[thelist] pixels for table ???

david braun david.braun at centralnet.ch
Wed Jan 24 10:39:31 CST 2001


On 24.01.2001 at 11:52 Uhr, charlie at broadway.org.uk (Charlie Ulyatt) wrote:

> Basic question.......
> 
> when using a table to lay out the design of a web page .... I've noticed
> some set it to 100% (as I have been doing) and others go for a fixed no of
> pixels which is what I suspect I should be doing.... any views on this ...
> (and if it is a number of pixels ... any advice on how many....)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Charlie

though fixed-sized page can look quite strange (like, a 400px wide table
in a window 1600px wide), they have the advantage that you have control
over it, so that you can give a maximum line-width, for example. (I hate
pages that have text running from 1 end of the screen to the other) (I'm
in front of a 21' monitor)

on the other hand, a fixed-width table overrides the window's width,
thus annoying everyone in front of a smaller-than-your-table screen,
and/or lots of white-space on much-bigger-than-your-table screen...

if you're going to use fixed widths, and you want to keep
'printability', make some experiments how big (or small) the table needs
to be to remain printability (print-a-bility -- what a word!)

be also aware that setting the table to 100% width _can_ screw-up in
some situations (netscape rendering the table too large, forcing itself
to get the horizontal scrollbars)

so, as long as there's no conditional way to define a tables width (if
the window's width is bigger than 800, make the table 720 wide, or else
make it 100%), you'll stay with caveats for any of the two solutions)

my2c
hth

david
---------------------------------------------
"we don't see that we don't see what we can't see" (H. v. Foerster)


david braun  |  david.braun at centralnet.ch  |  icq 105127124




More information about the thelist mailing list