Rick Faircloth wrote:
> However, it's good to remember that for those of us that are just
> beginning to work with CSS layouts, that getting *anything* to work
> on any level is a big challenge. Once we become more knowledgeable
> and experienced we can begin to work with broader concerns, like
> font-scaling, more browser compatibility, etc.
The CSS learning-curve _is_ steep, but it doesn't become less steep by
leaving out factors like the mentioned issues till later. Leaving any of
these basics out at an early stage just means one has to go through the
same learning-process all over again, and there's always the risk that
hard-learned knowledge has to be unlearned and/or corrected more than
one would like, in order to go forward.
> For me, just being able to make CSS-based sites without tables has
> been a big task... especially having no formal training in it. Just
> getting them to look "as good as" my table-based sites has been a
> big challenge.
I would think so, since the part of CSS that is best suited for
replicating and/or improving look and feel based on table-based designs,
is badly supported across browser-land and not at all in MSIE. It's
called 'CSS-table', and _maybe_ IE8 will at least _start_ to support
CSS-table now that Firefox (3) is showing signs of improving its
support. Miracles have happened before... :-)
The substitutes we use now, like floating and/or positioning major
layout-parts, won't last forever. They are all temporary solutions, and
both existing but badly supported, and entirely new, solutions will
(have to) come into play.
So the process of learning and unlearning methods and what to use them
for, is the only constant we have in today's web design. It is not a
good idea to make this process harder by skipping important parts early
on - at least not knowingly.
> So don't expect too much of us newbies too soon... it'll only scare
> the faint-hearted away. Sometimes a "pretty picture" is a big goal!
Indeed. However, it would be wrong not to point out that experience
tells us that "the prettier they come, the less they can take before
they break".
It doesn't have to be like that at all (that "pretty" means "weak"), but
it _is_ , sadly, the norm. Doesn't seem to have much to do with "newbie"
or "advanced" status either, and a web designer's status doesn't help
much when it comes to holding a design together under what must be
considered to be 'normal conditions' - visitors being able to use a site
in regular browsers. Proper use of HTML/CSS/script etc., is however
always of immense help towards such a goal.
This is why some of us ignore status, and only look at the results. We
comment for a reason: we want to see *better results* - in a broad
sense. The rest -- process, experience, status -- doesn't really matter
all that much, (IMO of course).
Consequently: we don't expect much of anyone - status irrelevant, as
we're all limited by the same incomplete tools - browsers and standards.
We just try to help "whoever" to find solutions they are comfortable
with, within the range of available alternatives.
This does sometimes mean we have to tell people that "something" doesn't
work well or at all, and which problems one has to solve and/or avoid if
one wants a "pretty picture" or "whatever" to work.
This is not critique of ones status, present attempts or forwarded
examples. It is just information that anyone can do what they want with,
and the only expectation I have to anyone is that I expect them to do
just that - what they want.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
