Hi Charles,

I took the liberty of looking over some of the HTML on your site.
I write web sites and pages by hand, so I though I would offer you a
few suggestions based on my meager experience.

You are using layers (DIV tags) in your pages. Unfortunately, these
use fixed locations, and different fonts will cause the problems you
are seeing on certain browsers. As the fonts scale up and down,
taking varying amounts of real-estate on the screen, the Layers stay
stationary, fixed at a certain percentage or pixels from the top and
left side.

If you plan on doing this frequently, you might consider buying
Macromedia Dreamweaver. I would avoid Front Page like the plague,
although it is better than it used to be. From the looks of the code
you are creating with SiteBuilder, I would lose it as well. g

This is what I see on a box stock Windows install:
http://www.thevideodoc.com/Images/cs_page1.jpg

This is what I see on a stock Firefox install:
http://www.thevideodoc.com/Images/cs_page2.jpg

I would sit down with a piece of paper and come up with a layout that
suits you, and translate it into Tables, and avoid the use of Layers
entirely. Think about press layout/markups. Think Columns and Rows.

Use fonts that are present as native or substitutes on Macs, PCs,
Windoze and Unix systems. The fonts you are using are going to give
you fits! Fonts are often sold for print use, bundled with desktop
publishing and word processing programs, and are generally
copyrighted, so the fonts you have may not be on another's system.

Not trying to be a smart-ass, only to help.

FWIW,


Greg G.

Greg G. said:

Hi Charles,

I took the liberty of looking over some of the HTML on your site.
I write web sites and pages by hand, so I though I would offer you a
few suggestions based on my meager experience.

Download this file and look at one way tables may be done: (nested)

http://www.thevideodoc.com/CS_Hardwood.exe

(Self-Extracting EXE file - simply point it to a destination on your
drive. This is so your browser will download it instead of opening
it. The picture links should work if you upload it to your site.)

Grab the browser window and drag it wider and narrower and watch the
way the different sections adapt to changing widths. Everyone doesn't
run the same screen resolution as your layout machine, so take this
under consideration as well.

Keep in mind I didn't take time to format this stuff, but the way you
are approaching this is simply WAY too complicated and inconsistent to
work with all browsers. It's a nightmare out there...

I know you are attempting to achieve a specific layout, but
unfortunately the web is not a desktop publishing program.
Your Sitebilder generated code is filled with thousands of unneeded
font tags and non-breaking spaces and soft-spaces and DIVs and....

FWIW,

Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Greg G. said:

Hi Charles,

I took the liberty of looking over some of the HTML on your site.
I write web sites and pages by hand, so I though I would offer you a
few suggestions based on my meager experience.

Download this file and look at one way tables may be done: (nested)

http://www.thevideodoc.com/CS_Hardwood.exe

(Self-Extracting EXE file - simply point it to a destination on your
drive. This is so your browser will download it instead of opening
it. The picture links should work if you upload it to your site.)

Grab the browser window and drag it wider and narrower and watch the
way the different sections adapt to changing widths. Everyone doesn't
run the same screen resolution as your layout machine, so take this
under consideration as well.

Keep in mind I didn't take time to format this stuff, but the way you
are approaching this is simply WAY too complicated and inconsistent to
work with all browsers. It's a nightmare out there...

I know you are attempting to achieve a specific layout, but
unfortunately the web is not a desktop publishing program.
Your Sitebilder generated code is filled with thousands of unneeded
font tags and non-breaking spaces and soft-spaces and DIVs and....

Thanks, Greg, but whatever it was, when I downloaded and hit the extract
button, it all disappeared.

I'm going to change some of the headers to images later today...but I'm not
sure I want to get involved with Dreamweaver, or other programs that cost
that much.

I've worked with HTML in the past, and, truthfully, I can't really deal with
the boredom. I do have...if I can recall the name...NoteTab or some such
already on my hard drive, so I'll try to look at the site with that later
on. It may be possible to clean it up that way.

It does seem as if each and every fast and easy web site program either
costs a small fortune or adds a lot of debris.

Charles Self said:

Greg G. said:

Grab the browser window and drag it wider and narrower and watch the
way the different sections adapt to changing widths. Everyone doesn't
run the same screen resolution as your layout machine, so take this
under consideration as well.

Keep in mind I didn't take time to format this stuff, but the way you
are approaching this is simply WAY too complicated and inconsistent to
work with all browsers. It's a nightmare out there...

I know you are attempting to achieve a specific layout, but
unfortunately the web is not a desktop publishing program.
Your Sitebilder generated code is filled with thousands of unneeded
font tags and non-breaking spaces and soft-spaces and DIVs and....


Thanks, Greg, but whatever it was, when I downloaded and hit the extract
button, it all disappeared.

XP Firewall probably ate it... ;-)

I'm going to change some of the headers to images later today...but I'm not
sure I want to get involved with Dreamweaver, or other programs that cost
that much.

Sorry, I haven't priced DW it in a while, but it does generate clean
code that is easier to modify by hand, and by other programs. I use
it, but it's an older version. It is the only program that created
code clean enough for me to abandon the use of hand coded pages...
I do web sites in HTML, ASP, etc. as a supporting service to our
relational data-base customers, and is a part of our income.

And while I don't care for some of the designs and color schemes
customers chose - hey, they're payin for it, not me. ;-)

I've worked with HTML in the past, and, truthfully, I can't really deal with
the boredom. I do have...if I can recall the name...NoteTab or some such
already on my hard drive, so I'll try to look at the site with that later
on. It may be possible to clean it up that way.

Yes, HTML editing is boring - especially on large scale projects.
You could create a template and use it for all your other/new pages.
NotePad comes with Windoze, and can be used to edit manually.
DO NOT, however, use WordPad - it will make a mess of things.

It does seem as if each and every fast and easy web site program either
costs a small fortune or adds a lot of debris.

Welcome to the wonderful (NOT) world of HTML and cross browser
incompatibilities... ;-)

Good Luck with whatever you decide to do... Sorry I butted in.


Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Charles Self said:

Greg G. said:

Grab the browser window and drag it wider and narrower and watch the
way the different sections adapt to changing widths. Everyone doesn't
run the same screen resolution as your layout machine, so take this
under consideration as well.

Keep in mind I didn't take time to format this stuff, but the way you
are approaching this is simply WAY too complicated and inconsistent to
work with all browsers. It's a nightmare out there...

I know you are attempting to achieve a specific layout, but
unfortunately the web is not a desktop publishing program.
Your Sitebilder generated code is filled with thousands of unneeded
font tags and non-breaking spaces and soft-spaces and DIVs and....


Thanks, Greg, but whatever it was, when I downloaded and hit the extract
button, it all disappeared.

XP Firewall probably ate it... ;-)

I'm going to change some of the headers to images later today...but I'm
not
sure I want to get involved with Dreamweaver, or other programs that cost
that much.

Sorry, I haven't priced DW it in a while, but it does generate clean
code that is easier to modify by hand, and by other programs. I use
it, but it's an older version. It is the only program that created
code clean enough for me to abandon the use of hand coded pages...
I do web sites in HTML, ASP, etc. as a supporting service to our
relational data-base customers, and is a part of our income.

And while I don't care for some of the designs and color schemes
customers chose - hey, they're payin for it, not me. ;-)

I've worked with HTML in the past, and, truthfully, I can't really deal
with
the boredom. I do have...if I can recall the name...NoteTab or some such
already on my hard drive, so I'll try to look at the site with that later
on. It may be possible to clean it up that way.

Yes, HTML editing is boring - especially on large scale projects.
You could create a template and use it for all your other/new pages.
NotePad comes with Windoze, and can be used to edit manually.
DO NOT, however, use WordPad - it will make a mess of things.

It does seem as if each and every fast and easy web site program either
costs a small fortune or adds a lot of debris.

Welcome to the wonderful (NOT) world of HTML and cross browser
incompatibilities... ;-)

Good Luck with whatever you decide to do... Sorry I butted in.

Suggestions always welcome. Which doesn't mean they're always taken, of
course.

Checked Amazon: Dreamweaver is $399. Ouch. That would almost buy the new
lens I want (almost, minus $399--the lens is about $799).

Checked Amazon: Dreamweaver is $399. Ouch. That would almost buy the
new
lens I want (almost, minus $399--the lens is about $799).

You can find a copy on ebay lots cheaper.

Charles Self said:

Greg G. said:

Welcome to the wonderful (NOT) world of HTML and cross browser
incompatibilities... ;-)

Good Luck with whatever you decide to do... Sorry I butted in.

Suggestions always welcome. Which doesn't mean they're always taken, of
course.

Checked Amazon: Dreamweaver is $399. Ouch. That would almost buy the new
lens I want (almost, minus $399--the lens is about $799).

And here is the _really_ sad part - in 10 years, that lens will still
be worth near that much or more - the software will be valueless.

I don't blame you a bit for not wanting spend that much money on
software for a single site. They all ultimately generate HTML code in
the end. But do keep my suggestions about fonts, style sheets, and
absolute positioned layers (DIVs) in mind - with whatever software you
chose.

I am, at this moment, sitting amidst a crop of computers, including
Win9x, Win2000, XP and Server, plus a couple of Linux boxes - simply
for compatibility testing... No one said it was an easy job... ;-)


Greg G.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:29:34 -0500, Greg wrote:

I've worked with HTML in the past, and, truthfully, I can't really deal with
the boredom. I do have...if I can recall the name...NoteTab or some such
already on my hard drive, so I'll try to look at the site with that later
on. It may be possible to clean it up that way.

You could create a template and use it for all your other/new pages.
NotePad comes with Windoze, and can be used to edit manually.
DO NOT, however, use WordPad - it will make a mess of things.

I agree with that. I wouldn't even use NotePad. It has some
surprisingly severe limitations that aren't apparent if you're just
writing 2 and 3K documents. There's a NotePad+ freeware substitute out
in networld somewhere that's installed as a substitute on every
computer I get my hands on. Far, far better than the native NotePad.

However, I now use EditPad Lite and it's almost everything I've wanted
in a text editor used for HTML coding.

I've downloaded probably four other editors, too, but I was already
ingrained with EditPad when I did, so didn't feel the overwhelming
urge to wring any of them out.

I, too, hand code all of my HTML. Obviously I maintain my own site
(below), but I also maintain ShopTours.org, and I code articles in the
Articles section at WoodCentral as well.

On my site, I have two or three templates that I use for most of the
various functions, so the 500+ files on site don't necessarily mean I
hand wrote every line of code for each. I mean I did, but the vast
majority of it was cut-and-paste of my original work.

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

LRod said:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:29:34 -0500, Greg wrote:

I've worked with HTML in the past, and, truthfully, I can't really deal with
the boredom. I do have...if I can recall the name...NoteTab or some such
already on my hard drive, so I'll try to look at the site with that later
on. It may be possible to clean it up that way.

You could create a template and use it for all your other/new pages.
NotePad comes with Windoze, and can be used to edit manually.
DO NOT, however, use WordPad - it will make a mess of things.

I agree with that. I wouldn't even use NotePad. It has some
surprisingly severe limitations that aren't apparent if you're just
writing 2 and 3K documents. There's a NotePad+ freeware substitute out
in networld somewhere that's installed as a substitute on every
computer I get my hands on. Far, far better than the native NotePad.

Never claimed to _use_NotePad, only suggesting it as a possible
solution. I use UltraEdit, and back in the good-old DOS days, used
Qedit by Semware - which was then a local company.

However, I now use EditPad Lite and it's almost everything I've wanted
in a text editor used for HTML coding.

Haven't use that one - but there are literally thousands...

I've downloaded probably four other editors, too, but I was already
ingrained with EditPad when I did, so didn't feel the overwhelming
urge to wring any of them out.

Here is a scary though... It took me forever to break the habit of
the using WordStar conventions while typing. CTL-K, D etc. I
absolutely despise(d) Windoze - although less so as they began to
include hot keys for common operations.

I, too, hand code all of my HTML. Obviously I maintain my own site
(below), but I also maintain ShopTours.org, and I code articles in the
Articles section at WoodCentral as well.

I don't have the time to code by hand anymore, and use DW for initial
layout, but still tweak by hand. I haven't updated my bloated, ADD*
personal site since 2000. It was the first site I wrote, way back in
1998, and consisted of various experiments grafted together into one
big, offensive mess. There are more graphics, JAVA applets, eye-candy
and animated GIFs than should be allowed by law. ;-)

Maybe I'll fix it one day...

On my site, I have two or three templates that I use for most of the
various functions, so the 500+ files on site don't necessarily mean I
hand wrote every line of code for each. I mean I did, but the vast
majority of it was cut-and-paste of my original work.

The gist of my original site was a JavaScript Engine that pulled pages
into a framed screen - similar to pressing buttons on a TV and
receiving different channels. There is a JAVA applet in the top
frame, a music player frame, a static navigation frame, and all the
_other_ things a good designer avoids. But the actual pages were
nothing but content, and were boiler-plated. So it made updates and
additions a snap to perform.

Since I have since decided that television and most other things
electronic are the devils spawn, I should update it to CSS (which did
not functionally exist at that time) and be done with it.

Believe me, none of my customers have been burdened by such an
atrocity... ;-)

*Attention Deficit disorder...


Greg G.

In article ,
Greg wrote:

Not trying to be a smart-ass, only to help.



I have discovered that proper tools for proper jobs are required in all fields.
I spent a year's worth of 'a couple-of-hours-a-day' messing with all kinds of
web design kits.
I finally borrowed a copy of Adobe GoLive...2 weeks later I bought it as the one
I evaluated had been superceded by 2 versions.
It helped to read the manual in order to get the text scaling and auto
justifying (with hyphenation *g*) etc. happening.

A lot of time was spent on previewing and resolving the gamma conflicts.

The site has been rock solid and updates are a snap.

I don't work for Adobe, just a happy Go-Live customer.

Rob

Greg G. wrote:

You are using layers (DIV tags) in your pages. Unfortunately, these
use fixed locations, and different fonts will cause the problems you
are seeing on certain browsers. As the fonts scale up and down,
taking varying amounts of real-estate on the screen, the Layers stay
stationary, fixed at a certain percentage or pixels from the top and
left side.


Layers are what you should be using now that CSS support has matured in
all browsers. CSS support is not perfect in all browsers, but I have
found that it is adequate to do what I want for my personal website. You
can specify if a layer has a fixed or variable size, and you can specify
if it's location is fixed or dynamic.

I would sit down with a piece of paper and come up with a layout that
suits you, and translate it into Tables, and avoid the use of Layers
entirely. Think about press layout/markups. Think Columns and Rows.

I have to disagree with designing page layout based on tables. This
restricts your page layout to be only what you can accomplish with table
tags. You should only use tables when you need to present data in a
table fashion, but do not design your entire page around tables.
However, if you don't want to use CSS, then you can use tables for page
layout. However, using tables over CSS for page layout is analogous to
driving a riding lawn mower to work instead of using a car. Both get you
there, but one of them does a much better job.

Use fonts that are present as native or substitutes on Macs, PCs,
Windoze and Unix systems.

This is important, as not everyone can see fonts that you may have
installed on your computer.

Take a look at my site.

The big advantage of CSS is being able to restructure your site without
modifying HTML code. My site has a header at the top, links on the left,
and content on the right. If I decided to put the links on the right and
remove the header, I can do this for every page on my website just by
editing 1 css file.

If you want to get a feel for how powerful CSS is, visit
http://www.csszengarden.com
Look at the various pages that people have submitted to see how the
layouts change by only modifying the 1 CSS file. People do create lots
of images that are defined in the CSS files to achieve their own look.

--
Brad Curfman
http://www.curfman.net

Brad Curfman wrote:
Greg G. wrote:

If you want to get a feel for how powerful CSS is, visit
http://www.csszengarden.com


I just went back to the previous thread on your site and saw that Dave
already pointed you to this site. When I first stumbled upon this CSS
goldmine, I spent a few hours learning basic CSS. Most of my learning
came by modifying the css file to see the effect.

I understand that not everyone wants to take the time to learn something
new, but if you're serious about layout on your site, you really need to
use CSS.

Nvu is a free WYSIWYG HTML editor with CSS support. It isn't as polished
as Dreamweaver or Frontpage, but it is free.

I only use a text editor with syntax coloring (TextPad) for modifying my
site. I've been writing HTML for over 10 years now, and know enough for
what I need to use. I know enough CSS that I can write it without a CSS
editor, but I do consult CSS references for help when doing something new.

I'm not one of those people who brag about using a text editor and mock
those who use tools such as Dreamweaver. For the amount of HTML
authoring I do, those tools aren't necessary. I used Dreamweaver when
building a website for one of my clients a few years back and loved it -
especially the template feature. Now, all of the web application
development I do for clients is back end Java stuff, so the only UI work
I get to do now is my personal site.

--
Brad Curfman
http://www.curfman.net

Brad Curfman said:

Greg G. wrote:

You are using layers (DIV tags) in your pages. Unfortunately, these
use fixed locations, and different fonts will cause the problems you
are seeing on certain browsers. As the fonts scale up and down,
taking varying amounts of real-estate on the screen, the Layers stay
stationary, fixed at a certain percentage or pixels from the top and
left side.

Layers are what you should be using now that CSS support has matured in
all browsers. CSS support is not perfect in all browsers, but I have
found that it is adequate to do what I want for my personal website. You
can specify if a layer has a fixed or variable size, and you can specify
if it's location is fixed or dynamic.

It wasn't clear, but I meant explicitly positioned layers.
i.e. - top = 50 left = 35
It's been a problem here, but only when font sizes change due to bad
equivalencies or user configuration.

FWIW,

Greg G.