PDA

View Full Version : OT: Can anyone help me with CSS?



adrian
08-18-2005, 03:58 AM
Dear Fellow LightWavers,

I am having trials and tribulations with CSS - I keep hearing you can do amazing things with it, but it just seems to me to be a pain in the rear end.

Basically I'm designing a site for a friend (so thankfully no deadlines!). This is what I have:

www.bakersvideo.com/LeeHardyTennis.html (http://www.bakersvideo.com/LeeHardyTennis.html)

This is the kind of design I want (ie navigation down the left under the main title):

www.thetreatmentrooms.co.uk (http://www.thetreatmentrooms.co.uk)

Here's a link to my .css file:

Stylesheet file (http://www.bakersvideo.com/LeeHardyTennis.css)

I know this is way OT so I'm clutching at straws here, but if anyone can help me I would be extremely grateful.

Cheers,

Adrian.

badllarma
08-18-2005, 04:46 AM
For 5 pages adrain I would not bother with CSS to be honest why not just build yor base base with the links (all the buttons set up ) then x4 the page then add the content for each one?

To be honest all my web page stuff now is all Flash with a HTML frame work very easy to alter and update. :thumbsup:

BTW when I mean flash I don't mean flashy graphics it just standard stuff but delivered in a SWF file on the HTML back drop also I've go some good html code if you want to make sure your pages a right in the middle of the sceen no matter what your screen res. :cool:

maxxwv
08-18-2005, 04:49 AM
What you're looking to do is (obviously) achievable with CSS, but you may very well lose lots of hair in the process. I find CSS to be great for formatting things - fonts, text blocks, tables, etc - but crap at actually positioning things. Which makes sense, seeing as how it's a style guide...

First thing I would suggest is check into "float" and "clear" - these'll clear up some of the problems with #Main-Content not lining up with #Navigation at the top. Other than that, I would honestly suggest using tables for your layout. Set up the styles as you've done, then apply them to a table - it's much more flexible as far as the liquid-ity of the design and cross - browser interepretation similarities. Also, it's perfectly acceptable in web design circles to do it this way (unless something has violently changed in the last three weeks or so..)

Don't know what online references you're using, but I found CSS Creator Forums (http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/index.php) to be a lot of help. Also, the O'Reilly CSS Pocket Reference book is a great reference manual.

adrian
08-18-2005, 05:01 AM
Wow, already two valuable replies. Thanks guys. Actually I'm quite glad to hear you say "it's crap at positioning things".... I absolutely 100% agree with this. This also means that maybe it's not because I'm being stupid after all. As for losing my hair.... yes - and my temper!!

My initial thought (before being told how great CSS is) was to use tables and maybe have a simple Flash header (my last few websites have been 100% Flash) so that the site loads quickly.

As already stated, CSS is GREAT for styling things such as fonts etc. For anything else... well it just seems more trouble than it's worth to me.

Adrian.

P.S. Thanks for the link (although it appears to be down at the mo)

riki
08-18-2005, 05:58 AM
No frames suck your Users can't bookmark internal pages and they excape the frame set. I prefer PHP Includes, XHTML for structure and CSS for design. I'm not keen on tableless CSS though, prefer to use Tables.

maxxwv
08-18-2005, 06:13 AM
riki - I agree about frames. Just not a good idea all around. Tabled CSS certainly is - for me, anyway - the easiest and most flexible HTML design approach. Obviously, Flash is the way to go for total control, but sometimes full Flash is just overkill.

adrian - link works fine for me. Weird... the full link (in case you need to copy/paste for whatever reason) is http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/index.php. CSS can be used successfully to position things, but it's odd in its implementation - I just finished a site where I used php to pull data from a database of schedule information and then formatted and placed the data into a calendar built and positioned with CSS styles - it works, but every now and then you've got to refresh the browser to get the days to line up. No reason why, and I can't get it to not work with any regularity in either FF or IE. That and I lost a lot of sleep trying to the derned thing to work.

Personally, I would go with your gut - use tables for layout and possibly a Flash header if they want the animation and glitz.

Brian Arndt
08-18-2005, 08:27 AM
I always use tables and CSS with them. seems like a good combination and works for what i want.

if you want a fairly simple tutorial on CSS try this:
http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/reference/stylesheet_guide/

They also have a very good HTML Cheatcheat to look back on:
http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/reference/html_cheatsheet/

and one of the most useful things (if your coding in notepad or something other than dreamweaver/indesign):
Color Codes Sheet:
http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/reference/color_codes/

noiseboy
08-18-2005, 08:42 AM
If you on a mac and want a very quick way of setting up a css based site you could look at http://www.realmacsoftware.com/
Rapidweaver produces very quick css based sites.
and what's more Adrian they are based in your home town.

as an example, this site was built with Rapidweaver
http://www.fxstation.com/


Colin

Karmacop
08-18-2005, 09:11 AM
I thought I'd make a breif reply.

You should always use CSS even if it's just 4 pages. Don't use font tags, they are really bad.

You can use CSS with divs etc to make a cool layout but it is harder than tables, especially because things can render differently in different browsers.

You shouldn't use tables except for tabled data although as I've said it's easier and faster.

If you can use php/java/javascript etc to add common data (header, menu, footer) to your pages if possible.

riki
08-18-2005, 09:56 AM
A List Apart has some good tuts and articles
http://www.alistapart.com/topics/css/

Wickster
08-18-2005, 10:38 AM
I had to learn CSS in a week for a class project not too long ago and now I can't code a site without it.

Here is my Lightwave Project Site (It's pretty dated but I might update it later on). All done with Notepad by the way.

http://www.bmadigital.com/lw3d

Here is the link to my CSS file for that site:
http://www.bmadigital.com/lw3d/css/frameformat.css

The site heavily uses CSS and hardly any internal attributes. Another is my personal site which also relies on CSS www.bmadigital.com (http://www.bmadigital.com) and the CSS file here (http://www.bmadigital.com/css/sharedformat.css).

Hope I helped a little. Hey if I was forced to learn it in a week I bet you can too. Lemme know if you have any questions about the site. I love coding. Good Luck! :goodluck:

adrian
08-18-2005, 11:09 AM
Thanks for all the replies and links guys, I really appreciate it!

Hey Wickster that's a great site; nicely laid out, quick loading and I love the scrolling box so everything is contained. Also, many thanks for sharing your CSS code. Looks bloody complicated to me!!!!!!!! Your others are very good too, but my favourite is the LW one :lwicon:

I guess you picked up CSS a lot faster than I am as I've been learning it for about a week and I'm nowhere near being able to produce something like that!

Hopefully with all the resources listed here (never come across ANY of them) I will be put on the right track :D

One question for Karmacop: why are font tags so bad? In fact, what are font tags??!!! Do you mean don't use something like: font-family, font-style etc?

Thanks once again,

Adrian.

Karmacop
08-18-2005, 11:20 AM
Font tags are used in html .. 3 I think it is. They look like <font> and you can use it to change the colour/size/font of the text mid sentence.

When using html 4 or higher with css you should use <span> tags instead. It just makes everything much nicer to edit. For example, if you used font tags and then realised you wanted to change the size or colour of the font on every page then you'd have to change every font tag. With css you just edit one line and you're done. It really makes development much easier and faster.

If you're having trouble learning CSS (I had a lot of trouble at first) then I suggest make your webpage in html with a table and only do simple things with css such as font size and colour of your basic tags.

EDIT: fixing my < and > signs

Wickster
08-18-2005, 12:39 PM
Thanks Adrian!

I'm with Karmacop on the subject of font tags. I think what he's asking you to avoid is the:

<font size="+3" color="#FF0000" face="Times New Roman"><b>Big, Bold, Red, Times New Roman Text</b></font>

Imagine typing that tag for every big bold red times new roman text you have for your site. Definitely use CSS instead. Can't wait to see what you do with your site soon.

Karmacop
08-18-2005, 12:47 PM
Thanks Wickster, that's exactly what I mean :)

adrian
08-18-2005, 01:45 PM
I see, got it.

Well I will be working all day on the site tomorrow so hopefully I can make some serious inroads to getting it how I want. I will no doubt be checking back here for more help as and when I get to the end of my tether!!

Thanks again :)

Adrian.

art
08-18-2005, 03:16 PM
You shouldn't use tables except for tabled data although as I've said it's easier and faster
I tend to use tables a lot for page layouts, are you suggesting that this is not recommended? I've seen html done in certain web development programs and it was truly a "<table> and <font> tag nightmare" so I see your point. That's one of the reasons I stay with plain text editors and try to keep the design as simple as possible. I still use tables for layout and CSS for colors, borders etc. I'm not CSS expert, so my question is, can I avoid tables altogether and do layout just with CSS? Isn't browser compatibility (still) an issue with CSS?

Lightwolf
08-18-2005, 04:05 PM
I'm not CSS expert, so my question is, can I avoid tables altogether and do layout just with CSS? Isn't browser compatibility (still) an issue with CSS?
You can, it is quite possible, if may be a little harder to do pixel perfect. IE comes to mind here which tends to break most things.

Have a look at something like this:
http://glish.com/css/7.asp

I found that CCS based XHTML makes the HTML lighter, easier to read and easier to create automatically (i.e. through a script).
The cascading parts of style sheets can be **** and heaven at the same time though ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Karmacop
08-19-2005, 02:07 AM
Art, tables are not recommended by the W3C as they are bad for people with accessibility needs ie the blind I'm sure it's not much to worry about but as Lightwolf has shown from his link, you can make traditional layouts easily without tables, but it is hard to always get them working correctly, especially with IE.

riki
08-19-2005, 02:16 AM
Tableless CSS is good if you want to be able to change the structure of you site easily. XHMTL pages with Tables do validate on the W3C org site. But I don't think Tableless CSS is well supported on older browsers.

Lightwolf
08-19-2005, 02:45 AM
But I don't think Tableless CSS is well supported on older browsers.
True. Then again, it depends on whether you truly want to support Netscape 4.x or IE 4.x or older browsers...

I'd say, whatever validates and gets displayed the way it is supposed to look on browsers is o.k. The key is having a collection of browsers to check the layout with. At least IE and Firefox, even though I check with Opera as well as Safari (occasionally, depending on the project).

Cheers,
Mike

adrian
08-19-2005, 07:05 AM
Okay after several hours of frustration and on the point of exploding in a fit of rage, this is where I'm at:

www.bakersvideo.com/test.htm (http://www.bakersvideo.com/test.htm)

Ignore the garish colours and rubbish text. I created the layout using tables (done with DreamweaverMX as I downloaded the 30-day trial). Using CSS to set fonts, colours etc (which is easy as pie) - and *trying* to position things.

Some questions:
1) Why can't I centre the navigation text?
2) Why can't I get the top and bottom border to fit snugly up against the table borders?
3) How can I add a scroll bar to the main content box (with the text) so the user doesn't have to scroll down (although this is not such a big issue)?
4) How can I add rounded corners - I am assuming I can't as I'm using tables. Again, not so important.
5) Why is the display screwed from time to time on the navigation text (the background colour shows over each word all at once sometimes)?
6) Does this layout look exactly (or very close to) the same in other browsers, such as Netscape, Firefox (what is this??!!!) as it does in IE? I don't have any other browsers to check with.

Here is a link to the .css file

www.bakersvideo.com/test.css (http://www.bakersvideo.com/test.css)

I know people are telling me not to use tables but I'm b*****ed if I could get that layout with CSS alone.

Thanks, once again, for any help!

Adrian.

Chazz
08-19-2005, 08:13 AM
Just thought I would throw a quick suggestion if you want to avoid pulling out a lot of hair with CSS layouts. Pick up a copy of Style Master (http://www.westciv.com/style_master/index.html) , not a bad use of $60 for what you get. :thumbsup:

Zach
08-19-2005, 09:21 AM
I find these dhtml books invaluable.
peachpit (http://www.peachpit.com/search/index.asp?searchstring=dhtml&searchgroup=Entire+Site&searchtype=Keywords&imageField.x=23&imageField.y=6)

Karmacop
08-19-2005, 09:25 AM
Some questions:
1) Why can't I centre the navigation text?
2) Why can't I get the top and bottom border to fit snugly up against the table borders?
3) How can I add a scroll bar to the main content box (with the text) so the user doesn't have to scroll down (although this is not such a big issue)?
4) How can I add rounded corners - I am assuming I can't as I'm using tables. Again, not so important.
5) Why is the display screwed from time to time on the navigation text (the background colour shows over each word all at once sometimes)?
6) Does this layout look exactly (or very close to) the same in other browsers, such as Netscape, Firefox (what is this??!!!) as it does in IE? I don't have any other browsers to check with.



1) It is centered, but it's an unordered list. remove the <ul> and <li> tags

2) I'm not sure which border you're talking about here.

3) I think make it scrollable ... in css set the attribute overflow: scroll;

4) You can only do rounded corners with images until css 3 gets supported. There's a lot of tutorials on the net to do this.

5) I'm not sure what you mean by this.

6) It looks the same in firefox as it does in IE. You can get firefox free from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

adrian
08-19-2005, 09:57 AM
I took out the <ul> and <li> tags and that fixed the centering problem. Thanks! The tut I was following had those in which is why they were there...

As for question 2, this is what I'm talking about:

www.bakersvideo.com/screenshot.jpg (http://www.bakersvideo.com/screenshot.jpg)

Adrian.

Karmacop
08-19-2005, 10:20 AM
Oh ok. I'm only getting the space above the top of the main content. It looksl ike the reason you're getting that is because you have a &nbsp; above your <div id="Main-Content">

adrian
08-19-2005, 10:57 AM
Didn't make any difference taking that out, but I managed to fix it by creating two more DIVs, a header and footer - both of which I set to have a border at the bottom and top. I took out the borders in the Main-Content area.

So this is what I have now:

www.bakersvideo.com/test.htm (http://www.bakersvideo.com/test.htm)

I take it, it looks fine in other browsers (haven't had time to download any others yet).

It's a pretty boring layout I suppose but I guess it's easy to navigate and nice & clean (well apart from the terrible colour co-ordination that's going on at the moment!) - what do you think?

Adrian.

iFX
08-25-2005, 09:11 AM
I have to admit, when I first started on the path to learning table-less CSS layout... I started to HATE CSS... it was driving me insane.

But now that I managed to get my head around it, I'll never go back to tables... except when they're suitable, ie tabulated data etc...

But I have to admit there's not many wysiwyg apps out there that properly support decent css standards - in fact I still haven't found one... Anyone know of one? and don't say dreamweaver - it's useless... at least for the designs I've created recently - try editing some of my sites in dreamweaver and it will screw them up (and add a whole heap of useless tags - not to mention the fact that many times they will no longer validate once edited by dreamweaver)

I use a text editor to do all my html and css (and php) - ultraedit32, great editor - and I preview mostly with firefox (with the developer extensions and the editCSS extension) - couldn't imagine doing my work without firefox.

The editCSS extension is really cool - it lets you edit the CSS in realtime in the firefox sidebar as you're viewing any page - you can even go to someone elses site and edit the css, playing around with different settings - very cool for testing, before you save the changes to the actual CSS file.

hehe, I have so many firefox extensions installed I'm surprised it doesn't crash ;) but after having access to all these features I can't imagine using a browser (as my main browser) without them.

One thing about standards-based designs - I spend about half my time making everything work in firefox which ends up working correctly in all browsers except msie, I then have to spend just as long doing all the hacks to get around all the bugs in various versions of msie (and msie's pathetic implementations of css)... when will MS finally bring out a browser that supports standards correctly - Just imagine, I'd actually be able to have a life, if MSIE had better standards support.

sorry starting to rave and rant OT... it just REALLY annoys me... such a waste of time just because MS doesn't want to support standards >:(

If everyone supported standards correctly, web designers lives would be sooo much easier - we'd be able to simply concentrate on what we're supposed to concentrate on: DESIGNING
(instead of having to troubleshoot why it doesn't look right in different browsers or platforms GGRRRR).

Anyway, I can understand why a lot of people want to just stick with tables for layout - much easier to work with tables in dreamweaver than css (might be a different story in the new version of dreamweaver??) - but I still had problems with table cells sometimes doing weird things in different browsers too... So many times I found a design looked wrong in dreamweaver but once viewed in a web browser it was ok, or sometimes the other way around... plus I hate all those TR's and TD's ;)

When it comes to using CSS for layout - I love being able to completely change a site's design by just changing the CSS and not having to change any of the HTML.

I guess at the moment CSS layout is still more suited to hand-coding as opposed to wysiwyg apps... though if someone knows of any good wysiwyg apps with very good css support, then please let me know.

art
08-25-2005, 09:26 AM
I use a text editor to do all my html and css (and php) - ultraedit32, great editor

That's what I use too. I cannot work without ultraedit. And I agree with all your comments about dreamweaver, that's why I do not use it.
I never really tried CSS for layout, I must give it a try. Looks like it might be the "way to do it" in the future anyway.

iFX
08-25-2005, 09:33 AM
hmmm... strange that the top and bottom black border only seems to show up in msie...

Found out why... you have "solid" twice in the declaration for both the header and footer, eg:
"border-top: solid #000000 solid 1px;"

Take out one of the "solid"s and it should work in all browsers - generally border declarations go in the order: 1px solid #000
though it seems to work no matter what order as long as none of them are duplicated.


Unrelated but one thing to remember with links and css (so the order above may be important for some browsers):
The link pseudo-classes need to be declared in the order: link, visited, hover, active.

Otherwise, you might find that they don't work, or work differently in different browsers.

Lightwolf
08-25-2005, 09:33 AM
NVu has decent CSS support, it at least _displays_ it correctly (not surprising since it's based on Firefox).

Then again, I prefer to code by hand as well... especially in conjunction with PHP.

Cheers,
Mike

iFX
08-25-2005, 09:52 AM
Also Adrian, you might want to look at declaring a visited rule for your links as otherwise it might revert to displaying the link as the browser default - which sometimes means purple... I think??? at least that's how some of the links in the menu are showing up when I view it in msie. I regularly assign the same rule to visited as link, just to make sure it doesn't do something weird in some browsers once they visit one of the pages.

It's 1:45am here, so I'll probably head off to bed soon, I'll try and put together a list of links of sites, tutorials and books etc that I found useful to help me come to terms with CSS layout... hopefully in the next day or so... sitepoint comes to mind though: http://www.sitepoint.com "The CSS Anthology: 101 Essential Tips, Tricks & Hacks" and "HTML Utopia: Designing Without Tables Using CSS"... they're very good, but not free.

Hey I haven't been there for a while, looks like I'll have to check out "DHTML Utopia: Modern Web Design Using JavaScript & DOM" as well, haven't seen that one before!

adrian
08-25-2005, 11:34 AM
I have to admit, when I first started on the path to learning table-less CSS layout... I started to HATE CSS... it was driving me insane.


Well that's exactly where I am right now. CSS is absolute *@!#* as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of setting fonts, colours etc. For that it's very useful. As for layout? Forget it. Absolute nightmare.

If it wasn't for the fact that the website I'm doing now needs to be easily updated by a self-confessed computer illeterate, I would have done everything in Flash.

With Flash things do take a long time, but at least I have 100% control and I don't constantly have to ask myself "why isn't this working?", or "if I do things this way, then this will bugger up, if I do it that way, then that will bugger up" - it's a lose-lose situation with CSS as far as I can see. And I am heartily SICK of being told "you'll be blown away with what you can do with CSS"... yeah, I'm well blown away with it; totally impressed - NOT!!!!!!!!!! :devil:

The fact that Firefox and IE don't display things correctly/the same way, I'm thinking why the **** am I bothering. It's all *@!#$! as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, rant over :) sorry, that was just two weeks of pure frustration coming out.... oh, and the website still looks like @$#.

Adrian.

iFX
08-26-2005, 12:39 AM
If it wasn't for the fact that the website I'm doing now needs to be easily updated by a self-confessed computer illeterate, I would have done everything in Flash.

Have you looked at any Content Management Systems? oh hang on... it's only a small site right? probably overkill in that case... css is still probably the best option then, as changing the content is very much simplified if most of the design is in the stylesheet.

But yeah, I understand your frustration... :cursin: been there ;)

I wish (D/X)HTML/CSS were like Flash in that, Flash is Flash, so will always look right... that's how HTML/CSS would be if standards were followed :devil:

But my frustrations with standards not being followed wasn't only aimed at CSS... Back when I was using tables for layout, I was constantly having pages look different in different browsers too... and my point of wasted time included table layouts as well... in fact, since changing to mostly CSS I have fewer compatibility issues than I had with table layout HTML - I used to have to do a lot more testing in a lot more browsers to see if the table layout worked - but now with CSS, if it works in firefox (and I'm following strict standards), it *usually* works in everything except msie, so I really just need to test those two... whereas before that wasn't the case.

I have to admit though, that it does take me a little longer to set up the initial CSS design compared to the old table layout, but in the end it saves time when doing updates... not to mention giving me extra options that I didn't have before.

But if you're tearing your hair out, maybe sticking with tables for now is the best option, until msie and wysiwyg apps have better support for it... for now CSS layout is probably more for people that like editing in text editors.
CSS definitely makes life easier for people that hand code their pages ;)

One thing I've noticed is that if a page is contained in a table, some browsers won't display the content until the entire page is loaded - that's sort of how they were designed though, as table data normally wouldn't make sense unless you see it in it's entirety... but this is usually only a problem in older browsers. Mozilla used to do this, not sure if it still does???

I found this when creating some admin interfaces for site where there were progress indicators as the page loaded - when using table layout, the only browser the progress indicators would work in was msie, all others would wait til the entire page was loaded... that was, until I used divs instead of tables.



Ok, rant over :) sorry, that was just two weeks of pure frustration coming out.... oh, and the website still looks like @$#.

Hehe... been there... I better get back to work now though, but I'll have a look at your pages over the weekend and if I can simplify them with a different stylesheet so that it's easier to maintain I'll send you a link. Otherwise tables might be the only option - but the design looks like plenty I've done before, so hopefully I can just use one of my existing layouts... I'll let you know anyway.


Cheers,
Ingo.

riki
08-26-2005, 12:46 AM
Just lay your site out as one big jpg, save a lot of pain :p

adrian
08-26-2005, 01:33 AM
Hehe... been there... I better get back to work now though, but I'll have a look at your pages over the weekend and if I can simplify them with a different stylesheet so that it's easier to maintain I'll send you a link. Otherwise tables might be the only option - but the design looks like plenty I've done before, so hopefully I can just use one of my existing layouts... I'll let you know anyway.
Cheers,
Ingo.

Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it. Wickster has also offered to help me out - ahhh, the good ol' LightWave community spirit is alive and well :lwicon: To be honest, I appreciate any help I can get right now - with any luck, maybe I'll "get" CSS one day. The stupid thing is, the basics of CSS I picked up in about 5 minutes - it's just laying out stuff that I find so hard to comprehend.

Actually I'm one of those that likes to hard code sites in a text editor (it was how I learnt HTML) so in theory I should like CSS :)

Adrian.

riki
08-26-2005, 01:36 AM
BBEdit is good

adrian
08-26-2005, 04:03 AM
Another little question for you CSS gurus... I notice that my text looks quite different in IE and Firefox if I use the "em" value for my font size, but if I use the "pt" value, the text looks the same.

Do you guys generally use pt instead of em? One of the first tuts I did suggested that em should be the preferred method of choice, but I would say not.....

Adrian.

MooseDog
08-26-2005, 04:35 AM
http://www.csszengarden.com/

chk this out for some insight into the movement behind tableless css design. very cool concept for a site as well. there's a resources link on the site that has a ton of great info as well.


when will MS finally bring out a browser that supports standards correctly

:agree: monopolists are usually not in any hurry to change :devil: , even more reason for everyone to use firefox :)

Karmacop
08-26-2005, 09:07 AM
Do you guys generally use pt instead of em? One of the first tuts I did suggested that em should be the preferred method of choice, but I would say not.....

Adrian.

I remember a few years ago my web design teacher said that everyone will be using em as the standard measurement on the net soon because it was a better way to measure things. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now :p

I can see that they could be useful for things, but I've always been frustrated with using ems for anything because they never work how I expect, and because the browsers seem to treat them differently.

I always use big, bigger etc for my font sizes ...

maxxwv
08-26-2005, 10:40 AM
Personally, I use point sizes. I find it to be the one thing that is interpreted consistently across browsers and OS's, though I may have just gotten lucky... :bangwall:

Wickster
08-26-2005, 03:33 PM
I actually have never used em for measurment on the web before. I always use pixel (px) on my codes. I figured a pixel is a pixel no matter what browser and OS we use. Points is OK generally, but there are some typefaces that measure differently on a MAC and on a PC.

iFX
08-26-2005, 07:28 PM
I use mostly px too... though I sometimes use em for things that need to resize with the text, if some users have their browser set to a larger text size...

eg if you set up a css menu, and size everything in px - if the user increases the size of the font in their browser (I sometimes do this when reading forum msgs if it's late and my eyes are getting tired ;) ), then the menu item containers (buttons) of your menu text etc will stay the same size while the text increases in size, making it wrap etc... but if you use em to set the size of the blocks containing the menu text, then as the text size is scaled up, the buttons increase in size too, so that the entire menu increases not just the text. Making the site more scalable... though as you can imagine, with the way different browsers render things differently now, it takes quite a bit of testing in different browsers to make sure it works correctly in all of them ;) something probably not really worth worrying about too much at this point.

adrian
09-09-2005, 09:50 AM
Okay, I know this is not really the place, but I finally finished the website - in the end using a combination of CSS and tables. Any feedback much appreciated:

www.leehardytennis.com (http://www.leehardytennis.com)

Cheers,

Adrian.