«

I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
scroll the table 16 rows at a time.

I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
next to the table that the user could click on.

Any thoughts on how I might do this?

On 9/6/2012 6:44 AM, Martin wrote:
> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>
> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
> next to the table that the user could click on.
>
> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>
I am not following you. There is a scroll bar on the browser window
that will accomplish what I think you are saying. Please clarify.

--
TK ~ aka Terry Kimpling
http://wejuggle2.com/
The 3 ages of man are, youth, adult, and "gee, you look good!" - Red Skelton

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:58:25 -0500, TK <> wrote:

>On 9/6/2012 6:44 AM, Martin wrote:
>> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>>
>> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>> next to the table that the user could click on.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>>
>I am not following you. There is a scroll bar on the browser window
>that will accomplish what I think you are saying. Please clarify.

Yes, there is normally a scroll bar that "slides" the table rows up &
down however much the user wants - I plan to hide that. What I want to
do is "snap" the table rows up or down 16 rows at a time. The effect
would be that the user would be "paging" through the list 16 rows at a
time.

Martin wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:58:25 -0500, TK <> wrote:
>
>>On 9/6/2012 6:44 AM, Martin wrote:
>>> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>>> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>>> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>>> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>>> next to the table that the user could click on.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>>>
>>I am not following you. There is a scroll bar on the browser window
>>that will accomplish what I think you are saying. Please clarify.
>
> Yes, there is normally a scroll bar that "slides" the table rows up &
> down however much the user wants - I plan to hide that.

You can't hide the browser scroll bar. That belongs to me, not you, and is
not a part of your web page.

> What I want to
> do is "snap" the table rows up or down 16 rows at a time. The effect
> would be that the user would be "paging" through the list 16 rows at a
> time.

You probably want something like this:

<http://www.imaputz.com/cssStuff/bigFourVersion.html>
<http://imar.spaanjaars.com/357/a-scrollable-table-with-a-fixed-header>

Make it so that your 16 rows fits the height of the table. (You could also
add a fixed footer to the table.)

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

Martin wrote:
> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>
> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
> next to the table that the user could click on.
>
> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>
One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your "up and
down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data. This approach
would also be tolerant of folks resizing their viewport if the height of the
table set at 100%.

--
best regards,

Neil

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:44:06 -0400, Neil Gould wrote:

> Martin wrote:
>> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>>
>> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>> next to the table that the user could click on.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>>
> One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
> server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your "up and
> down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data. This approach
> would also be tolerant of folks resizing their viewport if the height of the
> table set at 100%.

And the constant refreshing of the page just to scroll a few lines would
drive away the customers.

A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does not need
to be refreshed.

richard wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:44:06 -0400, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
>>> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>>> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>>> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>>> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>>> next to the table that the user could click on.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>>>
>> One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
>> server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your
>> "up and down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data.
>> This approach would also be tolerant of folks resizing their
>> viewport if the height of the table set at 100%.
>
> And the constant refreshing of the page just to scroll a few lines
> would drive away the customers.
>
Not if it's done properly. The only thing that would change in most browsers
would be the data in the table, and the rest of the page would appear to be
static. BTDT many times.

> A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
> Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
> That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does not
> need to be refreshed.
>
And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank, or
worse. That's a "better way"???

--
best regards,

Neil

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:44:14 -0700, Martin <>
wrote:

>I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>
>I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>next to the table that the user could click on.
>
>Any thoughts on how I might do this?

Please do not do this.

My browser has scrollbars so that I can scroll through a page. It
also has Find so I can look for content on the page. If you only
present a smidgin of the data, it makes searching labourious.

Here is an example of how this affects the user.

I follow Patricia Wrede's blog -- she is a fantasy author -- and
in one article, she pointed to another blog. She did not point to a
specific blog entry, just the blog. Unfortunately, that blog displays
five entries at a time and has bad navigation. I did not see any way
to skip to a different page (except the previous). I was going to
have to scroll back through several months of entries to find the one
I wanted.

I ended up giving up on it.

That is probably not the result that you want.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

In message <k301vt$u5t$>
Neil Gould <> wrote:
> richard wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:44:06 -0400, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> I have a table with several hundred rows of data in it. The actual
>>>> number of rows will always be a multiple of 16. The table would be
>>>> sized to display 16 rows and I would like for the user to be able to
>>>> scroll the table 16 rows at a time.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking maybe to have "scroll up" and a "scroll down" buttons
>>>> next to the table that the user could click on.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on how I might do this?
>>>>
>>> One sure way to do this is to populate the table from a database via
>>> server-side scripting. The table would only have 16 rows, and your
>>> "up and down" buttons would load the previous or next set of data.
>>> This approach would also be tolerant of folks resizing their
>>> viewport if the height of the table set at 100%.
>>
>> And the constant refreshing of the page just to scroll a few lines
>> would drive away the customers.
>>
> Not if it's done properly. The only thing that would change in most browsers
> would be the data in the table, and the rest of the page would appear to be
> static. BTDT many times.

>> A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
>> Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
>> That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does not
>> need to be refreshed.
>>
> And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank, or
> worse. That's a "better way"???

What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
not work without it.

--
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a
friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly
attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston
Churchill, in response.

Lewis wrote:
> Neil Gould <> wrote:
>> richard wrote:
>>> A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
>>> Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
>>> That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does
>>> not need to be refreshed.
>>>
>> And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank,
>> or worse. That's a "better way"???
>
> What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
> not work without it.
>
You'd be surprised, apparently. A good website design does not require that
which can't be assured, especially when the information is important to the
customer.

--
best regards,

Neil