(New page: messing around with the tables here a bit. Have the current version on top, a new version on the bottom. on the bottom, its all 1 table and there is no forced 150 px per column. What versi...)
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
That looks really good, I like the top table best. If you make a cell (column) for the icons by themselves it helps the text align a lot better when the window isn't wide enough to have all the text on one line (instead of wrapping below the icon it forms two lines to the right of the icon, or if the window is very narrow three lines centered on the icon). But yeah, I think having a forced width makes it look a lot cleaner. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 07:15, 21 June 2008 (CDT)
-----
messing around with the tables here a bit. Have the current version on top, a new version on the bottom. on the bottom, its all 1 table and there is no forced 150 px per column. What version do you like better?
messing around with the tables here a bit. Have the current version on top, a new version on the bottom. on the bottom, its all 1 table and there is no forced 150 px per column. What version do you like better?



Revision as of 12:15, 21 June 2008

That looks really good, I like the top table best. If you make a cell (column) for the icons by themselves it helps the text align a lot better when the window isn't wide enough to have all the text on one line (instead of wrapping below the icon it forms two lines to the right of the icon, or if the window is very narrow three lines centered on the icon). But yeah, I think having a forced width makes it look a lot cleaner. --Tlosk 07:15, 21 June 2008 (CDT)


messing around with the tables here a bit. Have the current version on top, a new version on the bottom. on the bottom, its all 1 table and there is no forced 150 px per column. What version do you like better?