curious about layers

should i or not?

[antipodes]

Just curious about layers (DW3/Mac)

I used layers for a site and after the convert to tables didn't respond i thought, well only version 3 cant view it right? Layers are cross browser compatible for all 4+ browsers.....

Layers seem to be easy to use as a layout tool. Why don't more ppl use layers? I see a lot of tables on sites.

Is there something I don't know about this layer business? I'm also using css and js.

I look forward to being informed.

antipodes

[caine]

> Layers are cross browser compatible for all 4+ browsers

not quite true, layers can be (are) parsed and displayed differently on different browsers, even upto the latest one's.

Layers are certainly not 100% search engine friendly, i believe search engines, as a whole are still parsing HTML around the HTML3 mark. ATW goes beyond this, but only in certain area's.

Some SE's can read JS, though not many, certainly not a form of code to use to increase indexing by SE's. Also make sure that you're CSS and JS is external, so that it decreases the page size, this helps.

[antipodes]

Okay but my site invariably reveal users with IE 4+ and Netscape browsers down around 1%. When I checked this site (using layers) against NS there was a slight discrepancy which did require a redirection to that browser. But I wonder why I even bother with NS given my user stats. I have yet to see a user with Opera.

Layers are certainly easy to work with..well easier than tables for layout purposes. But if SE's are in fact still in html 3 mode then this is a real problem for layers.

I came across this because DW(3) will not respond to the convert to tables command. Perhaps something to do with a recent feirce storm with lightening close to the ground. Pull out yer sockets in a storm. The Mac hasn't been the same since. Thanks for that reply. I'm a little wiser.

[Filipe]

Layers are not exactly supported the same way by all version 4, or even version 5+ browsers. Check out this thread about using CSS instead of tables, which is essentially the same thing (though I can't verify this statement or tell you the differences between the two). CSS is definitely the way to go in the future as far as layout is concerned - question is, is the future now?

[webmasterworld.com...]

[antipodes]

I went to macromedia forum to seek some help with layers which I had to nest inside other layers because of browsers rendering the layout not how it appears in DW. I mentioned the SE problems discussed in this thread about layers, SE and html 3 etc., but was told by a MM team volunteer that "this is completly wrong...."

I don't wish to start a webmaster world war but this is in fact two opposing views isn't it.

I guess I could work without nested layers, just more work. Then convert to tables. I am not yet convinced that the web is ready for CSS.

antipodes

[caine]

antipodes,

it would be good if you could invite a member of the MM team (employee of Macromedia) to come on to WebmasterWorld once in a while for their knowledge and experience with DW and other Macromedia products.

[aaronjf]

antipodes,

I am a DW MX / Mac user. I can say from experiance after going through now 3 versions of DW that layers are more trouble than they are worth. When I first started out I thought tables were a pain so I used layers all day long. Now I have never heard of the SE problem till now associated with Layers, but it seems possible. Problems with SE work is that it is mostly guess work, with a few exceptions. Anyway, the problem I found with layers is that no two browsers, versions of the same browser, or operating system displayed them in the same position. They were always a little off too a lot off. Take a little extra time and use tables. They are a lot more reliable and have been around since the dawn of the net, virtually.

[antipodes]

Yes Aaronjf, I now use tables. Though I did use a layer to add an email section to a gif image. To do this I used PVII snap layers command. Lots of code in that script but it works across various browsers. Otherwise, I'm with you on that and tables are more reliable.

antipodes

[aaronjf]

Did you use the layer to add a send e-mail javascript? If so you don't need to do that. You can select the image and add the mailto: script to the image's link field instead of layering it over the image.

[4eyes]

Sorry to be late in on this one

Layers are certainly not 100% search engine friendly

Caine - not sure what you mean here.

Layers are just css positioned content - we have used these pretty much from day1 and have had no search engine problems.

In fact, they are one of most important SEO tools due to the ease with which we can position content high up within the html structure.

Have I missed something, or misunderstoood your point?

[caine]

i think i was refering to html layers, rather than CSS layers - across browsers can look very different.