Ok - I admit it - I still use nested tables for gals - I need a good DIV tutorial....

[EddyTheDog]

I have been playing with DreamWeaver all night and I can not get the hang of these new fangled 'div' things.

They don't align properly and pop in any place on the page they bloody well like!

I need it to work with the Repeat Region as well as I do most of my gals from a database, and that makes it even worse.

I have Googled until my fingers are numb and I can't find a tutorial that helps.

HELP before another laptop is launched out of the window....

[FlexxAeon]

lol....i remember tables

if the web tutorials aren't doing it for you then you must be having a specific problem?

if you're not using divs with CSS then you're only doing it half right

[webboy21]

willing to help...for a price of course ;)

[FlexxAeon]

just offhand i'd do a gal something like:

CSS

.main {
     margin: 0;
     padding: 0;
     width: 800px;
}

.thumbholder {
     float: left;
     margin: 0;
     padding: 0;
     width: 200px;
     height: 200px;
}

HTML

<div class="main">

     <div class="thumbholder">
     <img src="thumb.jpg" />
     </div>


     <div class="thumbholder">
     <img src="thumb.jpg" />
     </div>

     (etc as many times as you need thumbs)

</div>

but thats bare-bones, basic, no style whatsoever. just a jump off point

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by webboy21

willing to help...for a price of course ;)

Another couple of days/nights of this and I might even take you up on that!

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

just offhand i'd do a gal something like:

CSS

.main {
     margin: 0;
     padding: 0;
     width: 800px;
}

.thumbholder {
     float: left;
     margin: 0;
     padding: 0;
     width: 200px;
     height: 200px;
}

HTML

<div class="main">

     <div class="thumbholder">
     <img src="thumb.jpg" />
     </div>


     <div class="thumbholder">
     <img src="thumb.jpg" />
     </div>

     (etc as many times as you need thumbs)

</div>

but thats bare-bones, basic, no style whatsoever. just a jump off point

That does help.

I think it is the 'float' that I am getting wrong.

Thanks

[FlexxAeon]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

That does help.

I think it is the 'float' that I am getting wrong.

Thanks

yeah floats can get ugly. hard to explain but varying div heights will make them go awry. they'll also go bad if they "think" they have more width to span across than they actually do. comes down to pixels being exact. to have full control over them make sure that divs that are floating one after the other are either all the same height or are somehow cleared inbetween.

[munki]

Cock Swallowing Sluts ftw...

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

yeah floats can get ugly. hard to explain but varying div heights will make them go awry. they'll also go bad if they "think" they have more width to span across than they actually do. comes down to pixels being exact. to have full control over them make sure that divs that are floating one after the other are either all the same height or are somehow cleared inbetween.

I think you have cracked my problem.

I have been adding content and letting the div deal with size (height) itself. I need to fix the size of the div and make sure it can fit the content. That combined with my confusion over floats is causing the issues I am sure.

So bloody obvious!

Should have come to GFY first .

Thanks Again.

Damian

[raymor]

Here's a simple recipe.

Start with a fresh page, nothing but thumbs iin divs to start. That will isolate problems from other supposedly unrelated CSS or elements.

Your divs contain thumbs. Thumbs, being images, are sized in pixels, so the divs will be sized in pixels. Set the width of that class of divs to be a few pixels wider than the thumbs they contain. (Only images and things that align to images should be set in pixels, btw.)

divs are normally block elements, meaning that they force a new line. You don't want a new line for each image, so in your CSS set that div class to "display: inline;". You're DONE! You have neat rows of images!

You can also set those divs to float: left, but float takes some getting used to. It's tricky. Play with floats some time, but first get comfortable with the basics of the block model.

Now you probably want to put this group of thumbs in a real page. Hey, we just said the word "group". That's what a div REALLY is, a group. So will make all those separate thumbs into group by putting a div tag around them. In your css, set that div to have a solid green border so you can see the outline of the group of thumbs. This marks your selfs contained box of thumbs. Copy - paste it into your page. The stuff inside the green box, the thumbs, should look just the same as it did on own page, since it's self contained. If it doesn't, remove whatever CSS is accidentally affecting the thumbs. Don't "fix" it for now, just remove it. Later you can put it back, but make it more specific so it affects only what it's supposed to affect and doesn't break your thumbs.

Perhaps that group of thumbs, the big green box, needs to be resized, have margins added, etc. to better fit the page. You do that by applying CSS to he big green div, not what's inside it. You may want to set it's width as a percentage, such as 50% to be half the page width.

If something breaks, more often than not the fix is to GET RID of some CSS. Most pages have too many CSS positioning and sizing rules that make too many assumptions, rather than not enough rules. It's the browser's job to figure out how to make the page look "right" on any given screen in any given size of window. Let it do it's job, making limited CSS rules only where the browser doesn't make it look nice when left to do it's own job.

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by raymor

Here's a simple recipe.

Start with a fresh page, nothing but thumbs iin divs to start. That will isolate problems from other supposedly unrelated CSS ..........

More great stuff.

Thanks!

[jimmycooper]

Originally Posted by raymor

Here's a simple recipe.

Start with a fresh page, nothing but thumbs iin divs to start. That will isolate problems from other supposedly unrelated CSS or elements.

Your divs contain thumbs. Thumbs, being images, are sized in pixels, so the divs will be sized in pixels. Set the width of that class of divs to be a few pixels wider than the thumbs they contain. (Only images and things that align to images should be set in pixels, btw.)

divs are normally block elements, meaning that they force a new line. You don't want a new line for each image, so in your CSS set that div class to "display: inline;". You're DONE! You have neat rows of images!

You can also set those divs to float: left, but float takes some getting used to. It's tricky. Play with floats some time, but first get comfortable with the basics of the block model.

Now you probably want to put this group of thumbs in a real page. Hey, we just said the word "group". That's what a div REALLY is, a group. So will make all those separate thumbs into group by putting a div tag around them. In your css, set that div to have a solid green border so you can see the outline of the group of thumbs. This marks your selfs contained box of thumbs. Copy - paste it into your page. The stuff inside the green box, the thumbs, should look just the same as it did on own page, since it's self contained. If it doesn't, remove whatever CSS is accidentally affecting the thumbs. Don't "fix" it for now, just remove it. Later you can put it back, but make it more specific so it affects only what it's supposed to affect and doesn't break your thumbs.

Perhaps that group of thumbs, the big green box, needs to be resized, have margins added, etc. to better fit the page. You do that by applying CSS to he big green div, not what's inside it. You may want to set it's width as a percentage, such as 50% to be half the page width.

If something breaks, more often than not the fix is to GET RID of some CSS. Most pages have too many CSS positioning and sizing rules that make too many assumptions, rather than not enough rules. It's the browser's job to figure out how to make the page look "right" on any given screen in any given size of window. Let it do it's job, making limited CSS rules only where the browser doesn't make it look nice when left to do it's own job.

Great stuff indeed. As ghetto as this may sound, and given that all of my galleries are done on a black background, my method has been to either scale or resize a black strip between each thumb. Kind of like this one.

[seeandsee]

any TOOL to help me out with css, i dont want to code css :D

[raymor]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

any TOOL to help me out with css, i dont want to code css :D

Plenty of them, but like any tool for doing any job the tool is only useful after you know how to do the job.

Are you asking for a spark plug wrench, or are you asking for a robot that knows how to change spark plugs because you don't know how? There is no tool that knows how to do graphic design.

[PowerCum]

We use a combination of divs and tables.

The main problem with divs is that img into them are not downloaded in sequential way, while with tables you can control what will show first on the surfer browser and what will not.

We also use compression to send all the html to the surfer as fast as possible.

In any case, you can achieve the same crap rendering speeds with tables and with divs. From all our tests, the fastest way is a combination of divs + tables.

[blackmonsters]

Tables work great.

I value the idea of "tableless design" just as much as I value this "<br />"

Fucking bullshit.

[potter]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Tables work great.

I value the idea of "tableless design" just as much as I value this "<br />"

Fucking bullshit.

Only on GFY will you see some guy ranting about how he's still using html code techniques from 15 years ago like he's right in doing so.

[FlexxAeon]

Originally Posted by potter

Only on GFY will you see some guy ranting about how he's still using html code techniques from 15 years ago like he's right in doing so.

i'm on a crusade to bring back html <layer> and image maps

[amateurbfs]

Originally Posted by potter

Only on GFY will you see some guy ranting about how he's still using html code techniques from 15 years ago like he's right in doing so.

Lets not forget <font>

[Naughty]

I use tables all the time. The ones using wysiwyg only should be worried, not us;-)

[seeric]

www.lynda.com

Don't look back. Best learning site ever.

[Evil Chris]

I really should brush up on my CSS too.

[Why]

http://w3schools.com/ is a good source for basic tutorials.

[Lace]

Originally Posted by seeric

www.lynda.com

Don't look back. Best learning site ever.

+1

[wehateporn]

I could do with brushing up on that stuff, with coding I tend to learn just what I need to

[CyberHustler]

I still use tables on some basic sites... fuck it.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by potter

Only on GFY will you see some guy ranting about how he's still using html code techniques from 15 years ago like he's right in doing so.

It's better just because it's new right?



Dragging your pants off your ass is new, but I don't think it's better than pulling up
my pants which is 1000's of years old.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It's better just because it's new right?



Dragging your pants off your ass is new, but I don't think it's better than pulling up
my pants which is 1000's of years old.

It's one of those assumptions that people make "It's newer, so it's better!". It's like when everyone started by the first flatscreens and the colour was pretty poor. In some cases a basic html page can be exactly what the doctor ordered and can out-perform a fancy CMS

[garce]

"New" is a bit of stretch. A basic html page does not need tables. Honestly, I don't think I've used a table in six years. No need - I'm not posting spreadsheets.

[TheDoc]

Nothing wrong with a table in a gallery.... as long as you're not nesting them crazy, it's fine.

Total trash html pages convert just as good or bad, as perfectly created html pages.

Use whatever method allows you to create them the fastest and skip all the "you should do it this way" bullshit.

[jimmycooper]

I don't know how to do tables or css and even if I did, I would still want to lay out my galleries exactly as I do now via my 'black strip method'. Minimalist but effective like these.

http://www.starletsheet.com/tgp/nude...e-black-heels/
http://www.starletsheet.com/tgp/nude...ne-sunglasses/

Given that, and also considering that submitting galleries is only a small part of what I should be doing, would it benefit me to learn either? I obviously like to learn as much as possible about everything, but time constraints sometimes make it difficult

[potter]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It's better just because it's new right?



Dragging your pants off your ass is new, but I don't think it's better than pulling up
my pants which is 1000's of years old.

Listen you little ignorant shit. Maybe you should go pick up a book, go to school, or do some research before you go spouting off again. An education might come in handy for you. CSS isn't new, it's been around since 1996. The technique of using tables for layout is old. Mind you this is a fucking webmaster hub, you just basically stated to the world you don't have the simplest idea of HTML standards in front of hundreds if not thousands of webmasters. We're talking the most BASIC code known to man - HTML - you don't understand. Wow.

Since you seem to have your head so far up your own ass to understand anything I'll give you a brief summary. HTML tables were created to allow the creation of uniform tabular data on web pages. It was basically the equivalent of creating an xcel spreadsheet on the web. The reason you use tables for layout is because when the web first started no one knew what the fuck they were doing, and they found it easy to instead of using the table tag as intended - to use it for layout. There wasn't much of a learning curve, and it was far easier to pick up (mind you there wasn't much of any schooling at the time for this type of stuff, people had to learn on their own).

It's the equivalent of flipping a screw driver around and using the butt of it as a hammer, because you don't know any better.

But no, you go right ahead and spout off like you know what the fuck you're talking about. You go right ahead stating you don't understand HTML. It's not like you're doing so in front of webmaster peers or anything. It's not with two clicks of a mouse you could be learning your trade, understanding it, and bettering yourself. Instead you keep up the ignorant "I'm a backwards ass dude on the interwebs and even though I don't even know HTML, I'm going to post up completely incorrect statements to webmasters".

This isn't an argument. There's no opinion. HTML is HTML, there is no interpretation, it has very specific documentation on how it works and how it's designed. It's like spelling. You can go spelling things all fucked up as much as you want, but if you tell people it's ok to spell things wrong - you're just going to look like that much more of a moron.

[magicmike]

I think people are just happy using tables to create a simple gallery rather than css and div's etc.

We use css, especially in any modern functional site. But if I just need to space a few images, on a quick gallery a table isn't going to be bad, or throw up a table of links.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by potter

Listen you little ignorant shit. Maybe you should go pick up a book, go to school, or do some research before you go spouting off again. An education might come in handy for you. CSS isn't new, it's been around since 1996. The technique of using tables for layout is old. Mind you this is a fucking webmaster hub, you just basically stated to the world you don't have the simplest idea of HTML standards in front of hundreds if not thousands of webmasters. We're talking the most BASIC code known to man - HTML - you don't understand. Wow.

Since you seem to have your head so far up your own ass to understand anything I'll give you a brief summary. HTML tables were created to allow the creation of uniform tabular data on web pages. It was basically the equivalent of creating an xcel spreadsheet on the web. The reason you use tables for layout is because when the web first started no one knew what the fuck they were doing, and they found it easy to instead of using the table tag as intended - to use it for layout. There wasn't much of a learning curve, and it was far easier to pick up (mind you there wasn't much of any schooling at the time for this type of stuff, people had to learn on their own).

It's the equivalent of flipping a screw driver around and using the butt of it as a hammer, because you don't know any better.

But no, you go right ahead and spout off like you know what the fuck you're talking about. You go right ahead stating you don't understand HTML. It's not like you're doing so in front of webmaster peers or anything. It's not with two clicks of a mouse you could be learning your trade, understanding it, and bettering yourself. Instead you keep up the ignorant "I'm a backwards ass dude on the interwebs and even though I don't even know HTML, I'm going to post up completely incorrect statements to webmasters".

This isn't an argument. There's no opinion. HTML is HTML, there is no interpretation, it has very specific documentation on how it works and how it's designed. It's like spelling. You can go spelling things all fucked up as much as you want, but if you tell people it's ok to spell things wrong - you're just going to look like that much more of a moron.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html

[FlexxAeon]

i love how these discussions always spiral into a big geek battle royale. like https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=866382 - 4 pages of code yammering

Originally Posted by potter

It's the equivalent of flipping a screw driver around and using the butt of it as a hammer, because you don't know any better.

oh snap

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by potter

Listen you little ignorant shit. Maybe you should go pick up a book, go to school, or do some research before you go spouting off again. An education might come in handy for you. CSS isn't new, it's been around since 1996. The technique of using tables for layout is old. Mind you this is a fucking webmaster hub, you just basically stated to the world you don't have the simplest idea of HTML standards in front of hundreds if not thousands of webmasters. We're talking the most BASIC code known to man - HTML - you don't understand. Wow.

Since you seem to have your head so far up your own ass to understand anything I'll give you a brief summary. HTML tables were created to allow the creation of uniform tabular data on web pages. It was basically the equivalent of creating an xcel spreadsheet on the web. The reason you use tables for layout is because when the web first started no one knew what the fuck they were doing, and they found it easy to instead of using the table tag as intended - to use it for layout. There wasn't much of a learning curve, and it was far easier to pick up (mind you there wasn't much of any schooling at the time for this type of stuff, people had to learn on their own).

It's the equivalent of flipping a screw driver around and using the butt of it as a hammer, because you don't know any better.

But no, you go right ahead and spout off like you know what the fuck you're talking about. You go right ahead stating you don't understand HTML. It's not like you're doing so in front of webmaster peers or anything. It's not with two clicks of a mouse you could be learning your trade, understanding it, and bettering yourself. Instead you keep up the ignorant "I'm a backwards ass dude on the interwebs and even though I don't even know HTML, I'm going to post up completely incorrect statements to webmasters".

This isn't an argument. There's no opinion. HTML is HTML, there is no interpretation, it has very specific documentation on how it works and how it's designed. It's like spelling. You can go spelling things all fucked up as much as you want, but if you tell people it's ok to spell things wrong - you're just going to look like that much more of a moron.

You have french fries in your sig.