Hi Barry, Do you have a link to the new CSS you're referring to? My focus isn't about the outermost border *per se*; It's about getting the content area wider (which then makes the outer border thinner). If the content area is narrow like it shows on the page below, I don't think it will work for the very wide photos and maps I need to transfer. That's my biggest concern. I'm also confused why my example page (below) had any old codes, since it only contains css-appropriate tags (ids, classes, h2... no font tags, no garbage). http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm This is the page I validated. Are there tags leftover that I overlooked? I've been removing all garbage, fonts, etc. from every page (so that won't be a problem), while trying to figure out how to get the content area widened in the CSS and get display problems fixed with the search boxes, includes, etc. So at this point the site existing on my PC is "trash" without the CSS fixed. I haven't started moving content yet, fearing I'd make a bigger mess of things. . If it would help you to see them, I can transfer some map-photo content to the template above and upload them, so you can see my concern about the wide photos and atlas maps with the narrow content area. Would that help? Judy

I completely agree with you Pat. Having a website is fine, but you have to keep up with the trend to use smaller devices, if you wish for Google to keep your site on the first page. I have with help mastered one or two sites and made them mobile friendly. I have others to do, and haven't worked on them yet. Been too busy with actual genealogy.:-)) Jill > On 18 Feb 2016, at 15:29, Pat Asher via <[email protected]> wrote: > > At 04:14 AM 2/18/2016, Valerie lirakis via wrote: >> Pat and Ralph - I understand what you're saying about the limitations of >> mobile devices to do justice to the design elements of larger screens. >> However, I, and probably many others, derive pleasure from creating >> attractive backgrounds, etc, whether or not they are accommodated on >> smaller devices. Frankly, I don't really care, as the majority of people >> looking at sites such as ours will probably be using laptops/tablets rather >> than mobile phones anyway. > > Valerie, I agree that our current demographic is older, and they are > more likely to use devices with larger screens. > > OTOH, if we are going to entice the next generation to become > involved, they have to be introduced to what we have to offer; and > those younger generations use mobile phones or tablets almost > exclusively for personal browsing. Once they start serious research, > it is likely they will switch to larger screens for viewing scans of > original documents, etc. But I don't want the new or casual > researcher to dismiss what my sites have to offer because my sites > look bad or are difficult to navigate on a small screen. > > > Pat A. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

When I asked Barry for his help with Mobile code, I told him I mainly wanted to get Google / Webmaster Tools off my back about being mobile "unfriendly". Barry wrote it so it says my site isn't really designed for Mobile-- a nice way to say, "use a regular PC to see my site". For now, I'm content with that much. IF I'm still able in a few years, maybe I'll want to "upgrade". But back to my question.. I look at margins, padding, width, and just don't know what to change to make it thinner outside border and wider innnermost content. I picked Table2 thinking that was the one-- but it doubled the innermost content width so it scrolled far right. Not good. I've ripped apart the whole site already. I'm ready to copy content-- IF I can fix the CSS for the background image (repeat?? fixed?? how? where?) and the space for outermost and innermost areas. I re-used the CSS that Barry so generously helped me with the last time, but the layout does not the show up the same as the other site. I think Barry's been busy, so I hope the List can help me sort out these pesky layout problems. As an aside, I'm so ticked off that educators decided to introduce "New Math" in my grade school. I was fine in math before that-- but "new math" confused me. Educators stopped New Math the next year because students were getting Fs -- but by then, the damage had been done. For me, numbers never made sense again. I never went on to any higher math in HS - got a diploma without taking geometry or trig. I know it sounds stupid, but I truly don't understand and cannot "figure" how CSS pixels are decided. I'm still back at 100% means whole; 50% is half, etc. Percents make sense.... seeing 690px does not make any sense to me. Could someone help me get this sorted out? I *think* I can do most of the pages if I can just get the layout straightened out. Judy

At 04:14 AM 2/18/2016, Valerie lirakis via wrote: >Pat and Ralph - I understand what you're saying about the limitations of >mobile devices to do justice to the design elements of larger screens. >However, I, and probably many others, derive pleasure from creating >attractive backgrounds, etc, whether or not they are accommodated on >smaller devices. Frankly, I don't really care, as the majority of people >looking at sites such as ours will probably be using laptops/tablets rather >than mobile phones anyway. Valerie, I agree that our current demographic is older, and they are more likely to use devices with larger screens. OTOH, if we are going to entice the next generation to become involved, they have to be introduced to what we have to offer; and those younger generations use mobile phones or tablets almost exclusively for personal browsing. Once they start serious research, it is likely they will switch to larger screens for viewing scans of original documents, etc. But I don't want the new or casual researcher to dismiss what my sites have to offer because my sites look bad or are difficult to navigate on a small screen. Pat A.

Pat and Ralph - I understand what you're saying about the limitations of mobile devices to do justice to the design elements of larger screens. However, I, and probably many others, derive pleasure from creating attractive backgrounds, etc, whether or not they are accommodated on smaller devices. Frankly, I don't really care, as the majority of people looking at sites such as ours will probably be using laptops/tablets rather than mobile phones anyway. I for one have no intention of even trying to make my sites "mobile friendly", and judging by their position in the Google listings (at the top) it hasn't done them any harm! Valerie On 17 February 2016 at 23:46, Ralph Taylor via <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat: "IOW Small display devices just can not accommodate or adequately > display some of the beautiful design elements that we used to use for large > screen layouts." > > This seems a point worth expanding upon. It surely makes basic design > sense. > > -rt_/) > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I agree with Valerie. I just looked at, possibly, the worst of my websites to view on a tiny little screen with my iPhone 4s [ http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~okcslsa/index.html ]. With the phone in landscape it was just the teeniest bit wide. If I scooted it to the left just a bit it was fine. Other than that it scaled and looked as good as on my 23 inch desktop monitor. Even the embedded video looked good. That site is WAY more small screen un-friendly than just about any other site I have made. If it shows well then the others ought to be fantastic. The iPhone 4 is ancient technology. Almost no cell phone made now has a screen that tiny. And, there was ever only one tablet I know of that was that tiny [ I have one ]. Virtually everyone looking is going to be on something with a screen much larger than my iPhone. On 02/18/2016 03:14 AM, Valerie lirakis via wrote: > Pat and Ralph - I understand what you're saying about the limitations of > mobile devices to do justice to the design elements of larger screens. > However, I, and probably many others, derive pleasure from creating > attractive backgrounds, etc, whether or not they are accommodated on > smaller devices. Frankly, I don't really care, as the majority of people > looking at sites such as ours will probably be using laptops/tablets rather > than mobile phones anyway. > > I for one have no intention of even trying to make my sites "mobile > friendly", and judging by their position in the Google listings (at the > top) it hasn't done them any harm! > > Valerie > > On 17 February 2016 at 23:46, Ralph Taylor via <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Pat: "IOW Small display devices just can not accommodate or adequately >> display some of the beautiful design elements that we used to use for large >> screen layouts." >> >> This seems a point worth expanding upon. It surely makes basic design >> sense. >> >> -rt_/) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without >> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry. -Wyatt Earp- _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._

Pat: "IOW Small display devices just can not accommodate or adequately display some of the beautiful design elements that we used to use for large screen layouts." This seems a point worth expanding upon. It surely makes basic design sense. -rt_/)

At 08:15 PM 2/15/2016, JFlorian via wrote: >And, is the new page ( >http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm >) still >technically a triple border with the middlemost one just super thin? (It's >the way I want it between outermost and innermost, but is it still a triple >border layout or a double border layout? scratching head...) Judy, Do you still want your site design to be mobile friendly? If so, take a look at <http://mobiletest.me/iphone_5_emulator/?u=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm> This is the way your triple border layout with photographic background looks on an IPhone5. IOW Small display devices just can not accommodate or adequately display some of the beautiful design elements that we used to use for large screen layouts. When thinking about design for mobile devices, simplify, simplify, and then simplify again. Photographs need to be part of the content, not screen eating backgrounds. Study the graphic advertisements (not video clips) you see on TV today. They use blocks of color to create impact and attract attention. When used, photo and video clips are often inserted between opening and closing screens showing little more than a company name and/or a slogan and a cursor moving to a brightly colored "buy" button. Like you, I used to want my web sites to be as "pretty" as I could make them. Today's displays for small mobile devices need to be geared toward presenting as much information as possible, but using as little defined screen space as possible: scalable graphics and photos, lists with wrapping columns instead of fixed width tables, and backgrounds that are not necessary and can be eliminated entirely on small mobile devices. Pat A.

Judy, It would look better if you had your pictures on the left and right side of the screen, rather than as a complete background - that way they would not repeat. The html for this is contained in the head section and the css as follows: body { font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-style:italic; margin: 0; padding: 0; color: #ffffff; background-image: url('sy_john_westfieldb.jpg'), url('sy_john_westfieldb.jpg'); background-position: calc((100vw - 860px) / 2 - (150px + 8px)) 0px, calc((100vw - 860px) / 2 + (860px - 8px)) 0px; background-repeat: repeat-y; background-color: #8b99b4; } see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~sussexgenealogy.html Valerie On 16 February 2016 at 01:15, JFlorian via <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is the css (looks messy online, sorry) > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016.css > > Here is the page: > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm > > > > First, W3 does not like these 2 together in the CSS (see below). > background-repeat: repeat; > background-position: fixed; > > Am I supposed to have both? > > > Second, I've been searching for the # pixels or percents to use for page > layouts with double or triple borders. I'm not having much luck and don't > know what are acceptable widths. Could someone tell me what I need to > change to make the centermost "content" area wider and the outermost > thinner? Based on the differences between these 2 pages--- > I could use a bit more outermost than what is showing on this OLD page - > Maybe show double the width than what it shows now? > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/ > > But half the width of this outermost border, so the border is not SO > wide--- > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm > > > And, could you switch all of the width and padding statements to percents > rather than pixels because it's easier for me to understand. > > The online version of the CSS looks messy so I'll give the sections here > <!-- > /* =========================================== > OUTERMOST TRIPLE BORDER and BODY STYLES /*downtown-washington-pa*/ > ============================================== */ > body { > background-image: url('graphics/site/a_uptown_eosbokchito_68.8kb.gif'); > background-repeat: repeat; > background-position: fixed; > font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; > font-size: 0.9em; > color:#000; > text-align:center; > } > /* ====================== > > And... > > /* ============================================ > MIDDLEMOST TRIPLE BORDER COLOR: http://www.color-hex.com/color/ecdac2 > =============================================== */ > #table1 { > width:98%; > background-image: #f9f0e9; url:('bk_main_eos_68.8kb.gif'); > } > /* ============================================ > INNERMOST TRIPLE BORDER - COLOR: http://www.color-hex.com/color/faf4e4 > NOTE: The image jpg is commented out. > > =============================================== */ > #table2 { > width:100%; > border:ridge 3px #aaa; > background: #f5f4ef ; > } > #table3, #table4 { > width: 20%; > font-size: 80%; > font-weight: bold; > text-align: center; > } > #table4 { > width: 90%; > } > > //--> > > Hope the CSS items goes through the list okay. > > I also need to know if the content area will automatically expand to the > right to accommodate Atlas Maps? (Or should I use a different layout for > those pages?) > > > And, is the new page ( > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm > ) still > technically a triple border with the middlemost one just super thin? (It's > the way I want it between outermost and innermost, but is it still a triple > border layout or a double border layout? scratching head...) > > Judy > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

RE: "How do you write a borderless (invisible) table for external CSS?" Doing it with HTML, rather than CSS is cleaner: <.table border="0" ....> ======== The CSS takes over the HTML versions, hence, the need for a CSS borderless table. Or, could I change the "table" to a new name here and let "table" stand for a borderless table in the CSS? /* ======================= all links ========================== */ img { border: none; } table { width: 100%; margin: 2px auto; border:ridge 2px #aaa; padding: 5px; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0; } table td { border:ridge 2px #aaa; padding: 5px; }

Here is the css (looks messy online, sorry) http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016.css Here is the page: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm First, W3 does not like these 2 together in the CSS (see below). background-repeat: repeat; background-position: fixed; Am I supposed to have both? Second, I've been searching for the # pixels or percents to use for page layouts with double or triple borders. I'm not having much luck and don't know what are acceptable widths. Could someone tell me what I need to change to make the centermost "content" area wider and the outermost thinner? Based on the differences between these 2 pages--- I could use a bit more outermost than what is showing on this OLD page - Maybe show double the width than what it shows now? http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/ But half the width of this outermost border, so the border is not SO wide--- http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm And, could you switch all of the width and padding statements to percents rather than pixels because it's easier for me to understand. The online version of the CSS looks messy so I'll give the sections here <!-- /* =========================================== OUTERMOST TRIPLE BORDER and BODY STYLES /*downtown-washington-pa*/ ============================================== */ body { background-image: url('graphics/site/a_uptown_eosbokchito_68.8kb.gif'); background-repeat: repeat; background-position: fixed; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; color:#000; text-align:center; } /* ====================== And... /* ============================================ MIDDLEMOST TRIPLE BORDER COLOR: http://www.color-hex.com/color/ecdac2 =============================================== */ #table1 { width:98%; background-image: #f9f0e9; url:('bk_main_eos_68.8kb.gif'); } /* ============================================ INNERMOST TRIPLE BORDER - COLOR: http://www.color-hex.com/color/faf4e4 NOTE: The image jpg is commented out. =============================================== */ #table2 { width:100%; border:ridge 3px #aaa; background: #f5f4ef ; } #table3, #table4 { width: 20%; font-size: 80%; font-weight: bold; text-align: center; } #table4 { width: 90%; } //--> Hope the CSS items goes through the list okay. I also need to know if the content area will automatically expand to the right to accommodate Atlas Maps? (Or should I use a different layout for those pages?) And, is the new page ( http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pawashin/test_with_feb-09-2016_css-new.htm ) still technically a triple border with the middlemost one just super thin? (It's the way I want it between outermost and innermost, but is it still a triple border layout or a double border layout? scratching head...) Judy

RE: "How do you write a borderless (invisible) table for external CSS?" Doing it with HTML, rather than CSS is cleaner: <.table border="0" ....> But, if you must use CSS: table.noborders { border: none; } And then in the HTML code: <.table class="noborders" ..> -rt_/)

You can see an example of an invisible table by clicking on http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~sussexgenealogy/brighton-college.html Here is the css for this .gallery { width: 100%; margin: 10px auto; padding: 4px; } .gallery th { font-size:medium; color:#000; } .gallery td { text-align: center; font-family: "Book Antiqua"; font-size: medium; font-weight: bold; color: #000; padding: 4px; width: 25%; vertical-align: top; } Valerie

How do you write a borderless (invisible) table for external CSS? Judy

Hmm. Got the same message. On 02/12/2016 11:40 PM, Charles Dobie via wrote: > Hey folks, > > I've been talking up freepages as the way to go with some people who > run some existing web sites. > So one of them went to > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ and clicked on the > first link "Request Your Own Freepages Account" and got "Internal > Server Error", as I just did when I tried it as well. > > Not good :-( > > > Charles Dobie, > [email protected] > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry. -Wyatt Earp- _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._

Works foe Charles Jill > On 13 Feb 2016, at 05:40, Charles Dobie via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey folks, > > I've been talking up freepages as the way to go with some people who > run some existing web sites. > So one of them went to > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ and clicked on the > first link "Request Your Own Freepages Account" and got "Internal > Server Error", as I just did when I tried it as well. > > Not good :-( > > > Charles Dobie, > [email protected] > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Oh and tell them it is 100% free, which means we don't have a lot to complain about since they save us $10 to $60 a month in web hosting, plus money for domain name and registering. But RW is fairly good about keeping us up and running. And-- when they don't fix things "right now", it isn't like the deceased persons on our gene websites are going anywhere, ya know? We aren't losing money, losing a sale, or anything urgent IF a gene page/site is down. Judy - who is redoing a county site hosted on RW. If I sound a little crabby, it's from fixing prior mistakes I or others made and repairing broken links... ugh. :-/

You're talking about this link: http://accounts.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Tell your friends that ALL webpages and Internet companies have broken links that often go unnoticed until reported. Fix a page and something else breaks. This broken link has been reported. When you go to Help ( http://rootsweb.custhelp.com/ ) which is the support desk, you see a banner:: 8 *Freepages:2015-11-13* The tool used to request free web space is not currently working. So, use the help desk link and request space. http://rootsweb.custhelp.com/ Judy

Hey folks, I've been talking up freepages as the way to go with some people who run some existing web sites. So one of them went to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ and clicked on the first link "Request Your Own Freepages Account" and got "Internal Server Error", as I just did when I tried it as well. Not good :-( Charles Dobie, [email protected]

Judy, I have now been through the remainder of the page and sorted out most of the code so that it now validates as HTML5. Put it into FP and see what happens. As I have said before, I don't have FP, and at the end of the day if the browser can output the code correctly and it validates, why should I bother. http://countjustonce.com/test/florian-pa-1a.html ... is the new page,other tables and #tblThree has been replaced by a div id="foot-note". Barry ----------------------------- On 08/02/2016 19:34, JFlorian wrote: > Thank you Barry. I have a couple questions. > Unsure of the correct wording for this -- On the page online, is the pink-content area expand-collapsable? Is that why so much background shows on the left?? Is there a way to set the content area to be the same size width on every page? > I saved your example page and put it in Fp editor. It kept showing no body background--I messed with it for hours with no luck. But when I scrolled down, the background is there, but more than 3/4ths down the page with white space above. How do I make it show offline like it shows online? > Judy