Web 3.0 already? But I haven't even finished my Web 2.0 website. Dammit, I'm gonna have to start all over again :(

Machie wrote:
> inheritance? I'm not really familiar with the "inherit"
> command I better look it up.
>
> What I try to do is make sure I dont tell a div to do something
> that its parent is already doing. The W3C strict thing told me
> off for doing that. Now I try to do all that #content1, #content
> 2 stuff (when it works) to keep my CSS file as short as
> possible.

You're familiar with inheritance, you're talking about it in this paragraph. :)  Actually though, I should have really said inheritance and selectors.  You can cut out an awful lot of class/id declarations by using an elements relative position to assign styles.

> What I will do tomorrow when I do a clean up is search for some
> articles about all this ("how to keep your CSS tidy or
> something") so I can learn a few more things (like what you
> just mentioned to me) and hopefully I can do a better job :)

Google for csstidy, useful for tidying up your code, at least starting the job anyway.

> I would like to be a bit more adventerous with my designing but
> I've drilled the idea into my head that it has to be simple, not
> so much images, no javascript and no dhtml. I did think of those
> expand/collapse scripts to help tidy up my links/social
> bookmarks/etc but I got cold feet and backed away.
>
> oh I do have another question. I tend to use a lot of two column
> divs but they have a habit of messing up the layout. To solve
> this I surround them with a div that does nothing but hold them
> together and align their bottoms, is this acceptable or should I
> be doing it another way?

Its not ideal but nothing wrong with it.  Might be better ways to fix your problem, but without seeing the divs within the context of the whole page not alot can be said.

Machie wrote:
> That's a great plug-in Garin thank you, it'll really come in
> handy. Unfortunately it's not showing me whats wrong. :/ I've
> been studying it and going through everything in this firebug for
> half an hour and still have no clue.

Well lets see it.

> I'm still getting use to deciding whether to use an id or class.
> Lets say I have 2 div "boxes" but one has a background.
> I do them as class right? What if they're different width or have
> borders? Something very similiar to another div but one or two
> things different? Or can I only use class when it's exactly the
> same? The article said not to go nuts with ids but if ids are
> suppose to be all unique then my pages would be full of ids.

Well remember you can assign something an id and a class, eg <div id="content" class="content2"></div> and you can assign multiple classes too like <div class="content content2"></div>.  So you can extrapolate the common elements to a class (or several) and then stuff the unique elements in an id (or even just apply a style directly if theres not much).  Also try to make as much use of inheritance as possible.

> Also I'm working on those embed/URL bars you see on youtube. I
> tried finding out more on google but I didn't know how to phrase
> it so I couldnt find any articles/tutorials. I stole this one
> from a site.
>
> <input type="text" size="40"
> color="#777777" value='http://www.freeola.com'
> onClick="this.focus();this.select();">
>
> But then I've seen it done differently on other sites, YouTube
> even use the <formtags. So Im not sure what I should be using.

Use whatever works for you, theres no right or wrong way to do this.

Try firefox (look at the error console), also install Firebug on it and inspect the relevant elements (right click and select inspect element), it'll show you exactly what css is influencing that element.

Machie wrote:
> #content, #content2 { width:100%; }

Should work, must be something else going on.

I work at a company running 2 very large websites (3million hits + per week, corporate and gaming), when a liquid scalable design isn't an option, we will always assume a minimum resolution of 1024px. It does depend on your target audience though, we find the people running 800x600 still are either very old or very young, our markets are 18-40 yrs, and statistically we have fewer than 0.1% on 800x600 or less in this age group.

If going fixed width, you need to take into account browser chrome, and the fact not everyone will have their browser maximised. For a 1024x768 screen, we'd go for 980-986px wide.


I'd personally consider some client-side javascript, similar to a lightbox for "expanding" images if they are difficulkt to read at 780 width instead of 850. Then your design doesn't have to change and it'll be an attractive update for your visitors.

Sounds familiar, did you remember the title?

They were good movies but I also liked Young Sherlock Holmes :) As you're not a 80ies kid I can let you off. So I'll give you a 90ies question. :) Which movie starred Bill Lumbergh. Actually you probably haven't seen that movie either :/ you really should see more films Garin.

And yet you claim to know everything with a brain the size of a planet. :/ what else have you been lying to me about?

I'm practically giving you the answer with this tip. It was the first movie to have a complete CGI character.

I have a problem. My comic needs to be 850 width, so I can't design any lower than that without resizing the comic.

So far it's looking good, it's nice having more room to work with. I also made a few changes to the navigation so it's much easier to use.

Thanks again for you help Garin, by the way Big Trouble in Little China is on tonight at 11pm on Film 4. Just thought I'd mention it if you still couldnt find your DVD ;)

Another question, this 80ies film reminds me of Harry Potter, infact one of the "bad guys" is a blonde student called Dudley. When I think of Professor Snape I imagine him to look like Professor Rathe who also stars in this movie. What is the name of this movie Garin?

Some good advice Garin, thanks :D

I have one more question about fluid designs. What size should I work at? The 600x800 jerks or the next one up? I remember you saying you're too cheap to buy a second monitor so you have two windows open next to each other, so you prefer 600x800 right? Do others do this too?

Thanks guys :) I did come accross that one first Garin but as you mentioned its more code and you always taught me not to use other peoples codes unless I fully understand how it works.

I'll give it a try though. I'm just after your standard fixed width columns either side of the main content which can be fluid. I'm trying to imagine what my site would look like on your browser digi. I guess my blog and articles in the center will be much more streteched out and finally I wont have to worry about the navigations when someone increases the text sizes.

I'll let you know how I get on. Right now I'm just quickly doing the error pages. It's 401, 403, 404 and 500 right? Include a link to the site map, don't include the sites navigation, don't use refer to the error codes, be apologetic, trap and automatically email 404 errors to yourself and include a search box.

Well I still haven't sorted out the search engine, not that important really, but I guess I'll need php to email me 404 errors if I decide to do that instead of checking my error log.

Well theres lots of ways to do such layouts.  As long as it works in the browsers you want it to work in, whats the problem? :)

Having said that, this one may well be better even if it is more css.  Of course, its pretty similar to way I've done 3 column layouts in the past, so I would say that. :P

I would not worry to much about what it looks like even pros can get it a little wrong - take freeolas site on my pc with a huge resolution it looks fine yet on my laptop its all to the left! big white space on the right.

Digi

Isn't there a standard width for that resolution? Like 760 was for 600x800 :)

I'd love to go without the fixed width but I'd worry it'd look a bit stupid on the huge monitors, or do they have their browser resolutions set smaller? If you know any good examples of sites without "barriers", I'd be willing to have a look. I'm very keen to have a well designed website.

Yep, I'm ready to ditch those 600 by 800 jerks.

So could someone please tell me what width I should be working at now? I guess with the extra room I can finally switch to 3 columns, I'm sure you guys taught me how to do that but I forgot. :(

If only there was some way I could search my old threads in this forum to find the information I need. But as far as I'm aware, no such feature exists.