I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see from my 
last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client and the system 
to start a new aligned image + text block would be a table.

______________
| img  | Text. . . . . |
|____|_________|

Am I imagining this?

-dE|_---

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:42:12 +0100, dE|_ wrote:

> I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see from
> my last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client and the
> system to start a new aligned image + text block would be a table.
> 
> ______________
> | img  | Text. . . . . |
> |____|_________|
> 
> Am I imagining this?

I thought your mate had written his own CMS?  Kind of defeats the object 
of your 'network' of 90 years experience, does it not?

I think you need to remember what CMS stands for.  It's not a web design 
tool, it's for people to manage content.

Don't use tables.

The best thing is to use CSS and give the client access to the class 
through the CMS.  Just set classes on the CSS file for imageLeft and 
imageRight and then float them.  If you want two columns, 1 for the text 
and one for the image then just limit the width of the <p> - or you could 
be brave and use CSS3 columns!

-- 
Andy Jacobs

On 20 Jul, 23:40, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:42:12 +0100, dE|_ wrote:
> > I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see from
> > my last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client and the
> > system to start a new aligned image + text block would be a table.
>
> I think you need to remember what CMS stands for.  It's not a web design
> tool, it's for people to manage content.
>
> Don't use tables.
>
> The best thing is to use CSS and give the client access to the class
> through the CMS.  Just set classes on the CSS file for imageLeft and
> imageRight and then float them.  If you want two columns, 1 for the text
> and one for the image then just limit the width of the <p> - or you could
> be brave and use CSS3 columns!

The simple stuff you're looking for - an aligned image and text is
easy to do with floats and doesn't need tables. You will need to
include a <br clear='all'> at the end of the text paragraph, or else
the image may float over the top of the item below this block.

But, in general, with user-generated content, floating DIV structures
are extremely fragile and frustrating to users. Don't expect them to
know anything about HTML, and CSS, well... . So the chances are you
will have to use tables as some form of control blocks depending on
exactly what you are trying to do.


Saul
www.notanant.com
communities of websites

"Andy Jacobs"
>
>> I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see from
>> my last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client and the
>> system to start a new aligned image + text block would be a table.
>>
>> ______________
>> | img  | Text. . . . . |
>> |____|_________|
>>
>> Am I imagining this?
>
> I thought your mate had written his own CMS?  Kind of defeats the object
> of your 'network' of 90 years experience, does it not?

The work he does is for university intranets, his part of any job doesn't
involve all the lovely UI and help files etc that something like an Adobe
package would offer a www user who hasn't got a clue. I am going to see what
we can combine though.
>
> I think you need to remember what CMS stands for.  It's not a web design
> tool, it's for people to manage content.
>
> Don't use tables.
>
> The best thing is to use CSS and give the client access to the class
> through the CMS.  Just set classes on the CSS file for imageLeft and
> imageRight and then float them.  If you want two columns, 1 for the text
> and one for the image then just limit the width of the <p> - or you could
> be brave and use CSS3 columns!
>

That all makes sense to us, how well worded and UI'd it is in the CMS is
another issue. The only difference here with floating vs tables in terms of
presentation that I can see is the wrapping of excess text under the
left-side image.

Is there a particular reason why tables are not suitable for CMS in
particular, or is the comment reffering to tables in HTML as a whole?

-dE|_---

Message-ID: <rOYgk.18341$CE1.13746@newsfe17.ams2> from dE|_ contained
the following:

>Is there a particular reason why tables are not suitable for CMS in
>particular, or is the comment reffering to tables in HTML as a whole?

Apart from accessibility issues the idea of not using tables for layout
is to separate design from content. Theoretically you mark up your pages
semantically and then by using CSS you can display your pages however
you want (see http://www.csszengarden.com/ )

That said, I've often found it incredibly difficult to get consistent
results in various browsers and  TBH, as long as you cater for the
accessibility issues and accept the fact that your pages will not be
quite a s flexible regarding redesign, I'd say go for the tables.

-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk

"Andy Jacobs" say:
>
>> I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see from
>> my last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client and the
>> system to start a new aligned image + text block would be a table.
>>
>> ______________
>> | img  | Text. . . . . |
>> |____|_________|
>>
>> Am I imagining this?
>
> I thought your mate had written his own CMS?  Kind of defeats the object
> of your 'network' of 90 years experience, does it not?
>
> I think you need to remember what CMS stands for.  It's not a web design
> tool, it's for people to manage content.

Don't ask me the details- I only know what it stands for, but he tells me 
that for a task as minor as this he's going to make one in PERL that will do 
what is needed here, no help files needed.

Tables are not my day-to-day method of layout anymore, but I prefer them for 
this particular page as it calls for a uniform appearance of the string of 
posts- no smooth floating. Unless the tables will crash the server I'll 
probably stick to them here, in future I will go with whatever works in the 
page.

> Don't use tables.

Drugs are bad.

-dE|_---

On 21 Jul, 14:40, Geoff Berrow  wrote:
> Message-ID: <rOYgk.18341$CE1.13746@newsfe17.ams2> from dE|_ contained
> the following:
>
> >Is there a particular reason why tables are not suitable for CMS in
> >particular, or is the comment reffering to tables in HTML as a whole?
>
> Apart from accessibility issues the idea of not using tables for layout
> is to separate design from content. Theoretically you mark up your pages
> semantically and then by using CSS you can display your pages however
> you want (seehttp://www.csszengarden.com/)
>
> That said, I've often found it incredibly difficult to get consistent
> results in various browsers and  TBH, as long as you cater for the
> accessibility issues and accept the fact that your pages will not be
> quite a s flexible regarding redesign, I'd say go for the tables.

In CMS, content is fully separated from design and layout whereas HTML
mixes content and structure to the extent that moving from a three
column page to a two column page may involve a complete rewrite of an
entire website. On the other hand a good CMS system can generate
output with or without tables, or with or with HTML at a switch of a
button - the table or div structure is just a framework around the
actual content (the user-generated stuff) - that's proper content
separation.

If you allow users to do anything more interesting than plain text -
like including images, changing text colour, that sort of thing,
floats and inconsistencies between browsers and rogue </DIV> tags can
be a nightmare in terms of keeping the page working as the user wants.
Tables are generally sturdier, but if it's simple and strongly
defined, simple floats may be good enough.


Saul
www.notanant.com
Communities of websites

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:18:15 -0700, Saul wrote:

> On 20 Jul, 23:40, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:42:12 +0100, dE|_ wrote:
>> > I have not got hold of, or even chosen a CMS yet, but you will see
>> > from my last post that I am assuming that the best way for the client
>> > and the system to start a new aligned image + text block would be a
>> > table.
>>
>> I think you need to remember what CMS stands for.  It's not a web
>> design tool, it's for people to manage content.
>>
>> Don't use tables.
>>
>> The best thing is to use CSS and give the client access to the class
>> through the CMS.  Just set classes on the CSS file for imageLeft and
>> imageRight and then float them.  If you want two columns, 1 for the
>> text and one for the image then just limit the width of the <p> - or
>> you could be brave and use CSS3 columns!
> 
> The simple stuff you're looking for - an aligned image and text is easy
> to do with floats and doesn't need tables. You will need to include a
> <br clear='all'> at the end of the text paragraph, or else the image may
> float over the top of the item below this block.
> 
> But, in general, with user-generated content, floating DIV structures
> are extremely fragile and frustrating to users. Don't expect them to
> know anything about HTML, and CSS, well... . So the chances are you will
> have to use tables as some form of control blocks depending on exactly
> what you are trying to do.

What about this page?

http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk/web-design-portfolio

That's generated straight from a CMS.

-- 
Andy Jacobs

"Saul" and others say...
>>
>> >Is there a particular reason why tables are not suitable for CMS in
>> >particular, or is the comment reffering to tables in HTML as a whole?
>>
>> Apart from accessibility issues the idea of not using tables for layout
>> is to separate design from content. Theoretically you mark up your pages
>> semantically and then by using CSS you can display your pages however
>> you want (seehttp://www.csszengarden.com/)
>>
>> That said, I've often found it incredibly difficult to get consistent
>> results in various browsers and  TBH, as long as you cater for the
>> accessibility issues and accept the fact that your pages will not be
>> quite a s flexible regarding redesign, I'd say go for the tables.
>
> In CMS, content is fully separated from design and layout whereas HTML
> mixes content and structure to the extent that moving from a three
> column page to a two column page may involve a complete rewrite of an
> entire website. On the other hand a good CMS system can generate
> output with or without tables, or with or with HTML at a switch of a
> button - the table or div structure is just a framework around the
> actual content (the user-generated stuff) - that's proper content
> separation.
>
> If you allow users to do anything more interesting than plain text -
> like including images, changing text colour, that sort of thing,
> floats and inconsistencies between browsers and rogue </DIV> tags can
> be a nightmare in terms of keeping the page working as the user wants.
> Tables are generally sturdier, but if it's simple and strongly
> defined, simple floats may be good enough.

It seems to boil down to what is going to go into that part of the page, and 
how well the CMS will assist the entry & do the writing.

We determined that a full CMS like contribute is just more complex than 
£worth it if all a client is doing is adding news posts, menu lists, stuff 
that doesn't require database. Going to tailor make each one to work a 
specific function / write the specific HTML used on that page, rather than 
the universal minefield approach.

-dE|_---

dE|_ wrote:

> "Saul" and others say...
> >>
> >> >Is there a particular reason why tables are not suitable for CMS in
> >> >particular, or is the comment reffering to tables in HTML as a whole?
> >>
> >> Apart from accessibility issues the idea of not using tables for layout
> >> is to separate design from content. Theoretically you mark up your pages
> >> semantically and then by using CSS you can display your pages however
> >> you want (seehttp://www.csszengarden.com/)
> >>
> >> That said, I've often found it incredibly difficult to get consistent
> >> results in various browsers and  TBH, as long as you cater for the
> >> accessibility issues and accept the fact that your pages will not be
> >> quite a s flexible regarding redesign, I'd say go for the tables.
> >
> > In CMS, content is fully separated from design and layout whereas HTML
> > mixes content and structure to the extent that moving from a three
> > column page to a two column page may involve a complete rewrite of an
> > entire website. On the other hand a good CMS system can generate
> > output with or without tables, or with or with HTML at a switch of a
> > button - the table or div structure is just a framework around the
> > actual content (the user-generated stuff) - that's proper content
> > separation.
> >
> > If you allow users to do anything more interesting than plain text -
> > like including images, changing text colour, that sort of thing,
> > floats and inconsistencies between browsers and rogue </DIV> tags can
> > be a nightmare in terms of keeping the page working as the user wants.
> > Tables are generally sturdier, but if it's simple and strongly
> > defined, simple floats may be good enough.
>
> It seems to boil down to what is going to go into that part of the page, and
> how well the CMS will assist the entry & do the writing.
>
> We determined that a full CMS like contribute is just more complex than
> �worth it if all a client is doing is adding news posts, menu lists, stuff
> that doesn't require database. Going to tailor make each one to work a
> specific function / write the specific HTML used on that page, rather than
> the universal minefield approach.
>
Well, if you don't need a full CMS, just use PHP includes for the bits
that you actually need to include.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

"Chaddy2222" wrote

>> It seems to boil down to what is going to go into that part of the page, 
>> and
>> how well the CMS will assist the entry & do the writing.
>>
>> We determined that a full CMS like contribute is just more complex than
>> ?worth it if all a client is doing is adding news posts, menu lists, 
>> stuff
>> that doesn't require database. Going to tailor make each one to work a
>> specific function / write the specific HTML used on that page, rather 
>> than
>> the universal minefield approach.
>>
> Well, if you don't need a full CMS, just use PHP includes for the bits
> that you actually need to include.

Ben's more of a PERL expert than PHP, running a test today. Going to be a 
log-in, fill-in, search for image, press button, table written script. I 
don't know if it's any kind of 'includes' system, I'm not familiar with 
that.

-dE|_---