+- Qbasicnews.com (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum)
+-- Forum: General (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General/Misc (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-18.html)
+---- Forum: Art & Music (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-19.html)
+---- Thread: webdesign (/thread-1101.html)
webdesign - red_Marvin - 07-09-2003
I got tired of the old one...
well here's a new:
http://www.freewebs.com/red_marvin/design.htm
c&c please
webdesign - wizardlife - 07-09-2003
Looks alright.
webdesign - oracle - 07-09-2003
Mr aetherfox, explicit widths on tables are the reasons why your site (aetherfox.venosoft.com) looks like a piece of crap in my 1024x768 screen. If you're gonna format a page with a table, for goodness sake use a percentage width, and structure your design around it being shown in 1024X768 AND 800X600!
webdesign - na_th_an - 07-09-2003
Quote:Mr aetherfox, explicit widths on tables are the reasons why your site (aetherfox.venosoft.com) looks like a piece of crap in my 1024x768 screen. If you're gonna format a page with a table, for goodness sake use a percentage width, and structure your design around it being shown in 1024X768 AND 800X600!
[sarcasm]a piece of crap... That's what I call constructive criticism[/sarcasm]
webdesign - toonski84 - 07-09-2003
i like the old design better.
as to the table widths discussion, i'll go ahead and say you're both wrong
use specific widths and leave places with tiled backgrounds that can stretch. I'll give my sites: http://www.betterwebber.com/betterwebber & http://www.betterwebber.com/cdda as reference. see, this way you can use bitmaps specific designs, but not have everything space out or look akwardly smaller when you use a higher resolution
webdesign - oracle - 07-09-2003
How does that work? I don't understand... what if you don't have a background image?
webdesign - toonski84 - 07-09-2003
easy. say I have an image on the left, like a menu bar. It's a really nice menu bar, and it would suck like a hoover if it was explicitely 100 pixels thick. Also, on the right side, is a kickass border that wouldnt so kickass spaced. But somewhere else, say the middle, well, it's just a red and black stripe or something. i would do the following:
Code:
<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width=100%>
<tr>
<td width=100><img src="menu_bar.gif"></td>
<td background="stripe.gif">'main content'</td>
<td width=20><img src="right_border.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>When you do this, the left and right side align magically to the left and right, and the middle expands to accomodate. It works really well.
webdesign - oracle - 07-10-2003
Ummm yeah, that's what my site already does, and aetherfox's doesn't have a menu bar. My site does it with CSS, it's easy. In fact, it's more flexible, here's how:
table.maintable {width: 100%; margin: 5px 2%;}
table.maintable td.leftside {width: 11em;}
table.maintable td.rightside {width: 9em;}
You can't specify em's with normal measurements (I may be wrong, but I don't think so). The advantage of this method is that if the user resizes the screen to larger or smaller for whatever reason the menus always stay the same in terms of line breaking, so my nicely formatted links to other parts of the site don't line break. This method only becomes a problem on really low resolutions and high text sizes, but no one is that blind, and your method would be bad for them because the menu would always be the same size, so they couldn't read it. It's all about accessability.
ps: I see you use points as your text measurement. Why?
webdesign - toonski84 - 07-10-2003
mostly because bitmaps arent measured in ems, or inches, or whatever. a pixel is a pixel, and if my image is 100 pixels wide i wouldnt want the computer thinking anything else, no matter the resolution.
webdesign - oracle - 07-11-2003
Aah. I use background colors and borders to get a good look (it is possible
). I see what you mean, it just means you sacrifice accessability for aesthetics, that's all (and there's nothing wrong with that if your main audience is not visually impared).