At 08:31 PM 1/18/2009 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>Christian means: move that sidebar (right column in your code) to the
>left of the page, without modifying your html code. That is very easy
>to do with a (decently) stylesheet.
Ah, okay. Well, sure, I see what you mean, and how that would be
easier with CSS, but I do have to sit here and wonder... geez, when
you folks create a web site, and you've finished/finalized the
design, aren't you happy with it? Or do you just continually change
the layout, just for the sake of changing the layout ("because you can")?
This has me thinking that perhaps my perspective comes from the fact
that I came to web design after being into desktop publishing --
which, of course, is "stagnant" (i.e. in the sense that once one has
created something, and put it into print, one doesn't have the option
of going back and re-doing it, at least not without coming out with a
"second edition" or whatever). On the other hand, perhaps for those
of you who began your "careers" (whether professionally or
non-professionally) in web design, the whole medium is just so
conducive to change that that is your inclination -- to constantly
change things around (and probably confuse any regular visitors!),
simply because "you can".
I don't know. Any time I create a new site, I try to create something
that -- in my mind, at least -- is "perfect" (so-to-speak), which is
visually exactly what I'm trying to convey. Now, if that means having
a nav bar on the left and a side bar on the right, well, if that's
what looks "right" to me, then I can't see why I would then go and
change it, making it visibly "imperfect" (at least, to anyone with
any sort of design sense).
Of course, I am using the term "perfection" loosely -- there isn't
any such thing (when it comes to art) -- and it is all subjective,
but if I've gotten it "right", well, then I've gotten it "right".
Sure, there is the possibility that I might change my mind down the
road and want to change the layout (or whatever), but even if that
happens, we're only talking about, what, once every 5, 10 years or something?
In the meantime, I can create a site and essentially forget about it
-- and when Internet Explorer version 1042 (beta) comes out, and for
all the decades in-between, I can rest with comfort, reasonably and
justifiably assured that my site has worked and looked just fine, all
along, I won't have to go off into a panic *each* time that *any*
browser comes out with a new version, endlessly testing and revising my code.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I really *do* embrace CSS, and really
*would* like to learn more and then transform my sites into CSS
layouts, because I know that that's exactly what it was meant for --
but, quite frankly, a lot of these responses to this thread are
actually having the reverse effect that is intended, and are actually
providing me with additional reasons that tables do, in fact, work
much better (at least, at this point in the development of where CSS
is at, and most certainly in the long run, as evidenced by the
longevity, and lack of need for revisions, of my own sites).
Yea, O Faithful Ones! I want to believe! I want to believe! But,
pray, I ask thee: what about the dinosaurs? The CSS scriptures
predict that the 8th Coming of the Browser is nigh, at which point
all the coding will be washed away and a new world will begin -- but
in my philosophy all is well, and there is, and has forever been, Eternity.
Ron ;)
Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com
Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org
Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/
