FrontPage and CSS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Cascading Style Sheets



Message

Tailslide -> FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 8:05:18)

Hi

I'm wondering if there's anyone out there who can give a bit more of an explanation of how FP deals with CSS for me.

Do people have to pick CSS layout over Table-based layout or are they not given the option?
Does FP tend to rely on relative positioning or absolute as I've seen a lot of absolutely positioned sites (bad idea) - how would someone pick relative over absolute?

Why the hell is FP calling divs layers? I know DW does but I don't get that either. Layers is an old Netscape term which is defunct now. Why can't it call 'em divs?



rdouglass -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 8:33:55)

quote:

absolutely positioned sites (bad idea)


Why do you say that? That seems to be the only way I can write a page without any IE hacks. I know it doesn't seem to make sense but to me, it's the only way I can make FF & IE agree without a lot of hacks.

As to the FP issue, I personally dunno. I do all my CSS 'by hand' 'cause I don't like to rely on WYSIWYG too much - I'm usually disappointed with the results.

I have tried a few with Visual Studio .NET and that seems to do a better job at that but still not as good as the combined tool of "NotePad & OutFront". [;)]



caz -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 8:48:24)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tailslide

Hi

I'm wondering if there's anyone out there who can give a bit more of an explanation of how FP deals with CSS for me.

Do people have to pick CSS layout over Table-based layout or are they not given the option?

In page options you have to tick the css options is all.
quote:


Does FP tend to rely on relative positioning or absolute as I've seen a lot of absolutely positioned sites (bad idea) - how would someone pick relative over absolute?

As far as I am aware all this happens in Design View, if you work in Code View as I do then you have full control and just link to your relevant stylesheet for the css. When you drag and drop in design view then you get all the cruddy style coding.
quote:


Why the hell is FP calling divs layers? I know DW does but I don't get that either. Layers is an old Netscape term which is defunct now. Why can't it call 'em divs?

"Divs" are available with tables, so perhaps that is to differentiate between the two - I have never taken much notice of it though. The term layers sounds geeky maybe? Or maybe it's a cross over from DTP.
In the words of a famous poster, "Dunno" [:D]



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 8:55:52)

Re: AP - Using Absolute Positioning is fine for smaller bits of the layout - I use it for image replacement for example. Where it can cause problems is using it for big chunks of your page. It's not that you can't use it (inside a relatively positioned containing div for example) it's just that there are lots of possible traps to fall into especially if you're fairly new to CSS layouts.

At first glance AP looks like a foolproof way of getting things to stay put - but the problem is that often you see divs that are positioned absolutely with reference to the viewport rather than a containing div - which means that what works at 8000x600 may look terrible at bigger resolutions or vice versa. You can also get divs sliding under each other, text breaking out of divs etc etc.

It is possible to use AP to style big chunks of a site - but it takes a pretty good understanding of CSS to get it right (plus I'm not completely sure it's necessary - never had too much of a problem using relative positioning).

What I'm seeing an increasing amount of is people without the CSS experience who are using a WYSIWYG editor and that editor is using position:absolute to nail big bits of their sites to the screen and then they're having problems at other screen resolutions (most common problem anyway).

I wouldn't ever recommend using AP to someone who's a CSS beginner - it will cause more problems than it solves for them.

Edit: sorry Caz - cross posted with you.

So unless you're using code view you're basically stuck with whatever FP needs to include to get the job done rather than the "best" option for the job? Ok - I suppose all WYSIWYGs must do that by the nature of what they are. Oh well - I had entertained some vague hope that there might be a relative positioning checkbox somewhere in there [:D]



caz -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 9:08:22)

I could say try searching here, but I won't ...[;)]

Have a look at this



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 9:31:10)

Much as I'd love to spend the time actually learn how to use FrontPage... ok actually I was just looking for the person who I can point at and say "She Knows!!"

Actually this page is quite interesting: Arrrgh - frames! can't post the useful bit! It was the "Tips from microsoftfrontpage.com" page.



rdouglass -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 9:53:39)

quote:

still not as good as the combined tool of "NotePad & OutFront".


[;)]



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 10:38:14)

Yeah but I won't be very popular in here if I start (again) telling people to go dump FP and go use Notepad - even if it IS THE BEST WAY! [:D]




rdouglass -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 11:29:14)

quote:

but I won't be very popular in here


The truth can be painful sometimes, can't it?[;)]

Truthfully tho, that's the only way I've ever been able to produce anything close to cross-browser compatible CSS. Again, I'm no CSS expert tho.

As to the layers thing, doesn't some versions of FP nest a div inside a layer to catch various browsers? (Or is it vice versa.)



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 11:52:58)

quote:

The truth can be painful sometimes, can't it?:)


I've tempered my opinions while here quite a lot regarding FP and other more expensive WYSIWYG editors - but I don't think my feelings on the matter will suprise many people. Dump the WYSIWYGs, get a book, open Notepad and learn it properly!

Re: Layers - It gets confusing because the term Layer is used by different people to mean different things.

Layers were originally a Netscape thing (transparent sections which could overlap each other and contain different items) but the <layer> tag was never recognised by IE so it sank silently away.

DW took up the term to mean something similar to but an alternative to divs but again it was <div> that was the actual recognised markup - now it seems to have become interchangeable with <div> if not actually in the markup, then in description of markup. The subject is complex enough without different terms for the same thing flying around.

Also there seems to be an implication regarding "depth" with layers which could be confusing as you can position ANYTHING above or below something else no matter if they're a <div> or a <p> or an <img>.

It's just another potentially confusing and unecessary term in my mind.



rdouglass -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 12:55:53)

quote:

...there seems to be an implication regarding "depth" with layers which could be confusing as you can position ANYTHING above or below something else no matter if they're a <div>...


That would totally confuse me with my "working knowledge" of CSS and the <div> model. Right now, I try to view the <div> model as boxes inside of other boxes. Trying to "jump" between and around the boxes with layers confuses me so I can see why the browsers have a hard time with it.

I thought that's what the z-index is for an that too "hurts" when I think in that dimension. [X(] [;)]

I'll stick with boxes. [;)]



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 13:11:44)

I think I worded it badly - I was trying to say that you can now position any element in the z-axis whether they're divs or not. The word layer sort of implies that you have to use a layer/div to do that successfully - but you don't.

You're right - usually the boxes sit next to each other or beneath each other or slide around each other depending on whether they're floated or just in the normal flow, but you can bring them up out of the normal flow using absolute positioning and z-index (although technically you can assign a z-index to any positioned item, relative or absolute - trying to think of a time when I've changed the z-index of a relatively positioned element but can't off the top of my head)



c1sissy -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 13:36:43)

quote:

Dump the WYSIWYGs, get a book, open Notepad and learn it properly

Agree, and then if you wish to use the editor, then you can and you will know what is going on behind the scenes.

Also, divs are just that, divs, not layers.

Z-index allows you to position things on top of each other, and some how it is useful with detailed drop down navigations as well.

As far as positioning I have found that a mix of fluid and fixed works great. Best way I have found of minimal hacks involved.

Also, if you code correclty and are concerned about any of the older browsers, your xhtml pages are served up correctly.

Just remember the css separeates out the presentation and the content. So if your content, meaning your html/xhtml is done correctly people will still be able to navigate and go through your pages, just not with STYLE ! [;)]



caz -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 14:08:50)

quote:

Dump the WYSIWYGs, get a book, open Notepad and learn it properly!


Let's temper that a bit - learn and code your css/(x)html elsewhere, but take advantage of the various apps' management tools for the integrity of your information architecture. And learn your tools. [:D]



d a v e -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 14:12:04)

what is it with notepad?? i agree go and learn the code but why make it hard(er) for yourself? use at least a text editor with syntax highlighting and if you already have a wysiwyg package then use the code editor in there (using the split view in DW/fp is a good way to learn about the code.

hard core coders always go on about notepad but i don't think you necessarily have to be that monastic. ;)



c1sissy -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 14:36:17)

lol, caz that is basically what I said, just in different terms, probably more to the point! [;)]

btw I love hand coding.

Hand coders do it better by hand [:D][8D]



spitfire -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 15:01:43)

quote:

ORIGINAL: d a v e
hard core coders always go on about notepad but i don't think you necessarily have to be that monastic. ;)

Years ago, I started with FP97 and failed dismally to produce "good" css.
Followed the "elitists" to notepad. That was ok but a bit of a pain if you are an imperfect typist like me. [8D]
Moved to a syntax highlighting editor that also, as if by magic, produced "at the touch of a button" previews in every browser I have on my system.
Read some comments on this forum and wondered if FP had improved, so took out a second mortgage and bought FP2003. Opened it twice and tried to work on some websites that I know as well as the back of my hand. I tried hard, honestly I did, but could not get to grips with it. Sorry FP, life's too short.
Back to Topstyle it is then, even if using it makes me an "also ran" CSS-ER according to some. Moral - learn your trade first then you are better placed to experiment and choose the tools that work best for you, not other people[:D]



c1sissy -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 15:09:13)

Dave,
I like html lite and html kit. Nice program, great for hand coding, gives you preview, and split preview etc.. Love this program. works great.



Tailslide -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 15:15:34)

I now use HTML-kit too but I barely use any of the "stuff" on there - I like the syntax highlighting and I use the spell checker but that's about it. The point with pushing Notepad is that you don't need anything more (yes a tiny bit more can make life easier) but there does seem to be a belief that unless you've forked out for Dreamweaver you're not doing it properly!



c1sissy -> RE: FrontPage and CSS (1/31/2006 15:56:12)

quote:

there does seem to be a belief that unless you've forked out for Dreamweaver you're not doing it properly!


Sooooo, that is what I am doing wrong? I am not using dreamweaver?????[sm=ask.gif]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625