Variable length scrolling <div> or <iframe>?

[Jim M]

Is it safe to say that ShowModalDialog is out of the question for a cross
platform solutoin? I find this routine very effective, especially with ASPX
postbacks in the modal dialog.

Jim

 

[Allard]

Why would filling a screen improve an interface? Would the Windows
Calculator (calc.exe) be a better application if you could maximize
its window? You are proposing to do essentially the same thing. If the
form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen, then it will. Why
force it to if it doesn't have to?

A calendar is not an application that has scrollbars, because it is
small anyway. Take a look at a site, let's take an example:
http://www.w3schools.com. (one of the sites I got very irritated...)
Select any of the options (for example, learn XML), and start reading.
Every time you read to the bottom of the page, you must scroll up to go
to the next section.... Sure this could be solved easily with CSS, to
make the table of content section on the left "fixed". (the left part of
the screen is blank anyway...)

What if this "content" is too big to fit on the height of the screen?
Then it doesn't work anymore. (that's why they didn't do it, sure) Then
it would need scrollbars. How big would they be? Answer: height:100%

So this is why a full screen environment is needed, leaving the content,
or any important links fixed to the left or top of the screen, and
allowing a smaller part of the screen as the view, only this view
changes.

And yes, this would then be a IFRAME, but how do you put this IFRAME to
use the fullscreen... leaving the left side and top side off the screen
as they are.... that is the point.

It's interesting to discuss these kind of things. I am still trying to
convince you, hope I will...

Allie

 

[Allard]

Is it safe to say that ShowModalDialog is out of the question for a
cross platform solutoin? I find this routine very effective,
especially with ASPX postbacks in the modal dialog.

showModalDialog is great. Except for the title of the window that you
can fill with "the title &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;etc" but
will never lose the three little points, no matter how many &nbsp; you
put.

A drawback is that you cannot change the URL in the modalDialog, it will
open always a new window.

And it only works in IE...

Allie

 

[Dave Anderson]

A calendar is not an application that has scrollbars,
because it is small anyway.

I didn't exactly mention scrollbars, and I don't see how this addresses my
question. How exactly does a bunch of unused space improve an application,
much less "a lot"? I still don't understand why you need to fill the window.

...let's take an example: http://www.w3schools.com. (one of
the sites I got very irritated...) Select any of the options
(for example, learn XML), and start reading. Every time you
read to the bottom of the page, you must scroll up to go to
the next section.

This is a completely separate issue, as an excess of content already takes
care of filling the window for you. Nevertheless, we can look at this. I
followed the [Learn XML] link and skimmed through some of the articles,
pressing the [Next] button at the end of each.

I have two impressions from this. First of all, the site does not do a good
job of visually distinguishing content from promotion/advertising. I
consider this a design flaw because it could lead a viewer to believe that
the bottom of the page is logically the bottom of the content (article). But
(a) this does not represent a limitation of the technology, and is easily
remedied, and (b) CONTEXT is important here. As I reached the end of an
article, I got to the [Next] button, which did not require any scrolling to
reach. So I did not find this especially burdensome IN ACTUAL PRACTICE**.

...What if this "content" is too big to fit on the height
of the screen? Then it doesn't work anymore. (that's why
they didn't do it, sure) Then it would need scrollbars.
How big would they be? Answer: height:100%

I don't understand your objection. Yes, content that exceeds the available
screen space will require a scrollbar. But you don't have to do any work to
accomplish that, so why worry about it? Once again, I don't understand the
need to fill the screen when (a) there isn't enough content to do so, or (b)
the sufficiency of content already does it for you. I see absolutely no
practical reason to use height:100%. Aesthetic, perhaps, but not practical.



**In practice, those users who are most apt to press the [Next] button ought
to be the ones actually reading the article. If the user is paying any
attention whatsoever, that end is obvious.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

 

[Dave Anderson]

The purpose of the original post was for a weekly calendar,
ie.. this would take 7 <iframes>, 7 hits to the server.
Next, I will go after a monthly calendar with scrolling
days... 31 <iframes>. The problem is that a large screen is
a great advantage when looking at a monthly calendar. It
seems so silly to be stuck with fixed sized days in my
calendar to get scrolling.

That's a misinterpretation of my suggestion. You could certainly have
branding/navigation in the primary document (or one of the frames), and the
calendar table in the IFRAME (or other frame). Here is an example of a
frameset with a big dynamic table in the content frame:
http://tinyurl.com/32zuf

I like this example because it demonstrates how you can visually present
subsets of a large set of content that is much larger than the window. The
user can choose how much to view at a time. Such an approach seems
well-suited for a calendar.

I do not think it is unusual of late for business
applications to require IE to run in order to get
functionality.

It clearly is not unusual. I do not think it wise, however. As has been
discussed in this and other groups, a dependence on IE is fine as long as IE
is functioning as expected. But when a not-insignificant percentage of my
corporation's users lost all client-side scripting in IE last year (which we
were only able to restore with the application of Win2K SP4), those users
could not access some of our vendor-supplied web apps, which required IE and
scripting. Our in-house apps, designed to standards rather than
implementations, were 100% accessible to those users, who simply switched to
Mozilla.

And I could go on and on about loss of sessions with IE and IIS, an issue
that emerged with IE 5.01, when the decision to "open new windows in a
separate process" was taken from the user and delegated to IE on the basis
of available resources. 100% of our sessions lost during active use are IE.
http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2157

Note that the session problem emerged with newer versions of IE. How
comfortable does that make you feel with IE-dependence?

In these very challenging times, many users would rather
pay less and get a good GUI and accept the limitation of
having to run in IE only. The alternative is to pay more
in development costs or get less in GUI.

I would argue that the ultimate costs of single-vendor dependence are
greater in the long run. We don't spend much extra effort writing to
standards. It takes work to get in a habit, but then it's a habit. And if
the little bit of effort allows us to cheaply walk away from the perilously
costly** Internet Explorer, then it's an easy call to make.


**Users simply are not sophisticated enough to deal with all of the threats
IE exposes them to. Even one of my very experienced colleagues fell victim
to a piece of adware, thinking he was installing something from one of our
vendors, but instead being rewarded with a new pop-up ad window every 10
seconds no matter where he browsed (even our intranet). I have seen some
pretty high-powered machines grind almost to a halt because of all the
adware/spyware that users said [Yes] to. IE is not free, in my opinion.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

 

[Allard]

I give up....

I could say something like : " so you had to scroll DOWN to be able to go
to the next page. But if during reading you had already scrolled down a
bit, and suddenly realise that you already read the page and want to open
another one, then you must first scroll either down or up to find your link
because it has scrolled offscreen"

But ... I give up anyway...

 

[Dave Anderson]

I give up....

That was never my goal. I hope you are able to embrace HTML for what it
represents (universal accessibility) rather than hate it for what it does
not represent (tyrannical control for the developer).


--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

 

[Randy Webb]

I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to auto. I
can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the scrolling
box change on resize.

It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.

It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site

<URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...r/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTableInMSIE.html
/>

Watch for URL wrapping.
Might be real real close to what you are describing as wanting and not
that hard to modify the code. The real beauty is that there is *no*
scripting involved.

 

[Randy Webb]

: Jim M wrote:
: > I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to
auto. I
: > can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.
: >
: > BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to
put
: > either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling
effect.
: >
: > This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling
: > box change on resize.
:
: It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
: stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.
:
: It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
: exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site
:
: <URL:
:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...r/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTableInMSIE.html

You didn't have to look that hard:
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#link1

http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.

 

[Randy Webb]

So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster is
very tough to slog through.

I did just find out (by asking DU in comp.lang.javascript) about the
file not being there, its been moved/renamed:

<URL:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTBody.html
/>

Shouldn't be that hard to modify it as needed, do it the old fashion way
by tinkering and testing. If that fails, ask in
comp.info.www.authoring.* as appropriate.

 

[Randy Webb]

Bob Barrows wrote:

Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and div
height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test it
in Opera ...

Glad you got it work.

As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

 

[Bob Barrows]

http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all
mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.

So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster is
very tough to slog through.

Bob Barrows

 

[Roland Hall]

: Jim M wrote:
: > I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to
auto. I
: > can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.
: >
: > BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to
put
: > either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling
effect.
: >
: > This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling
: > box change on resize.
:
: It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
: stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.
:
: It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
: exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site
:
: <URL:
:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...r/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTableInMSIE.html

You didn't have to look that hard:
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#link1

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

 

[Randy Webb]

:
: Bob Barrows wrote:
:
: <--snip-->
:
: > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
div
: > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test
it
: > in Opera ...
:
: Glad you got it work.
:
: As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

It appears the bar is moving.

Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly in
Opera 7.

Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to pay to remove advertising.

Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
(exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE is.

I'll look at it in Opera to see what can be done but then I'm removing that POS from my system.

If MS didn't have its sites set on 100% domination by requiring that I
have a web browser to be able to use my PC, I would do the same thing
with IE since my feelings are generally the same about IE as you have
stated your opinion to be about Opera.

 

[Randy Webb]

: "Randy Webb" wrote:
: : Bob Barrows wrote:
: :
: : <--snip-->
: :
: : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
: div
: : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: it
: : > in Opera ...
: :
: : Glad you got it work.
: :
: : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse the
border on the right side of a table.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tests/css2/sec17-06.htm

I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633

Yeah, but Opera and Mozilla get the first table right, IE gets it
horribly wrong.

 

[Bob Barrows]

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...r/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTableInMSIE.html
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#link1

So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster
is
very tough to slog through.

Bob Barrows

Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and div
height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test it
in Opera ...

The column widths need to be tweaked but this works:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0">
<title></title>

</head>
<body>
<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse;" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="16">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead> <tfoot> <tr>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot> <tbody>
<tr >
<td colspan="4">
<div style="height: 75; overflow: auto;">

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse;" width="453"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="150">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>

</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</td>
</tr>

</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</body>
</html>

Bob Barrows

 

[Roland Hall]

:
: Bob Barrows wrote:
:
: <--snip-->
:
: > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
div
: > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test
it
: > in Opera ...
:
: Glad you got it work.
:
: As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

It appears the bar is moving. Wondering why anyone would support a browser
that requires you to pay to remove advertising. I'll look at it in Opera to
see what can be done but then I'm removing that POS from my system.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

 

[Roland Hall]

: "Randy Webb" wrote:
: : Bob Barrows wrote:
: :
: : <--snip-->
: :
: : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
: div
: : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: it
: : > in Opera ...
: :
: : Glad you got it work.
: :
: : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse the
border on the right side of a table.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tests/css2/sec17-06.htm

I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

 

[Roland Hall]

:
: > Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse
the
: > border on the right side of a table.
: > http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tests/css2/sec17-06.htm
: >
: > I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
: > 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633
: >
: Yeah, but Opera and Mozilla get the first table right, IE gets it
: horribly wrong.

I go to comparison sights and they state Opera supports border-collapse:
collapse fully but it was 7.1. Perhaps something has changed?!

You should check out this page with all 3. IE has two errors and that is
captions left and right are not supported. Opera doesn't work with most on
the page. I think it was on Eric Meyer's site that I read how wonderful
Mozilla and Opera are with DHTML but I'm missing it.

Opera doesn't like <tr height=320> inside a <tbody> element. When you have
this, the <tfoot> displays right below the <thead> instead of below the
<tbody> as it should however it scrolls.

Mozilla doesn't show a scrollbar unless you set overflow: scroll and then it
just stretches rather than overflowing. Left/right scrollbars work but
Up/Down do not.

I've even changed from a nested table to SPANs and ONLY IE works.
Mozilla is off in left field and cannot assign a width to a SPAN.
Opera screws up as before. However, if I remove the <tfoot> entry, then
Opera works as it should.
Mozilla still has issues.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608...r/HTMLJavascriptCSS/ScrollingTableInMSIE.html

The above link is not apples to apples. It's a table above a scrollable DIV
and there is NO footer.
The other issue is since overflow is set on the outside, with the div, the
left/right scrollbars are now present, even though they are not needed.

Here is where I'm testing: http://kiddanger.com/lab/test/scrolltable.html

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

 

[Roland Hall]

:
: Roland Hall wrote:
: > "Randy Webb" wrote:
: > : Bob Barrows wrote:
: > :
: > : <--snip-->
: > :
: > : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row
and
: > div
: > : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: > it
: > : > in Opera ...
: > :
: > : Glad you got it work.
: > :
: > : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.
: >
: > It appears the bar is moving.
:
: Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly in
: Opera 7.

Which page are you looking at?

: > Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to pay to
remove advertising.
:
: Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
: (exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
: compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE is.

You don't get fame by going after unknowns, now do you?

: > I'll look at it in Opera to see what can be done but then I'm removing
that POS from my system.
:
: If MS didn't have its sites set on 100% domination by requiring that I
: have a web browser to be able to use my PC, I would do the same thing
: with IE since my feelings are generally the same about IE as you have
: stated your opinion to be about Opera.

I haven't begun to state my feelings re: Opera. (O:=
I'm just getting started! It crashed when I tried to view full screen.
Self-inflicted DoS by hitting F-11.


--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp