Professional Web Applications Themes

Totally CSS? - Macromedia Dreamweaver

"Yachats_Guy" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote: > Osgood > > That site, Phish.com was done by long-established web development > called The Chopping Block whose clients include Adobe Systems, AOL > Time Warner, Conde Nast, EMusic, Intel, Macromedia, Microsoft, Miramax > Films, MoMA, National Geographic, Nickeldeon, Reader's Digest, Road > Runner, Sony Pictures, Turner Classic Movies, Universal Motown > Records, VRI, et al. > It wouldnt surprise me if they had produced the Macromedia site. Someone did, are you saying that is technically good?...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    "Yachats_Guy" [email]webforumsusermacromedia.com[/email] wrote:
    > Osgood
    >
    > That site, Phish.com was done by long-established web development
    > called The Chopping Block whose clients include Adobe Systems, AOL
    > Time Warner, Conde Nast, EMusic, Intel, Macromedia, Microsoft, Miramax
    > Films, MoMA, National Geographic, Nickeldeon, Reader's Digest, Road
    > Runner, Sony Pictures, Turner Classic Movies, Universal Motown
    > Records, VRI, et al.
    >
    It wouldnt surprise me if they had produced the Macromedia site. Someone
    did, are you saying that is technically good?

    osgood Guest

  2. #42

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Joe {RoastHorse} wrote:
    > >The web is driven these days by visual content. Nobody really cares,
    >
    > apart from a minority of the people involved in web design whats
    > underneath the surface.
    >
    > that maybe true for personal websites or more experimental stuff, but for
    > business (those that pay the wages of web
    > designers/developers/programmers)
    > it is of the utmost importance, the web is driven by data, not visual
    > content, the better that data can be organised, updated and delivered the
    > cheaper and more efficient it becomes for business.

    I was probably being a little flippant when I said it doesnt matter, of
    course it matters. A site has to work and it has to work well. Visual
    content and technical expertise must work hand-in-hand. Ulitmately
    though a client doesnt care how the site works as long as it looks good,
    which was my point about visual content becoming more important to the
    people who infact pay the money.
    >
    >
    >
    > >Will enough graphic artists feel it is necessary to
    >
    > undertake a steep learning curve to achieve what they want to achieve
    > visually, if they can achieve it without the need to learn something
    > which is not even supported comprehensively in a visual editor
    >
    > yes - if they want a job over the next few years (see above).
    > remember that a graphic designer is not always web developer (unless
    > he's a
    > graphic designer and a web developer), large websites are designed and
    > developed by teams of specialists (ok. maybe not the guys who ed up
    > espn) if a graphic designer doesn't want to keep up with new technology
    > because it doesn't fit in with his/her work flow the
    > development/programming
    > will be given to someone who does.

    Yes I agree with this and in that situation the people who work for
    major blue-chip clients will most certainly need to learn to keep
    abreast of current trends. That leaves plenty of people who arent going
    to aqcuire major contracts, more than those who are. It is those that I
    am really addressing my views at.
    >
    >
    > we are all learning here - even the gurus - the internet is evolving
    > everyday. and we have to make compromises - especially when deadlines are
    > involved.
    > maybe the espn site is lacking in many respects, but the fact is if
    > they are
    > saving money and making the site easier to maintain then it must be a
    > partial success, no?
    >
    > joe
    > I
    I have no problem with that arguement. If the interview had conveyed
    that message it would have been acceptable. But for these guys to waffle
    on about standards, testing in browsers and for it to fail at the very
    basic level it is not acceptable in my eyes.

    There is nothing wrong with the visual design of the site its just
    lacking technically. Very very basic technically as I keep stressing.
    They have had months to put it right. If, as they would have us believe,
    they are concerned about standard they surely would have done.
    >
    >
    osgood Guest

  3. #43

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Chris In Madison wrote:
    > Well, for me, it goes a lot toward your credibility as a design
    > critic. Now
    > knowing that you're not a designer makes your comments less convincing to
    > me. Now it seems like it's all talk.
    >
    >
    >
    Well Chris test it for yourself, make your own opinions, come back and
    let me know if you think im right or wrong.

    I have absolutely nothing to prove really, believe me.

    Im not a designer but it doesnt mean that I dont necessarily know what
    Im talking about, especially in this instance when its quite clearly
    evident.

    osgood Guest

  4. #44

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Chris In Madison wrote:

    > It would be like me trying to tell the folks at the space agency how to
    > design a rocket when the best I've ever done is watched a launch on
    > television.
    >
    Chris,

    In general, it's a bad attitude being more interested in *who* says
    something that in *what* is said, no?
    As for osgood, you and I know that he can run in circles around most web
    designers here, me included. Whether he actually creates sites or not
    hasn't a bit to do with his credibility.

    Besides, that was a poor comparison, unless you know as much about space
    crafts as osgood knows about webdesign, of course.

    --
    Dan Vendel - *GOF*
    [url]http://www.vendel.info[/url]
    Contact me directly by clicking here:
    [url]http://contact.vendel.info[/url]
    Formmail tutorial:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html[/url]
    Nested table demonstration:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/[/url]

    Dan Vendel *GOF* Guest

  5. #45

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    "Eric A. Meyer" <ericmeyerweb.com> wrote:
    > So you're saying that any positive notice or exposure of any kind for
    > a Web site you personally don't like is indication of collusion? Or did
    > I misunderstand you?
    >


    There's certainly some collusion, but it comes with the territory.

    Actual example:

    Date: June 17/2003


    URL: [url]http://www.webreference.com/new/030616.html#toc2[/url]

    "2. INTERVIEW: Jeffrey Zeldman on Cause Campaigns"

    >>>A recent trend on the Web is cause-related banner campaigns. Most often
    associated with a book, these campaigns help get the word out by encouraging
    site owners to display a banner ad for their cause of choice. Site owners
    that participate make commissions from their favorite book seller, and help
    get other people involved in promoting the cause.

    Whether it's web standards (Jeffrey Zeldman), speed (yours truly), or ROI
    (Ani Phyo with "Return on Design") these campaigns are a new form of
    grass-roots PR that lets site owners promote the causes they believe in.

    Jeffrey Zeldman was the first to start this new trend, launching a banner
    campaign for his new book "Designing With Web Standards." Zeldman is best
    known for his tireless advocacy of web standards through webstandards.org,
    AListApart.com, his design studio happycog.com, and his personal site
    zeldman.com.>>>



    How honest is this "interview"?

    Check the date (June 17/2003), the date the book was published and tell me
    if there is enough time for ANY type of "trend" to have developed in such
    short timespan...

    While I agree that NOT EVERY interview is dishonest or constitutes proof of
    collusion, it's also true that most of them are just the
    "I-scratch-your-back/you-scratch-mine" system Dan is talking about.


    --
    irvin
    ----------------------------------------
    [url]http://www.pixel69.com[/url]


    irvin Guest

  6. #46

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Hi Dan,

    Well, then, I guess I have an attitude problem today ;-)

    I don't know a thing about osgood, and never met him/her. But when anyone
    spends an inordinate amount of time describing the methods by which one
    should or should not perform some action, then proclaims "oh, by the way I
    don't do this myself", I see another armchair quarterback. Just the way I
    am, I suppose.

    Sorry if I offended you or osgood.

    Best regards,
    Chris


    Chris In Madison Guest

  7. #47

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Chris In Madison wrote:
    > Hi osgood,
    >
    > For a guy who has nothing to prove, you sure are expending a lot of energy
    > to prove it. :-)
    >
    > I agree that there are some levels of usability that a designer should
    > work
    > toward, especially if his or her audience may be widely varied. If I
    > were a
    > standards freak, I would certainly ensure that I used the technologies
    > available in the best interest of my users. And I would use my user stats
    > to back up my design methodology.

    Yes. One of those stipulations, Im sure you would agree, would be to
    make sure the site didnt breakdown in the event of a user enlarging the
    text. Its not rocket science we are talking about. Its something that
    you learn very very early on in the process of web design. That is if
    you consider yourself a professional of course.
    >
    >
    > As for the whole ESPN thing, I could care less honestly. It's his
    > audience
    > and if he wants to run them off because of browser problems, then I reckon
    > it's his business. Sounds like he's got an agenda, and if it meets the
    > requirements of the corporation, then all the better for them. ESPN's
    > site
    > doesn't work particularly well for me with Safari, and that's fine
    > because I
    > don't spend any time out there.

    Me neither, I really couldnt give a toss if it works or not. What
    bugged me was a lot of publicity given over to a site that did and does
    not warrant it.
    >
    >
    > I do, however, applaud the author for being on the bleeding edge of web
    > technology.
    Eric has the utmost respect in HIS field in my book. My comments may
    have been taken out of context. As someone has already said we are all
    learning here, no matter how good or bad we think we are.
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Chris
    >
    >
    osgood Guest

  8. #48

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Chris In Madison wrote:
    > Hi Dan,
    >
    > Well, then, I guess I have an attitude problem today ;-)
    >
    > I don't know a thing about osgood, and never met him/her. But when anyone
    > spends an inordinate amount of time describing the methods by which one
    > should or should not perform some action, then proclaims "oh, by the way I
    > don't do this myself", I see another armchair quarterback. Just the way I
    > am, I suppose.
    >
    > Sorry if I offended you or osgood.
    You didn't "offend" me the least. Just that it's IMHO a bit childish to
    call for a CV when some clearly knows what he's talking about, and to
    dismiss perfectly good arguments as invalid because the one offering
    them doesn't fit into a description of "authorized to offer an opinion".
    If that's your criterion for respecting someone's viewpoints, I suppose
    I'm toast, too, since I do webdesign only 20% of my time, or maybe even
    less.
    Now, wouldn't I be silly if I started asking you if your credentials are
    enough for an opinion about osgood's credentials? Get my drift? ;-)
    --
    Dan Vendel - *GOF*
    [url]http://www.vendel.info[/url]
    Contact me directly by clicking here:
    [url]http://contact.vendel.info[/url]
    Formmail tutorial:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html[/url]
    Nested table demonstration:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/[/url]

    Dan Vendel *GOF* Guest

  9. #49

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Dan Vendel *GOF* wrote:
    > Chris In Madison wrote:
    >
    >
    > > It would be like me trying to tell the folks at the space agency how to
    > > design a rocket when the best I've ever done is watched a launch on
    > > television.
    > >
    >
    > Chris,
    >
    > In general, it's a bad attitude being more interested in *who* says
    > something that in *what* is said, no?
    > As for osgood, you and I know that he can run in circles around most web
    > designers here, me included. Whether he actually creates sites or not
    > hasn't a bit to do with his credibility.
    >
    Dan thanks for the support. I think if I was talking blindly then Chris
    may have had a valid point. My criticism was clearly something of which
    other people could inspect for themselves and make a valid judgement. If
    they had done so I am sure they would have been in agreement.
    >
    >
    osgood Guest

  10. #50

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Chris In Madison wrote:
    > Roger that. No more snap judgements on my schedule today :-)
    Thanks. I admit, I also have a daily quota to fill....just not here.. ;-)

    --
    Dan Vendel - *GOF*
    [url]http://www.vendel.info[/url]
    Contact me directly by clicking here:
    [url]http://contact.vendel.info[/url]
    Formmail tutorial:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tut/formmail.html[/url]
    Nested table demonstration:
    [url]http://www.vendel.info/tabletut/[/url]

    Dan Vendel *GOF* Guest

  11. #51

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    > Maybe i was missing the fact that by using CSS you can surround static Div's
    with other floating Div's >that have rules about their positioning which forces
    the static div's into a confined area?

    I don't quite follow that, but I don't think you've got the idea. All divs are
    static unless you tell them to be otherwise. They stay at the exact x, y, z
    coordinates that you give them. All positioned divs (that is, divs that are
    placed as "layers" on a page) are also positioned by css. All of them. There is
    no other kind. So I've never really understood this argument against css-p,
    since if you work with layers you automatically work w/ css-p. CSS-P just
    implies that you put the styles in a style sheet or in the head of the doent
    rather than on the tag itself.

    --
    --
    DiMa
    --------------------
    WEB FORUM USERS: Please log on to the Newsgroup for quicker replies to your
    posts:
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url]
    For Answers, check here first:
    [url]http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:macromedia.dreamwea ver[/url]
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/dreamweaver/technotes.html[/url]
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/faqbase[/url]
    [url]http://www.dreamweaverFAQ.com[/url]

    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/etiquette.htm[/url]
    DiMa Design > From Lines...to Designs
    [url]http://www.dimadesign.net[/url]


    "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bf0uu0$hk5$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > OhhhhhhK.... So I'm missing?
    >
    >
    >

    DiMa Guest

  12. #52

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Dima,

    You're right, I'm not completely getting it yet. But I am trying. I have been reading, so I'm not just sitting back being lazy looking for easy answers.

    I guess I don't understand static vs. floating div's. I was thinking that static implied you gave the div an x and y coordinate -- therefore it is fixed. But... as I mentioned before, if you are using tables as well on the page, in different browsers, you get the appearance of the layer positioning differently - i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed out. ?? - i'm still not getting that.

    So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules as opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?

    What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p on tables first, then making a progression toward layers over tables. I would imagine that it is quite difficult to lay out some designs completely via layers and css. I was looking at some recent sites I have built and was thinking what a nightmare it would be to try to make it work without any tables.



    shelton webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  13. #53

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Shelton:

    I think this is how it goes -

    An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute location
    on your screen, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.

    A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to the position
    of its container, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.

    A statically positioned page element is positioned relative to its location
    in the flow of the code.

    Page elements that are NOT positioned are static.
    > i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed out. ?? - i'm still not
    getting that.

    Page elements can move on the page if they have been RELATIVELY positioned,
    e.g.,

    <div align="center">This will move</div>

    Absolutely positioned elements will NOT move on the page. If one moves and
    the other doesn't then your brain says "hey - one of these has moved!".
    That's all there is to it.
    > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules as
    opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?

    No. You can position page elements either by using inline styles (i.e., the
    way DMX writes a 'layer'), or by using stylesheet styles (the way you might
    do it if you were hand coding.

    INLINE -

    <div id="foo" style="position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px;
    visibility:hidden; z-index:1">

    STYLESHEET -
    #foo { position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px; visibility:hidden;
    z-index:1; }

    ....

    <div id="foo>

    Float refers to a sorta different effect which I am not going to discuss
    further here.
    > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p
    How about this - make your pages the way you normally would and as your
    understanding of CSS improves, introduce those new capabilities
    incrementally.

    --
    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    ==================
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    ANSWERS
    ==================
    [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    ==================

    "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3g10$mcr$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Dima,
    >
    > You're right, I'm not completely getting it yet. But I am trying. I have
    been reading, so I'm not just sitting back being lazy looking for easy
    answers.
    >
    > I guess I don't understand static vs. floating div's. I was thinking that
    static implied you gave the div an x and y coordinate -- therefore it is
    fixed. But... as I mentioned before, if you are using tables as well on
    the page, in different browsers, you get the appearance of the layer
    positioning differently - i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed
    out. ?? - i'm still not getting that.
    >
    > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules as
    opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    >
    > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p on tables first,
    then making a progression toward layers over tables. I would imagine that
    it is quite difficult to lay out some designs completely via layers and css.
    I was looking at some recent sites I have built and was thinking what a
    nightmare it would be to try to make it work without any tables.
    >
    >

    Murray *TMM* Guest

  14. #54

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    position: absolute =
    positioned absolutely - relative to the parent element (container).

    position: relative =
    positioned relative to its natural position in the doent flow.

    position: static =
    positioned relative to the viewport (not supported in ie yet).

    joe



    "Murray *TMM*" <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3gqh$nun$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Shelton:
    >
    > I think this is how it goes -
    >
    > An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute
    location
    > on your screen, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    >
    > A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to the
    position
    > of its container, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    >
    > A statically positioned page element is positioned relative to its
    location
    > in the flow of the code.
    >
    > Page elements that are NOT positioned are static.
    >
    > > i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed out. ?? - i'm still
    not
    > getting that.
    >
    > Page elements can move on the page if they have been RELATIVELY
    positioned,
    > e.g.,
    >
    > <div align="center">This will move</div>
    >
    > Absolutely positioned elements will NOT move on the page. If one moves
    and
    > the other doesn't then your brain says "hey - one of these has moved!".
    > That's all there is to it.
    >
    > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules as
    > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    >
    > No. You can position page elements either by using inline styles (i.e.,
    the
    > way DMX writes a 'layer'), or by using stylesheet styles (the way you
    might
    > do it if you were hand coding.
    >
    > INLINE -
    >
    > <div id="foo" style="position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px;
    > visibility:hidden; z-index:1">
    >
    > STYLESHEET -
    > #foo { position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px; visibility:hidden;
    > z-index:1; }
    >
    > ...
    >
    > <div id="foo>
    >
    > Float refers to a sorta different effect which I am not going to discuss
    > further here.
    >
    > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p
    >
    > How about this - make your pages the way you normally would and as your
    > understanding of CSS improves, introduce those new capabilities
    > incrementally.
    >
    > --
    > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    > Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    > ==================
    > [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    > ANSWERS
    > ==================
    > [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    > ==================
    >
    > "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    > news:bf3g10$mcr$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > Dima,
    > >
    > > You're right, I'm not completely getting it yet. But I am trying. I
    have
    > been reading, so I'm not just sitting back being lazy looking for easy
    > answers.
    > >
    > > I guess I don't understand static vs. floating div's. I was thinking
    that
    > static implied you gave the div an x and y coordinate -- therefore it is
    > fixed. But... as I mentioned before, if you are using tables as well on
    > the page, in different browsers, you get the appearance of the layer
    > positioning differently - i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed
    > out. ?? - i'm still not getting that.
    > >
    > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules as
    > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    > >
    > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p on tables first,
    > then making a progression toward layers over tables. I would imagine that
    > it is quite difficult to lay out some designs completely via layers and
    css.
    > I was looking at some recent sites I have built and was thinking what a
    > nightmare it would be to try to make it work without any tables.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    Joe {RoastHorse} Guest

  15. #55

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    example:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>Untitled Doent</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; cht=iso-8859-1">
    </head>
    <body>
    <div style="background-color: #FF0000; position: absolute; left: 100px; top:
    100px; width: 300px; height: 300px">absolute box 1<div
    style="background-color: #FFFF00; position: absolute; left: 100px; top:
    100px; width: 300px; height: 300px">absolute box 2</div></div>
    <p>Relatively <span style="position: relative; top: 30px">positioned</span>
    text.</p>
    <div style="position: fixed; bottom: 0px; background-color: #00FFFF">Static
    box</div>
    </body>
    </html>

    remember to test in moz (fixed not supported in ie)

    btw last post should be:
    position: fixed =
    positioned relative to the viewport (not supported in ie yet).

    joe





    "Murray *TMM*" <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3hsu$q01$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > Joe:
    >
    > Hmm - I'm thinking....
    >
    > --
    > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    > Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    > ==================
    > [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    > ANSWERS
    > ==================
    > [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    > ==================
    >
    > "Joe {RoastHorse}" <joeroast-horse.com> wrote in message
    > news:bf3hnm$pjv$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > position: absolute =
    > > positioned absolutely - relative to the parent element (container).
    > >
    > > position: relative =
    > > positioned relative to its natural position in the doent flow.
    > >
    > > position: static =
    > > positioned relative to the viewport (not supported in ie yet).
    > >
    > > joe
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Murray *TMM*" <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
    > > news:bf3gqh$nun$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > Shelton:
    > > >
    > > > I think this is how it goes -
    > > >
    > > > An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute
    > > location
    > > > on your screen, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    > > >
    > > > A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to the
    > > position
    > > > of its container, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    > > >
    > > > A statically positioned page element is positioned relative to its
    > > location
    > > > in the flow of the code.
    > > >
    > > > Page elements that are NOT positioned are static.
    > > >
    > > > > i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed out. ?? - i'm
    still
    > > not
    > > > getting that.
    > > >
    > > > Page elements can move on the page if they have been RELATIVELY
    > > positioned,
    > > > e.g.,
    > > >
    > > > <div align="center">This will move</div>
    > > >
    > > > Absolutely positioned elements will NOT move on the page. If one
    moves
    > > and
    > > > the other doesn't then your brain says "hey - one of these has
    moved!".
    > > > That's all there is to it.
    > > >
    > > > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules
    as
    > > > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    > > >
    > > > No. You can position page elements either by using inline styles
    (i.e.,
    > > the
    > > > way DMX writes a 'layer'), or by using stylesheet styles (the way you
    > > might
    > > > do it if you were hand coding.
    > > >
    > > > INLINE -
    > > >
    > > > <div id="foo" style="position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px;
    > > > visibility:hidden; z-index:1">
    > > >
    > > > STYLESHEET -
    > > > #foo { position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px; visibility:hidden;
    > > > z-index:1; }
    > > >
    > > > ...
    > > >
    > > > <div id="foo>
    > > >
    > > > Float refers to a sorta different effect which I am not going to
    discuss
    > > > further here.
    > > >
    > > > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p
    > > >
    > > > How about this - make your pages the way you normally would and as
    your
    > > > understanding of CSS improves, introduce those new capabilities
    > > > incrementally.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    > > > Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    > > > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    > > > ==================
    > > > [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO
    > GET
    > > > ANSWERS
    > > > ==================
    > > > [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    > > > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > > [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > > [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    > > > ==================
    > > >
    > > > "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:bf3g10$mcr$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > > Dima,
    > > > >
    > > > > You're right, I'm not completely getting it yet. But I am trying.
    I
    > > have
    > > > been reading, so I'm not just sitting back being lazy looking for easy
    > > > answers.
    > > > >
    > > > > I guess I don't understand static vs. floating div's. I was
    thinking
    > > that
    > > > static implied you gave the div an x and y coordinate -- therefore it
    is
    > > > fixed. But... as I mentioned before, if you are using tables as well
    > on
    > > > the page, in different browsers, you get the appearance of the layer
    > > > positioning differently - i guess because of the tables, as Osgood
    > pointed
    > > > out. ?? - i'm still not getting that.
    > > > >
    > > > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules
    as
    > > > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    > > > >
    > > > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p on tables
    first,
    > > > then making a progression toward layers over tables. I would imagine
    > that
    > > > it is quite difficult to lay out some designs completely via layers
    and
    > > css.
    > > > I was looking at some recent sites I have built and was thinking what
    a
    > > > nightmare it would be to try to make it work without any tables.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    Joe {RoastHorse} Guest

  16. #56

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    Joe:

    Position:fixed and position:static are two different things.....

    --
    Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    ==================
    [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO GET
    ANSWERS
    ==================
    [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    ==================

    "Joe {RoastHorse}" <joeroast-horse.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3i72$qgm$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > example:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <title>Untitled Doent</title>
    > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; cht=iso-8859-1">
    > </head>
    > <body>
    > <div style="background-color: #FF0000; position: absolute; left: 100px;
    top:
    > 100px; width: 300px; height: 300px">absolute box 1<div
    > style="background-color: #FFFF00; position: absolute; left: 100px; top:
    > 100px; width: 300px; height: 300px">absolute box 2</div></div>
    > <p>Relatively <span style="position: relative; top:
    30px">positioned</span>
    > text.</p>
    > <div style="position: fixed; bottom: 0px; background-color:
    #00FFFF">Static
    > box</div>
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > remember to test in moz (fixed not supported in ie)
    >
    > btw last post should be:
    > position: fixed =
    > positioned relative to the viewport (not supported in ie yet).
    >
    > joe
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Murray *TMM*" <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
    > news:bf3hsu$q01$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > Joe:
    > >
    > > Hmm - I'm thinking....
    > >
    > > --
    > > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    > > Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    > > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    > > ==================
    > > [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY TO
    GET
    > > ANSWERS
    > > ==================
    > > [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    > > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
    > > ==================
    > >
    > > "Joe {RoastHorse}" <joeroast-horse.com> wrote in message
    > > news:bf3hnm$pjv$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > position: absolute =
    > > > positioned absolutely - relative to the parent element (container).
    > > >
    > > > position: relative =
    > > > positioned relative to its natural position in the doent flow.
    > > >
    > > > position: static =
    > > > positioned relative to the viewport (not supported in ie yet).
    > > >
    > > > joe
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Murray *TMM*" <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:bf3gqh$nun$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > > Shelton:
    > > > >
    > > > > I think this is how it goes -
    > > > >
    > > > > An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute
    > > > location
    > > > > on your screen, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    > > > >
    > > > > A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to the
    > > > position
    > > > > of its container, regardless of its location in the flow of the
    code.
    > > > >
    > > > > A statically positioned page element is positioned relative to its
    > > > location
    > > > > in the flow of the code.
    > > > >
    > > > > Page elements that are NOT positioned are static.
    > > > >
    > > > > > i guess because of the tables, as Osgood pointed out. ?? - i'm
    > still
    > > > not
    > > > > getting that.
    > > > >
    > > > > Page elements can move on the page if they have been RELATIVELY
    > > > positioned,
    > > > > e.g.,
    > > > >
    > > > > <div align="center">This will move</div>
    > > > >
    > > > > Absolutely positioned elements will NOT move on the page. If one
    > moves
    > > > and
    > > > > the other doesn't then your brain says "hey - one of these has
    > moved!".
    > > > > That's all there is to it.
    > > > >
    > > > > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules
    > as
    > > > > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    > > > >
    > > > > No. You can position page elements either by using inline styles
    > (i.e.,
    > > > the
    > > > > way DMX writes a 'layer'), or by using stylesheet styles (the way
    you
    > > > might
    > > > > do it if you were hand coding.
    > > > >
    > > > > INLINE -
    > > > >
    > > > > <div id="foo" style="position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px;
    > > > > visibility:hidden; z-index:1">
    > > > >
    > > > > STYLESHEET -
    > > > > #foo { position:absolute; top:140px; left:200px; visibility:hidden;
    > > > > z-index:1; }
    > > > >
    > > > > ...
    > > > >
    > > > > <div id="foo>
    > > > >
    > > > > Float refers to a sorta different effect which I am not going to
    > discuss
    > > > > further here.
    > > > >
    > > > > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p
    > > > >
    > > > > How about this - make your pages the way you normally would and as
    > your
    > > > > understanding of CSS improves, introduce those new capabilities
    > > > > incrementally.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Murray --- ICQ 71997575
    > > > > Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
    > > > > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
    > > > > ==================
    > > > > [url]news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver[/url] - THE BEST WAY
    TO
    > > GET
    > > > > ANSWERS
    > > > > ==================
    > > > > [url]http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com[/url] - Template Triage!
    > > > > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/go[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > > > [url]http://www.DreamweaverFAQ.com[/url] - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
    > > > > [url]http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/[/url] - Macromedia (MM)
    Technotes
    > > > > ==================
    > > > >
    > > > > "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    > > > > news:bf3g10$mcr$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > > > > > Dima,
    > > > > >
    > > > > > You're right, I'm not completely getting it yet. But I am trying.
    > I
    > > > have
    > > > > been reading, so I'm not just sitting back being lazy looking for
    easy
    > > > > answers.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I guess I don't understand static vs. floating div's. I was
    > thinking
    > > > that
    > > > > static implied you gave the div an x and y coordinate -- therefore
    it
    > is
    > > > > fixed. But... as I mentioned before, if you are using tables as
    well
    > > on
    > > > > the page, in different browsers, you get the appearance of the layer
    > > > > positioning differently - i guess because of the tables, as Osgood
    > > pointed
    > > > > out. ?? - i'm still not getting that.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > So floating would imply that you position the layer via CSS #rules
    > as
    > > > > opposed to x and y directly on the div tag?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > What's your take on my remarks about attempting css-p on tables
    > first,
    > > > > then making a progression toward layers over tables. I would
    imagine
    > > that
    > > > > it is quite difficult to lay out some designs completely via layers
    > and
    > > > css.
    > > > > I was looking at some recent sites I have built and was thinking
    what
    > a
    > > > > nightmare it would be to try to make it work without any tables.
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    Murray *TMM* Guest

  17. #57

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:34:48 -0400, "Murray *TMM*"
    <forumsHAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote:
    >An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute location
    >on your screen, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    An absolutely positioned page element is positioned at an absolute
    location relative to it's container.

    >A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to the position
    >of its container, regardless of its location in the flow of the code.
    A relatively positioned page element is positioned relative to where
    it would have been if it were a static element. It's location in the
    flow of the code IS important in determining where it will be
    positioned.


    Gary
    Gary White Guest

  18. #58

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    jeez!! What a confounding deal.

    Can one of you guys take a stab at translating what was just established here. I thought I had it from Murray's explanation, but then the rest of the back and forth befuddled me.



    shelton webforumsuser@macromedia.com Guest

  19. #59

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    too many chefs, eh?

    Drop back 10 yards and d oa bit of research and learning on your own. The
    best place to start is with the specification itself...

    [url]http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1[/url]
    [url]http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/[/url]

    It's heavy reading, but it's all there. And it's guaranteed to be correct.

    --
    Al Sparber - PVII
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PVII Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev[/url]
    The CSS Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/css[/url]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------



    "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3qut$fd1$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > jeez!! What a confounding deal.
    >
    > Can one of you guys take a stab at translating what was just established
    here. I thought I had it from Murray's explanation, but then the rest of
    the back and forth befuddled me.
    >
    >

    Al Sparber- PVII Guest

  20. #60

    Default Re: Totally CSS?

    any html elements can be positioned using css:

    position: static =
    the default, ie. the element sits in its natural position in the flow of the
    doent. this requires no top, right, bottom, left properties.

    position: relative =
    the element is shifted out of it's natural position in the flow of the
    doent eg position: relative, top 10px would shift the element 10px down
    from it's normal position.

    position: absolute =
    the element is positioned relative to it's parent container.
    eg. if positioned top: 50px and inside another element top: 100px it will be
    150px from the top of the doent.

    position: fixed =
    the element is positioned relative to the viewport (will not move when page
    scrolled).

    joe





    "shelton" <webforumsusermacromedia.com> wrote in message
    news:bf3qut$fd1$1forums.macromedia.com...
    > jeez!! What a confounding deal.
    >
    > Can one of you guys take a stab at translating what was just established
    here. I thought I had it from Murray's explanation, but then the rest of
    the back and forth befuddled me.
    >
    >

    Joe {RoastHorse} Guest

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Totally frustrating
    By mdland55 in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 16th, 11:11 AM
  2. Most likely a totally stupid question....
    By revengeofthesith in forum Macromedia Director 3D
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 28th, 03:49 PM
  3. my tab palette is totally blank!
    By Stephen_Darlington@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Indesign Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 12th, 04:33 PM
  4. Toolbox has totally disappeared
    By Jim McGettrick in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 31st, 02:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139