This happens when you resize the window to the put where it's smaller than the content, then scroll over. I've noticed it on a lot of sites. It's basically the background ending.
Just asking because if it's able to be dealt with then I'd like to deal with it. If not, no biggy. :)
Yeah very common problem, and no it's not unavoidable as far as I know.
Just use a min-width on the body tag (or what ever you have 100% width and the problem is occurring on) equal to (or slightly more than) your page wrap/container.
So if you have the usual 960px width site, with the body repeating 100%, add min-width of, say 1000px on the body for example and the problem will go away.
Ah min-width worked. I don't use width:100% in many cases and definitely not in this one, but it still did the trick. Strange that I never knew that before. I consider myself a seasoned CSSer. :D
Just to sort of clarify to anyone reading this that is still learning:
There is no way you should be using Tables in the layout of any design. Do not do this. It is terrible practice and will ruin you when you need to accomplish site-wide design changes.
Do not use tables for layout.
@SAiNT - this is not the first time I've had to clarify something that you've stated to be the truth, please don't flood the forum with anymore 'table talk'.
will ruin you when you need to accomplish site-wide design changes. that is a pure nonsense. consequently, maybe you should stop flooding the forum with your "anti-tables talk"?
ChristopherBurton, unfortunately for you guys, i'm not joking :)) thanks for the link btw.
When you have 100+ pages all using tables, and you need to update a certain aspect of it... Well, good luck with that.
We all have our own preferences, but why do you insist on using such archaic methods? (I'm genuinely curious, I want to understand your reasoning, if you don't mind.)
By the way TheDoc is not only a moderator, but a ridiculously helpful contributer, if he's flooding the forum with something, it's generally worth reading. :P
I honestly cannot see any reason why tables would be better than CSS. I mean sure, for people who don't know much about CSS its probably a better way of making a more steady layout, but as others have said using tables brings a whole list of other problems to the table, not only things the ability to make site wide changes, but also SEO etc.
When you have 100+ pages all using tables, and you need to update a certain aspect of it... Well, good luck with that wow :) first of all, if i had 100+ pages, i would definitely use CMS.
second, what's the problem with that anyways? - it seems to me that most of you guys don't understand what i'm saying because you don't understand that CSS styles applies to tables just the same way they do with layers :))) i see no other explanation... of course it's does matter for SEO, layers get indexed for like 5% better than tables; but i doubt that every project we do requires that 5% of "betterness".
most of you are hostages of time... :( when i started to write HTML (11 years ago), tables were used for layouts, and we squeezed the hell out of them; later, they came up with layers, and i suppose that only after that most of you begin to write your first pages. this is why you have such misunderstanding with tables. :(
i wish one day we could make some kind of a competition with TheDoc, where he would make layout based on layers, and i make layout based on tables. at the end we would compare the size and semantics :)
We all have our own preferences, but why do you insist on using such archaic methods? (I'm genuinely curious, I want to understand your reasoning, if you don't mind.) where did i insisted or pushed anyone?!! :))) - i'm aloner.. i am simply saying that i believe in.
By the way TheDoc is not only a moderator, but a ridiculously helpful contributer, if he's flooding the forum with something, it's generally worth reading. :P i have no doubt he is, and i respect him for that; but he offended me without giving any objective explanation, and i've turned his words against him. i think it was the most polite response from me.
I honestly cannot see any reason why tables would be better than CSS lol, that's exactly what i've been saying :))) if you do tables this way
then it is better to use layers instead :))) but there is something even better - understand how tables work with CSS. i'm telling you - it's the best time/health/mind saver.
but as others have said using tables brings a whole list of other problems to the table i will never get tired of laughing on those saying, because there are at least 3 times more problems with layers... and that's by default :)))
but also SEO etc to be completely honest, that is actually not the tables fault; but search engines.
"Table layout can be used to represent tabular relationships between data. Authors specify these relationships in the document language and can specify their presentation using CSS 2.1.
In a visual medium, CSS tables can also be used to achieve specific layouts. In this case, authors should not use table-related elements in the document language, but should apply the CSS to the relevant structural elements to achieve the desired layout. "
not like anybody should care about W3C any longer, but if i red it correctly, then that's exactly what i've been trying to explain.
so, the bottom line is, you can do almost anything with tables through CSS.
and from this point, you can achieve even better semantics with a single table, than wrapping div inside the div that wrapped inside the other div, which wrapped in the main content-wrapper, which wrapped inside..... :-\
If you code CSS layouts correctly, you should not be wrapping Div inside Div inside Div because then yes, as you say, it is no better than using tables. A lot of people, unfortunately, cannot code CSS layouts properly and so therefore overuse Div tags.
However personally I keep the number of Divs used to a minimum. In the site I have just finished, I have no more than one Div inside another Div. I do have one wrapper, simply because the person who designed it is not a coder.
I'm not agreeing with you that tables are a good idea though, I'm just saying that overusing Divs is no better ;-)
TT_Mark, hmmm.... under perfect conditions, that could be achievable. but i don't see any chance to escape that wrapping at the moment; you can use span, h1, p etc for text and maybe something else, but there are still some stuff you will be wrapping in containers, and should i remind you that *header*/*footer* stuff is still not completely supported. :(
anyways, wrapping one element inside the other is the basics for div's coding.. as i said, i see no way of escaping that.
I'm not agreeing with you that tables are a good idea though, I'm just saying that overusing Divs is no better - then, you have found the golden middle :)
Tables still have their place on the internet, when they are used to display TABULAR DATA. And yes, you would use CSS to control the style of those tables. Tables are not, however, designed for use in layouts.
There will be amateurs in every industry. Amateurs in web development will suffer from divitis, but at least they are on the right path.
but he offended me without giving any objective explanation, and i've turned his words against him. At the end of the day, there is simply no point in arguing with somebody that thinks the use of tables for layout is a good idea. Your 11 years of "experience" has clearly failed you, or at the very least blinded you from the future of web development. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, hopefully your use of tables won't hinder you too much from getting work.
Cascading stylesheets are awesome because they cascade. You know what doesn't cascade? <!-- insert obvious point here -->
Lets say you have a website with 20 pages. You now have to move some information from the bottom right (footer), to the top left (header). This could possibly be a simple CSS change - if you have created the site with not-tables. Why do I say that? Because tables force a certain layout. It is for this reason that people say "create the website with CSS rather than tables". They mean create the layout with CSS rather than a tabular layout.
Anyway, I've had enough table-talk to last me a lifetime. Good luck with future projects.
At the end of the day, there is simply no point in arguing with somebody that thinks the use of tables for layout is a good idea lol, that's exactly what i thought about your divs :)))
hopefully your use of tables won't hinder you too much from getting work it won't.. it can't :-P
Lets say you have a website with 20 pages. You now have to move some information from the bottom right (footer), to the top left (header). i presuming you're talking about absolute positioning, which i wouldn't use in that case anyway, as i don't believe it is very crossbrowser-like (for that particular case).
we can talk through many examples, but in real life i haven't faced any limitations with making layouts with tables... and i've build some huge projects :-|
ou wanted to challenge someone to create a website with you not like i want to "challenge someone".. because i know i'm right. i just thought, when i have time, it would be funny to see your confusions when you see how much easier everything could be when you writing on tables. that could be interesting... that's all :-)
This happens when you resize the window to the put where it's smaller than the content, then scroll over. I've noticed it on a lot of sites. It's basically the background ending.
Just asking because if it's able to be dealt with then I'd like to deal with it. If not, no biggy. :)
Thanks
Just use a min-width on the body tag (or what ever you have 100% width and the problem is occurring on) equal to (or slightly more than) your page wrap/container.
So if you have the usual 960px width site, with the body repeating 100%, add min-width of, say 1000px on the body for example and the problem will go away.
Thanks, dudes!
;)
jamy_za, Pretty much the whole world disagrees with you
well, i really hope so, because that's exactly what makes me right about it. ;-)
I hope you're joking. Here is a link to learn and understand HTML, that is if you were not.
There is no way you should be using Tables in the layout of any design. Do not do this. It is terrible practice and will ruin you when you need to accomplish site-wide design changes.
Do not use tables for layout.
@SAiNT - this is not the first time I've had to clarify something that you've stated to be the truth, please don't flood the forum with anymore 'table talk'.
that is a pure nonsense.
consequently, maybe you should stop flooding the forum with your "anti-tables talk"?
ChristopherBurton, unfortunately for you guys, i'm not joking :))
thanks for the link btw.
When you have 100+ pages all using tables, and you need to update a certain aspect of it... Well, good luck with that.
We all have our own preferences, but why do you insist on using such archaic methods? (I'm genuinely curious, I want to understand your reasoning, if you don't mind.)
By the way TheDoc is not only a moderator, but a ridiculously helpful contributer, if he's flooding the forum with something, it's generally worth reading. :P
wow :) first of all, if i had 100+ pages, i would definitely use CMS.
second, what's the problem with that anyways?
- it seems to me that most of you guys don't understand what i'm saying because you don't understand that CSS styles applies to tables just the same way they do with layers :)))
i see no other explanation... of course it's does matter for SEO, layers get indexed for like 5% better than tables;
but i doubt that every project we do requires that 5% of "betterness".
most of you are hostages of time... :( when i started to write HTML (11 years ago), tables were used for layouts, and we squeezed the hell out of them;
later, they came up with layers, and i suppose that only after that most of you begin to write your first pages.
this is why you have such misunderstanding with tables. :(
i wish one day we could make some kind of a competition with TheDoc, where he would make layout based on layers, and i make layout based on tables. at the end we would compare the size and semantics :)
We all have our own preferences, but why do you insist on using such archaic methods? (I'm genuinely curious, I want to understand your reasoning, if you don't mind.)
where did i insisted or pushed anyone?!! :)))
- i'm aloner.. i am simply saying that i believe in.
By the way TheDoc is not only a moderator, but a ridiculously helpful contributer, if he's flooding the forum with something, it's generally worth reading. :P
i have no doubt he is, and i respect him for that;
but he offended me without giving any objective explanation, and i've turned his words against him.
i think it was the most polite response from me.
I honestly cannot see any reason why tables would be better than CSS
lol, that's exactly what i've been saying :)))
if you do tables this way
then it is better to use layers instead :)))
but there is something even better - understand how tables work with CSS.
i'm telling you - it's the best time/health/mind saver.
but as others have said using tables brings a whole list of other problems to the table
i will never get tired of laughing on those saying, because there are at least 3 times more problems with layers... and that's by default :)))
but also SEO etc
to be completely honest, that is actually not the tables fault; but search engines.
From the W3C:
"Table layout can be used to represent tabular relationships between data. Authors specify these relationships in the document language and can specify their presentation using CSS 2.1.
In a visual medium, CSS tables can also be used to achieve specific layouts. In this case, authors should not use table-related elements in the document language, but should apply the CSS to the relevant structural elements to achieve the desired layout. "
so, the bottom line is, you can do almost anything with tables through CSS.
and from this point, you can achieve even better semantics with a single table, than wrapping div inside the div that wrapped inside the other div, which wrapped in the main content-wrapper, which wrapped inside..... :-\
If you code CSS layouts correctly, you should not be wrapping Div inside Div inside Div because then yes, as you say, it is no better than using tables. A lot of people, unfortunately, cannot code CSS layouts properly and so therefore overuse Div tags.
However personally I keep the number of Divs used to a minimum. In the site I have just finished, I have no more than one Div inside another Div. I do have one wrapper, simply because the person who designed it is not a coder.
I'm not agreeing with you that tables are a good idea though, I'm just saying that overusing Divs is no better ;-)
but i don't see any chance to escape that wrapping at the moment; you can use span, h1, p etc for text and maybe something else, but there are still some stuff you will be wrapping in containers, and should i remind you that *header*/*footer* stuff is still not completely supported. :(
anyways, wrapping one element inside the other is the basics for div's coding.. as i said, i see no way of escaping that.
I'm not agreeing with you that tables are a good idea though, I'm just saying that overusing Divs is no better
- then, you have found the golden middle :)
Tables still have their place on the internet, when they are used to display TABULAR DATA. And yes, you would use CSS to control the style of those tables. Tables are not, however, designed for use in layouts.
There will be amateurs in every industry. Amateurs in web development will suffer from divitis, but at least they are on the right path.
but he offended me without giving any objective explanation, and i've turned his words against him.
At the end of the day, there is simply no point in arguing with somebody that thinks the use of tables for layout is a good idea. Your 11 years of "experience" has clearly failed you, or at the very least blinded you from the future of web development. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, hopefully your use of tables won't hinder you too much from getting work.
Lets say you have a website with 20 pages. You now have to move some information from the bottom right (footer), to the top left (header). This could possibly be a simple CSS change - if you have created the site with not-tables. Why do I say that? Because tables force a certain layout. It is for this reason that people say "create the website with CSS rather than tables". They mean create the layout with CSS rather than a tabular layout.
Anyway, I've had enough table-talk to last me a lifetime. Good luck with future projects.
PS. You wanted to challenge someone to create a website with you. Here is a psd. Many people have created the "CSS" version already.
http://css-tricks.com/examples/CSS-Off.zip
http://css-tricks.com/the-great-css-off-giveaway/
lol, that's exactly what i thought about your divs :)))
hopefully your use of tables won't hinder you too much from getting work
it won't.. it can't :-P
Lets say you have a website with 20 pages. You now have to move some information from the bottom right (footer), to the top left (header).
i presuming you're talking about absolute positioning, which i wouldn't use in that case anyway, as i don't believe it is very crossbrowser-like (for that particular case).
we can talk through many examples, but in real life i haven't faced any limitations with making layouts with tables... and i've build some huge projects :-|
ou wanted to challenge someone to create a website with you
not like i want to "challenge someone".. because i know i'm right.
i just thought, when i have time, it would be funny to see your confusions when you see how much easier everything could be when you writing on tables.
that could be interesting... that's all :-)
We can argue about tables in many other threads, preferably related to that subject. This guy has to be trolling (I hope). :S