Tables, layers, or layout mode

I am not sure how I should start using Dreamweaver. I studied
a 12 hour video tutorial and learned all the features but still
don't know the best way of creating a layout. Tables are secure but
difficult to use. Layout mode is confusing. Layers are great but
where I place my layers is not where browers, current browers,
place the content that is in the layers. So how should I proceed?
Should I just use tables and learn to control them?
John

Don't start using DW on the basis of this video. Get some
good HTML/CSS
references and spend some time with them. That's what will
answer these
kinds of questions for you.
> Tables are secure but difficult to use
Without knowing HTML, anything on the page will be difficult
to use.
> Layout mode is confusing.
Layout mode is an abomination. Don't even think of going
there - not
because it's confusing (which it is), but because its use is
certain to
break your page.
> Layers are great
Layers are the most difficult of all, and should be
completely avoided until
you get some sense of how the HTML comes together to create
the page.
> So how should I
> proceed? Should I just use tables and learn to control
them?
Yes - that would be a start, but without a good basis in HTML
and CSS, even
that will be difficult for you.
Try reading through the table tutorials at the DW FAQ link in
my
signature....
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"precie8877" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:etdek5$9qu$[email protected]..
>I am not sure how I should start using Dreamweaver. I
studied a 12 hour
>video
> tutorial and learned all the features but still don't
know the best way of
> creating a layout. Tables are secure but difficult to
use. Layout mode is
> confusing. Layers are great but where I place my layers
is not where
> browers,
> current browers, place the content that is in the
layers. So how should I
> proceed? Should I just use tables and learn to control
them?
> John
>

Similar Messages

Table Cells in Layout Mode vs WYSIWYG

I am new to Dreamweaver and am using v8.0. When designing a
page using Tables and Cells in Layout Mode the layout looks fine;
the Cells are nice and tight. However - and this regardless of
which Browser I use to check the page - the spacing between those
same Cells is wholly unacceptable. As mentioned, in Layout Mode
everything is tight; when viewing it in a browser there may be up
to 2" of space between the Cells.
What have I over looked? Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
Thanks!

Table width = 1327? Don't ever make your width more than
about 770. As for
the spacing .. I have never seen so many empty table cells in
my life. :)
As the others have said, you will do far better by learning a
little html
and css .. "adhering to conventions" will never happen with
Layout Mode.
It's there so people can draw tables .. but if I were DW
Engineering, I
would remove it .. I think it causes more problems than it's
worth. :)
Nancy
"LGLDSR73" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> Thank you, Nancy!
>
> Cellspacing=0 set as such:
>
> <table width="1327" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
>
> I seem to have it squared away now but that doesn't mean
that I am
> adhereing
> to conventions. What I was doing was selecting 'Layout
Table' to enclose
> all
> Images and text (and/or using 'Draw Layout Cell' as
well), as opposed to
> (1)
> Using 'Layout Table' to set the page size, then (2)
using 'Draw Layout
> Cell' to
> put the images and/or text in. What I am seeing now in a
Browser (Safari)
> is
> matching up to what I am seeing in Dreamweaver. I don't
think I fully
> grasp the
> differrence between 'Layout Table' and 'Draw Layout
Cell'. I've been
> reading in
> the 'Help' and while it sheds some light it doesn't
appear to be getting
> through.
>
> Though the spacing of the images appears to be okay now,
text is an issue.
> I.e.,
>
> If I put:
>
> "The text will end here -------->" with the arrowhead
at the rightmost
> border
> in Dreamweaver, when viewed in Safari it wraps to the
second line even
> though
> within Dreamweaver I am not outside of the green
frame....
>
> What is a recommended page size to start with, and set
with which Tool?
>
> Finally, when I attempt to use Firefox to preview the
page the following
> error
> is returned:
>
> File not found
> Firefox can't find the file at /2 WD/NEW
SITE/index.html.
> * Check the file name for capitalization or other typing
errors.
> * Check to see if the file was moved, renamed or
deleted.
>
> I purchased 'Dreamweaver 8 For Dummies' but apparently I
transcend even
> that!
> ;-)
>
> The Code is attached, but please don't spend more than a
quick moment;
> this is
> my problem and not yours!
>
> Thank you!
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0
Transitional//EN"
> "
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
> <html xmlns="
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1" />
> <title>index</title>
> <style type="text/css">
> 
> </style></head>
>
> <body>
> <table width="1327" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
> 
> <tr>
> <td width="116" height="30"> </td>
> <td width="136"> </td>
> <td width="69"> </td>
> <td width="264"> </td>
> <td width="24"> </td>
> <td width="107"> </td>
> <td width="20"> </td>
> <td width="234"> </td>
> <td width="16"> </td>
> <td width="338"> </td>
> <td width="3"> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="41"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td colspan="2" valign="top"><h1 align="center"
class="style2"><span
> class="style1">Fifth Avenue Digital
</span></h1></td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="39"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="47"> </td>
> <td colspan="5" rowspan="4" valign="top"><img
src="Images/main
> image.jpg"
> alt="main page cape cod" width="600" height="460"
/></td>
> <td> </td>
> <td rowspan="2" valign="top"><img
src="Images/9j.jpg" alt="router bit"
> width="234" height="350" /></td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="303"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td rowspan="2" valign="top"><img
src="Images/06.jpg" alt="sand"
> width="337" height="333" /></td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="30"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tr>
> <td height="80"></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> <td></td>
> </tr>
>
>
>
> <tr>
> <td height="30"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="77"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="top"><img
src="Images/ramp.jpg"
> alt="boat ramp rockport" width="333" height="500"
/></td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td colspan="3" valign="top"
nowrap="nowrap"><h1 align="left">This is
> a
> test of inputting text that is going</h1>
> <h1 align="left">(new paragraph) to end right here
-------->
> </h1></td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td height="424"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
>
>
>
> <tr>
> <td height="179"> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> <td> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> </body>
> </html>
>

Tables versus Layout mode

Hi All - Thanks for the excellent info I've gotten off these
forums. I am a newbie and have a basic question. Is it better to
use the Layout Mode or the Table Mode (Standard) for building Web
pages? And what are some of the positives for each and/or the
negatives?
I have had very good luck using Layers—easier to move
around and size, but a few people I've spoken with say to stay with
the Tables.
Thanks,
Ernie

Nice of you to say so, John. Similarly, it was the many
generous people on
this very forum who 'raised me' as well....
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Tarvardian" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, two minutes late anyway. But it's proof that many
of us out here
> take your advice and lessons seriously. I know I've
learned much just
> from reading your posts.
>
> John
>
>
> "Murray *ACE*" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hehe.... A day late and a dollar short!
>>
>> --
>> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
>> Adobe Community Expert
>> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do
so!)
>> ==================
>>
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
>>
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>>
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
>>
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
>> ==================
>>
>>
>> "Murray *ACE*"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In my opinion, there are three serious problems
with Layout Mode -
>>>
>>> 1. Perhaps most importantly, it sits between you
and *real* HTML
>>> tables,
>>> and fools you into believing that concepts like
"layout cell" and
>>> "autostretch" really mean something. They do
not. As long as you use
>>> Layout Mode, you'll never learn one of the most
important things for new
>>> web
>>> developers - how to build solid and reliable
tables.
>>>
>>> 2. Actually, #1 wouldn't be *so* bad, except
that the code that is
>>> written
>>> by Layout Mode is really poor code. For example,
a layout table
>>> contains
>>> MANY empty rows of cells. This can contribute to
a table's instability.
>>> In addition, if your initial positioning of the
table's cells is a bit
>>> complex,
>>> Layout Mode will throw in col- and rowspans
aplenty as it merges and
>>> splits
>>> cells willy-nillly to achieve the pixel-perfect
layout you have
>>> specified. Again,
>>> this is an extremely poor method for building
stable tables, because it
>>> allows
>>> changes in one tiny cell's shape (i.e,
dimensions) to ripple through the
>>> rest
>>> of the table, usually with unexpected and
sometimes disastrous
>>> consequences.
>>> This is one of the primary reasons for the final
result's fragility -
>>> read this -
>>>
>>>
http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
>>>
>>> 3. The UI for Layout Mode is beyond confusing -
many options that you
>>> might
>>> want to use are inaccessible, e.g., inserting
another table, or layer
>>> onto the page.
>>>
>>> I can understand the new user's desire to use
this tool to make their
>>> life easier,
>>> but the cost is just too heavy in my opinion.
>>>
>>> To make good tables, keep it simple. Put a table
on the page, and begin
>>> to
>>> load your content. If you would want a different
table layout, instead
>>> of
>>> merging or splitting cells, consider stacking
tables or nesting simple
>>> tables instead, respectively.
>>>
>>> And above all, do not try to build the whole
page with a single table!
>>>
>>> To read more about this approach, visit the DW
FAQ link in my sig, and
>>> run
>>> through the table tutorials.
>>>
>>>> I have had very good luck using
Layers?easier to move around and size,
>>>> but a
>>>> few people I've spoken with say to stay with
the Tables.
>>>
>>> Using Layers as a primary layout methodology is
a slippery slope to
>>> catastrophe. Here's why -
>>>
>>>
http://www.great-web-sights.com/g_layer-overlap.asp
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
>>> Adobe Community Expert
>>> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do
so!)
>>> ==================
>>>
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
>>>
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
>>>
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
>>>
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
>>> ==================
>>>
>>>
>>> "DreemWeeve"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Hi All - Thanks for the excellent info I've
gotten off these forums. I
>>>> am a
>>>> newbie and have a basic question. Is it
better to use the Layout Mode
>>>> or the
>>>> Table Mode (Standard) for building Web
pages? And what are some of the
>>>> positives for each and/or the negatives?
>>>>
>>>> I have had very good luck using
Layers?easier to move around and size,
>>>> but a
>>>> few people I've spoken with say to stay with
the Tables.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ernie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Layout mode in Dreamweaver CS3. Can't draw table

I did the same exact thing i do in dreamweaver 8, but in cs3,
it's now working.
I went to layout mode and with a blank page and the draw
table button is grayed out.
what do i do to use it. I'm already in layout mode.

Get out of Layout mode for starters.
In my opinion, there are three serious problems with Layout
Mode -
1. Perhaps most importantly, it sits between you and *real*
HTML tables,
and fools you into believing that concepts like "layout cell"
and
"autostretch" really mean something. They do not. As long as
you use
Layout Mode, you'll never learn one of the most important
things for new web
developers - how to build solid and reliable tables.
2. Actually, #1 wouldn't be *so* bad, except that the code
that is written
by Layout Mode is really poor code. For example, a layout
table contains
MANY empty rows of cells. This can contribute to a table's
instability.
In addition, if your initial positioning of the table's cells
is a bit
complex,
Layout Mode will throw in col- and rowspans aplenty as it
merges and splits
cells willy-nillly to achieve the pixel-perfect layout you
have specified.
Again,
this is an extremely poor method for building stable tables,
because it
allows
changes in one tiny cell's shape (i.e, dimensions) to ripple
through the
rest
of the table, usually with unexpected and sometimes
disastrous consequences.
This is one of the primary reasons for the final result's
fragility - read
this -
http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
3. The UI for Layout Mode is beyond confusing - many options
that you might
want to use are inaccessible, e.g., inserting another table,
or layer onto
the page.
I can understand the new user's desire to use this tool to
make their life
easier,
but the cost is just too heavy in my opinion.
To make good tables, keep it simple. Put a table on the page,
and begin to
load your content. If you would want a different table
layout, instead of
merging or splitting cells, consider stacking tables or
nesting simple
tables instead, respectively.
And above all, do not try to build the whole page with a
single table!
To read more about this approach, visit the DW FAQ link in my
sig, and run
through the table tutorials.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Dreamweaver2k2" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:[email protected]...
>I did the same exact thing i do in dreamweaver 8, but in
cs3, it's now
>working.
> I went to layout mode and with a blank page and the draw
table button is
> grayed out.
>
> what do i do to use it. I'm already in layout mode.
>

How to create table with rows and columns in the layout mode?

One of my friends advised me to develop my whole site on the
layout mode as its better than the standard as he says
but I couldnot make an ordinary table with rows and columns
in th layout mode
is there any one who can tell me how to?
thanx alot

Your friend is obviously not a reliable source of HTML
information.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Mr.Ghost" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:f060vi$npp$[email protected]..
> One of my friends advised me to develop my whole site on
the layout mode
> as its
> better than the standard as he says
> but I couldnot make an ordinary table with rows and
columns in th layout
> mode
> is there any one who can tell me how to?
> thanx alot
>

Layout Mode

Hi
I have created my site in dreamweaver, but it is not
appearing in the browser as it should.
I have two tables that need to be lined up with each other in
the centre. Although, when I create it in layout mode it appears
correctly but then when I preview the site in browser the tables
are off to the left.
Any ideas of how to fix it?
Thanks Lou

This post was made to the identical thread called "Layout
Altered" - posted
yesterday -
Yes, it does.
DW's timeline code is such an antique (dating from DW2, I
believe) that it
fails in some of the more recent browsers. Unless there is a
compelling
reason to use it, I wouldn't.
It's likely that your problems stem from this code -
<table width="748"" height="419" align="center"
cellspacing="10"
id="Content"
style="border: 1px solid black; </table>
Note that not only is the opening table tag improperly
closed, but the whole
thing is bogus anyhow. You cannot have
<table></table> in your code. I
assume that the closing </table> is an error, meaning
that the code should
be -
<table width="748"" height="419" align="center"
cellspacing="10"
id="Content"
style="border: 1px solid black;">
This should fix part of your problem. You will have another
immediate
problem, though, that is caused by your use of absolute
positioning with
centering tables. The tables will center, but the absolutely
positioned
elements will be fixed in their location. Thus, the table's
content will
slide under the 'layers', breaking your layout.
Finally, you have used Layout mode to build these tables. In
my opinion,
there are three serious problems with Layout Mode -
1. Perhaps most importantly, it sits between you and *real*
HTML tables,
and fools you into believing that concepts like "layout cell"
and
"autostretch" really mean something. They do not. As long as
you use
Layout Mode, you'll never learn one of the most important
things for new web
developers - how to build solid and reliable tables.
2. Actually, #1 wouldn't be *so* bad, except that the code
that is written
by Layout Mode is really poor code. For example, a layout
table contains
MANY empty rows of cells. This can contribute to a table's
instability.
In addition, if your initial positioning of the table's cells
is a bit
complex,
Layout Mode will throw in col- and rowspans aplenty as it
merges and splits
cells willy-nillly to achieve the pixel-perfect layout you
have specified.
Again,
this is an extremely poor method for building stable tables,
because it
allows
changes in one tiny cell's shape (i.e, dimensions) to ripple
through the
rest
of the table, usually with unexpected and sometimes
disastrous consequences.
This is one of the primary reasons for the final result's
fragility - read
this -
http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
3. The UI for Layout Mode is beyond confusing - many options
that you might
want to use are inaccessible, e.g., inserting another table,
or layer onto
the page.
I can understand the new user's desire to use this tool to
make their life
easier,
but the cost is just too heavy in my opinion.
To make good tables, keep it simple. Put a table on the page,
and begin to
load your content. If you would want a different table
layout, instead of
merging or splitting cells, consider stacking tables or
nesting simple
tables instead, respectively.
And above all, do not try to build the whole page with a
single table!
To read more about this approach, visit the DW FAQ link in my
sig, and run
through the table tutorials.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Malcolm N_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:07:34 +0000 (UTC), "LoobieLouLou"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I am not absolutely sure how the table html code
should look, please could
>>you
>>show me?
>
> in a new file - create a new table and then look at the
code
>
> it starts with a <table>
> then a <tr> to start the row
> then <td> or <th> to start a cell - each
<td> needs a balancing </td>
> to close it
>
> to end a row it uses a </tr>
>
> look at your code and you will see missing </td>
and </tr>
>
> and the first table has no content i.e a <table>
immediately followed
> by a </table> with no rows or cells
>
> Just using Dw to produce a site without undertstanding
html and css is
> not a recipe for success.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ~Malcolm N....
> ~

I want to know critics about Layout Mode

Hi,
I want to know critics of Layout Mode feature in DW. Seems
like a wonder tool to me, and apparently solves many of the
problems i had when laying out pages, all you have to do is drag
and drop tables or cells here and there and add content to them!
Is there any disadvantage or inconvenience with this
approach? Why isn't it the typical workflow in town (CSS seems to
be the dominant approach, despite obvious more steps and workforce
than layout mode).
Thank you in advance for your opinions, i appreciate.

Hello,
If the web were static like print media, layout mode would be
fine.
In many graphics applications like Photoshop, you can drag
elements (layers)
around until you get your design exactly how you want it.
Then, you simply save your design in whatever image format
you'd like. All
of the layers are merged into one, static image,
All of the parts have merged into one element, no longer the
multiple parts
you were dragging around.
When a user sees your image, either on a piece of paper or on
their computer
screen, it looks the same to everyone.
Overall, it might be bigger or smaller in whole dependant on
print size or
monitor resolution, but the layout itself can't change.
A web page, unless the page is one giant image, remains
multiple parts after
you publish it and some of these parts the user can change,
such as text
size.
Any area of your design with text in it will look different
on their screens
than on yours, but the images won't change size.
This is how the web works, and this is where layout mode
fails.
As you drag things around in layout mode, DW writes code to
try to keep the
elements exactly where you want them in relation to other
objects.
It merges cells which fills the code with colspans and
rowspans, and it adds
spacer images by the tens or hundreds in an effort to keep
everything "stuck
together" exactly where you dropped the elements.
The more things your drag and drop, the more complex the
code.
When you are done, your layout looks like you want it to on
your screen but
behind it is code that is very fragile and cumbersome.
With this code, if any part of your layout changes size in
someone's browser
(like a text area), everything else in the layout that is so
tightly tied to
it
will be affected as well.
This usually results in things shifting and not lining up any
more, the page
"breaking" and filling up with gaps and misalignments
throughout the page.
The one change ripples throughout the whole page, because
every element is
so tightly connected by the code Layout Mode wrote.
In essence, Layout Mode wrote such stringent and unforgiving
code that your
design will only work reliably at 1 text size and 1 browser
viewport size.
Those sizes are the sizes your browser was set at when you
designed the
page.
Think of it this way.
You have 100 playing cards and you lay them out on a table in
10 rows of 10
columns each.
You make sure all of the edges are touching.
It's a nice, tight layout.
On one of the cards in the center, you write some words in
marker.
If you saved this as an image, it would look the same to
everyone.
A hundred cards with all the edges touching and text written
on one of them.
If someone enlarges the image to read the text on the single
card, all the
other cards grow equally and the layout looks exactly the
same, only bigger.
However, if you saved this as a website and someone enlarges
the text to
read it, only the card with the text gets bigger.
All the others stay the same size. But you wanted all the
edges touching.
You'd like to keep as many cards as neatly arranged as
possible, but layout
mode doesn't care about that.
It's trying to keep every card edge touching, just like you
did when you
dragged and dropped them..
What happens to the neat rows and columns of cards if the
single card with
text on it doubles in size?
Cards all around it move and nothing lines up anymore. Gaps
appear between
every card.
Changing the size of that one piece of the layout ripples
through the rest
of the page because of that really complex, cumbersome code
Layout Mode
wrote. It really wants to keep everything just like you
wanted it, all the
edges touching and it doesn't care what the layout looks
like.
If you had used standard mode instead of layout mode, the
page would be
dynamic in that the elements (the cards) can freely flow in a
logical manner
under different user's settings.
When this single card doubles in size, the group of cards
above wouldn't be
affected. They would stay neatly arranged in rows with all
their edges
touching as would the group of cards below the enlarged card.
You'd keep a nice, neat layout of cards with just one row of
cards in the
center taller than the other rows because of the single
bigger card.
Instead of being filled with gaps and misalignments all over
the place that
Layout Mode's code caused, the page would still look good.
Layout Mode wrote such bad code as it tried to keep a layout
static in a
dynamic environment, that it has been removed from
Dreamweaver.
Here's more very good info, including a graphic example of a
common problem
Layout Mode creates for the unsuspecting....
http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
There's something arguably as bad as layout mode you should
also stay way
from.
They, too, offer the ease of drag and drop but at a huge
price when you
realize all the troubles and then have to completely rebuild
your site.
Please read this:
http://apptools.com/examples/pagelayout101.php
Particularly, the section entitled "The trouble with layers"
(AP Divs)
Take care,
Tim
"mballom3" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> I want to know critics of Layout Mode feature in DW.
Seems like a wonder
> tool
> to me, and apparently solves many of the problems i had
when laying out
> pages,
> all you have to do is drag and drop tables or cells here
and there and add
> content to them!
>
> Is there any disadvantage or inconvenience with this
approach? Why isn't
> it
> the typical workflow in town (CSS seems to be the
dominant approach,
> despite
> obvious more steps and workforce than layout mode).
>
> Thank you in advance for your opinions, i appreciate.
>

Urgent help needed!! Layout table and Draw layout cell dissapeared.

I need some urgent help. I'm using CS3 but for a while my
Layout Table and Draw Layout Cell icons appear greyed and can't use
them at all. Is there any kind soul out there who knows how to fix
this? I'm going nuts trying all the possible options but none seem
to work.
Help please!!!!!!

> How would you about designing a page without using html?
You don't. But I don't recall suggesting that you not use
HTML. I just
suggested that you use best-practice HTML, no? Or maybe you
meant to ask
how you would go about building your site without learning
HTML? In that
case, I think you are outta luck. Using DW without knowing
HTML is a very
punishing experience, I'm afraid.
> PS: A virtual box of 12 bottles of Moet Chandon is
already on your way!!
I'd prefer Cristal, please.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
==================
"Untersberg" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:g4tj9a$m5o$[email protected]..
> Ahhhhhh!!!!! They came up!!!! They came up again!!
> I was on standard mode. Now going back to your
suggestion, which I really
> appreciate. How would you about designing a page without
using html? I'm
> just
> redesigning my website at the moment and need it to get
going urgently,
> hence
> the reluctance to start learning HTML at the moment.
I'll do after but I
> need
> to get this up and running fairly quickly.
>
> Cheers.
>
> PS: A virtual box of 12 bottles of Moet Chandon is
already on your way!!
>

Urgent : Publishing Problem - Attributes not showing up in Layout Mode

Dear MDM Gurus,
We 4 fields in our main table i.e.
FLD1   (Taxonomy LKP -
> Standard Categories Table)
FLD2   (Taxonomy LKP)
FLD3   (Qualified LKP)
FLD4   (Taxonomy LKP)
Now we have uploaded the data structure/Hierarchy to FLD1.
FLD2,4 are Taxonomy lookups which store & link attributes for each of those fields.
When viewed thru record mode our data looks like this :
FLD1 : Hierarchy Node
   FLD1-ATTRIBUTE1 = ABCD
FLD2 : XYZ
FLD2-ATTR1 = A1
FLD2-ATTR2 = A2
FLD2-ATTR3 = A3
Which is how we want it to be.
Here the data is well organised based on the taxonomy Lookup fields in the main table
Now when we try to publish it,we dont see the attributes associated with FLD2 and 4 in the Layout mode.
I can only see the main table fields,Qualified Table Fields and the attributes associated with FLD1.
How to pull the data from the taxonomy lookup tables in Layout mode of Data Manager ?
Greatly appreciate any inputs.
Thanks.
Hari

Hello Hari,
Currently, the only attributes that you have access to in Publisher are the attributes linked to the taxonomy that you've designated to be your family field (in the console), which by default, is your main taxonomy table.
The only way to display fields linked to non-main tables is by designating them alternate display fields, which in your case doesn't sound like what you want.
-Neta

Layout Mode Tab in DW CS

I have Dreamweaver CS for a Mac. The only tabs available are
Standard and Expanded Mode. I have to go through the menu to go to
Layout Mode. DW 8 had a layout mode tab. Any help?
Thanks.

Layout Mode is table based and is a deprecated feature i.e.
it's going to be
removed in the next version of DW.
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb402489&sliceId=1
Adobe has removed the Layout Mode Tab (it's now only
accessible through the
menus) and is indirectly encouraging you to use Standard
mode.
Regards
John Waller

Next version drops Layout Mode?

I read this from a link posted on the NAPP forums. Adobe
plans to drop many current features of Dreamweaver in the next
update including Layout Mode. I'm not an HTML "coder". I have two
simple web pages that I maintain and rely on WYSIWYG to format
them. I can't believe Adobe would do away with this ability. If I
wanted to hand code pages, I'd get a book, learn HTML and use
BBEdit!
There are a number of features being discontinued in the next
version. I'm a novice and have no clue what many of them are or
what they do, so you might want to check the list for yourself
Here's
The Link
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...2489&sliceId=1
Appears the link no longer works. It does not work from the
original posting on NAPP either. What's up Adobe?

I'll sleep easy at night knowing all you Webmaster mavens and
code heads look forward to the changes. Hey, what do I know. I'm
just a graphic designer, prepress type who, quite honestly, has no
desire to learn HTML.
I have two web sites that I maintain. One personal (family
photos, recipes, news etc.) the other for a local charitable club.
They are very simple sites that I put up
YEARS ago when the first edition of PageMill was offered. And
(gasp) they both use frames! Neither us CSS style sheets (shame on
me), because I just want to get in, make a couple changes and get
out and I don't want to expand my knowledge much since I don't
foresee adding "features" to either of my sites.
I "upgraded" to GoLive at the announcement of the funeral for
PageMill. Besides, I was purchasing the CS and GL came with the
box. But, with Adobe's purchase of Macro Media, I could see that DW
would soon be king of the mountain and the possible demise of GL,
so when upgrading to CS3, I got the Premium package that included
DW and ported my pages over from GL.
I had no idea what a Div Tag was, really still don't fully
comprehend, I just know that they were "present" when I started
using CS DW. It didn't take me long to figure out they were kinda
like "frames" in Quark or InDesign. Kinda neat, you could put them
anywhere on the "page" and insert just about anything (text,
tables, graphics) inside them.
DOOZA is close to summing up Adobe's marketing scheme, but I
don't think they are deceptive in fooling..."people into thinking
Dreamweaver is the perfect choice for someone who is not willing to
learn. They fool them into
thinking Dreamweaver will do all the hard work for them."
It's a matter of learning what you need to know to get the job
done. I don't care if my "code is sloppy", or the page takes a
micro second longer to open because I didn't use CSS styles, or
that the upload files are 80K bigger than they need to be because
of all the extra tags.
I'm sure there are many, like me, who don't ever want to have
to look at a page in code view, could care less what goes on
"behind the scenes" as long as we get the information out there.
That's not Adobe's fault. And I don't mind being considered an
"amature" compared to the Web Wizards. You can't say that's any
worse than someone using MS Word as a Page Layout program if it's
serving the purpose to make simple flier for the copy machine.
They'll call a printer when they want a trifold four color
brochure, just as I would hire one of you "pros" if I wanted a web
store front with shopping cards and security features.
dee dee
http://www.deedeespage.com

Table height in layout development

Hello there,
               I have defined a table in the layout which has a header and a row. Now, I have another table is displayed (using repeating subforms not with standard table layout). When my data is getting printed, if the inner table is blank, then it is currently leaving a blank space on its place. I want the height to be reduced if there is no data in the inner table.
                 I have checked that all the subforms used in the ROW part are FLOWED. However I doubt that, it is taking minimum height of the ROW.
                Please let me know if there is any way to reduce height automatically when there is less data to be printed.
Thanks & regards,
Ganesh V Khumse

> Why is it that I'm unable to make my table height
stretch to fit the
> browser? I
Table height is invalid HTML. DW likes to work with valid
HTML. To make
sure that your page validates, DW adds a valid and complete
doctype to each
new page you create. When a browser sees a page with a valid
and complete
doctype, it renders the page in Standards mode, ignoring any
invalid HTML it
encounters. Thus DW pages will result in your table heights
being ignored
in the browser. FP had no sense of this detail, and threw
invalid code out
like a Pez dispenser, hence your invalid construction seemed
to work.
If you really need to do stuff like this, read here -
http://www.apptools.com/examples/tableheight.php
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
==================
"Mr. Angier" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:fnogrp$cv0$[email protected]..
> Why is it that I'm unable to make my table height
stretch to fit the
> browser? I
> never had this problem when I used FrontPage. Is there
some code I need
> to add
> by hand to make it work? I've double-checked the table
height and cell
> height
> and they are both at 100%.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>

Layout mod grayed out in dw cs3

The draw layout table/cell are grayed out since I began dw
v.9 cs3. what could be the case?
I used to the layout mode in dw 8 and its predecessors.
your help please.

heynock wrote:
> The draw layout table/cell are grayed out since I began
dw v.9 cs3.
Please don't post the same question in different forums. I
have answered
this in the main Dreamweaver forum.
David Powers, Adobe Community Expert
Author, "The Essential Guide to Dreamweaver CS3" (friends of
ED)
Author, "PHP Solutions" (friends of ED)
http://foundationphp.com/

Interactive Layout mode no longer available in Photomerge Panorama in PSE for Mac - any workarounds?

Hello, after having purchased a download of Elements 12 for Mac, I found out that the Interactive Layout mode in Photomerge Panorama was no longer available (it was available in earlier versions, such as Elements 11). Is Adobe able to exchange my version 12 for version 11, or is there some other way I can gain access to Interactive Layout mode? I have found that the Auto layout mode often results in a message that it cannot align the images to create a panorama. Thank you.

In photoshop cs6 give this a try:
1. Go to File>Scripts>Load Files into Stack, browse and load the pictures for the pano with the Attempt to Align and Create Smart Object unchecked
2. Increase the canvas size of the document with the Crop Tool holding down the Alt key and dragging
    one of the crop corners out until you think the canvas is big enough to arrange your documents for the pano.
3. Align the layers manually in the document window with the Move Tool as good as you can.
   (you can lower the layer opacxity so you can see the alignment better, but don't forget to put all the layers back to 100% opacity)
4. Select all the layers in the layers panel
    (Select>All Layers)
5. Go to Edit>Auto-Blend Layers and use Blend Method>Panorama and Seamless Tones and Colors
6. After the blending it's possible you might see some whats looks like seams, so press Shift+Alt+Ctrl+E to make a merged copy on a new layer and hopefully that'll
    get rid of the seams.
I'll make another post with directions for putting the plugin into photoshop cs6, since you probably don't want to install pse 11 just to get a plugin when
photoshop cs6 is so much more capable than elements, for panoramas anyway.

PiP layout mode

from prior threads i've seen that the PiP mode in WebCamera was given up on, and i can only seem to set side by side layout mode anyway.
is PiP mode going to be available in the spark version of LCCS? if not, can one the of developers let me know how i would go about subclassing WebCamera to ensure that the publisher's video is not added to the WebCamera layout? i've tried a few things, such as setting sbsSubscriber.webcamPublisher = null, and removing the publisher's video forcefully from the display list, but it still seems to appear.
or any tips on how i would go about allowing PiP mode to be set in WebCamera so that i can then muck about with the layout of the publisher's video manually.
thanks
adam

>>Can somebody please tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Using Layout mode. Seriously!
Adobe removed Layout Mode from CS4 version of DW with good
reason. This has
been explained here dozens of times. Search here:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=+group:macromedia.dreamweaver
on
"layout mode" for more info.
Walt
"kensteve" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:gfg6ri$ekl$[email protected]..
> In layout mode using Dreamweaver 8, I created a percent
based table. Into
> that
> I inserted a pixel based table. Into that I inserted
cells to hold the top
> banner, navigation, etc. Previewed in browser and all
looked good. Then I
> added
> two column cells beneath my navigation. Added text to
both cells and
> styled
> with CSS. Previewed in browser, and again all looks
well. Now I'm trying
> to
> close off the bottom by running one cell beneath the
above two columns,
> but
> even though the cells are tightly aligned, I get a space
of about 1 inch
> between the columns and the bottom row I have created. I
even tried
> re-creating
> everything using nested tables instead of cells, and I
can't get rid of
> this 1
> inch space. I don't have any cell or table padding added
anywhere. I'm
> pulling
> my hair out ... been at this all day! Can somebody
please tell me what I'm
> doing wrong? Many thanks in advance.
>
>

Tables, layers, or layout mode

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for