The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi all, Happy New Year,
I have been asked by a client to build them a new website using a wavy style font which I will have to specially buy for her, a bit like lucida handwriting.
I usually do a: ....etc. Obviously if I build the site using a font which others may not have on there pc or mac it will default to the next one specified in html.
Is there any way to embed a font on a site, maybe place it on the server with the webpages and 'call it' when the page loads ???. I don't tend to use css as I've never really sat down to try, though it does appear that by the time I put the style id tags in I may as well have specified the font in html as above !!!
Any thoughts gratefully received, Dan
I have been asked by a client to build them a new website using a wavy style font which I will have to specially buy for her, a bit like lucida handwriting.
I usually do a: ....etc. Obviously if I build the site using a font which others may not have on there pc or mac it will default to the next one specified in html.
Is there any way to embed a font on a site, maybe place it on the server with the webpages and 'call it' when the page loads ???. I don't tend to use css as I've never really sat down to try, though it does appear that by the time I put the style id tags in I may as well have specified the font in html as above !!!
Any thoughts gratefully received, Dan
Page:
I have to say I agree with the user who says that using css for layout is a nightmare. Up to now, our Admiral Design and Print website has been built using tables, with css used to style text, headings, etc.
As it now needs a major revamp, I thought I would attempt to do it all using css - what a nightmare! I spent the weekend climbing the steep learning curve of css layouts with the help of some great books by Dan Cederholm - sounded great in theory, and very accessible to disabled users.
With difficulty, got most of my layout working in IE7 (Win), but checked on IE6 at work (OK), and IE5 (mac), newer OSX IE (version?), Firefox and Safari (mac) - ALL mac layouts broke badly (2 column layout). So I'm inclined to agree with the person who recommended tables for consistent cross-platform layout, and css for the rest - until more people consistently use browsers with full support for css2.
I do of course recognise that there will always be bugs! Sad fact of life... ;-)
As it now needs a major revamp, I thought I would attempt to do it all using css - what a nightmare! I spent the weekend climbing the steep learning curve of css layouts with the help of some great books by Dan Cederholm - sounded great in theory, and very accessible to disabled users.
With difficulty, got most of my layout working in IE7 (Win), but checked on IE6 at work (OK), and IE5 (mac), newer OSX IE (version?), Firefox and Safari (mac) - ALL mac layouts broke badly (2 column layout). So I'm inclined to agree with the person who recommended tables for consistent cross-platform layout, and css for the rest - until more people consistently use browsers with full support for css2.
I do of course recognise that there will always be bugs! Sad fact of life... ;-)
loki wrote:
> Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple
> columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support
> older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to
> display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can
> throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Well, I do this for a living. I've done more than a few websites at this point. And it depends what you mean by older browsers. I admit my sites crash in IE 3. :-)
> Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required
> hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of
> the different implementation of the box model.
Yet if you turn on standards mode IE6 implements the box model correctly.
> CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and
> backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
Simplicity is entirely subjective. You do view source on this page and you might see a logical collection of tables laying out the site. Yet all I see is a unmaintainable mess. :) I'm 100% certain the CSS equivalent would be alot simpler (to me anyway).
Backwards compatibility has always been the major sticking point of course. Yet at this stage its not the compelling argument against CSS layouts it once was. For instance the mobile market is growing forever larger, do we ignore them in favour of backwards compatibility (table layouts arent the preferred solution for mobile devices)? And of course those "difficult" browsers are always dropping out of use and support.
> Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple
> columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support
> older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to
> display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can
> throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Well, I do this for a living. I've done more than a few websites at this point. And it depends what you mean by older browsers. I admit my sites crash in IE 3. :-)
> Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required
> hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of
> the different implementation of the box model.
Yet if you turn on standards mode IE6 implements the box model correctly.
> CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and
> backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
Simplicity is entirely subjective. You do view source on this page and you might see a logical collection of tables laying out the site. Yet all I see is a unmaintainable mess. :) I'm 100% certain the CSS equivalent would be alot simpler (to me anyway).
Backwards compatibility has always been the major sticking point of course. Yet at this stage its not the compelling argument against CSS layouts it once was. For instance the mobile market is growing forever larger, do we ignore them in favour of backwards compatibility (table layouts arent the preferred solution for mobile devices)? And of course those "difficult" browsers are always dropping out of use and support.
Garin wrote:
> My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS
> for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of the different implementation of the box model.
CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
> My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS
> for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of the different implementation of the box model.
CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
At no point have I suggested that people who use tables are inferior, simple or anything else. As I said I'm no CSS zealot and if people want to use tables and they're happy what do I care.
My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
And yes I'm quite aware that Freeola use a table based layout but as I say I wasnt being critical of it.
My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
And yes I'm quite aware that Freeola use a table based layout but as I say I wasnt being critical of it.
This point is clearly demonstrated by the thread: a breath of fresh air with Css, by nitro goat.
Even an old hand like digitrader is having problems.
I think the point I'm tying to make is KEEP IT SIMPLE, no we who use tables are NOT. It just works great and we don't encounter such a simple thing as a scrollbar colour change as a mountain to climb. HTML in in a table or not !!
FIN.
Even an old hand like digitrader is having problems.
I think the point I'm tying to make is KEEP IT SIMPLE, no we who use tables are NOT. It just works great and we don't encounter such a simple thing as a scrollbar colour change as a mountain to climb. HTML in in a table or not !!
FIN.
Garin.....I have a Shock discovery for you tonight,
Yes I have to reveal that 'Freeola' dare to use the dreaded 'Tables'.
I quote from source code:
Utterly shocking......... what no css.
Is it really necessary ?????, tables contain content consistently across mac & pc browsers.WYSIWYG.
By the time you have specified all the fonts you want in css by 'div' or 'id' you may as well have done the old: , copy & paste it's still consistant.
Each to their own, I don't consider myself a caveman for using them, IF it's good enough for Freeola it's OK for me.
Dan
Yes I have to reveal that 'Freeola' dare to use the dreaded 'Tables'.
I quote from source code:
Site Map | Freeola Home |
Utterly shocking......... what no css.
Is it really necessary ?????, tables contain content consistently across mac & pc browsers.WYSIWYG.
By the time you have specified all the fonts you want in css by 'div' or 'id' you may as well have done the old: , copy & paste it's still consistant.
Each to their own, I don't consider myself a caveman for using them, IF it's good enough for Freeola it's OK for me.
Dan
loki wrote:
> In my opinion these people are just being unrealistic. Tables
> are simpl and layouts work near flawlessly across all major
> browsers. CSS layouts tend to rely on hacks to get round
> differences in browser engines. How is that progress?
I think its maybe 4 years since I started using CSS only for layouts. In that time I've not used a hack once. The only time I've been tempted to use hacks is when trying to achieve things that you cant accomplish with tables anyway. So you'll need a better excuse than that. :)
Dont get me wrong, I'm no CSS zealot. If people want to use tables, good luck to them. Yet I use CSS for entirely practical reasons rather than any noble goals of web standards/progress etc.. Admittedly there is a steep learning curve but when you get over that, its simply faster and easier to use CSS.
> In my opinion these people are just being unrealistic. Tables
> are simpl and layouts work near flawlessly across all major
> browsers. CSS layouts tend to rely on hacks to get round
> differences in browser engines. How is that progress?
I think its maybe 4 years since I started using CSS only for layouts. In that time I've not used a hack once. The only time I've been tempted to use hacks is when trying to achieve things that you cant accomplish with tables anyway. So you'll need a better excuse than that. :)
Dont get me wrong, I'm no CSS zealot. If people want to use tables, good luck to them. Yet I use CSS for entirely practical reasons rather than any noble goals of web standards/progress etc.. Admittedly there is a steep learning curve but when you get over that, its simply faster and easier to use CSS.
Hmmm... wrote:
> I haven't got a problem with using tables, but as I said they
> are now often seen as 'old hat' with the general thinking that
> they should be replaced with CSS. So perhaps if you are going
> for a re-write you should take a look at CSS as well?
Yes, some people actually are rather too evangelical about CSS and see anyone using tables as luddites who shouldn't be allowed to build websites.
In my opinion these people are just being unrealistic. Tables are simpl and layouts work near flawlessly across all major browsers. CSS layouts tend to rely on hacks to get round differences in browser engines. How is that progress?
CSS layouts are great in theory, but in the real world (ie. a world where most people use IE), a combination of tables and CSS styling works well and I see no compelling reason to ditch tables yet.
> I haven't got a problem with using tables, but as I said they
> are now often seen as 'old hat' with the general thinking that
> they should be replaced with CSS. So perhaps if you are going
> for a re-write you should take a look at CSS as well?
Yes, some people actually are rather too evangelical about CSS and see anyone using tables as luddites who shouldn't be allowed to build websites.
In my opinion these people are just being unrealistic. Tables are simpl and layouts work near flawlessly across all major browsers. CSS layouts tend to rely on hacks to get round differences in browser engines. How is that progress?
CSS layouts are great in theory, but in the real world (ie. a world where most people use IE), a combination of tables and CSS styling works well and I see no compelling reason to ditch tables yet.
Dan 777 wrote:
> Thanks for the advice, have now re done site without frames
> (still no css). Tables set at 100% for title & nav, 740
> pixels fixed for page contents.
>
> Still looks ok in 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768.
>
> Let me know what you think - Hmmm.
>
> Dan
Removing your FRAMES should help you in the SE front!
Don't forget to have different page titles for each page - you can do this now you have separate pages! SEs like page titles...
Careful you don't get too spammy with your main logo ALT tag - SEs don't like SPAM...
> Thanks for the advice, have now re done site without frames
> (still no css). Tables set at 100% for title & nav, 740
> pixels fixed for page contents.
>
> Still looks ok in 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768.
>
> Let me know what you think - Hmmm.
>
> Dan
Removing your FRAMES should help you in the SE front!
Don't forget to have different page titles for each page - you can do this now you have separate pages! SEs like page titles...
Careful you don't get too spammy with your main logo ALT tag - SEs don't like SPAM...
Thanks for the advice, have now re done site without frames (still no css). Tables set at 100% for title & nav, 740 pixels fixed for page contents.
Still looks ok in 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768.
Let me know what you think - Hmmm.
Dan
Hmmm... wrote:
> Yep - that'll do it.
>
> I don't use percentages but set the table width in pixels.
>
> The BBC spend a lot of money on their website, so I often see
> what they do on their news site.
>
> They set the table to 760 pixels wide and align the table to the
> left. If you centralise the table then you need to reduce the
> width a bit to ensure you don't get horizontal scroll bars.
>
> As you say the navigation elements will only have to load once -
> that same goes for the logos etc. in your header.
>
> I haven't got a problem with using tables, but as I said they
> are now often seen as 'old hat' with the general thinking that
> they should be replaced with CSS. So perhaps if you are going
> for a re-write you should take a look at CSS as well?
>
> Getting away from frames will also allow you to use a different
> page title, meta tags and alt tags on your logo for each page -
> which will help you on the search engine front!
Still looks ok in 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768.
Let me know what you think - Hmmm.
Dan
Hmmm... wrote:
> Yep - that'll do it.
>
> I don't use percentages but set the table width in pixels.
>
> The BBC spend a lot of money on their website, so I often see
> what they do on their news site.
>
> They set the table to 760 pixels wide and align the table to the
> left. If you centralise the table then you need to reduce the
> width a bit to ensure you don't get horizontal scroll bars.
>
> As you say the navigation elements will only have to load once -
> that same goes for the logos etc. in your header.
>
> I haven't got a problem with using tables, but as I said they
> are now often seen as 'old hat' with the general thinking that
> they should be replaced with CSS. So perhaps if you are going
> for a re-write you should take a look at CSS as well?
>
> Getting away from frames will also allow you to use a different
> page title, meta tags and alt tags on your logo for each page -
> which will help you on the search engine front!
Page: