Okay here is my problem and I have no CLUE how to fix it!!
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 13 May 2010 11:11 On 2010-05-13, Phillip Jones wrote: > dorayme wrote: >> In article<4bebdf88$0$12478$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, >> Warren Oates<warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In article<dorayme-819ABB.08233713052010(a)news.albasani.net>, >>> dorayme<dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, I have forgotten the context of this remark of mine. I was >>>> just saying, if I recall, that there are other valid and >>>> realistic reasons other than printing for the occasional or >>>> limited use of PDFs on website. >>> >>> The problem is that not everyone has them (PDF files) set to display >>> in-the-browser. I don't f'rinstance. I download them. >> >> Oh yes, there are certainly problems, this being one of them. >> Added all together is why it is not the ideal thing to do. But >> when time and money are scarce... PDFs are quite well supported >> and well known... >> > > The majority of my site is html, though one person (here)doesn't like > the design because I make extensive use of tables to keep everything > neat and organized. > > I use to use Html exclusively without the use of tables, when I was > keeping a website for a Electronics Association belonged to. and they > complained because it was hard to read. A sites designed with CSS can be just as easy to read as one built with tables. Also, once you get used to it, you'll find that building and maintaining a site with CSS is much easier than one with tables. > After I started using tables to setup the site, I got compliments and > noted that the site was much easier to read. > > I make use of PDF's for family trees because there is no simple way to > recreate such, using plain text. Wouldn't images be easier for the viewer? > And I have a recipes section that is almost exclusively set up to be > printed on 4 by 6 index cards which and again would be difficult if not > impossible to set up using Plain text. or have a unique Background. Why? That sounds simple. Use a print stylesheet. > I myself don't care for all the flashy new tweaks in html and style > sheets and stuff because it didn't improve my reading experience. When > you flip from one page to the other every thing looks so exactly the > same. To me everything should be different in some way, so that you > don't get bored and over look what you are looking for. They only look the same if you code it that way. Use one stylesheet for the overall look of the site, and a different one for each page (or class of pages). -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: dorayme on 13 May 2010 15:13 In article <hsh338$qq6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Phillip Jones <pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > After I started using tables to setup the site, I got compliments and > noted that the site was much easier to read. Table layout is easier to implement, semantic markup and using CSS to style requires a greater level of skill. In other words it is easier to make a bad looking site without using tables for layout because there are more ways to go really badly wrong. -- dorayme
From: Matthew Russotto on 16 May 2010 13:30 In article <157eb87c-0a3a-46cf-a788-5f29735d74ea(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> wrote: >On 11 May, 02:23, Glen Labah <gl4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> The more complicated the formatting, the fewer web browsers will handle >> the page in the "correct" way. =A0 > >That hasn't been true for a few years now. Ha. Between IE6 (still out there), IE7, Firefox, and Safari, there's at least 5 different ways a web site will render a given set of formatting. Then there's Opera, IE8, and Chroma. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: dorayme on 16 May 2010 17:47 In article <M_WdnS-RCr01tm3WnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > Ha. Between IE6 (still out there), IE7, Firefox, and Safari, there's > at least 5 different ways a web site will render a given set of > formatting. Then there's Opera, IE8, and Chroma. It only becomes a problem if the difference are significant and the significance of the differences depend on the author's attitude as much as anything. -- dorayme
From: Glen Labah on 23 May 2010 03:26
In article <157eb87c-0a3a-46cf-a788-5f29735d74ea(a)37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> wrote: > On 11 May, 02:23, Glen Labah <gl4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The more complicated the formatting, the fewer web browsers will handle > > the page in the "correct" way. � > > That hasn't been true for a few years now. Unfortunately, sometimes it is still a problem. For example, Google mail is obviously designed for use with windows systems and Internet Explorer, as their highlight of read mail shows up really well on any Windows / Explorer combination I've seen, but is nearly invisible on any Mac I've ever seen G-mail on, no matter what browser is being used. -- Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow. |