Page Length vs. Infinity

[mark4man]

Sorry to post twice in one day in the same forum, but I'm a bit perplexed by this one.

My site's page length is 14". At the base of my home page is a java script code fragment for a linked counter. I can't read HTML all that well yet, so let me say that the position of the text box (upper left) is 1 1/8" from the bottom of the page. It used to be about an inch higher...I moved it down a bit to add more graphics to the page.

Now, when I log onto the site, I can continue to scroll downward way, way beyond the counter. Prior to moving the script box, scrolling would terminate at the bottom of the counter. I realize I have in all probability caused this to happen by moving the script box, but my question is: Is fixing this problem as simple as increasing the length of the page, or is there some sort of HTML fix I can utilize?

Thanks in advance,

mark4man

[pyro]

I don't know what you mean. Maybe you could post a link so I can take a look at it...It's probably a simple thing to fix, but without seeing the code...

[mark4man]

http://www.moonjams.com

Thanks,

mark4man

[vmarasigan]

Hmm...Your website looks to be made up entirely of layers. Layers are great for absolute positioning (eg. text over images), but generally, it's not a good idea to have all your content be made up of them.

I would re-create the site as tables instead. That way, you don't have to set height values. The page will simply end where your last table ends.

[pyro]

Ok, here's what you should need to do. In line 257 of you site you have this line of code

<TABLE height=2782 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=504 border=0>

Delete the height attribute. This is where you problem came in. BTW, what program are you using to create your website?

[pyro]

One other thing that I thought I'd point out. You used CSS to position/size all your elements, so why did you even have a height attribute in the table? It isn't doing anything (except causing your problems :) )...If you want to change the height. width, etc. it needs to be done in the <div> tag. Maybe it is just the program you are using.

[jpmoriarty]

from looking at the source he used publisher 2000 - but a word of warning: you guys are in for a real ass whooping if stefan ever sees you talking about using tables for layout...

suggest you head over to the CSS forum and take a look at some of the sdvice that's being thrust on people there. It's got some good stuff, but it'll take some getting used to i can tell you...

[pyro]

Originally posted by jpmoriarty
a word of warning: you guys are in for a real ass whooping if stefan ever sees you talking about using tables for layout...
There is nothing wrong with using tables for layout. Most sites use them (yahoo.com, amazon.com, etc).

[jpmoriarty]

ohhh are you in for a shock.

I'm afraid though, that the odds are against you on this one - just because big sites use them doesnt make them ok. In fact, the w3c (which lays down all the rules for these sorts of things) really doesnt like them. Tables are around to present tabular data in, and you shouldnt use them for layout because it discriminates against people you use reader software / hardware on sites (partially sighted or blind people). And since it is posible to do it without tables, that's the way everyones heading. Believe me, as soon as microsoft and yahoo catch up, they'll do it too.

But i still cant get over your argument that the big cheeses do it therefore it's okay! Wow - i havent head that one since i was 11 - you're not 11 are you?

[pyro]

It looks like we didn't have to worry about Stefan for the @$$ whooping...you're going to try your best.

I didn't say that tables were the best way to lay your site out, but they aren't the "wrong" way. Just because the W3C doesn't recommend using them, doesn't mean that using them is wrong.

Originally posted by jpmoriarty
But i still cant get over your argument that the big cheeses do it therefore it's okay! Wow - i havent head that one since i was 11 - you're not 11 are you?
It appears to me that if you have to resort to insulting my intelligence, you're afraid that your argument isn't going to be good enough...It really doesn't bode well with you...

My comment about yahoo and amazon was mearly to point out that some very big sites obviously don't agree with you. I realize that just becaue "the big cheeses do it" has absolutly nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Also, this isn't a question of right or wrong, it is a quesion of whether or not you are going to code to be W3C validated.

[Stefan]

Originally posted by pyro
I didn't say that tables were the best way to lay your site out, but they aren't the "wrong" way. Just because the W3C doesn't recommend using them, doesn't mean that using them is wrong.


W3C does not just not recomend them. They outright recomends tables NOT to be used for layout. And they have done so since at least 1997, before CSS support was widely spread in browsers.

To today (when CSS is so well supported cross browser & OS) still linger on with abusing tables for layout is defintly "wrong". There is no excuse other then being to lazy to learn new methods.


My comment about yahoo and amazon was mearly to point out that some very big sites obviously don't agree with you.


To change the layout of a huge website with millions of hits each month is extreemly difficoult and costly. For economic reasons that is simply not done.
However as time progress all sites eventually get redesigned (becuse the old look feels just that, old) and today very few sites are (re)made using 1990ies <table> layouts. The advantages of CSS as an alternative are simply to greate to ignore on a large site. That the website also happens to get much better accessebility for disabled persons is just an added plus and not the deciding factor in the comercial world.


Also, this isn't a question of right or wrong, it is a quesion of whether or not you are going to code to be W3C validated.

The code might validate but you will still be breaking the "spirit of the spec". An automatic system can only find syntax errors and misspellings, it cannot find logical errors in the code (eg <b>Heading</b> instead of <h1>Heading</h1> and abusing tables for layout).

If you are using the wrong tag for the job, you are still coding the wrong way even if the page might get though the valiator.

[pyro]

First off, I too know that tables are not the best way to layout a site. I am simply trying to point out that you aren't in the wrong (as it appeared jpmoriarty was implying) if you use them. I guess this all would go back to whether you are going to code to the standards/recommendations given by the W3C or not.

Also, I'm wondering which sites implement the use of CSS layout, rather than the table. I honestly can say that the only (large) site that I have seen laid out with CSS is w3.org! Just wondering... :)

[Stefan]

Originally posted by pyro
Also, I'm wondering which sites implement the use of CSS layout, rather than the table. I honestly can say that the only (large) site that I have seen laid out with CSS is w3.org! Just wondering... :) [/B]

There are others eg thisone
http://www.wired.com/

And here is an article about just that site which is an interesting read.
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/wired-interview/

And for the record, even the W3C site was still a <table> mess just a few weeks ago. There will always be a considerable lagging behind for large (especially comercial) sites, but even they are now starting to migrate.

[Robert Wellock]

There are thousands of table-less sites, you are correct in saying most of them aren't run by (large) lazy ignorant corporates I'll just take a few "table-less" examples from people whom I personally known:

http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/
http://www.rickbull.co.uk/
http://www.accessify.com/
http://www.matt-thornton.net/
http://icant.build-my.com/
http://simon.incutio.com/

That just includes some of the people I know, not sites that I have only seen on the web, for example: http://www.webstandards.org/

As you say Micro$oft is a good example of a W3C member which doesn't practice what it preaches.

[pyro]

Thanks for providing those links...They were interesting to look at. I've got a question for you. If you decided to use CSS to position your site, will it be compatible with older browsers (4.x)? Are they able to read the CSS? If not, that might be another reason most sites haven't switched to CSS yet...

[Robert Wellock]

It's a weak argument not to try and use CSS. Although CSS is harder to write and most web-designers use Dreamweaver, basically it isn't until you get the version six browsers that CSS-P starts working anything like it should.

Some of the examples I gave were Blogs, which I tend to dislike since they tend to be used by people whom don't really understand HTML.

Although from experience I know those on the list were all capable HTML coders in their own right.

Really I never finished that /worthvalley/ site so it would look a little strange in IE 5.x, or Netscape 4.x but it would degrade gracefully if the CSS was turned-off via the users browser, but it's been stated which browser it has been tested on and yes I know about @import.

There are many Flame-Wars about CSS-P versus <table> so I'm saying nothing else in this thread.

[Stefan]

Originally posted by pyro
I've got a question for you. If you decided to use CSS to position your site, will it be compatible with older browsers (4.x)? Are they able to read the CSS?


Before I can answer this question I have to discuss the concept "compatible".
CSS is designed from the ground up to easily be used in a "graceful degrade" enviroment. Ie webpages should work even in browsers with a varying degree of CSS support from "100%" to 0.

Thus a properly designed page taking advantage of CSS will always be "compatible" in all browsers.

However older (especially pre v6.x) browsers will be quite buggy with CSS and can be a pain to make to look exatly or close to how you want it to look.

If you visit eg the W3.org site and the wired site you will see that they have opted to go for a "handle NS 4 as non CSS capable" approch leaving it to fall back on a good HTML structure alone.

Today IMO that is probably the wise choise to make in most situations, considering how few the v 4.x browsers in use are.


If not, that might be another reason most sites haven't switched to CSS yet... [/B]

Yes, that is undoubtedly so.
It takes a while for the new browsers to reach the public and especially comercial sites cannot drop support of older browsers until they are basicly not used at all anymore.
Today however we have basicly reached that state, where resonably good CSS browsers is used by 98%+ of websurfers, and this is also why the big sites is also beginning to slowly move to standards.
Just 1-2 years ago the same would not have been an option for at least the large comercial sites.

[Brendan Nolan]

I just clicked on a "random" link from that list...

http://icant.build-my.com/

and guess what... it breaks.

Sorry if people don't like it - but tables are my friend!