|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Absolute - relative table widths (Read 1746 times)
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
 Offline
Posts: 9255
|
I don't need an explanation of the two different types of table widths you can use in a website but I was just wondering which one people use and why?
I use absolute or fixed because I like to keep control of my tables. They remain constant regardless of the size of browser being used. However some web design sites state you should use relative that change size depending on the user's browser.
What do you think?
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
 Online
Posts: 16629
|
I haven't had all that much experience with tables so far, Kerry. As you know I've only designed one website.
For my single line trees I've used absolute/fixed because of the way various browsers might interpret them otherwise. I've also centred my layout in browser for each page. I've checked how they look in all the main browsers and three different monitor resolutions and they seem to be fine.
Gadget
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Online
Posts: 880
|
I prefer relative values as they expand with the resolution rather than leaving the table hanging in acres of blank (background coloured) screen giving the page a lopsided look.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 9255
|
I agree with you Gadget, I have used absolute on my family tree tables for the very same reasons.
However rereading my Website Design book by Joes Sklar (a web design expert) from my course 2 years ago it says that the advantage to relative width is that the resulting table is more compatible across various browser window sizes and screen resolutions.
The disadvantage is that you, the designer loses control because the content shifts across browser window size.
I have used absolute in both my websites because I like to keep control and just wondered what others think about this.
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
kerryb
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 9255
|
I prefer relative values as they expand with the resolution rather than leaving the table hanging in acres of blank (background coloured) screen giving the page a lopsided look.
Cheers
Guy
I understand your point Guy but for something like the single line family tree if I was to use relative width I don't think the result would be very readable? Maybe I should have a go and see what the result is.
But because the contents of the boxes are relatively small I think they could look odd.
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukSearching for my family - Baldwin - Sussex, Middlesex, Cork, Pilbeam - Sussex, Harmer - Sussex, Terry - Surrey, Kent, Rhoades - Lincs, Roffey - Surrey, Traies - Devon & Middlesex & many many more to be found on my website .... www.kerrysfamilyhistory.co.uk |
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
Online
Posts: 16629
|
Guy
By using 'centre in browser', you tend not to get vast acres of space.
However, I think the main problem with many web pages is that there isn't enough space so that everything merges into a mass of text and images.
It's horses for courses really - what is your aim, what is your message (information), who are your users, what will they want from your site, etc.,etc., etc.
Just standard systems analysis really before you get to the design stage.
Gadget
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comosus
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 789
|
I prefer them to be relative. On high resolutions it can really save on space to have them as wide as possible. With absolute I'd have to make the tables on all resolutions about 780 pixels wide to allow for the 800x600 resolution. I have captions on some of the photos on my site (holmes.rootschat.net). Some rows have several people on and making them a certain width would make the table very long on resolutions like 1024x768, when it didn't need to be.
My "main" section on my site is set to 100% width because:
1. The tree section is on 100% width
2. The tree section is really squashed on 800x600 and I want it bigger on resolutions that allow it
3. Tables aren't as long as they would be on bigger resolutions
I do have absolute values on tables like those on my tree. They would become unnecessarily wide otherwise. I try to make my site easy to view on as many settings as possible.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Leeds - HOLMES (also at Boston Spa, Thorp Arch), SCHOLEY/SCOREY/SCHORAH (also at Stanley, Wakefield), TURVEY (also at Birmingham), WARD, WHITE, WOODHEAD (also at Halton, Whitkirk, Templenewsam). Dewbury - CRAWSHAW, GLEDHILL, SPEIGHT Great Horton - RAMSDEN, SHACKLETON, WOOLER Woolsthorpe by Belvoir - SMITH Barrowby and South Stoke, Lincolnshire - PARKER Derby and Newhall - STREET Census information Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
Online
Posts: 16629
|
Thanks Guy
We've had a thread going on different screen resolutions for a while 
I've not had any comments about problems from anyone so far.
Gadget
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Online
Posts: 880
|
Not so much problems but how it looks, although centering a table on a page may cause problems with those who use multiple monitors as then the table may be broken between the two monitors.
I use a multiple monitor setup where I can have each monitor behaving as a seperate screen using its own preferred resolution or combined at a single resolution to form a wide image.
This allows me to view wide pages without scrolling, or view an image (census) on one screen whilst working on say the family tree program on another.
I would say it really boils down to personal choice there are advantages and disadvantages in both methods.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gadget
RootsChat Marquessate
Online
Posts: 16629
|
You are very rare to use multiple monitors.
In terms of resolution, my latest stats have:
1024 x 768 46%
1280 x 1024 27%
800 x 600 12%
I think these were very similar to those that Julian put up last night.
Looks are a personal preference - I have had a visual arts training as well as computing - but I do hate the 'all over' effect that one often finds. It becomes like wallpaper.
Is this caused by using relative?
The eye needs places to rest.
Gadget
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bill749
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1172
crowdin' 60 and still wearin' genes!
|
I wouldn't think too many people will be using Guy's 2-monitor seup to view wide pages!
The following is my personal preference, but one which I have always adhered to and advised my students to follow. I have also heard similar views expressed by professional designers at various conferences over the years.
I always use absolute on my web pages for several reasons, one being, as stated before, that the pages will display exactly the same in any resolution.
Also, because I use large numbers of photographs on my pages, I want the text to line up under, or alongside, the pictures and not "slip" to the side on a wide screen. You cannot use relative sizing on photographs as they would become distorted if the browser window is not set to precicely the right aspect ratio.
Another (much less obvious) problem with relative sizing is that the browser has to calculate the sizes before the table and other elements can be displayed, whereas absolute sizing will be displayed without any additional work by the browser, which very slightly imprives the rendering time for the pages.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Banks, Beer, Bowes, Castle, Cloak, Coachworth, Dixon, Farr, Golder, Graves, Hicks, Hogbin, Holmans, Marsh, Mummery, Nutting, Pierce, Rouse, Sawyer, Sharp, Snell, Willis: mostly in East Kent. Ey, Sawyer: London Evans: Ystradgynlais, Wales Snell: Snettisham, Norfolk Knight, Burgess, Ellis: Hampshire Purdy: Ireland/Canada/Durham/Pennsylvania McCann: Ireland Morrow: Pennsylvania Sparnon: any Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Burrow Digger
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1194
|
I use relative widths coz that's how I was taught to make tables. 
I also find that using absolute widths mean that I have to work to the "smallest common denominator" ie the 800x600 screen. Those using 1024 screens get a lot of open empty space - doesn't look so good.
BD
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bill749
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1172
crowdin' 60 and still wearin' genes!
|
My screen resolution is set to 1400x1050, but I still design my pages to fit 800x600 as the lowest common denominator. Don't forget that the browser window can be set to any size - it does not have to be full screen - so whatever resolution you are using on your screen you can have your browser display the pages in a window of the appropriate size, so no empty space!
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Banks, Beer, Bowes, Castle, Cloak, Coachworth, Dixon, Farr, Golder, Graves, Hicks, Hogbin, Holmans, Marsh, Mummery, Nutting, Pierce, Rouse, Sawyer, Sharp, Snell, Willis: mostly in East Kent. Ey, Sawyer: London Evans: Ystradgynlais, Wales Snell: Snettisham, Norfolk Knight, Burgess, Ellis: Hampshire Purdy: Ireland/Canada/Durham/Pennsylvania McCann: Ireland Morrow: Pennsylvania Sparnon: any Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
|
|
|
