On 17 Dec 2005, at 5:15 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote:
A clients wants a design. And you want developers, etc. to tell clients 'no, you shouldn't do that because the only way to achieve that design is to use tables, and tables are "bad" so how about you go with a similar design but without a, b, and c".
No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one design is better than another. I want you to stop showing the client designs that are based on a *visual hack* from 10 years ago and to talk to them about design in terms of features that benefit *them* and which solve their *real* problems.
My point was that a client isn't going to care how the design is achieved. Sure, we can tell them why table-less is better. We can talk all about standards.
We agree on this. See above.
But if that certain thing he/she likes about the design is gonna go away because you don't want to use tables, then the client might just go somewhere where he/she can get the desired design.
If you can't get a client to desire your design, then they *are* better off going somewhere else. For the sake of both parties.
Seriously, there is nothing about a tables based design that is so compelling that said 'certain thing' is lost using a tableless design. If there was, then CSS design would have never taken off, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It's about getting the client excited about (desiring) something else: reduced cost of ownership, improved performance, better user experience, contemporary visual design, whatever, we all know what the benefits are - use the ones that push your clients buttons.
kind regards Terrence Wood. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
