want pretty. I was happy when I was able to remove presentational tables from my toolbox, but I was appreciative of them when they were all I had. Don't be hatin'! They got us where we are today! :) Cheers, Andrew Taumoefolau * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
It's not as though if we hadn't had tables for layout we would have sat around doing nothing. If it hadn't been for table layout CSS would have been developed sooner and taken up a lot faster. Quoting Andrew Sione Taumoefolau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 21:19 -0400, Michael Donnermeyer wrote: > > The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using > > tables for layout... > > That's a bold statement. Without designers using tables for layout, the > web would have been a boring place visually for a very long time. We're > now able to produce documents that are visually attractive, accessible > and structurally meaningful, but this just wasn't possible in the past > (without CSS, structurally meaningful documents look really plain!). > > If advanced formatting had not been possible using HTML, we would be > looking at a very different web today, and it would not be an open, > accessible, semantically-conscious one. It would be Flash and Java, > Flash and Java as far as the eye can see. People want pretty. > > I was happy when I was able to remove presentational tables from my > toolbox, but I was appreciative of them when they were all I had. Don't > be hatin'! They got us where we are today! :) > > Cheers, > > Andrew Taumoefolau > > * > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > * > > * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Ok Michael, Rewrite www.seowebsitepromotion.com, making it appear as is, meeting 640, 800 and 1024+, windowed of not, whilst maintaining non collapsing/overlapping columns whose alternate sheets 1px delimiting column borders do not break at certain resolutions in certain browsers -- and I'll take my hat off to you. Why bother? That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it contains no relevant data. It's meant to be viewed on a desktop. If I were offering columnar data, like flight schedules and fairs I would ensure wireless pad users could access the data (but, of course, because of the limiting screen size, I wouldn't use tables but collapsing s), since they may be en-route to the airport and needed last minute departure times. But as Neerav implies, there is the law of diminishing returns, and accessibility is about making your site as accessible to as great an audience - a real, not imagined or hypothetical audience - as possible. Use the currently available tools and wait for CSS and browsers to go columnar. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Donnermeyer Sent: 12 May 2004 02:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers >> using a CSS "for the sake of it approach" creating multi column >> layouts and "faffing about" I don't look at it that way...it's quite easy to get everything to work right without tables if you're willing to put the effort in. Since mid 03 I have stopped using tables for anything other than what they're supposed to contain...tabular data. That's their purpose in the world, just like ours is to pay outrageous taxes and work our butts off for low pay (isn't it?). I've had very few issues arise since...less than the layouts before, that's for sure. The worst thing that ever happened to the web was the idea of using tables for layout, although frames are a very close second. Accessibility should be the primary concern of every developer for the web. The web was intended to make sharing information/data/etc. simple and far-reaching. Why a developer would make so much more work for him/her self is beyond me when there's a valid, easy, better, standardized alternative. ~MD On May 11, 2004, at 20:49, James Ellis wrote: > 1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout > for handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The > content will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a > new stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff > or a hyperlink for the user. > > 2. I have a multi-column layout... when I push the site to a layout > for handheld I'll have to change the markup so that the table rows > have only one cell in them each. This will also affect the screen and > print versions of the site (so I'll have to do mutiple markup for the > same content). > > Which one is easier and better in the long run? > > faffing around with rowspans and colspans can be frustrating as well. > The difference being that one method has a future, the other doesn't. > > Cheers > James > > > Neerav wrote: > >> hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a >> single wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS "for >> the sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing >> about" s=as Mike says >> >> standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem >> with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but >> sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. >> >> > * > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
>That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the >real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it >contains no relevant data. Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that any person who might be potentially interested in the content provided on your site won't use handheld for browsing? >But as Neerav implies, there is the law of diminishing returns, and >accessibility is about making your site as accessible to as great an >audience - a real, not imagined or hypothetical audience - as possible. Once again, does that mean that handheld devices, celular phones and all other non desktop browsing stuff does not exist in the real world? >Use the currently available tools and wait for CSS and browsers to go >columnar. And then what? Complain about old browsers being used by too many people to be ignored, complexity of the CSSx etc? But I agree - use tools currently available, not those from last century (199x). Sure you can use whatever you wish to, but statement that current CSS is not ready for real world is wrong, IMO. And by the way: xhml1.1 cannot be served as text/html. And IE does not support application/xthml+xml. Why not to stick with HTML4.01 till better times? Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Hi Rimantas, >Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that >any person who might be potentially interested in the content provided >on your site won't use handheld for browsing? No, I'm not sure; I just don't care. I have not developed the site for them. >Once again, does that mean that handheld devices, celular phones and >all other non desktop browsing stuff does not exist in the real world? I just don't care. I have not developed the content for them. >And then what? Complain about old browsers being used by too many people >to be ignored, complexity of the CSSx etc? I'm not complaining. I use of current technology. And my sites will be accessible to older browsers. >Once again, does that mean that handheld devices, celular phones and >all other non desktop browsing stuff does not exist in the real world? You're mixing statements. >Sure you can use whatever you wish to, but statement that current CSS >is not ready for real world is wrong, IMO. Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can these be easily achieved using current CSS? >And by the way: xhml1.1 cannot be served as text/html. No, it can't; it's - to use the cute phrase - tag soup. >And IE does not support application/xthml+xml. Yup, silly, eh. >Why not to stick with HTML4.01 till better times? Because I need to look to the future. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer www.seowebsitepromotion.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rimantas Liubertas Sent: 12 May 2004 10:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers >That's like the 'make your site accessible to handhelds' argument. In the >real world, nobody is going to access my site with a handheld because it >contains no relevant data. Bold assumption. Does that mean that you are absolutely sure that any person who might be potentially interested in the content provided on your site won't use handheld for browsing? >But as Neerav implies, there is the law of diminishing returns, and >accessibility is about making your site as accessible to as great an >audience - a real, not imagined or hypothetical audience - as possible. Once again, does that mean that handheld devices, celular phones and all other non desktop browsing stuff does not exist in the real world? >Use the currently available tools and wait for CSS and browsers to go >columnar. And then what? Complain about old browsers being used by too many people to be ignored, complexity of the CSSx etc? But I agree - use tools currently available, not those from last century (199x). Sure you can use whatever you wish to, but statement that current CSS is not ready for real world is wrong, IMO. And by the way: xhml1.1 cannot be served as text/html. And IE does not support application/xthml+xml. Why not to stick with HTML4.01 till better times? Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
>Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can >these be easily achieved using current CSS? Yes. >Because I need to look to the future. Well, then we see different future. I see increasing usage of handheld browsers for which one column is the best bet so far. You are looking to fhe future with xhtml1.1 (which is much much younger than CSS) but care for the older browsers. Properly marked up content is accessible for any browser even withous CSS support, nothing new in that. Anyway, I can see your point. Mine is different one and we both have arguments for them, so let's stop here. At least your site is an good example of well coded hibryd layout ;) Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
>Mine is different one and we both have arguments for them, so let's stop here. Good call, Rimantas. Have a good one, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rimantas Liubertas Sent: 12 May 2004 13:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers >Look at papers, magazines and websites. Columns, columns and columns. Can >these be easily achieved using current CSS? Yes. >Because I need to look to the future. Well, then we see different future. I see increasing usage of handheld browsers for which one column is the best bet so far. You are looking to fhe future with xhtml1.1 (which is much much younger than CSS) but care for the older browsers. Properly marked up content is accessible for any browser even withous CSS support, nothing new in that. Anyway, I can see your point. Mine is different one and we both have arguments for them, so let's stop here. At least your site is an good example of well coded hibryd layout ;) Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:33 +1000, Jake Badger wrote: > It's not as though if we hadn't had tables for layout we would > have sat around doing nothing. If it hadn't been for table layout > CSS would have been developed sooner and taken up a lot faster. Assuming that the web would have been popular enough to warrant our attention even if it hadn't been as visually interesting as tabular layouts allowed it to be, sure. I'm not sure that that's a safe assumption to make, however. Apologies to the list admins if this is moving off-topic. Andrew Taumoefolau * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
El dom, 09-05-2004 a las 05:56, Bert Doorn escribió: > Really, what is the practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference > between the two methods? Hi Bert, are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-) http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ -- Manuel González Noriega Simplelógica, construcción web URL: http://simplelogica.net EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TELEFONO: (+34) 985 22 12 65 Logicola es el weblog de Simplelógica http://simplelogica.net/logicola/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Hi, > are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-) > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ I know using multiple tables, nested "n" levels deep is stupid and results in lots of excess code. So is using font tags etc. That's why I don't design that way. But sometimes it is (to me) unavoidable to use a table, because the alternatives just don't work consistently enough across browsers. Thanks for the link. http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/14transitional.html sums it up for me, while the pages following it don't apply to sites I design. I've seen plenty like that, including a site that has a home page with 40k of HTML that includes 40 tables, some of which only hold ONE word (4 characters of content hidden in a total of 262 bytes of tag soup) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
This makes a whole lot of sense to me - GOOD sense! I hate nested tables. They drive me up the wall! lol Thank goodness I have always been one to get rid of unnecessary clutter in the work that I do. Perhaps it comes from learning desktop publishing and working a lot in Excel (creating forms, etc.) where it is not wise to use extra lines and rows to created added space. It is clutter to the eye and is certainly clutter when it comes to doing any form of manipulation. I can see that a combination of tables and CSS, with CSS being used to keep the "clutter" out of the document itself, is the best way to go. If there's been a stumbling block in my learning curve, it has been in dealing with layers and layers of nested tables all over the place - which didn't make sense to me in the first place. At 09:56 AM 5/9/2004, Manuel González Noriega wrote: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
I recently came across a single web site page that had five pages of HTML! I thought I was seeing things! At 11:23 AM 5/9/2004, Bert Doorn wrote: Thanks for the link. http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/14transitional.html sums it up for me, while the pages following it don't apply to sites I design. I've seen plenty like that, including a site that has a home page with 40k of HTML that includes 40 tables, some of which only hold ONE word (4 characters of content hidden in a total of 262 bytes of tag soup) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
> I know using multiple tables, nested "n" levels deep is > stupid and results > in lots of excess code. So is using font tags etc. That's > why I don't > design that way. But sometimes it is (to me) unavoidable to > use a table, > because the alternatives just don't work consistently enough across > browsers. This is the approach recommended for people getting started with css layouts in Zeldman's most excellent tome, "Designing with web standards". I think it's a good approach... I usually go for a fully css-positioned layout first, but sometimes extenuating (sp?) circumstances force us to use a table. For example, just last week we had a lovely three column layout, but unfortunately Macromedia Contribute wouldn't allow one of the columns to be edited, so we had to change the floated columns to a single three column table. It's not ideal, but not exactly the end of the world either. K. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
I seriously just have to add, those toons are priceless :) excellent resource Manuel! -Ryan Manuel González Noriega wrote: El dom, 09-05-2004 a las 05:56, Bert Doorn escribió: Really, what is the practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference between the two methods? Hi Bert, are you asking why using tables for layout is stupid? :-) http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Hi Bert, With Netscape 7.01 your select boxes are not working - they get "selected", but the options don't drop down and cannot be chosen. Is this a fieldset issue? Visited Russ's example too, but he's not using select boxes. Bert Doorn wrote: Russ (maxdesign) suggested I used fieldset (and label). An example of how I did it can be found at http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp - may give you some ideas. Best, Tenley * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
G'day > With Netscape 7.01 your select boxes are not working - they get > "selected", but the options don't drop down and cannot be chosen. Hmmm. Interesting. The "request a quote" page has valid XHTML1.1 and the CSS is valid too. It works fine for me in Mozilla 1.6 and Firefox (on Win2K and WinXP respectively). Is this ALL select elements, or just one or two of them? I might revert to tables for layout - no headaches with those. -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
> I might revert to tables for layout - no headaches with those. Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2004/04/30/a_roadmap_to/#000571 Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Thanks Russ > > Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can > do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take > time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code that makes sense. But if it takes me 5 hours of experimenting to get a "CSS Only" layout working in multiple browsers, I can't help but think "why bother". Especially when that same layout takes 5 minutes using tables and most visitors can't tell the difference. No, I won't nest tables 3, 4, 5 or (as with a template one of my clients sent me today) 6 deep with lots of other ancient artifacts in it. The template had no doctype and over 100 errors in HTML4.01 Transitional - an absolute shocker, yet it looked fine in all browsers I have access to (it was even usable in Lynx, which did report bad HTML) Anyway... Still puzzled why the selects in www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp don't work in Netscape 7. -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Hi Bert, Beautiful layout btw. Bert Doorn wrote: Hmmm. Interesting. The "request a quote" page has valid XHTML1.1 and the CSS is valid too. It works fine for me in Mozilla 1.6 and Firefox (on Win2K and WinXP respectively). Is this ALL select elements, or just one or two of them? It is all of them do not work. The only other unusual thing is that in Netscape 7.01 the mouse scroll wheel doesn't work either. I viewed the site with MSIE6 and everything is working fine. Not enough of a css master to tell you right off... but I made a test page with your default.css stylesheet and only div id="#Main" with the select fieldsets, and the select boxes DO work in Netscape7.01 ... Best, Tenley * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
> > > > Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can > > do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take > > time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. > > Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code > that makes > sense. But if it takes me 5 hours of experimenting to get a > "CSS Only" > layout working in multiple browsers, I can't help but think > "why bother". Jumping in here. I'm no CSS expert by any means but I've been learning and the more I do, the more I retain, so I get better as time goes on. It does take time, as Russ said, and I get frustrated lots of times. I occasionally hit a wall with something, but I'm not going back to tables, not when I've seen the enormous benefits that can be realized by using CSS for layout. Tables have their place - and it's NOT layout. I've also done the "But I have no TME!' wail, too. Believe me, you'll waste a lot less time later, if you stick with learning and doing CSS for layout now. There IS a way to do what you want. > Anyway... Still puzzled why the selects in > www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp don't work in > Netscape 7. Were you talking about Netscape 7.0 or 7.1? I went to look at your site in 7.1/Win, seems it's working fine on my machine. Leslie * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Bert Works for me in Mozilla 1.7 and Firefox. My OS is Fedora. As for tables, use them for tabular data, not presentation. cells can't exist outside their tables - boxes can be placed anywhere on the page allowing you to completely separate the presentation logic from the content. Try picking up a site done in tables and re-presenting it so that you have two sites with one code base... or rejigging the markup so you can re-present the site on a device and a screen that's the part that takes time. It can be frustrating, but when you roll a whole new site out in one day by copying, pasting and altering a CSS file then you'll kiss presentation tables goodbye. Tables are still the best things for doing webmail listings, medal tallies, invoices etc etc and can't be beat in that regard. That 5 hours of experimenting can be put to great use down the line. HTH James Bert Doorn wrote: Thanks Russ Stop! Before you do anything, the most important thing you can do for your learning process is accept that a) it¹s going to take time, and b) you will be frustrated along the way. Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code that makes sense. But if it takes me 5 hours of experimenting to get a "CSS Only" layout working in multiple browsers, I can't help but think "why bother". Especially when that same layout takes 5 minutes using tables and most visitors can't tell the difference. No, I won't nest tables 3, 4, 5 or (as with a template one of my clients sent me today) 6 deep with lots of other ancient artifacts in it. The template had no doctype and over 100 errors in HTML4.01 Transitional - an absolute shocker, yet it looked fine in all browsers I have access to (it was even usable in Lynx, which did report bad HTML) Anyway... Still puzzled why the selects in www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp don't work in Netscape 7. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Selects work fine with Netscape 7.1 on Win XP. Rob Robert Reed SiteStart www.sitestart.co.uk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tenley Shewmake Sent: 08 May 2004 12:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers Hi Bert, With Netscape 7.01 your select boxes are not working - they get "selected", but the options don't drop down and cannot be chosen. Is this a fieldset issue? Visited Russ's example too, but he's not using select boxes. Bert Doorn wrote: > Russ (maxdesign) suggested I > used fieldset (and label). An example of how I did it can be found at > http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp - may give you some > ideas. Best, Tenley * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
Re: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
The voices are telling me that Bert Doorn said on 5/8/2004 9:28 AM: Been there and I do agree in principle - I like compact code that makes sense. But if it takes me 5 hours of experimenting to get a "CSS Only" layout working in multiple browsers, I can't help but think "why bother". Because the second time you do it, it won't take 5 hours. Especially when that same layout takes 5 minutes using tables and most visitors can't tell the difference. You have a defined, repeatable process (even if it's only "fire up $STEAM_AGE_WEB_PAGE_EDITOR") for making tag-soup web pages. You don't have a defined process for making standards-based web pages. Until you do, you're comparing apples and oranges and complaining to us that the oranges we're showing you aren't red enough. -- Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen bob at crispen dot org Ex Cathedra Weblog: http://blog.crispen.org/ Some people just don't know how to drive... I call these people "Everybody But Me" * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
G'day >> Especially when that same layout takes 5 minutes using tables and most >> visitors can't tell the difference. > You have a defined, repeatable process (even if it's only "fire up > $STEAM_AGE_WEB_PAGE_EDITOR") for making tag-soup web pages. What I was talking about is not tag-soup (although it depends on your definition) like the template my client asked me to use. I don't nest tables 6 deep or use elements like font and center or attributes like bgcolor. All I meant is to use a single table to define the overall layout, marked up with CSS to set up backgrounds, borders, spacing etc. It requires NO kludges to get three columns all the same height and with different backgrounds, whereas with three divs side by side we run into all sorts of problems with browser interpretations. Really, what is the practical (as opposed to philosophical) difference between the two methods? -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
RE: [WSG] Forms, labels & headers
Hi Jack > I have a huge form page https://www.willtrav.com/form-corp-profile.php > that uses table headers to define the text boxes > and how do I or should I include labels on those > text boxes? I haven't looked at the page, but from your description it sounds like you are doing what I have been doing for years. Russ (maxdesign) suggested I used fieldset (and label). An example of how I did it can be found at http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/request-quote.asp - may give you some ideas. I set up the element in my CSS to have a fixed width and float left. Russ's example was http://www.amonline.net.au/sand/using/survey.htm Between the two of them, perhaps you will find something useful. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *
