SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Layer Positioning

    At http://totalphysiqueonline.com/body-buddy/ I have an interactive body chart.

    The layers appear in the middle, more or less, whenever you mouse over the specific boy regions. It is the "more or less" which I wish to address.

    In some browsers, the middle layer display does not fit in the middle. It tends to be off to the right by about 50 Pixels. That is a big difference.

    The positioning is absolute. Is there any way to get the layers that display to stay in the middle? Would using relative positioning do the trick and if so, how would it be implimented when x and y coordinates are called for?

    Thank You.

    TAC
    Last edited by tacarr; Dec 3, 2006 at 16:55.

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is no such thing as 'layers'. This is a Dreamweaver term but means nothing to us non-DW users and can only add to confusion if someone thinks you are talking about z-layers or chickens. Call a div a div and forget this layer business.

    In feature3 you have an extraneous character before the last attribute. Don't know if that could be causing this problem.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Hmmm

    1) I disagree with you.

    http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/styles...csslayout.html
    http://www.echoecho.com/csslayers.htm
    http://www.kenkai.com/articles/css-positioning.htm

    I could go on, but the bottom line is that most people know what someone means when they use the term "layers" (even you). So I will forget about nothing but this worthless post of yours. And oh, by the way, I am using Z-index in the coding of the page in question, so is that layer-y enough for you?

    2) You want to try to tell me and everyone else (especially newcomers to Sitepoint) what the hay you are talking about when you say "feature3"? Talk about confusing.

    3) What "extraneous" character?

    Honestly, for my first post in Sitepoint in a while, this has to rank as one of the most unhelpful replies I can ever recall reading.

    Not trying to hurt your feelings, but geesh.



    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    There is no such thing as 'layers'. This is a Dreamweaver term but means nothing to us non-DW users and can only add to confusion if someone thinks you are talking about z-layers or chickens. Call a div a div and forget this layer business.

    In feature3 you have an extraneous character before the last attribute. Don't know if that could be causing this problem.
    Last edited by tacarr; Dec 4, 2006 at 16:00.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    There is no such thing as 'layers'. This is a Dreamweaver term but means nothing to us non-DW users and can only add to confusion if someone thinks you are talking about z-layers or chickens. Call a div a div and forget this layer business.

    In feature3 you have an extraneous character before the last attribute. Don't know if that could be causing this problem.
    By feature3 I suppose you mean my CSS sheet.

    While I appreciate this tip, the style you refernce has nothing to do with the positioning of the layers/div in the document in question. Did you even look at it?

    Just wondering?

    Can someone else help out here. We are getting nowhere pretty quick.

    All I want to know is this: can layers/div be positioned relatively and if so, what sort of x/y coordinates are assigned?

  5. #5
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacarr
    All I want to know is this: can layers/div be positioned relatively and if so, what sort of x/y coordinates are assigned?
    Yes.

    To offset elements within the natural flow:
    1. Type position: relative; (don't forget the semicolon; the space is optional).
    2. If desired, type top, right, bottom or left.

    Then type :v where v is the desired distance that you want to offset the element from its natural location. either as an absolute or relative value (e.g. 2em) or as a percentage.

    3. If desired, repeat step 2 for additional directions, separating each property/ value pair with a semicolon as usual.

    - Excerpted from HTML, XHTML & CSS 6th Edition by Elizabeth Castro, Chapter 11, page 178.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak
    Yes.

    To offset elements within the natural flow:
    1. Type position: relative; (don't forget the semicolon; the space is optional).
    2. If desired, type top, right, bottom or left.
    3. The type :v where v is the desired distance that you want to offset the element from its natural location. either as an absolute or relative value (e.g. 2em) or as a percentage.
    3. If desired, repeat step 2 for additional directions, separating each property/ value pair with a semicolon as usual.

    - Excerpted from HTML, XHTML & CSS 6th Edition by Elizabeth Castro, Chapter 11, page 178.
    Thank You!!!!

  7. #7
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacarr
    Thank You!!!!
    No problem - I just tidied the version I submitted a bit for the purpose of being as clear as possible - but it sounds like you got it now...

    For the sake of all the old skool hand coders around these here parts and for your own safety (said mostly tongue-in cheek), I would suggest calling layers divs moving forward and then everyone is on the same page "right off the bat" .

    All the best,
    John

  8. #8
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile Still needs some tweaking

    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak
    No problem - I just tidied the version I submitted a bit for the purpose of being as clear as possible - but it sounds like you got it now...

    For the sake of all the old skool hand coders around these here parts and for your own safety (said mostly tongue-in cheek), I would suggest calling layers divs moving forward and then everyone is on the same page "right off the bat" .

    All the best,
    John

    Hi John. Thanks again but I ran into a problem. I have tried your suggestion (which I am sure is the correct one) but had somewhat unsatisfactory results. I must have executed it poorly.

    I created a "wrapper2" div - /div for the entire table and its sub div tags (div tags within the primary table).

    I gave it these values:

    #wrapper2{

    Position:relative;

    min-width:640px;

    width:100%;

    margin:0 auto;

    color:#333;

    text-align:left;

    }



    I then changed the first div/layer called Shoulderleft to relative, left the other parameters the same, and two things immediately happened: one I sort of expected and the other I did not.

    The div/layer for Shoulderleft appeared to the far left and way down below out of site of the bodybuddy image. I sort of expected this but I did not think it would be so drastic. I imagined the div would apppear off center and require some adjusting, but not this much.

    I set the position values to left 0 and top 0 so I could get my bearings and gain some perspection on where the layer starts out when positioned relatively 0 0.

    As it turns out, it appeared in the middle of the image, just beneath the bottom edge, so that the top edge of the layer/div itself was flush with the middle bottom edge of the image. From there I started adjusting the top variable to move it upward. I eventually settled on -200px, and got it right where i wanted.

    While this was a good result, the unexpected result I mentioned earlier was that the containing table and wrapper had grown by 200 pixels so that an area had grown beneath the bottom edge of the image (an area I use for instructions). It was a full 200 pixels down below the image. In other words, the table have grown in height by 200 pixels. Make sense?

    This was very undesirable. To make matters worse, with every div that I changed from absolute to relative, the table grew another 200 pixels deeper/higher/further below the bottom edge of the body buddy image.

    Since I have 17 div tags controlling 17 separate body regions on the gif, I guess you can imagine where this headed. This meant that by the time all of them were changed to relative positions, the page was nearly 3400 pixels tall/high/long. Outrageous! So, I just switched it all back to absolute. However, as a precaution I left the Wrapper2 div in place just in case I came back to fix it once I learned the fix.

    The good news is that when I changed the first Shoulderleft div to relative, and gave it the positioning I wanted, I tested it by resizing the browers page, and Shoulderleft div stayed relative to image. So in some ways it worked.

    I hope all of this crap makes since.

  9. #9
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What you are after is the creation of a CSS based image map.

    I would like to suggest this well explained and executed approach.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak
    What you are after is the creation of a CSS based image map.

    I would like to suggest this well explained and executed approach.
    I will give this a try, but at first glance I don't think this will accomplish what I want. The parent DIV, in the case of the tutorial is relatively positioned as is my wrapper2 tag, though in the tutorial its margins are set to different values.

    In the tutorial the links are absolutely positioned with respect to the top left corners of the skyline parent div. The same holds true for all my divides...they are absolutely positioned with resppect to the wrapper2 div tag.

    In the end, and I hope I am wrong, it appears that the CSS controlled image map will still have divides that do not maintain their position when a browser is resized. But lets find out for sure.

  11. #11
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacarr
    I will give this a try, but at first glance I don't think this will accomplish what I want. The parent DIV, in the case of the tutorial is relatively positioned as is my wrapper2 tag, though in the tutorial its margins are set to different values.

    In the tutorial the links are absolutely positioned with respect to the top left corners of the skyline parent div. The same holds true for all my divides...they are absolutely positioned with resppect to the wrapper2 div tag.

    In the end, and I hope I am wrong, it appears that the CSS controlled image map will still have divides that do not maintain their position when a browser is resized. But lets find out for sure.
    Don't bother with it if you don't want to - just remember that there are always compromises to be made.

    I was never suggesting to use the tutorial code verbatim - of course that won't work. I was merely pointing out a respected web developer's approach to a similar situation and thought it might fill in some things for you. The section at the end of the article on irregular shapes is what I wanted you to look at specifically.

    If I get a chance to dig into your code I will offer something more specific - hopefully someone else will take a peek too.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak
    Don't bother with it if you don't want to - just remember that there are always compromises to be made.

    I was never suggesting to use the tutorial code verbatim - of course that won't work. I was merely pointing out a respected web developer's approach to a similar situation and thought it might fill in some things for you. The section at the end of the article on irregular shapes is what I wanted you to look at specifically.

    If I get a chance to dig into your code I will offer something more specific - hopefully someone else will take a peek too.

    I am studying the lesson. Trying to figure out if there is a way to adapt it to my application. At the moment I have not concluded one way or another, but I am poking at it

  13. #13
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    oh, by the way, I am using Z-index in the coding of the page in question, so is that layer-y enough for you?
    Find 'layer' in the html standard and then you'll get somewhere. It does NOT exist. YOu said 'layers' so which is it? 'Div layers' or Z-index layers? The z-index layers have nothing to do with your problem either.

    what the hay you are talking about when you say "feature3"? Talk about confusing.
    YOu don't even know what's in your own code?! You have much to learn, hairdresser.

    What "extraneous" character?
    It's obvious to anyone who knows what they're doing hairdresser.

    While I appreciate this tip, the style you refernce has nothing to do with the positioning of the layers/div in the document in question. Did you even look at it?
    Did you even loook at it? I know your code better than you do!

    Learn from another experienced coder:
    I would suggest calling layers divs moving forward and then everyone is on the same page "right off the bat"

  14. #14
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine
    Find 'layer' in the html standard and then you'll get somewhere. It does NOT exist. YOu said 'layers' so which is it? 'Div layers' or Z-index layers? The z-index layers have nothing to do with your problem either.

    YOu don't even know what's in your own code?! You have much to learn, hairdresser.

    It's obvious to anyone who knows what they're doing hairdresser.

    Did you even loook at it? I know your code better than you do!

    Learn from another experienced coder:
    In every online community there exists a person to whom everyone else refers to as jackass. I think we have found that person. His name is Howard.

    No one in this post was confused by my reference to my div tags as layers. As I said, check the internet, and the use of the word layers and I used it is common. Now, I suggest YOU take the advice of an experienced coder and move on. You are no longer needed in this thread. In fact, you never were.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wozniak
    Don't bother with it if you don't want to - just remember that there are always compromises to be made.

    I was never suggesting to use the tutorial code verbatim - of course that won't work. I was merely pointing out a respected web developer's approach to a similar situation and thought it might fill in some things for you. The section at the end of the article on irregular shapes is what I wanted you to look at specifically.

    If I get a chance to dig into your code I will offer something more specific - hopefully someone else will take a peek too.
    Or course I looked closely at the section toward the end regarding irregular shapes and what struck me was that throughout the tutorial David Shea is using images that lend shapes to other images.

    I my case, I do not have an image to borrow other images from. I only have the one image. It's still a great tutorial mind you, but I need to crunch this a bit more before I proceed with it. I tend to think it won't work, but I have not given up on the idea entirely.

    Thanks for the suggestion.

  16. #16
    Object Not Found junjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    northern MI
    Posts
    1,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tacarr
    No one in this post was confused by my reference to my div tags as layers.
    tacarr, The term 'layer' *can* be highly confusing. It used to be a propietary tage from netscape (<layer>), it's also used by the Dreamweaver community as a term for a positioned div, mainly because Macromedia at the time decided it was a good idea, it wasn't. To make matters worse it's also used to explain how a website is built up (structural layer with HTML, presentational layer with CSS etc.), and how you can stack elements on top of eachother by using z-index. I'm a dreamweaver user, and I approved this message.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I appreciate what everyone is trying to say, but let me say this and try to be done with it.

    Instead of making this thread a referrendum on everyone in the world that uses the term "layers" incorrectly (I suggest you start your own threads regarding this issue if it means that much to you), why not stick to the topic of this thread which is how to create relatively positioned divtag/layers (whatever) that reposition with a browser window as it resizes?

    I swear to God I wish I had never come here. This has been an utter waste of my time.

  18. #18
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    A shower does wonders for the mind...

    You know, I realise that I am about to make myself a marked man at Sitepoint, but since I doubt I will ever post here again, who gives a tinker toss?

    The more I think about the three individuals who hijacked this thread, the more frustrated I get.

    Let's start with Dr. Howard. You have to be one of the most irritating people I have met in my life. I took the liberty of looking at many of your 1300+ posts and all I can say is "wow". If there is a more picayune-ish person on the face of this planet I hope I never have the pleasure of meeting him.

    Honestly, it seems as if all you do is whine and moan about IE, curse anyone who uses it and then whine all the more about standards compliance and how no one respects it and those that don't are stupid. It is rare that I have seen you go out of your way to actually help anyone. And in my case, all you did was jump up my butt about my use of the word "layers" and reference some style in my CSS sheet that isn't even used on the page in question. If I were you, I would use a pseudonym too. And by the way, I think it is pretty crappy for you to use David Hammond's web site as a foil to make people think you are David Hammond when you aren't [For the record, Mr. Hammond does not believe you do that, and maybe you don't, but that was my initial perception].

    In closing, (and in the words of David Hammond himself) while there is clearly a lot of benefit in promoting web standards, being snooty and arrogant about it is quite counterproductive, and I hope this reply helps you understand that.

    Next, there is John Wozniak.

    Dear John,

    I swear I got more help from an empty bottle of Maalox at midnight when I had the screaming hershey squirts a few weeks ago.

    First, you are too lazy to actually type a meaningful response to my thread, so you dig up some worthless link to a two year old tutorial that has nothing in common with my issue save the fact that there are words and pictures in it. And then, when I dare to suggest that the tutorial, while otherwise a good one, might not address my concern, you get hurt feelings.

    What is it you said? Oh yeah, you said, "I was never suggesting to use the tutorial code verbatim - of course that won't work. I was merely pointing out a respected web developer's approach to a similar situation and thought it might fill in some things for you."

    Good grief. When I close my eyes I swear I can almost here little Beaver Cleaver saying, "Gee Wally, you never appreciate ANYTHING I DO." Sniff, Sniff. And then I see little Beaver run screaming for the nearest June Cleaver leg to hump. What a loser. And what a crybaby.

    In closing, John, would you like some French Cries with that Wah-Wah Burger?

    And finally, our resident History Teacher, JunJun, who, rather than admit he has no idea how to address the original issue of this thread, instead chooses to launch into a pathetic, historical harangue regarding the origins of the word "layer" and it's misuses dating all the way back to the Paleolithic period. Good lord.

    The point of this rather vitriolic response is that the three of you guys can take my misuse of the term "layers" and pound it sideways.

    I know in years to come I will look back on this post and feel regret. I will feel ashamed that I was so mean to you guys. I will be embarassed for my conduct and I will wish I had tempered my language and conducted myself with decorum in the face of such crummy advice and help from you three Geekoids. But not today.

    I ask for any moderator within ear shot to please lock this pointless thread. I also mercifully ask that you leave it in place for all the world to see.

    [Editors Note: in the interest of maintaining a modecum of civility, I re-worded portions of this diatribe of mine so as to avoid hurting anyones feelings. I hope this smoothes over the rough edges, while preserving my frustration with this thread.]

    TACARR
    Last edited by tacarr; Dec 4, 2006 at 16:44.

  19. #19
    Brevity is greatly overrated brandaggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow...I genuinely treated you with grace I am sorry you mistook that for anything else - that is what is here for all to see - specifically r.e. "layers" and how to use relative positioning (see above).

    However, I am not going to code your code for you and taking the exact values from a conceptual tutorial and applying it to your code will of course prove fruitless. Many people find Dave Shea and AListApart very helpful and have used the tutorial I suggested to create CSS based image maps like the one you have been working on - just not identical.

    Yes, you will regret what you have said - it is obviously only to serve yourself and totally disrespects those that have genuinely tried to help you.

    You didn't hurt my feelings at all, you just reminded me that people can be very blind sometimes and expect and awful lot of people that are simply volunteering. I never spoke down to you - I simply tried to answer your questions - sorry that was not good enough for you.

    I imagine you have had more graceful moments - that is what is here for all to see.

    I would say smarmy things but that is just not my style.

    All the best to you,
    John

  20. #20
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm David Hammond, the author of the Web Browser Standards Support page linked to in drhowarddrfine's signature. Tacarr mistook that link to be drhowarddrfine's website and thus I ended up caught in this mess. So I just thought I'd chime in.

    I don't think drhowarddrfine is trying to pass himself off as me. He has four links in his signature, all from different websites. I will agree that he has been less than helpful in what appears to be a majority of his posts according to a little sample search. But honestly, I have seen trolls like you wouldn't believe, and I wouldn't say drhowarddrfine is deserving of such a rant of namecalling.

    As for the other two, they definitely weren't deserving of those insults. You have to keep in mind that people who contribute to these kinds of forums are taking time out of their schedules to help others, and people don't always have time to dig through all of your code and deliver a specific and detailed answer.

    Instead of giving you nothing, John pointed you to a tutorial on how to do something close to what you want. As with any tutorial, you'll have to adapt it to your specific setup. It's a starting point.

    And JunJun is right. It isn't worth chopping off someone's head for using the term "layer" (and JunJun didn't lay any such attack), but there are better terms you could use. It's just a suggestion for the future. Not a big deal.

    Tacarr, I really suggest that you tone down your rants a bit. You accidentally blew up at me, and now you've blown up at other people who I don't think deserved that kind of reaction. A little patience goes a long way, especially when we're talking about volunteer helpers.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobot
    I'm David Hammond, the author of the Web Browser Standards Support page linked to in drhowarddrfine's signature. Tacarr mistook that link to be drhowarddrfine's website and thus I ended up caught in this mess. So I just thought I'd chime in.

    I don't think drhowarddrfine is trying to pass himself off as me. He has four links in his signature, all from different websites. I will agree that he has been less than helpful in what appears to be a majority of his posts according to a little sample search. But honestly, I have seen trolls like you wouldn't believe, and I wouldn't say drhowarddrfine is deserving of such a rant of namecalling.

    As for the other two, they definitely weren't deserving of those insults. You have to keep in mind that people who contribute to these kinds of forums are taking time out of their schedules to help others, and people don't always have time to dig through all of your code and deliver a specific and detailed answer.

    Instead of giving you nothing, John pointed you to a tutorial on how to do something close to what you want. As with any tutorial, you'll have to adapt it to your specific setup. It's a starting point.

    And JunJun is right. It isn't worth chopping off someone's head for using the term "layer" (and JunJun didn't lay any such attack), but there are better terms you could use. It's just a suggestion for the future. Not a big deal.

    Tacarr, I really suggest that you tone down your rants a bit. You accidentally blew up at me, and now you've blown up at other people who I don't think deserved that kind of reaction. A little patience goes a long way, especially when we're talking about volunteer helpers.
    I appreciate what you have to say David, but no, I will tone nothing down save to leave this thread behind in all of its worthlessness. I will apologize for nothing. The replies in this thread were either useless or off topic and a colossal waste of my time and everyone elses.

    As I said, if these three guys care so much about layers, let them start their own threads on the issue. I had a specific question in this thread and instead of one person offerring a link to a tutorial I cannot say that there was anything in the way of help.

    You are right that a little patience goes a long way, and I receive that in the spirit that was intended. However, I would like to point out that when I am working and I get an email reply that someone has posted to this thread, I have to stop what I am doing to come read it. And when I arrive and find yet another lesson on the use of the word "layer" I have to ask myself just how many interruprtions and replies and I am going to have to go through before I find someone who cares more about the nature of a problem in a post then they do the use of one word.

    As for you, I made my amends to you and as far as I am concerned that settles it.

    These three individuals were determined to keep droaning on about layers and my misuse of the word and frankly I literally do not have the time for it. Tell it to someone who cares.

    You are right, the use of the term layers is not such a big deal. Yet, this thread is 21 posts long, and most of the posts contain something about, if not are altogether about, the use of term layers. You do the math.

    Goodday.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice to hear from you David. Obviously, I think your site is great, despite what Microsoft may say about it. I've been linking to you for a long, long time so I'm really surprised someone contacted you now thinking I was you!
    I will agree that he has been less than helpful in what appears to be a majority of his posts according to a little sample search.
    After a year and a half, or so, of answering the same questions over and over again, and then having to defend the answer, it gets very old and irritating when you know a quick google or look at the w3c would give the answer. But I also started when people called you a moron for using a doctype and insisted on valid code.

    But, like you said, many of us don't have time to look through every post and just jump in with quick first observations cause that's all we have time for. In my case, forums are a respite from the routine or while I'm eating lunch. Other times I'm in a good mood and will write a short lecture on the question at hand.

  23. #23
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,294
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    OK - one warning. Everyone play nicely.

    If you don't like the response someone provides, fine ignore it.

    If someone that has given a response doesn't like the opinions put forth on that response, leave the thread. You've provided a response you feel is appropriate. If there's a disagreement, that's their choice.

    Bottom line - there's no place for getting ignorant here at SPF. Everyone has their own opinions, and that must be respected.

    Any more travel down this useless path will cause the thread to be closed.
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style
    Learn how to be ready for The Forums' Move to Discourse

  24. #24
    Object Not Found junjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    northern MI
    Posts
    1,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow.

    So much for trying to help out. I'll take Dave's advice, bye.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Remarkable thread, I especially feel sorry for John who was genuinely trying to help out and give useful advice.

    Maybe tacarr had a deadline to meet for this work and was getting stressed out because he wasn't getting the responses he wanted but my question would be "How much are you actually paying people on this board for their help and advice?"

    I and many other people on this forum contribute and help designers and coders less experienced than us, completely free of charge because we enjoy helping others to become better designers so any advice we give should be taken on board as it will help you to improve your code.

    I would have also pointed out as some other people have done that "layers" is a term that is misused. No offensive comments were thrown in your direction for not knowing this and official names for things are given so that there isn't confusion in exactly the same way as there are terms in electronics or cars that could be confusing if not used correctly.

    I've made a similar mistake in the past by calling an alt attribute an alt tag and whilst everybody understands what is meant when someone refers to an alt tag this is again a mis-use of a term and I would politely correct you as it's an easy mistake to make and something that I myself have done in the past.

    You shouldn't feel stupid for not knowing these comments so there is no need to be defensive when people are trying to give free advice as we have all been there at some point along the way to becoming web-designer's.

    If you'd accepted that these professionals were trying to help you initially then the thread wouldn't have been hijacked and side-tracked... why not just accept the help and suggestion and understand what terms you are using so that next time you have a problem, you can describe it better and therefore get the help you require much quicker?

    Next time you want help I'd suggest paying somebody for their time instead of expecting free help as this kind of attitude is completely unacceptable in my opinion and only if you were paying for this kind of service would you really have a right to complain.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •