If tables are for tabular data then how do you respond to this one?

http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/

Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
I won't give away what to expect.

richard

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:53:24 +0100, richard wrote
(in article <>):

> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
>
> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
> I won't give away what to expect.
>

I think that's great

--
Patrick
Brighton, UK

richard wrote:
> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
>
> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
> I won't give away what to expect.
>

Crap, so your point is?

Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"richard" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
>
> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
> I won't give away what to expect.
>

seriously,whats the point. Big picture, Big wow.
--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> Crap, so your point is?
>
> Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
> there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
> modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.

Perhaps his point is this: if you want to put a huge picture for
some reason or other on a website page, tables is the only
possible way to go. Or it is the best way to go. Or it is a
convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?

You are a wily shark Jonathan and this innocent might need some
help, some leads of what to splutter in reply to you.

Let us not go into why someone might want as a rarity to put a
big pic on a website, you would be on very shaky ground to say
that there never could be a good reason, that it never should be
done. It could be for fun, for information, to send a mighty
impressive ransom note, to do an electronic Hieronymus Bosch (The
Garden of Earthly delights) and then some, and a million other
reasons that might emerge in the next 5 million years.

One question might be the way to do it. Obviously, one big pic
would have its drawbacks for the impatient viewer, so it needs to
be spliced up somehow, somehow delivered in bits and some of the
bits showing.

In this particular case I imagine it would not be hard to deliver
it without table cells if you spliced it all up by hand etc. How
easy this is to do for non human agents, I have no idea? Is
Dreamweaver up to generating with divs yet?

Anyway, it was fun to see it. Someone went to a lot of trouble.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
>
>> Crap, so your point is?
>>
>> Yes there are loads of examples of badly designed websites out
>> there...still doesn't make it a valid application for tables. Unlike
>> modern politics, repetition does not make a falsehood true.
>
> Perhaps his point is this: if you want to put a huge picture for
> some reason or other on a website page, tables is the only
> possible way to go.

Don't agree with that one

> Or it is the best way to go.

Nor that
> Or it is a
> convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
> splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?
>

With tables it can alway be a problem with "some" browsers at getting a
seamless splice. This is where DIVs and absolute positioning (which I
personally try to avoid) can work well and defining classes for your x &
y offset can make it easy to keep track of the grid.

DIV.mosaic IMG { display: block; position: absolute; }

..c1 { left: 0px; }
..c2 { left: 100px; }
..c3 { left: 200px; }

..r1 { top: 0px; }
..r2 { top: 0px; }
..r3 { top: 0px; }

<div class="mosaic">
<img src="c1r1.jpg" alt="" class="c1 r1" width="100" height="100">
<img src="c2r1.jpg" alt="" class="c2 r1" width="100" height="100">
<img src="c3r1.jpg" alt="" class="c3 r1" width="100" height="100">
....

Looks simple and ease to manage to me...

> You are a wily shark Jonathan and this innocent might need some
> help, some leads of what to splutter in reply to you.

Aw, been a little cranky today I guess. Must be in curmudgeon-mode.

>
> Let us not go into why someone might want as a rarity to put a
> big pic on a website, you would be on very shaky ground to say
> that there never could be a good reason, that it never should be
> done. It could be for fun, for information, to send a mighty
> impressive ransom note, to do an electronic Hieronymus Bosch (The
> Garden of Earthly delights) and then some, and a million other
> reasons that might emerge in the next 5 million years.

Not debating the 'wallpaper' just the method of hanging the baby!


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <3cddf$45146429$40cba7b0$>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> Nor that
> > Or it is a
> > convenient and easy way to go because machine algorithms can
> > splice up a big pic in a table easier than any other way?

OK, the question remains about wsiwig generators (that people
like for this sort of thing) to make with divs (as you outlined
and I suspected was possible) rather than tables. Are there such
on the market? Perhaps the only impediment is that the people who
make these generators are a few years behind in their HTML/CSS
thinking?

--
dorayme

richard wrote:
> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
>
> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
> I won't give away what to expect.

Hey, that's pretty neat from a visual standpoint. Lots of variety and
cool little details.

But I personally don't see where it fits into any argument regarding
tables for tabular data. That montage could easily be done without the
table as the basis for the layout.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/

------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 04:41:09 +0100, Kevin Scholl wrote
(in article <xLOdnTw1SbM->):

> richard wrote:
>> http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
>>
>> Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
>> I won't give away what to expect.
>
> Hey, that's pretty neat from a visual standpoint. Lots of variety and
> cool little details.

It's very nice that it is so large that you never get the chance of a
view of the whole thing

It creates a great sense of exploration.

> But I personally don't see where it fits into any argument regarding
> tables for tabular data. That montage could easily be done without the
> table as the basis for the layout.

Yes, I agree this is an irrelevant side issue imho.



--
Patrick
Brighton, UK

In article <6ff0b$4513efa3$40cba77e$>,
says...
> richard wrote:
> > http://www.lovepixel.idv.tw/
> >
> > Give it some time to load. The results will shock you.
> > I won't give away what to expect.
> >
>
> Crap, so your point is?

I see RtS is back. Save yourself.

--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/