|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| |
||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
ASP Free Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
#1
July 25th, 2005, 07:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dreamweaver
How do you get dreamweaver to actually place things where
you want, say i put tables in and then put a picture within the table, somethings on that webpage may change places, and then you cant put that thing back in the possition it was. its very fustrating. any ideas
|
|
#2
July 25th, 2005, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I had some problems with dreamweaver table layouts and images as well. I would put an image in the cell and it would make the table big enough to support the actual image resolution regardless of what pic size i set.. but this would correct itself when i tried to manually adjust table width by clicking on the far right table border.. you can avoid alot of this by using Image editing software to set your image size and by giving DW table widths in percent and/or hardcoding in your width in notepad after the page has been published
__________________
werD, MCSD .Net <% ASP,.NET App Development %> Really Help People with Real Diseases... And Get a Cool Blue Flower! If a post has helped you please use the scales... we all need bigger heads 
|
|
#3
July 27th, 2005, 08:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The best practice i use is draw your table etc in layout mode make sure if your image is 200x200px your draw the table 200x200 or bigger, also make sure your images are always 72dpi the things should start working out and not streching things
|
|
#4
August 1st, 2005, 05:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, "Best Practice" isn't to use a WYSIWYG program in the first place. Nor should you be using "layout tables".
Learn XHTML and you'll understand why. I curse Macromedia (and Microsoft) for dumbing down the web.
|
|
#5
August 2nd, 2005, 02:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i agree XHTML and divs etc is better and i build everything that way, i just tipped the guy to use the layout mode as from his post he did not seem to have much experience. just trying to sort the guy out with a easy fix.
I still use dreamweaver but just hard code it in ;o)) i like the way it looks lol
|
|
#6
August 2nd, 2005, 08:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You've got the "divitis" mindset, I noticed.
Just remember that you're not limited to using the virtually-semantically neutal <div> element, but ANY XHTML element can be styled. In standards-compliant browsers, you can even style the <head>, <title>, and <meta> elements. ...With the exception of the <table>-related elements in IE. Just remember to be semantic. Rather than this: Code:
<div id="leftnavbar"> <div class="navitem"><a href="blargh">Blargh</a></div> <div class="navitem"><a href="blargh">Blargh</a></div> <div class="navitem"><a href="blargh">Blargh</a></div> <div class="navitem"><a href="blargh">Blargh</a></div> </div> Do this instead: Code:
<ul id="nav"> <li><a href="#">Blargh</a></li> <li><a href="#">Blargh</a></li> <li><a href="#">Blargh</a></li> <li><a href="#">Blargh</a></li> </ul> The default appearance of the <ul><li> as being a bulleted list can be changed in CSS.
|
|
#7
August 2nd, 2005, 09:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
that does make sence but lets say u needed that List to be a certain place on the site etc etc im guessing you would need to wrap a div arround it to possition it where you want it?
|
|
#8
August 2nd, 2005, 09:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nope, the <ul> is its own box element. Just position itself.
Remember, all XHTML elements produce boxes, just with different default styles. Code:
ul#nav {
position: absolute;
top: blargh;
left: blargh;
}
|
|
#12
September 13th, 2005, 11:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Don't discount WYSIWYG editors
Personally I use DreamWeaver and a product called EditPlus. I started out using the WYSIWYG mostly and tweaking in the code view. Now I write almost exclusively in code view, but still like to be able to get a general idea of what it looks like while I work. I think DreamWeaver was a great way to introduce myself to the code.
|
|
#13
September 13th, 2005, 12:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The only thing I don't like about Dreamweaver is that it puts a lot of extraneous code in sometimes. I find myself going back through and editing things for simplicity's sake. But I agree that it's definately a plus to have that general idea of what you are looking at on the fly.
__________________
--RP7-- - Rome was built in a day - - nevermind, i've been there... impossible... if (scales=="click" && points=="lots") {me==happy}
|
|
#14
September 13th, 2005, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dont give Dreamweaver a tough time, I know its not the greatest app around and css and xhtml evangalists would rather see it burned in its box, but it does have considerable benefits especially when designing the layout of a site, its faster than hardcoding - when your in a working environment - no time to sit and hardcode 500 or so plus lines just for design purposes.
It also supports remote ftp access which a lot of freebie text editors dont and also has support for workgroups, like in our office when their could be 5 of you working symultaniously [dodgy spelling there I think] on the same page. Nah, its got its faults but it aint that bad, there's worse out there, believe me I've tried them!!!
|
|
#15
September 14th, 2005, 04:43 AM
|
||||
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
