Using styles to create frames?
in [CSS]
|
From: A. Deguza on 25 May 2010 17:13 [..] > That is not a "solution", because you will never know exactly how many > words will exactly fit in your "project" area in your visitor's browser. > One instance of failure is when the visitor has his min font size > 14px. > > > Jonathan Thanks Jonathan. That is an important consideration. Deguza
From: Jonathan N. Little on 26 May 2010 14:56 A. Deguza wrote: > [..] >> That is not a "solution", because you will never know exactly how many >> words will exactly fit in your "project" area in your visitor's browser. >> One instance of failure is when the visitor has his min font size> 14px. >> >> >> Jonathan > > > Thanks Jonathan. That is an important consideration. > Your welcome. Unfortunately is it often overlooked. The web does not lend it self to fitting text within boxes, and when you make them fixed-sized you are sure to be headed for trouble. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
From: Albert Ross on 28 May 2010 11:13
On Sun, 23 May 2010 11:19:14 -0400, Jeff Thies <jeff_thies(a)att.net> wrote: >Albert Ross wrote: >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 09:15:24 -0400, Jeff Thies <jeff_thies(a)att.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Just make a separate page for each project, but have the same set of >>> links on each page. Easy, not quite instant, but close enough. >> >> That's what I've ended up doing. >> >> If you read and learn from the clueful ones here and elsewhere your >> pages will be small and light so the overhead of reloading the same >> duplicated code for each separate page will be low, almost certainly >> lower than some of the complex stuff generated by Professional >> Webdesigners using Dreamweaver etc. > > > I hadn't thought about this until now, but I'm seeing very little to >no Dreamweaver in the mass market sites I peruse. Quite a bit different >than a few years ago. It may be that Dreamweaver simply is not up to the >challenges, or that the maintainers of such sites have hired competent >help. I suspect the change happened about the same time as the shift out >of table based layouts. Certainly Dreamweaver breeds cluelessness where >you hack away until you get the look you want. Now you come to mention it you may be right (and fortunately there are fewer Front Page sites too). The largest and most clueless collections of e-turds now seem to emanate from the bowels of one or other CMS. > Anyhow, these days, very complex layouts can be done simply and with >little extra markup. My standard template sans content is about 2K, >almost nothing on broadband and it could be less. Images and linked >files will stay in cache. Less is more. Yes I'm learning that if something is overcomplicated to do then I shouldn't want to do it . . . |