PDA

View Full Version : Please Stop Tables-in-Tables



Kellus
2011-08-14, 01:17 PM
This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203866) sudden (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206927#post11459564) trend (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206927#post11554625) is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205677) so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209772) annoying (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210452) it is not even funny. I agree that these table-in-tables look pretty sweet if you have a huge monitor or if you keep everything maximized or zoomed out all the time or whatever, but a lot of people don't. And in tiny windows the lines that you want to line up don't line up, and it looks awful and unreadable.

The point of a class table is to convey the information in an easily readable manner with everything aligned on each level. These table-in-tables are different, but they haven't been done before for a good reason. PLEASE STOP.

Amechra
2011-08-14, 02:29 PM
Alright, I will; though I have to say, in my experience, Firefox fixes any problems with the tables, so I didn't realize.

I'm sorry if I have caused inconvenience to anyone...

And for future reference, you can't put spoilers in tables either, so don't even TRY.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 02:35 PM
I'm in Chrome, with a fairly wide monitor, and they mess up for me. I don't know what Firefox is doing, but I agree it's an issue.

Cipher Stars
2011-08-14, 02:42 PM
I'm using a weak little netbook and I don't experience problems... unless your freaking out about the fact that spell tables are actually readable and easily understood I don't get the point of this thread.
You link to two classes that don't have ANY problem in the table, a and a tablemaking help thread.
And I have admit I'm irked to the point I don't really know what to say, taking good tables and stating they're terrible?
The only problems come when one table is bulkier then the other, in which case the spells table doesn't line up. In such a case, dual table isn't appropriate anyway.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 02:53 PM
I'm using a weak little netbook and I don't experience problems... unless your freaking out about the fact that spell tables are actually readable and easily understood I don't get the point of this thread.
You link to two classes that don't have ANY problem in the table, a and a tablemaking help thread.
And I have admit I'm irked to the point I don't really know what to say.
I don't know about the OP, but every one of those displays oddly for me. Hold on, I'll get a screencap....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/Temp-1.gif

As you can see, the result is rather awkward. The one table expands and the other doesn't, and the combination means that you can't scan across a single level to find out what that level grants.

Kellus
2011-08-14, 02:56 PM
Thanks for the screencap, sonofzeal. That is exactly the problem, which is caused because you have two separate tables inside of the same table, except that they have different parameters and sizes. When the screen is stretched wide enough or zoomed out far enough it lines up fine, but any closer than that the smaller table comes out of line as it scales itself to fit into the size of the other one.

Drachasor
2011-08-14, 02:56 PM
Ahh, I see. Firefox doesn't have that problem. Interesting.

Edit: Rather it seems to not have a problem with some and mitigate others.

Cipher Stars
2011-08-14, 02:57 PM
I don't know about the OP, but every one of those displays oddly for me. Hold on, I'll get a screencap....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/Temp-1.gif

As you can see, the result is rather awkward. The one table expands and the other doesn't, and the combination means that you can't scan across a single level to find out what that level grants.


That table isn't done right (One going until 20 as well as having thicker levels, meanwhile the other has thinner levels AND only goes to ten.), meanwhile my Steelsinger and that sexy looking Runescribe class are done quite right- matching the tables so they meet.

If they do not meet, they shouldn't be paired.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 02:58 PM
Alright, I will; though I have to say, in my experience, Firefox fixes any problems with the tables, so I didn't realize.
I just checked Firefox, most recent version (got it yesterday), and had the same problem.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 03:00 PM
That table isn't done right (One going until 20 as well as having thicker levels, meanwhile the other has thinner levels AND only goes to ten.), meanwhile my Steelsinger and that sexy looking Runescribe class are done quite right- matching the tables so they meet.

If they do not meet, they shouldn't be paired.
Runescribe has exactly the same problem.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/Temp-2.gif

...it's just not as bad because the stretch factors are closer.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 03:02 PM
Oh, and here's your Steelsinger, for point of reference:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/Temp-3.gif

Kellus
2011-08-14, 03:03 PM
That table isn't done right (One going until 20 as well as having thicker levels, meanwhile the other has thinner levels AND only goes to ten.), meanwhile my Steelsinger and that sexy looking Runescribe class are done quite right- matching the tables so they meet.

If they do not meet, they shouldn't be paired.

False. Here's how the runescribe (which is quite awesome) looks for me.

http://i52.tinypic.com/np5q15.jpg

EDIT: Ninja'd. Thanks again, sonofzeal. :smalltongue:

Amechra
2011-08-14, 03:08 PM
And the Combinatoric Maven HAS 20 levels for both sides.

Seerow
2011-08-14, 03:12 PM
I'm using a weak little netbook and I don't experience problems... unless your freaking out about the fact that spell tables are actually readable and easily understood I don't get the point of this thread.
You link to two classes that don't have ANY problem in the table, a and a tablemaking help thread.
And I have admit I'm irked to the point I don't really know what to say.

Care to screenshot what they look like to you? Cause it could just be an aesthetics thing that you disagree with.


Personally, I find them pretty ugly myself. It's not that the tables are broken and don't work, it's that they don't line up like a table should, since you have two separate tables.

For example, this is what I see looking at those tables:
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp124/SirOshi/TableExample.jpg

I just checked and it looks the same in Firefox or Chrome, so I don't think there's anything different there unless one of mine is outdated.


Here's me fixing that table so it's a single table instead of 2 nested tables:

{table=head]{colsp=6}The Steelsinger |{colsp=4}Tunes Known
Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special|Least|Lesser|Greater|Greatest

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect | 2 | - | - | -

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3| | 2 | - | - | -

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence | 3 | 1 | - | -

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 3 | 1 | - | -

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 4 | 2 | - | -

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge | 4 | 2 | - | -

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6| | 5 | 3 | - | -

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch| 5 | 3 | 1 | -

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7| | 6 | 4 | 1 | -

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge| 6 | 4 | 2 | -

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| | 7 | 5 | 2 | -

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9| | 7 | 5 | 3 | -

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence | 8 | 6 | 3 | 1

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10| | 9 | 7 | 4 | 2

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11| | 9 | 7 | 5 | 2

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table]


Compared to this table copy pasted straight from the topic:

{table=head]The Steelsinger | Tunes Known
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect Pitch

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3|

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5|

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5|

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6|

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7|

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8|

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9|

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11|

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge
[/table]|{table=head]Level | Least | Lesser | Greater | Greatest
1| 2 | - | - | -
2| 2 | - | - | -
3| 2 | - | - | -
4| 2 | - | - | -
5| 3 | 1 | - | -
6| 3 | 1 | - | -
7| 4 | 2 | - | -
8| 4 | 2 | - | -
9| 5 | 3 | - | -
10| 5 | 3 | 1 | -
11| 6 | 4 | 1 | -
12| 6 | 4 | 2 | -
13| 7 | 5 | 2 | -
14| 7 | 5 | 3 | -
15| 8 | 6 | 3 | 1
16| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1
17| 9 | 7 | 4 | 2
18| 9 | 7 | 5 | 2
19| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3
20| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table][/table]



I find it hard to see any way in which the original is better.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 03:12 PM
And the Combinatoric Maven HAS 20 levels for both sides.
Yep. It's simply a flaw in how tables-in-tables show up in common web browsers at common resolutions. Whatever kit Cipherthe3vil is running to prevent it, I'd hazard that the average user browsing from home on a non-widescreen kit is going to have issues on most of these. As sexy as tables-in-tables are when they work, they're just plain buggy.

Epsilon Rose
2011-08-14, 03:13 PM
That table isn't done right (One going until 20 as well as having thicker levels, meanwhile the other has thinner levels AND only goes to ten.), meanwhile my Steelsinger and that sexy looking Runescribe class are done quite right- matching the tables so they meet.

If they do not meet, they shouldn't be paired.

I hate to break it to you, but that's not, strictly speaking, true. Your double tables break just as badly on certain screens (for refference it's a problem in dolphin lite on my thunderbolt, but not ff on my laptop). The issue is that you don't have access to the full set of options that you need for this sort of thing (I.e. you can't set a table to fill a vertical space). If the forums let you format your posts with CSS or HTML this wouldn't be a problem. Sadly, I'm fairly certain they don't and until they do using complicated (and easily broken) styles isn't a particularly good idea.

Daverin
2011-08-14, 03:36 PM
Just to chime it with a moment in works (in case it helps figure out at least what is getting some people to not have a problem), I see them the way they are intended with a 1600x900 resolution on Firefox 5.0.

Seerow
2011-08-14, 03:36 PM
Just to chime it with a moment in works (in case it helps figure out at least what is getting some people to not have a problem), I seem them the way they are intended with a 1600x900 resolution on Firefox 5.0.

I just checked, I have 5.0.1, but am running on a smaller 1280x800 resolution, which likely causes thee difference. In which case it goes back to what the OP said, it doesn't look pretty for anyone without a big screen.


Which then makes me wonder how is Cypher with their netbook seeing them correctly?

Cipher Stars
2011-08-14, 04:00 PM
t3h heck are those screen shots...

And your comparison you made, using actual tables, showed the dual style being superior as normal.

Maybe my little sucky netbook isn't as bad as I thought.

I can't screenshot. It would crash this lil piece of trash.
I'll see what its like on a different computer, if its the same Then I'll screen shot it there.

Seerow
2011-08-14, 04:12 PM
t3h heck are those screen shots...

And your comparison you made, using actual tables, showed the dual style being superior as normal.

Maybe my little sucky netbook isn't as bad as I thought.

I can't screenshot. It would crash this lil piece of trash.
I'll see what its like on a different computer, if its the same Then I'll screen shot it there.

What's the resolution on your netbook? It may be that despite the netbook having a small screen, it has a higher resolution than most of us do, so it shows differently for you. Try on 1280x800 or lower resolution and see what you see.

Cipher Stars
2011-08-14, 04:17 PM
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss360/lexal/TABLES.png









Here. It looks just like this on this Desktop... don't care to look at rez. As well as on the tiny Netbook.

and I'll check again at a third computer in a while.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-08-14, 04:17 PM
I'll link a screenshot from mine, they show up fine here:

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l512/Jjeinn-tae/Steelsinger.jpg

The problem is resolutions, I run at 1600x1050, or thereabouts, as resolutions get smaller they'll be distorted as lines are getting carried over in one table or another. Just for reference, that is the actual size of it on mine, I did no scaling, that 458 pixels mixed with the large margin on the site can pretty easily dip over many peoples resolutions.

Seerow
2011-08-14, 04:19 PM
Well does it not make sense to use a format that will look good for everybody, as opposed to a format that will look good only to people who have a higher resolution monitor? Seems if that is the problem, there is no way to universally fix it except to stop doing it.

Maraxus1
2011-08-14, 04:19 PM
Care to screenshot what they look like to you? Cause it could just be an aesthetics thing that you disagree with.


Personally, I find them pretty ugly myself. It's not that the tables are broken and don't work, it's that they don't line up like a table should, since you have two separate tables.

For example, this is what I see looking at those tables:
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp124/SirOshi/TableExample.jpg

I just checked and it looks the same in Firefox or Chrome, so I don't think there's anything different there unless one of mine is outdated.


Here's me fixing that table so it's a single table instead of 2 nested tables:

{table=head]{colsp=6}The Steelsinger |{colsp=4}Tunes Known
Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special|Least|Lesser|Greater|Greatest

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect | 2 | - | - | -

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3| | 2 | - | - | -

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence | 3 | 1 | - | -

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 3 | 1 | - | -

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 4 | 2 | - | -

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge | 4 | 2 | - | -

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6| | 5 | 3 | - | -

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch| 5 | 3 | 1 | -

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7| | 6 | 4 | 1 | -

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge| 6 | 4 | 2 | -

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| | 7 | 5 | 2 | -

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9| | 7 | 5 | 3 | -

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence | 8 | 6 | 3 | 1

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10| | 9 | 7 | 4 | 2

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11| | 9 | 7 | 5 | 2

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table]


Compared to this table copy pasted straight from the topic:

{table=head]The Steelsinger | Tunes Known
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect Pitch

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3|

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5|

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5|

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6|

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7|

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8|

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9|

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11|

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge
[/table]|{table=head]Level | Least | Lesser | Greater | Greatest
1| 2 | - | - | -
2| 2 | - | - | -
3| 2 | - | - | -
4| 2 | - | - | -
5| 3 | 1 | - | -
6| 3 | 1 | - | -
7| 4 | 2 | - | -
8| 4 | 2 | - | -
9| 5 | 3 | - | -
10| 5 | 3 | 1 | -
11| 6 | 4 | 1 | -
12| 6 | 4 | 2 | -
13| 7 | 5 | 2 | -
14| 7 | 5 | 3 | -
15| 8 | 6 | 3 | 1
16| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1
17| 9 | 7 | 4 | 2
18| 9 | 7 | 5 | 2
19| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3
20| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table][/table]



I find it hard to see any way in which the original is better.

Sweet!

I just made a table-in table, too, because that:

Table 1: Abilities
{table]Level |Base Attack Bonus |Fort Save |Ref Save |Will Save |Bribe Attack Bonus|Special
1st|+0|+0|+0|+2|+0|Aura of Evil, Cause Fear 3/day, Detect Good, 1st Domain
2nd|+1|+0|+0|+3|+0|Corruption Hold
3rd|+1|+1|+1|+3|+1|Cause Fear 4/day, Emperor's Bribe, Unholy Vitality
4th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Turn Good
5th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Cause Fear 5/day, 2nd Domain
6th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+1|Corruption Hold (disease)
7th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+2|Cause Fear 6/day
8th|+4|+2|+2|+6|+2|Word of Darkness
9th|+4|+3|+3|+6|+2|Cause Fear At will
10th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+2|Corrosive Soul, Corruption Hold (poison), 3rd Domain
11th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+3|Grip of Fear +1
12th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|Emperor's Bribe (saves)
13th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|
14th|+7/+2|+4|+4|+9|+3|
15th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+9|+4|Grip of Fear +2, 4th Domain
16th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|Greater Emperor's Bribe
17th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|
18th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+4|Fear me!
19th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+5|Grip of Fear +3
20th|+10/+5|+6|+6|+12|+5|Undying, 5th Domain[/table]

{table]Table 2: Spells prepared|Table 3: Spells per day
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|3|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|3|3+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|3|3+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|3|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
8th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
9th|3|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
10th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
11th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-
12th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-
13th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-
14th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-
15th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-
16th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-
17th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D
18th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D
19th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D
20th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D[/table]|
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-
8th|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-
9th|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-
10th|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-
11th|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-
12th|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-
13th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-
14th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-
15th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-
16th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-
17th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2
18th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4
19th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6
20th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6[/table][/table]

Looked better than this:

Table 1: Abilities
{table]Level |Base Attack Bonus |Fort Save |Ref Save |Will Save |Bribe Attack Bonus|Special
1st|+0|+0|+0|+2|+0|Aura of Evil, Cause Fear 3/day, Detect Good, 1st Domain
2nd|+1|+0|+0|+3|+0|Corruption Hold
3rd|+1|+1|+1|+3|+1|Cause Fear 4/day, Emperor's Bribe, Unholy Vitality
4th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Turn Good
5th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Cause Fear 5/day, 2nd Domain
6th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+1|Corruption Hold (disease)
7th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+2|Cause Fear 6/day
8th|+4|+2|+2|+6|+2|Word of Darkness
9th|+4|+3|+3|+6|+2|Cause Fear At will
10th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+2|Corrosive Soul, Corruption Hold (poison), 3rd Domain
11th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+3|Grip of Fear +1
12th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|Emperor's Bribe (saves)
13th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|
14th|+7/+2|+4|+4|+9|+3|
15th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+9|+4|Grip of Fear +2, 4th Domain
16th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|Greater Emperor's Bribe
17th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|
18th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+4|Fear me!
19th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+5|Grip of Fear +3
20th|+10/+5|+6|+6|+12|+5|Undying, 5th Domain[/table]

Table 2: Spells prepared
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|3|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|3|3+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|3|3+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|3|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
8th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
9th|3|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
10th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
11th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-
12th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-
13th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-
14th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-
15th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-
16th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-
17th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D
18th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D
19th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D
20th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D[/table]

Table 3: Spells per day
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-
8th|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-
9th|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-
10th|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-
11th|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-
12th|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-
13th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-
14th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-
15th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-
16th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-
17th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2
18th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4
19th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6
20th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6[/table]
And in this case, two really thin tables were not really needed.

But with the {colsp=X} option, this goes even better. To bad, the help does not mention this option but from now on, I will use this!

Kellus
2011-08-14, 04:23 PM
Well does it not make sense to use a format that will look good for everybody, as opposed to a format that will look good only to people who have a higher resolution monitor? Seems if that is the problem, there is no way to universally fix it except to stop doing it.

Yes, resolution seems to be the problem. I have 1280 x 800, which is presumably why they all look terrible for me. But I have to agree with Seerow that it would make more sense to go with a format that everybody can read normally instead of only having it work for some people.

Of course, your class, do it however you like. I'm just saying it's incredibly annoying when it doesn't work properly, and while they are different they don't really look any better.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-08-14, 04:26 PM
But with the {colsp=X} option, this goes even better. To bad, the help does not mention this option but from now on, I will use this!

Wait, you can use column space here? I didn't know that. You could vertically center the text in the table, with a colsp of 3 for each row and it would work. Not sure if the large amounts of blank space is necessarily a better alternative though...

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 04:30 PM
My resolution is 1152 x 864, which has always been entirely respectable in the past. It's no 1600x1200, but any design that depends on viewers having that kind of display is probably going to fail more often than not.

Cipher Stars
2011-08-14, 08:30 PM
Nope. Tables are still sexy on my Grandmothers computer as well as when its on the big-screen tv.

I really don't see the problem.

tiny netbook- moderate computer- wide computer- TV-screened computer.

maybe its something to do with the OS?

Daverin
2011-08-14, 08:33 PM
Alright, on that front, I have a Windows XP, x64 bit edition.

sonofzeal
2011-08-14, 08:41 PM
Windows 7 for me. Couldn't tell you x32 or x64.

Shadow Lord
2011-08-14, 08:43 PM
It displays right on my Windows Vista x64 computer. However, it doesn't work on my nook Color.

Lord_Gareth
2011-08-14, 08:47 PM
Okay, first, if all these folks are saying there's a problem with the display, chances are you're in the minority, not them.

Secondly, it's sloppy design. No, seriously, it's sloppy design layout. It's inelegant and jarring and can make quick reference of a single idea (say, Tunes, or Spells Known instead of /day) hard on the eyes or even easy to miss. Separate your tables, please.

Temotei
2011-08-14, 08:50 PM
I have the same visual sonofzeal has. I don't really care, but I think it would be nicer to have the table use a standard format. It allows the normal class table to have a full-sized space so it doesn't get fat, too.

I won't be enforcing any format in the Base Class Challenge, however, if anyone's wondering.

Seerow
2011-08-14, 08:50 PM
Nope. Tables are still sexy on my Grandmothers computer as well as when its on the big-screen tv.

I really don't see the problem.

tiny netbook- moderate computer- wide computer- TV-screened computer.

maybe its something to do with the OS?

You still haven't said anything at all about what resolutions you're using. If the problem is resolution it doesn't matter what computer you use if they all have a high resolution. And no, resolution does not necessarily translate to screen size or how new/old the computer is. You can have a 7 inch screen made 6 years ago with a higher resolution than a 40 inch screen I bought yesterday.

Lord_Gareth
2011-08-14, 08:52 PM
I won't be enforcing any format in the Base Class Challenge, however, if anyone's wondering.

I provided an official format for a reason, y'know.

Joxer t' Mighty
2011-08-14, 08:52 PM
On a laptop with Win 7 and Firefox. No problemo with any of it.

Resolution 1366 x 768

Circle of Life
2011-08-14, 08:58 PM
This was news to me. When I took a swing at tables-in-tables to better replicate the WotC standard table format, I checked it on three different computers with three different resolutions, and it showed up fine on all of them. "Heck", I thought, "Making the tables this way is a little more confusing and time consuming, but if it looks better for people reading it, why not?"

Then, much to my surprise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11634296&postcount=16), I found out that the nested tables were going all kinds of whack for other people. At first I attributed it to people running ridiculously low resolutions, but now... I'm not so sure. Regardless, I've sworn off nested tables for the time being, if for no other reason than to preserve readability.

Epsilon Rose
2011-08-14, 09:00 PM
If I had to guess, I'd say that it's not so much the resolution as the aspect ratio. Like I said it works on my wide screen 1080p laptop but it fails just like the broken screenshots on my thunderbolt.
Also, how is {colsp=X} used on these boards and are there any more undocumented options?

Secondly, as counterpoint to Lord_Gareth, I rather like the look of double tables (though I'd like it more if I had some control over the headers) but I couldn't possibly consider it a good idea to use them without a guarantee that they'll work.

137beth
2011-08-14, 09:03 PM
It displays fine for me, though I guess it does depend on browser ect. The point of the tables-in-tables you linked to seems to be as a way to merge cells in the same row, without merging the entire row or column. That's a nice idea, except that the results vary wildly for each user.

Lord_Gareth
2011-08-14, 09:04 PM
This was news to me. When I took a swing at tables-in-tables to better replicate the WotC standard table format, I checked it on three different computers with three different resolutions, and it showed up fine on all of them. "Heck", I thought, "Making the tables this way is a little more confusing and time consuming, but if it looks better for people reading it, why not?"

Then, much to my surprise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11634296&postcount=16), I found out that the nested tables were going all kinds of whack for other people. At first I attributed it to people running ridiculously low resolutions, but now... I'm not so sure. Regardless, I've sworn off nested tables for the time being, if for no other reason than to preserve readability.

This man has critically struck the point with a +5 scythe at full Power Attack while initiating Diamond Nightmare Blade. His example should be followed.

jiriku
2011-08-14, 09:52 PM
Heya folks. The appearance of tables-within-tables are indeed a function of screen width, because your browser automatically adjusts the height and width of the table to your screen real estate, and it can unknowingly make the table too narrow, which causes some lines to wrap in one subtable but not the other.

If you experience this, try this simple trick: hold down the Control key and scroll down with your middle mouse button to zoom out your view of the screen until the table lines up properly. It takes only a fraction of a second, and will allow you to view the table without having a braineurism.

Fiery Diamond
2011-08-14, 10:28 PM
Whoa. I didn't know about this. *reads thread*

Okay, I'm a little confused. If the visual looked like this:


http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss360/lexal/TABLES.png









Here. It looks just like this on this Desktop... don't care to look at rez. As well as on the tiny Netbook.

and I'll check again at a third computer in a while.


I'll link a screenshot from mine, they show up fine here:

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l512/Jjeinn-tae/Steelsinger.jpg

The problem is resolutions, I run at 1600x1050, or thereabouts, as resolutions get smaller they'll be distorted as lines are getting carried over in one table or another. Just for reference, that is the actual size of it on mine, I did no scaling, that 458 pixels mixed with the large margin on the site can pretty easily dip over many peoples resolutions.

...then everything would be fantastic. Apparently, that's what they're supposed to look like, and frankly they look awesome that way. MUCH easier to read than normal tables.

However, I am amongst those for whom the visual is different. My visual looks like sonofzeal's. So, let's make a comparison between the normal table and ones with the nested but offset tables.




Care to screenshot what they look like to you? Cause it could just be an aesthetics thing that you disagree with.


Personally, I find them pretty ugly myself. It's not that the tables are broken and don't work, it's that they don't line up like a table should, since you have two separate tables.

For example, this is what I see looking at those tables:
http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp124/SirOshi/TableExample.jpg

I just checked and it looks the same in Firefox or Chrome, so I don't think there's anything different there unless one of mine is outdated.


Here's me fixing that table so it's a single table instead of 2 nested tables:

{table=head]{colsp=6}The Steelsinger |{colsp=4}Tunes Known
Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special|Least|Lesser|Greater|Greatest

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect | 2 | - | - | -

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3| | 2 | - | - | -

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge| 2 | - | - | -

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence | 3 | 1 | - | -

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 3 | 1 | - | -

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5| | 4 | 2 | - | -

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge | 4 | 2 | - | -

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6| | 5 | 3 | - | -

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch| 5 | 3 | 1 | -

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7| | 6 | 4 | 1 | -

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge| 6 | 4 | 2 | -

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| | 7 | 5 | 2 | -

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9| | 7 | 5 | 3 | -

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence | 8 | 6 | 3 | 1

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10| | 9 | 7 | 4 | 2

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11| | 9 | 7 | 5 | 2

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table]


Compared to this table copy pasted straight from the topic:

{table=head]The Steelsinger | Tunes Known
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special

1st|
+0|
+2|
+0|
+2|Challenge

2nd|
+1|
+3|
+0|
+3| Perfect Pitch

3rd|
+2|
+3|
+1|
+3|

4th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4|Challenge

5th|
+3|
+4|
+1|
+4| Presence

6th|
+4|
+5|
+2|
+5|

7th|
+5|
+5|
+2|
+5|

8th|
+6/1|
+6|
+2|
+6| Challenge

9th|
+6/1|
+6|
+3|
+6|

10th|
+7/2|
+7|
+3|
+7| Perfect Pitch

11th|
+8/3|
+7|
+3|
+7|

12th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8| Challenge

13th|
+9/4|
+8|
+4|
+8|

14th|
+10/5|
+9|
+4|
+9|

15th|
+11/6/1|
+9|
+5|
+9| Presence

16th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|Challenge


17th|
+12/7/2|
+10|
+5|
+10|

18th|
+13/8/3|
+11|
+6|
+11|

19th|
+14/9/4|
+11|
+6|
+11|Perfect Pitch

20th|
+15/10/5|
+12|
+6|
+12|Challenge
[/table]|{table=head]Level | Least | Lesser | Greater | Greatest
1| 2 | - | - | -
2| 2 | - | - | -
3| 2 | - | - | -
4| 2 | - | - | -
5| 3 | 1 | - | -
6| 3 | 1 | - | -
7| 4 | 2 | - | -
8| 4 | 2 | - | -
9| 5 | 3 | - | -
10| 5 | 3 | 1 | -
11| 6 | 4 | 1 | -
12| 6 | 4 | 2 | -
13| 7 | 5 | 2 | -
14| 7 | 5 | 3 | -
15| 8 | 6 | 3 | 1
16| 8 | 6 | 4 | 1
17| 9 | 7 | 4 | 2
18| 9 | 7 | 5 | 2
19| 10 | 8 | 5 | 3
20| 10 | 8 | 6 | 3
[/table][/table]



I find it hard to see any way in which the original is better.

Oh, wow. That's a good comparison. I'm stunned. I'm not stunned that the nested table looks so bad or anything. I'm stunned that people think that the nested table looks worse than regular. The quoted person finds it hard to see any way in which the original (the nested one) is better. I, on the other hand, think that it is immensely easier to read and easier on the eyes. I am having difficulty understanding why anyone would be upset at this trend, let alone upset enough to make a complaint about it. I find myself in complete agreement with this next person, also:


Sweet!

I just made a table-in table, too, because that:

Table 1: Abilities
{table]Level |Base Attack Bonus |Fort Save |Ref Save |Will Save |Bribe Attack Bonus|Special
1st|+0|+0|+0|+2|+0|Aura of Evil, Cause Fear 3/day, Detect Good, 1st Domain
2nd|+1|+0|+0|+3|+0|Corruption Hold
3rd|+1|+1|+1|+3|+1|Cause Fear 4/day, Emperor's Bribe, Unholy Vitality
4th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Turn Good
5th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Cause Fear 5/day, 2nd Domain
6th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+1|Corruption Hold (disease)
7th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+2|Cause Fear 6/day
8th|+4|+2|+2|+6|+2|Word of Darkness
9th|+4|+3|+3|+6|+2|Cause Fear At will
10th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+2|Corrosive Soul, Corruption Hold (poison), 3rd Domain
11th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+3|Grip of Fear +1
12th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|Emperor's Bribe (saves)
13th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|
14th|+7/+2|+4|+4|+9|+3|
15th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+9|+4|Grip of Fear +2, 4th Domain
16th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|Greater Emperor's Bribe
17th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|
18th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+4|Fear me!
19th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+5|Grip of Fear +3
20th|+10/+5|+6|+6|+12|+5|Undying, 5th Domain[/table]

{table]Table 2: Spells prepared|Table 3: Spells per day
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|3|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|3|3+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|3|3+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|3|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
8th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
9th|3|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
10th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
11th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-
12th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-
13th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-
14th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-
15th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-
16th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-
17th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D
18th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D
19th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D
20th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D[/table]|
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-
8th|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-
9th|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-
10th|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-
11th|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-
12th|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-
13th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-
14th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-
15th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-
16th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-
17th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2
18th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4
19th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6
20th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6[/table][/table]

Looked better than this:

Table 1: Abilities
{table]Level |Base Attack Bonus |Fort Save |Ref Save |Will Save |Bribe Attack Bonus|Special
1st|+0|+0|+0|+2|+0|Aura of Evil, Cause Fear 3/day, Detect Good, 1st Domain
2nd|+1|+0|+0|+3|+0|Corruption Hold
3rd|+1|+1|+1|+3|+1|Cause Fear 4/day, Emperor's Bribe, Unholy Vitality
4th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Turn Good
5th|+2|+1|+1|+4|+1|Cause Fear 5/day, 2nd Domain
6th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+1|Corruption Hold (disease)
7th|+3|+2|+2|+5|+2|Cause Fear 6/day
8th|+4|+2|+2|+6|+2|Word of Darkness
9th|+4|+3|+3|+6|+2|Cause Fear At will
10th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+2|Corrosive Soul, Corruption Hold (poison), 3rd Domain
11th|+5|+3|+3|+7|+3|Grip of Fear +1
12th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|Emperor's Bribe (saves)
13th|+6/+1|+4|+4|+8|+3|
14th|+7/+2|+4|+4|+9|+3|
15th|+7/+2|+5|+5|+9|+4|Grip of Fear +2, 4th Domain
16th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|Greater Emperor's Bribe
17th|+8/+3|+5|+5|+10|+4|
18th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+4|Fear me!
19th|+9/+4|+6|+6|+11|+5|Grip of Fear +3
20th|+10/+5|+6|+6|+12|+5|Undying, 5th Domain[/table]

Table 2: Spells prepared
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|3|2+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|3|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|3|3+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|3|3+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|3|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
8th|3|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-|-
9th|3|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
10th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-|-
11th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-|-
12th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-|-
13th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-|-
14th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-|-
15th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D|-
16th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D|-
17th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|1+D|1+D
18th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D|2+D|1+D
19th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|2+D
20th|3|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D|3+D[/table]

Table 3: Spells per day
{table]Level |0th |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th |6th |7th |8th |9th
1st|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
2nd|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
3rd|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
4th|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-|-
5th|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-|-
6th|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-|-
7th|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-|-
8th|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-|-
9th|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-|-
10th|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-|-
11th|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-|-
12th|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-|-
13th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-|-
14th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-|-
15th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2|-
16th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4|-
17th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|2
18th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|4
19th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6
20th|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6|6[/table]
And in this case, two really thin tables were not really needed.

But with the {colsp=X} option, this goes even better. To bad, the help does not mention this option but from now on, I will use this!

As a side note, this particular example actually lined up properly for me, while the others didn't (I still thought the ones that didn't line up looked better than "standard" tables, though).

Edit:


Heya folks. The appearance of tables-within-tables are indeed a function of screen width, because your browser automatically adjusts the height and width of the table to your screen real estate, and it can unknowingly make the table too narrow, which causes some lines to wrap in one subtable but not the other.

If you experience this, try this simple trick: hold down the Control key and scroll down with your middle mouse button to zoom out your view of the screen until the table lines up properly. It takes only a fraction of a second, and will allow you to view the table without having a braineurism.

Tried this, and this completely fixed the "problem" with the nested tables. Therefore, all anyone needs to do is zoom out until the problem is fixed, and thus there is no reason to complain about it. Problem solved! :smallbiggrin:

Daverin
2011-08-14, 10:34 PM
I can say I like the nesting when it works, but I can definitely tell that I would find it less appealing than just a regular table if I couldn't get it to match right.

jiriku
2011-08-14, 10:37 PM
Myself, I like the nested tables, but then again, I frequently view my screen at different distances and I'm constantly having to zoom my browser in or out, so I almost instinctually correct the zoom when I see a table that's getting distorted by the choice of viewpoint. I can see how readers who aren't accustomed to doing that might yearn for the simpler tables.

Flickerdart
2011-08-14, 10:45 PM
I am not really seeing what the table-inception is supposed to accomplish, other than laugh in the face of competent layout design. Put the class name outside the table, the name for your special fancy kind of spells in the Level (so "Tunes Level" or some such) and keep it simple. A layout that appears differently when viewed on different machines is a poor layout, especially since most people (myself included) seem to get the messed-up result. It may not be homebrew design, but it's still design, and if you care enough about presentation to try and get complicated with it, it might be worth trying to do it right.

Temotei
2011-08-14, 10:51 PM
I provided an official format for a reason, y'know.

I like people to have freedom in their creations, at least in that regard. Like it says in the first post of every contest, the class should look good, but it doesn't have to look exactly like the given format. Nested tables don't look that bad, really, so I'm okay with it. If you'd like, I could hold a vote in the chat thread for enforcing "no tables-in-tables."

Cipher Stars
2011-08-15, 12:07 AM
If you experience this, try this simple trick: hold down the Control key and scroll down with your middle mouse button to zoom out your view of the screen until the table lines up properly. It takes only a fraction of a second, and will allow you to view the table without having a braineurism.


This.


I'd appreciate it if people didn't use my Tunes for an example every time they wanna try to shaft anyone who dual tables. :smallwink:

It doesn't look as nice to me, but its close enough and if it stops people from hitting on my tunes I'm all for it, thank you Seerow.

wuwuwu
2011-08-15, 12:13 AM
If you experience this, try this simple trick: hold down the Control key and scroll down with your middle mouse button to zoom out your view of the screen until the table lines up properly. It takes only a fraction of a second, and will allow you to view the table without having a braineurism.

Attempting this on my Macbook Pro's trackpad has lead me down a road of failure and despair.

Woe to ye who follow in my footsteps.

sonofzeal
2011-08-15, 12:23 AM
Zooming out helps on the ones that were fairly close, but one or two of them got kind of illegible before they lined up between the two tables. It's a workaround, but I wouldn't call it a fix.



I'd appreciate it if people didn't use my Tunes for an example every time they wanna try to shaft anyone who dual tables. :smallwink:
Er, as the main advocate of the tableception layout, and how you specifically pointed to yours as one that worked "correctly", you kinda sorta set yourself up for that. Nobody's critiquing your PrC... but yes, we do have some problems with your layout. If that bothers you to have people critique that, then change it to one of the many formats that display properly for everyone.

Domriso
2011-08-15, 12:32 AM
I have to admit, I was a little confused why those tables looked odd when I first saw them, but when I saw this thread, I also thought it seemed a little petty. I could figure out what it was saying easy enough, even if they didn't line up completely.

And, now that jiriku has explained that simply by altering the font size of the browser it can fix the tables, I honestly have no problems with them at all. Indeed, I find the nestled tables rather elegant, because they pull my eye to the information I want to see, instead of the lines that I don't want.

So, I'm with the nestled tables on this one. Really, it's a scroll of the mouse (and, don't even try the touchpad excuse; I'm using that and it's still fine). For mac users... well, I'm not familiar with them, but it would be horribly poor software design if they didn't have a way to change the font size of the browser.

Ashtagon
2011-08-15, 12:37 AM
Ahh, I see. Firefox doesn't have that problem. Interesting.

Edit: Rather it seems to not have a problem with some and mitigate others.

My firefox does. It's a table text-wrap width issue, not a browser issue.

And using a full-size desktop monitor btw.

I know it is technically possible for me to increase my screen resolution from 1280 width, but why should I? I have weak eyes, and increasing the resolution would shrink the text and make it hard for me to read due to size. Either way, tables in tales fail.

unosarta
2011-08-15, 12:38 AM
I don't really understand the complaints. So far as everyone is saying, and screen caps confirm, they can still read the table. They can access all of the information with no hindrance other than their own need for the tables to line up. What is the big deal? I would so much rather have the tables all be in one place than have to keep on searching around the post in order to find all of the tables that might be part of a complex class. That seems to be my first priority. In fact, I don't even care about the tables within tables. It doesn't really detract from the readability of the table in any discernible way that is not just "the layout irks me so hard!" You know what also irks me so hard? When there is no table heading on tables. It makes it hard to differentiate between the heading and the actual rows of the table, it looks unprofessional, it is just annoying to read. You don't see me creating a thread about how annoying those tables are. In fact, I have seen non-table-headed tables in this forum more often than I have ever seen tables within tables. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

Because it doesn't really matter. They both convey all of the information, and although the format might be a little annoying at times, it doesn't actually detract from the readability of the table itself. If anything, non-table-headed tables detract from the ability to read the table more because one can easily not tell the difference between the head and the first column of the table. But that doesn't make it impossible to read, and it still accurately portrays the information within the table, and that is what is important.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-08-15, 12:40 AM
CTRL - and CTRL + do the same function, I would assume the same would be true on a Mac.



Edit: Hmm, I could have sworn the quote I'd quoted was commenting on there would have to be a way to switch font-size without a mouse-wheel... Guess not. :smallconfused:

eftexar
2011-08-15, 12:41 AM
The most common screen sizes in the US are 1280 x 800 and 1024 x 768. Safari, Chrome, and Firefox run code the best. Internet explorer is the most common browser but runs code the worst, at least when you look at the primary browsers.
Web programmers/designers code for a 1024 x 768 resolution and make sure that everything is legible (even if not as nice looking) in a smaller browser.
Nothing will ever work for everyone, so you must simply target your most likely audience (while ignoring or providing contingency code (which isn't possible in forums usually) for IE and smaller resolutions).
Where this leads you to your thoughts on tables I don't know. Additionally without knowing the most common resolution size used by those on the forum, you can't target your audience. I also can't attempt to make any assumptions about what happens in a 1024 x 768 resolution (which is the one most commonly designed for) because my resolution is of 1440 x 900 resolution (it works fine for me).
What is debatable however, is whether or not tables within tables provide a benefit great enough to those who can see it, so that it overshadows the disadvantage to the people who don't see it properly.
In short there is no correct answer. Simply there are so many opinions and different conditions that no decision will ever be made that makes everyone happy.

Ashtagon
2011-08-15, 12:42 AM
CTRL - and CTRL + do the same function, I would assume the same would be true on a Mac.

I think you missed the bit about weak eyes. I need big text to read it.

Jjeinn-tae
2011-08-15, 12:43 AM
I think you missed the bit about weak eyes. I need big text to read it.

Quoted the wrong person I guess, was not what I was trying to reply too. :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2011-08-15, 12:51 AM
Where this leads you to your thoughts on tables I don't know. Additionally without knowing the most common resolution size used by those on the forum, you can't target your audience. I also can't attempt to make any assumptions about what happens in a 1024 x 768 resolution (which is the one most commonly designed for) because my resolution is of 1440 x 900 resolution (it works fine for me).
I have 1024 x 768, or close enough. For me, most of them bug up slightly, and a few bug up substantially. It's readable both ways, but the "bugged" version is inelegant and a big jarring. The Tableception idea does seem to produce good results when it works though.

If mine was the lowest resolution around, I wouldn't call it a major issue. For most of them I can zoom out enough that it looks alright, and still be able to read it. On some, there's no sweet spot - either it's aligned incorrectly, or it's illegible, or both. But that's rare enough, and the result isn't that big a deal.

However, there's people with lower resolutions than me, and I could imagine it being a substantial barrier. I do think that, in the interest of politeness and inclusion, it would be better for designers to avoid the tableception layout. It's pretty when it works, but if it's a problem for a decent percentage of viewers (as it appears to be from this thread), then there go your benefits already.

Kellus
2011-08-15, 12:57 AM
I have 1024 x 768, or close enough. For me, most of them bug up slightly, and a few bug up substantially. It's readable both ways, but the "bugged" version is inelegant and a big jarring. The Tableception idea does seem to produce good results when it works though.

If mine was the lowest resolution around, I wouldn't call it a major issue. For most of them I can zoom out enough that it looks alright, and still be able to read it. On some, there's no sweet spot - either it's aligned incorrectly, or it's illegible, or both. But that's rare enough, and the result isn't that big a deal.

However, there's people with lower resolutions than me, and I could imagine it being a substantial barrier. I do think that, in the interest of politeness and inclusion, it would be better for designers to avoid the tableception layout. It's pretty when it works, but if it's a problem for a decent percentage of viewers (as it appears to be from this thread), then there go your benefits already.

For true. While I respect that it's your class and you can present it however you want, I can't see any justification for potentially alienating a bunch of readers by making your table appear messed-up. I don't know about anyone else, but I usually have enough trouble just getting people to look at my stuff in the first place. I don't want to make reading it more difficult or annoying for the people that do look at it.

Shadow Lord
2011-08-15, 09:10 AM
For true. While I respect that it's your class and you can present it however you want, I can't see any justification for potentially alienating a bunch of readers by making your table appear messed-up. I don't know about anyone else, but I usually have enough trouble just getting people to look at my stuff in the first place. I don't want to make reading it more difficult or annoying for the people that do look at it.

:smallconfused: Kellus, I'm not sure if I'm correct or not, but I'm fairly certain, that, of all people, you don't have any trouble getting people to look at your stuff. I mean, you might not get very many critiques, but your homebrew is, simply put, one of the best on the forum. You made The Way Words Work and Xenoalchemy.

Anyway, it works on 1680X1080 for me, and I'll go check to see where the cutoff point is.

Seerow
2011-08-15, 10:46 AM
For true. While I respect that it's your class and you can present it however you want, I can't see any justification for potentially alienating a bunch of readers by making your table appear messed-up. I don't know about anyone else, but I usually have enough trouble just getting people to look at my stuff in the first place. I don't want to make reading it more difficult or annoying for the people that do look at it.

Wait you have homebrew? :P

Mulletmanalive
2011-08-15, 12:07 PM
:smallconfused: Kellus, I'm not sure if I'm correct or not, but I'm fairly certain, that, of all people, you don't have any trouble getting people to look at your stuff. I mean, you might not get very many critiques, but your homebrew is, simply put, one of the best on the forum. You made The Way Words Work and Xenoalchemy.

Anyway, it works on 1680X1080 for me, and I'll go check to see where the cutoff point is.

Pretty much prior to The Way Words Work, this was probably true for Kellus [based on the stuff he's shown me and his archive...]

I don't like the nested tables, but that's as much to do with the fact that most examples can be done better with the {collaps=X} thing, anyway. I've tried the zooming out thing, but a) I resent having to do it and b) i generally can't read your table once i've done so.

Feel free, but it makes it even less likely that i'll read all the way through your class...

SamBurke
2011-08-15, 12:22 PM
Attempting this on my Macbook Pro's trackpad has lead me down a road of failure and despair.

Woe to ye who follow in my footsteps.

Just use the two finger zoom option. If that doesn't work, activate it under (System Preferences>Trackpad>Screen Zoom>Options.) Normally you can just two finger, but if you desire, using that order, you can change this to Command, Control, or Option. That should solve everything.

Lappy9000
2011-08-15, 06:12 PM
I actually prefer those tables in a table 'cause it's just so much easier to read, even though it's apparently 'messed up' on my browser. I do tend to make my own tables from scratch, though, so I'd never do that regardless.

Personally, I'd rather advocate against putting class features in Spoiler tags :smalltongue:(considering it's pretty much the majority of the class)

Morph Bark
2011-08-15, 06:31 PM
If you experience this, try this simple trick: hold down the Control key and scroll down with your middle mouse button to zoom out your view of the screen until the table lines up properly. It takes only a fraction of a second, and will allow you to view the table without having a braineurism.

So, since I got a small-screen laptop to work with, I tried this.

The end result is that I ended up with a braineurism trying to read the fine print that used to be the words in the table. :smallfrown:

wuwuwu
2011-08-15, 06:52 PM
Just use the two finger zoom option. If that doesn't work, activate it under (System Preferences>Trackpad>Screen Zoom>Options.) Normally you can just two finger, but if you desire, using that order, you can change this to Command, Control, or Option. That should solve everything.

That zooms the screen, and not the browser. It does not do anything to alleviate the issue of the tables :o(

Gralamin
2011-08-15, 07:53 PM
Tables within tables has been a terrible idea for over ten years, and this thread is just showing the basics of why. Web developers long ago kicked this habit (even when it was used correctly, which this definitely isn't), and there were quite a few reasons, but ultimately only one remains relevant to you:

People tend to prefer to read content that requires minimal effort on their part. Requiring some users to zoom is asking a few to take some extra steps, for a total benefit of... what? The tables within tables don't even really look nice. They actually make the tables look more busy to me, which isn't a good thing.

Make it even worse: Activate some accessibility features. I mean, you don't want to make it harder for people with impaired vision to read your class do you? But depending on implementation, this could break with Screen Readers, among other things.

What people want is a rowspan feature. This isn't supported in giantitp tables. Honestly, I'd say that if the "Spells per day" heading is so important to you, then It would be better to have two separate tables then a solution that only works for people who happen to be using the "correct" display.

jiriku
2011-08-16, 09:53 AM
I don't like the nested tables, but that's as much to do with the fact that most examples can be done better with the {collaps=X} thing, anyway.

I know nothing about this collaps=X thing. Can anyone explain what it is?

Seerow
2011-08-16, 09:56 AM
I know nothing about this collaps=X thing. Can anyone explain what it is?

I think he means {colsp=x}, which makes a the panel you put that in span across that many columns (for an example see the table I posted earlier in the thread)

Amechra
2011-08-16, 10:49 AM
You know, people that like using the recursive table... {colsp=x} works better. Check out my current 'brew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211719) (why does no-one ever PEACH my stuff? I swear, I get a bajillion views and no opinions.) for an example.

Mulletmanalive
2011-08-16, 11:15 AM
I think he means {colsp=x}, which makes a the panel you put that in span across that many columns (for an example see the table I posted earlier in the thread)

I did.

The how is simply to put that piece of code into a square of the table and it "counts as" the number of columns and they blur together like this:

{table=head]Column 1|Column 2|Column 3|Normal

{colsp=3}MERGE!!!|Normal

stuff!|More Stuff!|ZOMG! Moar Stff!|Normal[/table]

looks like


{table=head]Column 1|Column 2|Column 3|Normal

{colsp=3}MERGE!!!|Normal

stuff!|More Stuff!|ZOMG! Moar Stff!|Normal[/table]

NineThePuma
2011-08-16, 11:26 AM
Just speaking from my personal experience on a 1024x700 screen, double tables break more than half the time. Colsp is a wonderful thing, and should be used liberally.

Mulletman, if you don't mind, your little "how this works" should be made into a proper guide, and maybe we can get the mods to stick it in the official table making guide.

Domriso
2011-08-16, 12:50 PM
So that's how you merge the boxes. I've been trying to figure that out for a while. Now my tables won't look as dumb.

While we're on that random topic, how do you change the background color of a particular box? That one has also eluded me.

Seerow
2011-08-16, 12:55 PM
So that's how you merge the boxes. I've been trying to figure that out for a while. Now my tables won't look as dumb.

While we're on that random topic, how do you change the background color of a particular box? That one has also eluded me.

You can only do that for the top row, I believe. You do it by using {table=head] instead of {table].

Domriso
2011-08-16, 12:59 PM
Gotcha, gotcha. Well, that was helpful. I learned a whole bunch of things from this thread. Kellus should get angry about more things so I can learn more.

NineThePuma
2011-08-16, 01:00 PM
Gotcha, gotcha. Well, that was helpful. I learned a whole bunch of things from this thread. Kellus should get angry about more things so I can learn more.

That line almost made it into my signature.

Mulletmanalive
2011-08-16, 01:43 PM
Well, as Nine requested, I've fully tutorialed it up on the multi-part tableness.

I hope you appreciate how much work that was...

NineThePuma
2011-08-16, 01:51 PM
Thanks, MMA, I'm sure that only took you ten seconds. :smallwink:

Joking, is awesome.

Domriso
2011-08-16, 07:50 PM
Ha, glad to amuse other people.

And, that thread is awesome. Reading it now~