When Merge Cells and Distribute Evenly Collide
Doug wrote:
I have a table with two top rows with 6 columns, and the 4 lower rows with only 4 columns. When I select the two top rows and tell them to ‘distribute columns evenly’ it does it, but when I then select the 4 lower rows and do the same thing, it pulls the columns above out of wack. Even when I go into ‘cell properties’ and tell each column to be exactly 1/6 or 1/4 the width of the table, it does the same thing. All I want is a single table with two seperate column numbers evenly spaced within the table.
We’ve gotten a few people with similar requests recently. Must be something tabular in the air. I know exactly what you mean: It seems like this should be so simple! But unfortunately, it’s not just difficult… it’s impossible!
Here’s the problem: You started with a 6-column table, and then used Merge Cells to create 4 columns down below, right? Or perhaps you had a 4-column table and then used Split Cells to break the top two rows up into 6 columns. Either way, InDesign still thinks you have a 6- or 4-column table under the hood.
You can see this by using the Type tool to drag one of the column or row boundaries — while you’re dragging, all the cells show up as though they weren’t split or merged.
In other words, splitting and merging cells is a fake! A sham! A deceitful counterfeit!
To get the effect you’re looking for, you will likely need to use two tables, one following the next.
And if you want the tables to look like one (as in the picture above), make sure you open the Table Options dialog box for the second table and set the Table Spacing “Space Before” field to zero (it usually defaults to 4 points, making a space between the table and whatever comes before it).
I can’t imagine a situation where two tables doesn’t make more sense, but if you *need* one table, you could always start with a 12-column table and merge accordingly.
I always use the method that Brian describes. It can be extended to cover so many different number of column variations quite easily.
There really was a reason we learned “lowest common denominator” in high school!
Good point about the lowest common denominator trick. But someone else wrote to us recently needing 7 columns followed by 5… which would require… ummm… 35 “real” columns. Less than optimal.
I’ve used it! I’m not sure what the largest number of columns was but I think it was in the neighborhood of 80. It takes a little bit of planning, but ID does a great job with the super-sized meals!
Am I missing something here?
I find that rather than setting up a 6 column table start with a two column table. Then split the top two rows into 8 columns. Merge some of the cells to create the 6 columns at the top. Distribute those columns evenly first.
Then split the cells horizontally below to make the two columns under the rest.
If you need to resize the table just hold down shift when dragging it out. The table cells remain proportionate.
The table is created starting with two columns, and then split it up.
Actually I just created a table starting with 6 rows. I find that once you make the smaller cells even first then merge and divide the remaining cells below first then the cells are even all over.
And the shift when resizing the whole table works treat.
Eugene, you’re right that this works… as long as you don’t move any columns boundaries! You cannot use Distribute Columns Evenly later on; you’ll never get back to the original state.
Admittedly, that is very frustrating indeed.
I Would distribute the six columns, then drag out guides for the four columns and distribute the guides. I would then drag the four columns individually, holding the shift key till they snap to my guides.
Just another way of doing the same thing. Everyones mind problem solves differently.
What about nested tables?
Using the merge and split cell options was really promising, and initially it worked nicely. But months later, in making edits to the table, the same feature did not allow me to align the horizontal edges of the merged cells, with cells to the left; there was a padded “barrier” or invisible row, which cannot be selected, nor can it therefore be merged. That frustration drove me to this fantastic resource. As David mentioned above, the table (table setup) has more rows after a split had been made. Nesting tables works well, and is a lot more reliable and effective.
Hmmm … isn’t 35 the “least common multiple” (LCM) of 5 and 7 instead of the “least common denominator” (LCD) ?
Anyway, I’ve been using this “trick” for years now – it’s the only way that I’m aware to solve this distribution issue. Very strange.