Relative page layout vs inline?

I just went through this entire thread, James. I didn’t understand HALF of the discussion, thereby inching my blood pressure up yet another notch. The good news is that I would never attempt the level of sophistication in pages that you do. Thus, it’s possible I’d never run into those issues with RPL. But that all remains to be seen.

On 6 Mar 2013, 5:26 am, JDW wrote:

I’ve done page layouts using both methods. And for some complex tricks, you’d think that a manually constructed inflow layout would be ideal, but in fact, an RPL page let’s you do things you can’t with inflow. To read all the nitty gritty deals of what I mean, read through this entire thread:

http://freewaytalk.net/thread/view/126417

–James Wages


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I don’t think I’ve tried full inline sites yet, but sometimes I do partials. Meaning, the elements at the top might be just boxes placed on the page and below, I might have a bunch of other elements inserted into a master container.

I’ve found that I don’t have a lot of design flexibility with total inline. And, I almost always have a hard time altering things when the client inevitably changes their mind.

So…I use RPL for most of the designs so far.

Bob


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thank you for your observations, Bob. I was under the impression that one needed to go with an “either-or” exclusive basis when structuring a website. But am I correct in understanding that in fact I COULD use a combination of inline and non-inline?

The deeper I go into this, the more confused I get. I like to think that means eventually that big light will go on in my brain and I’ll have the “aha!” moment we all live for.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

You can mix-n-match construction methods as you like. The key is understanding how each functions so you’re not surprised by the result. But it’s perfectly fine.

Todd

But am I correct in understanding that in fact I COULD use a combination of inline and non-inline?


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

This could help, Todd. As always – and I know I keep saying it – thank you. One day, maybe I can help someone, too.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

You’re welcome, Laura. None of us was born knowing this stuff, we all started somewhere, just like you.

Todd

This could help, Todd. As always – and I know I keep saying it – thank you. One day, maybe I can help someone, too.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 6 Mar 2013, 7:47 pm, Robert B wrote:

I don’t think I’ve tried full inline sites yet, but sometimes I do partials. Meaning, the elements at the top might be just boxes placed on the page and below, I might have a bunch of other elements inserted into a master container.

Absolutely doable and reasonable.

I’ve found that I don’t have a lot of design flexibility with total inline. And, I almost always have a hard time altering things when the client inevitably changes their mind.

A matter of good preparation and briefings. Most of FW user starting their designs within Freeway and presenting stuff at as kind of scribble or pre-development. This is often making designer and client changing their minds two or three times instead of taking the inventory first and start to scribble far off web-programming.

So…I use RPL for most of the designs so far.

Let’s run following scenario:

I’m a client, calling you.

Got a budget of 2000$ and want to have a page very similar to this:

http://meteon.de/new/index.php

What’s your answer?

  1. Sorry, 2k for this is way too less - upgrade your budget!

  2. My app doesn’t allow me to do such constructions!

  3. This design is outdated - I’ll make you a new draft.

Cheers

Thomas


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Wow, Thomas. That’s quite an example site. Right now, I couldn’t even begin to approach building something like that. But I DO hope to get to learning the inline stuff. It’s always just a matter of insufficient time when web work isn’t the only focus. Need longer days.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I could tell tell that’s inline just by the way it’s constructed. Most inline layouts have a similar look. Box across the top, various columns in the middle, big box at the bottom.

The trick, to me, anyway, is determining how many boxes within boxes you need. And, that’s where I run into trouble. If I don’t make enough boxes, I have a hard time adding something.

I’m sure it’s just my inexperience and lack of knowledge.

Bob


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

That’s often true but it has less to do with it being inline and more about the designer’s choice to adhere to a common 2 or 3 column layout with a traditional header/footer, and how the designer wants to style the site. In the end, whether inline or not, you’re still placing boxes of content on a page.

Todd

I could tell tell that’s inline just by the way it’s constructed. Most inline layouts have a similar look. Box across the top, various columns in the middle, big box at the bottom.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

You know, as wonderful as that site appears, I notice that because it’s also apparently restricted to columns – never mind two or three – it lacks the kind of flexibility that would allow someone to do something like this: http://www.empathycare.org/company_philosophy.html

That makes use of an action called text flow (if I’m not mistaken.)


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

But It is possible to do with an inline layout. When you become more familiar with different construction methods you’ll find that there’s not much that can’t be done, it just requires planning and understanding. I’ve done stuff like this with js or CSS. There’s even a service that generates the code for you based on the image.

Todd

You know, as wonderful as that site appears, I notice that because it’s also apparently restricted to columns – never mind two or three – it lacks the kind of flexibility that would allow someone to do something like this: http://www.empathycare.org/company_philosophy.html


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

And, if you increase the text size in your browser, you’ll see the main content run over the footer. If that were inline (or even RPL) that wouldn’t happen.

So…finding that balance in a design is key, I think.

Bob


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

It is true that in some non-inline page layouts in Freeway, if we increase “only the text size” in the browser, it is possible that the text could overshoot other objects on our page. And I myself used to worry about this quite a lot some years ago. But most browsers today work differently than they used a few years ago. What I mean is, pressing say CMD and + in a browsers today will increase not merely text size but the size of all of the contents on the page. In such a case, you will not experience text overlapping other objects on the page.

The main reason I consider fully in-line layouts or layouts with the RPL action apply is because there are differences in text sizes between Macintosh and Windows. And although those differences are somewhat minor when you specify a similar font on Mac and Windows and you define the text point size and the leading in pixels, I found that problems begin when you have a very long page filled mostly with text. On those pages, unless you leave a huge gap at the bottom of the page, the text could look fine on Mac browsers but expand downward beyond the footer in Windows browsers. And since it looks very silly to leave a huge gap between the bottom of your lowest text box and the top of your footer, in those cases it only makes sense to either use a fully in-line layout or the RPL action.

And my sites, I have a mix of pages with the RPL action and those without. I find that not every page needs to have an in-line layout.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I’ve never used the APL action in my life, and I don’t think you’ll need to. Inline Box Layout for me is definitely it, I can do whatever I want, and all done via CSS. I’m probably quite the static guy, inline gives me the assurance it’s all kept together.
Also my current project http://www.elreal.nl is done that way, in FreewayPro 6.0.5.

I only have moved the styles from the section to a separate stylesheet. Also I’ve put some breaks in the source code to clean it up. Softpress still has some work cut out for them when it comes to cleaning up the output.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Richard, it’s time to brighten up your life then! There are indeed situations where you cannot achieve something in a fully inline layout but you can with the RPL action. If you don’t believe me, just read through the following thread:

http://freewaytalk.net/thread/view/126417

Once you’ve read it, just to ensure you didn’t miss my key point there, search for the keywords “back to square one” in that thread and it will jump you to the concluding post about the benefits of the RPL action.

True, most people don’t go to the lengths I do in Freeway to accomplish what normally is impossible, but I’m here to say that the RPL action does work wonders at times. Give it a try.

Best,

James Wages


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

There are indeed situations where you cannot achieve something in a fully
inline layout but you can with the RPL action.

Jesus, no.

I’ll grant that inline layout may escape you, and that you have found
through the RPL action what control you personally could not achieve
through inline methods - but as someone who has been creating inline
layouts in Freeway Pro before it even became a topic of discussion, I
cannot let such a preposterous statement go. RPL works well in many
situations, but is hardly a replacement for the real deal.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

So many people keep telling me those “Our Born-of-the-Blessed-Virgin, Holy Lord and Messiah Jesus Christ, NO!” kind of replies, and yet so very mysteriously, those same folks do not attempt to reproduce what I attempted to reproduce in the following thread:

http://freewaytalk.net/thread/view/126417

Read the above thread. Comprehend that thread. Then set out to do exactly what I did. My assumption is that you will discover what I discovered, and I base that assumption on the fact I could not achieve my aims in a fully inline layout.

Don’t just try to create something similar. Do exactly what I did. And don’t ask why I “designed” my site like I did as a scapegoat either. Do exactly what I did.

If you can do exactly what I did but achieve my ultimate aim (achieving what I achieved using RPL, but with you using a fully inline layout), then I will applaud you, humbly submit to you, and joyfully broadcast everywhere that you, The Big Erns, are 100% correct on the issue.

But if you simply “say” it can be done, regardless of how many thousands of examples you cite, if you do not reproduce my application exactly in an inline layout, then you are only speaking in the theoretical, not the experimental.

I eagerly look forward to seeing your results in a fully inline layout. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. So far, no one has proven me wrong on this point. Prove me wrong. Please.

James W.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Do exactly what I did.

Again, no. Exactly what you did is wrong, and there is no need to challenge
me to repeat that.

If this is the result you wanted -

Then this one way you could have done it, exactly right -
http://cssway.thebigerns.com/workbench/inline-layout-uber-alles/


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I think your problem was less of a layout problem and more of a CSS
problem. Well, not even a CSS problem but more of a design expectation
which exceeded practical limits.

That is, if I understood what you were getting at, as I elected only to
skim your thread - even the first time around it seemed long and overly
complicated.

An inline layout - using a wrapper div to contain the faux page elements -
provided a foundation for the faux page shadow – yet, allows the layout to
be flexible. That’s a good start. A transparent inline “spacer” box after
the faux page to lift it from the browser bottom fortifies the illusion.

But then you seemed to underestimate how CSS shadows work – you wanted the
starting top offset to be different than the bottom offset… that is not yet
possible. You could pull it off by placing a box with the same shadow
behind the faux page that was slightly shorter – but then how to marry
it to the faux page so it shrinks and grows too?

Since the shadow is generated by CSS and not any layout method, all I did
was use CSS to generate a phantom box behind the faux page container that
is always a little shorter and then attach the shadow to that.


Ernie Simpson, aka The Big Erns
CSS Shadow King and Master of Inline Layouts


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options