I need a little help as to why when I style my fluid grid divs like for example adding padding or margin or a double borderline the div boxes they resize and get bigger to the point where they cannot sit side by side within the same line anymore is there a way to stop this? Just thought myself designing in drramweaver with lynds and that's the only problem I'm having at this moment. And yes the dives are within the grid containers.
That's because you haven't taught yourself how box sizing works. The default sizing for no explicit width is to fill the available width, automagically allowing for padding, borders and margins. When you set the width, it applies to the content box. Padding, borders and margins are are added. In CSS3, a new property, box-sizing is proposed in the drafts. It actually appears in two modules, the box module and the user interface module. There is still uncertainty about how the property should be implemented, and therefore it has not been made a release candidate. Recent versions of Chrome, IE, and Opera support at least a minimal set of values; the current default, content-box, and border-box. Firefox has supported box-sizing since v.2, but only as a vendor extension, -moz-box-sizing, since it is not yet set and is in draft only. See §6.1.box-sizing property. You can try this: div { -moz-box-sizing: border-box; box-sizing: border-box; border: 3px double black; float: left; padding: 1em; width: 50%; } Code (markup): Note: If you really want to learn html and css, lose Dreamweaver. It will only teach you poor practices, and otherwise stunt your growth. cheers, gary
Which is the polite way of saying the only thing you can learn from Dreamweaver is how not to build a website, and the only thing about Adobe web software that can be considered professional grade tools are the people promoting its use. Pitch that garbage in the trash (ESPECIALLY if you are using it's preview pane as a WYSIWYG) and get into the code with a real text editor. That bloated overpriced steaming pile of grade A farm fresh rose fertilizer is just working against you in the long term... Your even saying "fluid DIV grids" is proof enough of that... a broken way to build a website starting out dicking with appearance instead of letting content and device caps dictate it to you.
Lol! Thanks for the help and replies but dag you guys are pretty harsh on Adobe aren't you!? Lol! I mean I just wanted to create a simple web page and so far it did help rather spending countless of hours, days and weeks on learning web development! It's really not that easy for everybody! My main focus is music and video production nothing no where near web design or software development. I bet both you guys probably learned professionally fresh right out of school or already had a background within the nature. I had dream weaver in my suite of software and just decided to see if I could make a simple page with it after years of having it rather then using the slow bloated wordpress that comes free with my cpanel. And I did! Just ran into a problem. Im sure if I would have learned with a basic text editor like you both suggested I would have needed way more help! It's just a tool! I would admit a bit over priced as well but a tool of ones preference. Other then within the web development/software development skill set what else do you know how to do?!? If you do video production i'm sure you use one of the video editing programs rather doing it the old school way like I learned when I was in high school 15 years ago.. In life you can do things by hand but for the most part people rather use tools! It's just a tool!
No, not targeting Adobe in particular. We, and I'm including ds, are harsh on DW because it is passed off as a professional quality tool when it is better compared to a paint by the numbers kit. Using your field as a platform, compare Premier to an amateur application. DW and other wysiwyg editors are simply not capable making the necessary choices in structure, presentation and behavior without developer intervention; that requires the developer to be knowledgeable enough to not need nor benefit from using DW. I won't argue that it doesn't make it possible for the complete tyro to produce a web site, just as paint-by-the-numbers lets anyone paint a picture. As to training, I am self-taught. I got into digital video editing in '94, using Premier when it was ported to Windows. If I remember correctly, the MSRP was about $800 and the street price ~$550. It came with an A/D-D/A card and software to digitize from tape input and output analog to tape. Before that, ca '85 on, I had used two VHS tape machines and wore out a lot of patience. I couldn't afford a $6,000 editing deck. I haven't done much video in ages, but now use Cinelerra; it's an open source NLE system that includes a compositor, and it runs in Linux. Web development was also self taught beginning when a friend asked me to code an e-commerce site for him, since I "knew computers". He gave me his DW, which I didn't use because it became obvious that learning html and css was easier than learning DW's UI, and a lot less restrictive. That was in 2000. If you're using DW for your own site, and you are not overly concerned about its limitations, fine. If you're developing as a professional service, then DW is not fit for purpose unless you are knowledgeable enough to not need it except for its features. That makes it an awfully expensive editor. cheers, gary
I am, but that's because not only are their overpriced steaming piles of manure responsible for more broken, bloated and impossible to maintain much less use websites than anybody else -- despite crapping out pages just as bad as anything done with Frontpage it has endless apologist and fanboys who on the whole probably have no damned business even having websites in the first place. I wouldn't go that far. It's more like handing finger paints to a two year old. It's cute for crappy little sites nobody ACTUALLY gives a flying purple fish about traffic to, but the moment you start caring about accessibility, cross browser reliability, and actually having traffic through it -- you find it not just wanting, but to have effectively bent you over the counter like a PO who dropped his baton in the men's shower. "Tools" when it comes to building websites are responsible for more broken, half-assed garbage than anything else -- they are ALL universally rubbish. To compare it to video editing doesn't work at all, because in that tools make things better. Producing websites is not like that and you actually have to use your brain to do it if you are going to do anything seriously. Using 'tools' is just a sleazy shortcut that results in walking through a pile and smearing it all over your website's carpets... this is because no tool is smart enough to understand concepts like semantic markup, progressive enhancement, graceful degradation and accessibility minimums. ESPECIALLY any sort of visual editing... For the simple reason the entire POINT of HTML is to deliver content in a device neutral manner. "WYSIWYG" are therein halfwit garbage BECAUSE what you see is pretty much guaranteed NOT to be what anyone else gets! Different screen sizes, default font sizes, and device capabilities means you need to design the page, to borrow from Bruce Lee, "like water", automatically adjusting to fit the shape of whatever container you pour it into! Sleazing out one fixed screen appearance does nothing but **** anyone who dares to own anything different from what you own! That's why the idiots who piss out PSD files and then have the cojónes to call themselves "designers" generally aren't qualified to design jack **** for the web, and on the whole need a good swift kick in the crotch. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh, but I'm getting sick of site after site that's useless to me as a user without using user.css and user.js to bend it over the table and make it my *****, alongside seeing endless nube predators taking people just starting out in this field, slapping the rose coloured glasses on their heads and leading them down the path to failure... particularly when HTML and CSS are so moronically simple I still can't grasp why everyone seems to want to make it difficult. Admittedly, I've been programming computers for almost three and a half decades now -- but really any drooling moron should be able to handle HTML, and anyone with a Jethro Bodine style education should be able to handle CSS after minimal instruction... Which of course is why endless re-re pisses all over the internet with the majority of new websites that to be frank, make the garbage of a decade and a half ago look good.