Right.... I'm confused... I was hoping to find something basic that we could attach to the rest of the site, just let them tweak the text etc.... yet most of what I find offers so much more.... their bound to sod things up!
Any other suggestions?
Right.... I'm confused... I was hoping to find something basic that we could attach to the rest of the site, just let them tweak the text etc.... yet most of what I find offers so much more.... their bound to sod things up!
Any other suggestions?
OK....some code.....
++++++++++++++++ HTML ++++++++++++++++
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Strict //EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="example.css" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="page">
<div id="container">
<div id="boxtop">
<div id="tr"></div>
<div id="tl"><img src="tl.gif"></div>
</div>
<div id="boxmiddle"></div>
<div id="boxbottom">
<img class="br" src="br.gif">
<img class="bl" src="bl.gif">
</div>
<hr class="minwidth" />
</div> <!-- container -->
</div> <!-- page -->
</body>
</html>
++++++++++++++++ CSS ++++++++++++++++
/* ----------------------------------------------------------- */
/* ------ CSS START for EXAMPLE ------ */
/* ----------------------------------------------------------- */
/* ------ GLOBAL section START ------ */
html,body
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
border-width: 0px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: #000000;
height: 100%:
width: 100%;
background-color: #000000;
}
#page
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
border-width: 0px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: #000000;
height: 100%:
width: 100%;
background-color: #f500f5;
}
/* ------ GLOBAL section END ------ */
/* ------ CONTAINER section START ------ */
#container
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 3% 0px 3px;
border-width: 1px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: #000000;
height: 100%:
width: 100%;
background-color: #f5f5f5;
min-width: 300px;
}
/* ------ CONTAINER section END ------ */
/* ------ BOX section START ------ */
#boxtop
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
border-width: 1px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: #000000;
background-color: #f5f5f5;
height: 20px;
}
#tr
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
border-width: 1px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: #000000;
background-color: #f5f5f5;
height: 20px;
width: 20px;
float: right;
background-image: url(tr.gif);
}
#tl
{
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px; …
I'm getting a little frustrated.... I'm being shouted out about all this accessability stuff, and different browsers showing fonts in different sizes, and clients wanting to enable text-sizing through the browser.... yet I seem unable to provide a site that will hold a solid, pretty design in CSS that won't break when you change the text size!
Again, Tables has no issues with this.... yet in CSS, if you change the font sizze, things tend to go whacky!
OK, I've looked at CMS's, I've thought hard about the best approach to permit/enable clients to alter their content etc..... and I'm stunned at the vast array of basically limitless powqer this app's permit.... yet none of them are simple enough or small enough to just dump and let an idiot use, nor are they capable of permitting the client to alter "their area" without flaming mine.... unless I build sites around a CMS system.... which for small business sites strikes me as daft....
SO
Does the idea of having a html/xtml page as a template, with a section that loadfs another page into sound a smart way to go? This seperates their content from the design etc... so they can't break the site or try creating new sections etc... merely alter existing content.
If this does seem sensible, how do i go about using PHP to set up an area on the web page that calls up a seperate page, (the former page is the tmeplate I make, the latter page is their content!).
Any suggestions?
Sorry... will post example code shortly... can't beleive how busy I have gotten in 3 weeks... from nothing and playing at leisure to everybody wants something, at the same time!
arghhhh!
LOL
Still, post by this evening, promise!
OK.... I can create som pretty pages, and out of preference, i go for the expanding/liquid layouts... which entails some problems, yet I am working round them!
So, I test my pages, I can get things to look the same in NN6/MFF1.0.1/IE6 for Win.... yet when I start changing the txt sizes, things tend to get a little ugly (*understatement!*).
So, I wa thinking through all I have read and seen, and I recall the units of measure for EM and EX.....
So, is it possible to build a fluid site using these values not just for text, but for the height and width of divs/objects/elements etc.?
Would this result in the whole content of the page and it's containers changing size in a relative manner, or am I just wishing?
(I ask, because I can't seem to get anywhere with this idea! LOL).
So, let me know!
rather dodgey topic... accessability.
I occassionally read these rants and whines from so called "purists" etc.... that harp on about accessability issues, and it being unfair about those with visual impairments not being able to use the web properly due to poorly constructed sites etc.
So, I've looked into it, and the only methods I've seen seem to result in sites that have to follow a set pattern of creation, and the result ends up with pages that are limited and tend to look the same.
So, is this the prescribed method?
Is this why so many css based sites look the same?
Or am I missing something?
:(
Get w div, it should stretch full width of screen!
Now, set a img in that Div, and float it right.
now set a <hr> in the Div and set the width for say 300px.
Now shrink IE6 window....past 300 px.... and the floated img still moves!
Makes no difference if you set the width of the DV to 100%, if you wrap the img in a DIV, if you try relatively positioning it things get ugly !.....if you set the Div in another wrapper/container Div, and set the body/html width, container and original div to 100% ...still the same problem.
:?:
So, is there a correct name for this bug, a method around it etc.?
Or am I the only one?
Was thinking... can't you get FTP that automatically connects and transfers data from A to B... why not just use that for the moment....set it to periodically retreive what you need from teh server.
UPDATE....
He mainly wants them to be able to alter content.... yet he has an alterior motive.... he wants me to find a simple, limited CMS that is nasty to use and complex.... basically, he's hoping to steer towards us getting as much of the work as possible..... now I'm really uncertain! LOL
So, rec's for both simple and friendly.... and nasty and mean to use CMS.?
Of course, getting it wrong is a pain, and sometimes you'll never see why!
But,m thats what we're all here for!
If you can't figure, then we might... so have a go, start with simple blocks, seperate colour for each section, get the general layout... then go from there!
Good luck!
ok, re-read his orignal post, and yep, I guess that I missed that part
*oops*
well, why not php it? set up a simple DB, single table, contains;
D&T stamp
1st Name
2nd Name
E-mail
Tel #
Details of work,
still instead of Mailto, use send/post etc to add to DB..... I think you can dump data from a php DB straight to txt deliminated files, then upload into access..... maybe access can reach into php?
OK, I may be getting a contract with a local company for building several new sites and refurbishing some current ones.... the issue is that I've been asked about CMS...... and I'm not overly sure about it at all.
It ssems that my contractor is set on the idea of his clients being able to admin' their own sites, altering content, adding pages etc.... yet I'm not particularly sure this is a good idea.
He'll lose out on update and admin fees', it will cost a small fortune for a professional CMS package, and the free ones I've seen seem a little limited, I don't think the clients will be able to alter the menu systems in place, nor alter things like css... all in all, it strikes me as a no-gainer!
So, if any one can correct me on my definition of CMS, recomend some strong free CMS's, inform me of some flexible/versatile CMS apps that permit the altering of menu's etc.... then I'd appreciate it!
Alternatives are also welcome, as are personal opionins or suggestions of differing methods!
Sorry to interupt... but if you have a cgi based form on your site, have it use the mail functions send it to an e-mail account, then daily check the e-mail acount, strip the details and save as text files, then import? You can set up outlook or Outlook express to access the e-m,ail accounts....you can even set times to auto-check(I think!)....
There is even software out there to auto-strip emails for you, if you look hard enough!
Oops.... I seem to have a habit of treating things like a blog sometimes!
*meak* sorry *shrug*
Still, is this a common problem... or do others know how to fix it?
Don't worry people.... not only have Ifigured out how to cause IE6 to emulate NN6 and MFX 1.0.1 in regards to the "overfloat" (this being when a right floated object continues floating past the point of minimum width of the container it was in), but also how to make the HR object 1 px tall, invisible and having an infuence of 2px above and 2 px below, rather the the usual 12/7.
So I got what I wanted to work in the three browsers, without the need of either tables or a hack!
(still can't believe the lack of help.... is thios a common problem with css?)
update... tables has it's own issues... min-width is OK, no floating over the desired point OK, yet havegaps vetween cells and can't get a bg-img on the % middle cell!
So muc hfor CSS being better than tables... new I'd have problems as soon as I wanted something that is standard in tables!
oh well..... if you do have an idea, your welcome to post it!
sod it, no one here or at CSS creator has come up with anything apart from a hack.... so I'll go to tables for the top and bottom bar!
Shame, as I thought CSS was doing so well, (one I figured how things go together! Yet it appears even the pro's have the same problem on their sites, so I'll default to good old reliable tables to get around this!
cheers anyway for looking!
Please?
I've done really well converting a table site to css... apart from this stupid issue of the images floating over everything....
a simple 3x3 design, content in middle, surrounding dives with background images , corners stay the same size, the H and V middles are expandable.
This is simple in tables... so why so difficult in css?
Hi all,
OK, I can use the " minwidth: nnpx; " for most browsers, for IE I can use " <hr /> ".
That mostly sorts out setting a minimum width... apart from the fact that I want a gap between the viewportal/screen-res and the content of the page!
Any images I have on the right continue to shift in IE6, even beyonf what I set the <hr> to......
I've had a play, and I can stop it from happening, but only to cause my floats to drop!
any idea's?
All I want to acheive is a set of rows positioned below each other with pretty corners/edges, that only shrinks to either 640 or 800 in width!
Ah yes.... possibly the best advice......
"<!--comments go here-->"
"/*comments go here*/"
Comment tags! the top is for HTML/XML/XHTML, the bottom is for CSS.
Use them... seperate and lable each container, section..... describe what particular CSS coding does and why it's there! If you come back after 4 hours.... chances are you'll forget!
theres only one way to learn.... get it wrong! Then slowly work through and figure why!
Also, you can find most things on the net.... I generally get full coding syntax and elemnt lists, accepted colours, measuurements, browser compatability tables, element and browser compatability lists, browser specific bugs and issues, models and examples, good coding tips etc .... all from various web sites!
Seriously, my CSS pad is around 72 pages at present, and growing every couple of days as I type up notes!
and BIG helpful hint.... save! Lots and Often! Nothing worse than backtracking and trying to figure what of the last 40 things caused xxx to happen!
ah.... thats a relief.... came up in a discussion about SEO ethics.... somebody tried convincing me that JS is bad, and I should use DOM (bad statement!).... and several other topics and articles on the net were suggesting the same sort of thing....
still, no worries!
thank you.
You wouldn't be hijacking a thread would you?
of course not.... you n=meant to post a new thread and hit the wrong button, yah?
:grin:
start your thread, and you'll get more responses!
ah.... got there before I could!
Just read about .net having the jet engine!
Oh well... atleast it means you can do it!
Just a quick question.....
So, how supported is JS?
Do most viewers have it permissable? It strikes me as odd that I am being told by certain people that JS is bad and being phased out etc... yet it is used quite heavily in conjunction with other languages, or singular for affects and menus..... so I'm confused.
Is it ok to use, is there a moderate risk to viewers not seeing the JS results, or is the risk so small that it isn't a major concern?
Exciting Things -> Fear
ahy, I think this might help then.... not precisely for your means, yet has the rough details you want (I think)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/createdw/createdw_7xnp.asp
erm, not 100% sure what exactly you want..... yet can't you create a table with the headings of....
Title
Department/Division
Position
Type
First Name
Last Name
Xtra Dtls
....then have a select list for each of these....
"Type" would have Perm/Temp,
"Department/Division" would have Tech/Admin/Acc
and so on.
Either set these up as list items for that field.... or as seperate tables linked to the relevant fields.
Just make sure thant NOBODY can go and alter these records once done.... only with proper access....your bosses wouldn't be happy if the MD bacame a temporary Tea Boy LOL
Seems fine to me!
Just a note, but it's stuffed in NN6 for win..... broswer doesn't seem to support fancy css menu's!
So, what if the site you have has little wasy of linking to other sites?
Say there are no other sites of a related nature, or those that do exist are in competition with you?
I'm finding the linking aspect the biggest pain of all... I found keywords and descriptions easy, it's the rest that is stuffing me!
I think most forms of SEO are fine... sol ong as links and txt are related to the pages/site, then not aproblem.
It's the SE themselves that cause alot of problems for designers.
Maybe a system to report bad links or shoddy sites?
a method to rate impressive sites?
a way to index them by browser compatability?
Provide code level ratings?
These are the things that cause issues, as well as poor meta tags or purposeful lies.
That would make refrencing much easier, particularly if you ensure search capabilities and queries geared towards that design mode.......
To be honest, there is nothing stopping you from designing the DW DB completely differently from the OD DB, so long as their output files can be read .... so either they need to output in you format, or you need to input in their format..... otherwise there is the danger of misplacing or misreading data.... whic h will contaminate or worse, stuff access!
Personally, I use pen and paper.
Jot down all the details that will be inc. in the OD DB, check that all of these will be needed in the WD DB, and no new one s added, (if so, add them!). Then check and see that the table design is the same.
There should be little difference..... unmless the output/input file is flat (all tables are compiuled into a few etc.), in which your'e life just got really simple! LOL
Still, best of luck... and let me know how it goes!
To do the sort of thing you wnat, you will have to design the DB in one of the following fashions...
1) keyword tables.... have tables with the correct word/term....then have fields for all the additional alternatives and abbrv.
2) generate standard tables with the keywards in, then ensure that you have strong queries that contain all the variants and abbrv.
I'd actually suggest both.
I don't get it.... either the menu's work in IE and not NN, or they work in NN but not IE!
I can use a .htc file to solve IE's hover problem.... great... yet my menu at the mo' shows in NN, yet disappears before you can reach the new sections....
May have to look at the code for the Zen Garden..... though it looks about the same as sucker fish... it works inb NN6 though, and sucker fish didn't!
well.... the cheating method would be to copy the structure from the OD DB, then alter the permissions....turn of edit, update and append, then generate the various reports....like I said, cheating!
The design approach relies on the original too! You need to know the names of every field and table, and probably most of the coding/script that is used as well, before you can alter settings... basically you'd just program/create a copy of the structure and then work through turning things on/off.
Two dfifferent approaches, yet both fdoing identical things.
The third relies on the output format of the OD DB.... if they compute the rcords then produce a new record.... a flat file, then post that to the WH DB, then you jest create a flat DB.... one that will read releveant titles/labels/field, and is able to pull those figure up indivudally, over a date period etc. Nothing complicated there!
(Pray for this one! EASY!)
To save yourself alot of headaches.... you'd probably be best of waiting for the OD DB to be made, then alter that.... that way you ensure that all titles/labels are the same etc. ALternative, talk to those developing the OD DB, and see what their intentions are.... it would save both groups a lot of design problems igf you know who each DB is intending to work!
So, go talk over coffe etc, and see what they plan. Ask if they can tell you about any changes, problems …
In nn6, you only get the basic menu... no foldouts/drop downs over the top!
So long as I make the head section of each a link to an intermediary page with a sectional menu, it would still work.
Whats bugging me is I have seen a css menu that uses expansion.... and lists I think.
Logic says that if I creat a list with sub lists, with hide over it, then if the browsers doesn't support css, then it looks normal without the pretty ness, and shows all, yet other borwsers would be able to hide things......
maybe a header menu system with a div that permits callouts... thuis sub menus would appear below...?
going to go play for a bit.. .and rant! Need caff' and bac'.
let you know what I find or come up with!
hmmm....
...cjgraphix...
1) web standards...... aren't adhered to by the most common (or less common) browsers fully. If they were, everyones life would be easier!
2) css isn't even fully supported by browsers... version 1 still needs full implementation in some modern browsers, and as for css2 + 3.... LOL... yet another 2 years away minimum. As for using tables instead of Divs... aparently thats bad form for layout! Thats what CSS is for.... tables should be for displaying statistics and other such data displays (unfortunately!)
3) phasing out is almost guarenteed..... then again... so is html! depreciation will ruin alot of sites... apart from the very bland and basic whgich look the same on all browsers, and probably will for the next 7 years until a new language is thought up!
4) Dom is a good thing.... yet suprisingly, isn't fully supported either!
5) accessability.... good point.... yet the web is primarily a a "visual" medium. No offence. I think it is a wonderful thing that we can now enable this medium to be accessed by those previously excluded from it... yet that should be a secondary sight, after ensuring a sight works. the percentage of blind or visually impaired net users isn't significant enough to warrant a strong point in design perspective.... it should be, yet thats business ethics for you!
6) as a final boost.... maybe it isn't the designers that are at fault.... maybe the browser providers should be …
ok... the bread crumb I could make standard for most things... offers simple mode of backtracking through a site!
having a php include menu still won't permit things like foldouts or drops though.... it appear to be compatible means to stick to the basic... which is a shame!
AH... NOTE.... has anyone used NN6 and looked at the suckerfish menu's.... none of them work in NN6! damn... AND i WAS GETTING TEMPTED TO USE IT!
I want to avoid reloading the page just to advance a menu...
I can't use frames.....
I can't use js....
Java is bad.....(apparently)
So... this leaves my with basic html/xml tags, generic DOM....and basic CSS
Well, I can get the equivelent of Rollovers then that degrade....and I can create huge lists as a menu... which though pretty, beats the idea.....
Nope... I now think it can't be done.
The only alternative I can think of is to "page per section" the menu.... which is pathetic and makes the site look like it was mad by a moron! I might as well go and stick big tacky button images behind it as well just to finish it off!
Well, I'm off to rant and moan to my self for a while!
See what you think of this.....
JS files...external....2......
JS script....internal......lots....
the one you want.....(2 parts)
(part1_____the JS that does all the work!)
<script language="javascript">
function screenup(n){
screenow = window.open('/screenshots/up.asp?col=24112004&n='+n,'screenow','width=790,height=574,resizable=no,scrollbars=no,menubar=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,status=no');
}
function fcnDisplay(n){
xGetElementById('displayImg').src = '/screenshots/24112004/'+n+'n.jpg';
}
function EVE_preloadImages() {
var d=document; if(d.images){ if(!d.EVE_p) d.EVE_p=new Array();
var i,j=d.EVE_p.length,a=EVE_preloadImages.arguments; for(i=0; i<a.length; i++)
if (a[i].indexOf("#")!=0){ d.EVE_p[j]=new Image; d.EVE_p[j++].src=a[i];}}
}
document.onload = EVE_preloadImages('02n.jpg, 03n.jpg, 04n.jpg, 05n.jpg, 06n.jpg, 07n.jpg, 08n.jpg, 09n.jpg, 10n.jpg');
</script>
(part 2_____The code to call the JS... note the '##' for fcnDisplay + screenup !!!)
<td align="center"><a href="#sh" onclick="fcnDisplay('01')"><img src="24112004/01m.jpg" class="thumbs"></a><br><a href="#sh" onclick="screenup('01')"><img src="/bitmaps/img/fullscreen.gif" border="0"></a></td>
Is that any help ?
PLEASE NOTE...code is pasted as an example!
It is by no means meant asa breach of Copyright, nor to be copied.
The bread crumbs idea is ok.... yet may make the site a little untidy.... not the sort of design they want!
(typical! LOL).
I have no idea what the last part was about.... could you explain it a little, please?
The only thing I can think of is that they click on menu item 1, which takes them to a page for that section, on which is another menu..... yet thats a little tacky to be honest..... not to mention annoying!
e.g
- (rp) = real page
- (sctn) = section...go to this page to see the pages below
homepage - (rp)
club - (sctn)
***details - (rp)
***history - (rp)
style - (sctn)
***description
***kata - (sctn)
******kata 1 - (rp)
******kata 2 - (rp)
******kata 3 - (rp)
***weapons - (sctn)
******weapon 1 - (rp)
******weapon 2 - (rp)
******weapon 3 - (rp)
I thought we had gone past all of that.... yet to make a WS "properly" and to "conform" I can just slap a funky menu in there, ("apparently"), incase it isn't supported.... (be it CSS or JS, Js also being shot by SE's!).....
Hell, they don't make this anything close to easy do they!
Sorry... I can't help... but if I could ask some details.... what is data warehousing?
Operational DB.... the DB a company uses during the day?
Warehouse DB.... somewhere you put backups?
You'd need a DB engine!
Access has it's own engine... yet the saved files are only data, they don't contain anything else about from the basic tables, table records and the details for relationships and scripts/macro's etc. as well as forms/reports etc.
Sou you'd need to supply something that could access that file type (.mdb).
I remember that you could purchase something from MS to ship Access DB's..... you could export the DB as a standalone application... it would basically include an engine for it!
In short, I think you need a component, or something to access MDB files.
If you hold for a bit... I'll see what I can dig up!
May be rude to ask, but care to tell us the names/addresses of the company that want to charge you a fortune for mysql?
I think companies like that should be shouted out on the net so others are warned!
illegal -> Sting
(anyone else get that?)
ketchup -> sauce
Tell you something... I'm going mad trying to find all this stuff.... over 100 sheets just for css.... which is basically simple!
The code is basic, the applications are linear... it's the flaming browsers that have me printing everything! XXX: xxx; works in aa, bb, cc2, cc3, eee, 0004, but not ooo1,2,3....etc! Same goes for the doctypes, boxmodels, inline: block; etc.!
Damn confusing!
Still, figured some stuff out, will play with menus this week, se what I can foul up!
Still need to think of a safe alternative navigation idea incase a viewer has an older browser or no JS support!
html 4.01 strict... seems to be one of the more accepted modes/dovtypes.
Not sure about the khtml.... I just intend to keep the html to a basic, then see what it validates as! Seems the easiest way to ensure the correct dovtype to me! LOL
Well, theres a section on the forum for posting tutorials and such, I think I might type up all my little hint's tips etc. and post them there.... as well as useful links to cooour guides, examples, reference materials etc.
To clarify...strong coding as in JS menu systems etc.
I am not disagreeing about the ethics of business... what I am "complaining" (and I am, I like a good whinge every now and then! LOL), is the fact that sites get little rating based on design, flair, layout etc...... if you generate something bland and basic, you actually have a better chance at the top 10.... where as having a well structured site with nice little extras gets you no where else, or worse, lower in the rankings because the SE doesn't like JS menu's, flash etc.
Why aren't these things supported by the SEO, considering there so common place... maybe not mainstream, but enough sites utilise this stuff, yet suffer for it?
Try me... go on! Build a content for a web site consisting of around 20 pages... have 3 pages set 3 deep, 2 pages set 4 deep, the rest can all be on level 1.
Then you build two sites... one bland, stuck the txt in the html, stick a couple of HD tags in, txt link the pages... done! The other, use a js menu, add grapics and layout... make the content defined and attention grabbing with visual aids... possible add media etc.
The first site will come out on top!
IMO, this is the unfair part. I also believe it to be unethical due to the SE's keeping this way.... in a way, it makes the design process a …
so you don't think the way the SE operate or grade sites is outdated or biased towards certain styles of design?
You think it's perfectly fair that a media based site should be penailised for having a media welcome rather than a txt welcome? That sites that fall outside the standard categories should suffer? That sites that use strong coding are automatically less important than those coded with txt links?
yep, thats obviously fair and ethical.
So's the fact that those who own the SE are able to charge and place those that pay above others....
"money makes money, no money makes little or less!"