Faux Absolute Positioning
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Font Size
Next: Divs in Divs
From: Fistro on 14 Sep 2008 19:08 I'm trying to find a design that would allow me to build web pages without having to worry about compatibility issues (not too much, in any case,,,) I've came across this CSS layout technique: http://alistapart.com/articles/fauxabsolutepositioning It calculates the left offset from a fixed position, as opposed to calculating it from the right edge of the preceding element by using a combination of position: relative, left: 100% and a negative margin- left. This approach requires no hacks and it works with all modern browsers (Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE7) as well as IE6 and even IE5.5/Win, which is more than I had ever hoped for. Some people though, have presented an Argument Against Faux Absolute Positioning: http://www.cssnewbie.com/argument-against-faux-absolute-positioning/ I'd like to have your valuable opinion. Many Thanks.
From: Nik Coughlin on 14 Sep 2008 20:00 "Fistro" <rafaminu(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d4f3de8f-41eb-4229-9cc3-b43c21694446(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > I'm trying to find a design that would allow me to build web pages > without having to worry about compatibility issues (not too much, in > any case,,,) > > I've came across this CSS layout technique: > http://alistapart.com/articles/fauxabsolutepositioning > > It calculates the left offset from a fixed position, as opposed to > calculating it from the right edge of the preceding element by using a > combination of position: relative, left: 100% and a negative margin- > left. > > This approach requires no hacks and it works with all modern browsers > (Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE7) as well as IE6 and even IE5.5/Win, which > is more than I had ever hoped for. > > Some people though, have presented an Argument Against Faux Absolute > Positioning: > http://www.cssnewbie.com/argument-against-faux-absolute-positioning/ His argument is essentially that it bloats the markup. He makes a good point but his approach is not pragmatic for anything but fairly simple layouts. At this point in time given current browser support for CSS (particularly from you-know-who) it is impossible to make any graphically rich layout that doesn't need extra "hooks" in the form of wrapper divs, extra ids and classes etc. The problem is that if you don't know exactly what you're doing you are going to end up with a *lot* of hooks. The aim should be to minimize the number you use rather than eliminate them entirely, which is sadly not possible at this point.
From: dorayme on 14 Sep 2008 22:02 In article <gak8is$lvs$1(a)registered.motzarella.org>, "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Fistro" <rafaminu(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d4f3de8f-41eb-4229-9cc3-b43c21694446(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > I'm trying to find a design that would allow me to build web pages > > without having to worry about compatibility issues (not too much, in > > any case,,,) > > > > I've came across this CSS layout technique: > > http://alistapart.com/articles/fauxabsolutepositioning > > > > It calculates the left offset from a fixed position, as opposed to > > calculating it from the right edge of the preceding element by using a > > combination of position: relative, left: 100% and a negative margin- > > left. > > > > This approach requires no hacks and it works with all modern browsers > > (Safari, Opera, Firefox, IE7) as well as IE6 and even IE5.5/Win, which > > is more than I had ever hoped for. > > > > Some people though, have presented an Argument Against Faux Absolute > > Positioning: > > http://www.cssnewbie.com/argument-against-faux-absolute-positioning/ > > His argument is essentially that it bloats the markup. > > He makes a good point but his approach is not pragmatic for anything but > fairly simple layouts. > > At this point in time given current browser support for CSS (particularly > from you-know-who) it is impossible to make any graphically rich layout that > doesn't need extra "hooks" in the form of wrapper divs, extra ids and > classes etc. > > The problem is that if you don't know exactly what you're doing you are > going to end up with a *lot* of hooks. The aim should be to minimize the > number you use rather than eliminate them entirely, which is sadly not > possible at this point. All good points. But I like the idea that if you are having to go to so much trouble, maybe you are wanting unnecessarily rich graphical layouts. There is a real issue here. Given that you want such things, I agree with your points. But I rather think there is too much graphic richness altogether in this world and I doubt if it is all that appreciated beyond very superficially in websites. -- dorayme
From: Nik Coughlin on 14 Sep 2008 23:47 "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:doraymeRidThis-02B748.12020115092008(a)web.aioe.org... > > All good points. But I like the idea that if you are having to go to so > much trouble, maybe you are wanting unnecessarily rich graphical > layouts. There is a real issue here. Given that you want such things, I > agree with your points. But I rather think there is too much graphic > richness altogether in this world and I doubt if it is all that > appreciated beyond very superficially in websites. Yes.... but... a requirement for what I do. Spent any time around graphic designers or marketing people? :) I can just see myself trying to tell them that I think that their pretty design is unnecessarily rich because it would require a few extra divs in the markup, hence offending my sense of markup purism and that I therefore won't do it, even though I know how to. Bye bye client, bye bye job! With tongue now out of cheek, good graphic design done well can add a lot to the user experience, and sometimes what appears to superficially be a clean, simple graphical design can easily fall under the category of "graphically rich" when it comes to marking it up as HTML/CSS
From: dorayme on 15 Sep 2008 01:40
In article <gaklra$ckc$1(a)registered.motzarella.org>, "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:doraymeRidThis-02B748.12020115092008(a)web.aioe.org... > > > > All good points. But I like the idea that if you are having to go to so > > much trouble, maybe you are wanting unnecessarily rich graphical > > layouts. There is a real issue here. Given that you want such things, I > > agree with your points. But I rather think there is too much graphic > > richness altogether in this world and I doubt if it is all that > > appreciated beyond very superficially in websites. > > Yes.... but... a requirement for what I do. Spent any time around graphic > designers or marketing people? :) > > I can just see myself trying to tell them that I think that their pretty > design is unnecessarily rich because it would require a few extra divs in > the markup, hence offending my sense of markup purism and that I therefore > won't do it, even though I know how to. Bye bye client, bye bye job! > No, of course.... a buck is a buck. > With tongue now out of cheek, good graphic design done well can add a lot to > the user experience, and sometimes what appears to superficially be a clean, > simple graphical design can easily fall under the category of "graphically > rich" when it comes to marking it up as HTML/CSS True words indeed. I sometimes worry that what I end up doing for a client looks too simple and he will wonder why it took so damn long or cost so much. It never starts simple, I tell them, I work hard to get it down to this. Now pay up. <g> There is a serious issue in all of this stuff, about whether the world would be a much better place if humans stopped wanting to cheer themselves up with - to put it politely - more beauty than function requires. I believe it would. -- dorayme |