Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
Ron Zisman wrote: On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ron Koster wrote: At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow(er) computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, I would think, for it to be any difference greater than negligible. i think we are talking about file size here. when css resides in a remote style sheet, all styles are written once. when styles are inline, they are repeated numerous time, thus enlarging the file size and parsing time (on your computer With a separate CSS style sheet, the *style sheet* is cached by the browser and reused when other pages at the site call for it. With inline styles (even in the document header) they're downloaded all over again. Also, bandwidth costs. Maybe not the visitor so visibly (unless you're working in some South American countries, where you pay a per-minute fee to several different entities on top of what you pay your ISP). But the company providing the site has to pay for bandwidth (even a hosting service has to factor in bandwidth cost when setting their prices). Reducing the bandwidth consumption reduces that cost. -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG image of the desired page and I was instructed that web page was to consist of that single image. There is very little to be done when the client insists. Del When the client insists, it is our responsibility to educate them on the nature of the web medium, how many visitors to their site will think they are incompetent, how expensive/time-consuming it will be to update, how inflexible it is... and generally, this sort of thing would be ironed out before the client becomes a client in the first place, via a thorough client survey, project questionnaire, and so on. As web developers, we have a responsibility to be environmentally/ quality-conscious, and not continue to litter the internet with garbage. Refer clients to Steve Krug's book, to web articles, to Jeffrey Zeldman's writings -- whatever it takes to discontinue bad work. __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 04:18 PM 1/21/2009 -0600, Del Wegener wrote: I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG image of the desired page and I was instructed that web page was to consist of that single image. In a case like that, I would recommend that the page at least be in PDF format instead -- at least then it could have text that's selectable, is more accessible for the visually impaired, and for these latter reasons can be indexed by search engines. There is very little to be done when the client insists. That's one of the reasons I don't do this professionally any more. 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 01:32 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote: I know this whole thing is did to death already... Actually, I agree, believe it or not -- I don't know what else could be said, really, about the whole tables vs. CSS layouts thing. I only popped back in under that subject heading, though, because that afterthought occurred to me regarding CSS making the page render faster, supposedly in relation to one's connection speed, which I disagree (still) is the case. Didn't mean to re-beat the already dead fish/horse. ;) I wonder, Ron, do you use a WYSIWYG editor to make your tables? Or do you get in the code and type in you & tags? I've typed in my own code since the beginning, first doing it in plain ol' Notepad (when I first learned web design, back in the early 1990s) and then eventually using Macromedia Homesite -- which, although now outdated (as far as certain "wizards" and stuff go, which I don't even use anyway), is still what I very happily use virtually exclusively, except for *some* editing of CSS files that I use TopStyle for. Ron :) __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ron Koster wrote: At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow (er) computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, I would think, for it to be any difference greater than negligible. i think we are talking about file size here. when css resides in a remote style sheet, all styles are written once. when styles are inline, they are repeated numerous time, thus enlarging the file size and parsing time (on your computer --the other ron Ron :) __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of this, and it makes me think. I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who made a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he did, and I have some clients that have websites built in tables that think like the webpage is a printed page. Most of them never look at code at all, they just use Dreamweaver or something, and they want their content to sit on a page and not move, the text to be the same size that they said it was going to be, and look the same way to everyone... just like a book/brochure/what-have-you. I have had ( and surely others have also had) clients who were so insistent the webpage (as designed by their long-time advertising company) be as static as the printed page that they furnished a JPEG image of the desired page and I was instructed that web page was to consist of that single image. There is very little to be done when the client insists. Del __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
I know this whole thing is did to death already... but I just read some of this, and it makes me think. I suspect that a lot of the table based layout enthusiasts are people who made a switch (partial even) from desktop publishing. Ron mentioned he did, and I have some clients that have websites built in tables that think like the webpage is a printed page. Most of them never look at code at all, they just use Dreamweaver or something, and they want their content to sit on a page and not move, the text to be the same size that they said it was going to be, and look the same way to everyone... just like a book/brochure/what-have-you. I do desktop publishing as much as web development, and learned how to make websites in tables initially (in school, before professional work), but I see a huge divide in the thinking behind the mediums, and having a creative comparison between the two is like comparing video to a postcard. As far the need for change on your websites being, maybe every five years, I think that has to do with your not being in the professional realm, and not having demanding clients. But if I had a couple hundred pages, and my clients said they changed their logo or banner or something, I would be scared to make the change in tables. And the idea of a webpage being there forever and living on after we die... it's only gonna live as long as the server is maintained, and someone has to do that. I would rather make something that any forward thinking web developer could take out of my hands an run into the future with after I die. I do a lot of clean up in table based layouts for clients, and even though I know how, it's alot easier to work in code written with semantic tags. I wonder, Ron, do you use a WYSIWYG editor to make your tables? Or do you get in the code and type in you & tags? __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 12:57 PM 1/21/2009 -0800, Kevin Doyle wrote: It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how quickly your computer can download the page; however, it's mostly how quickly you can download a page because the processing load of a single web page, no matter how complex, is very, very small. Think of how quickly an HTML page displays when you view it locally versus online. I guess it just depends on how one defines "rendering" -- to me, that means the process of taking all the parts, performing whatever calculations are needed in order to place them in the correct places (and with whatever effects, etc.), and then putting everything together as a whole. Rendering a graphic in photoshop, or rendering a video file, is basically the same thing, in that sense -- you already have all the parts, it's just putting it together (or applying an effect or whatever) in the correct, specified way -- and thus "downloading" isn't a part of that process. In fact, this brings me back to my early learning about web design, when we were all taught (as we are still) the importance of specifying image height/width tags and stuff in our code, so that the page (HTML) could *render* itself and display correctly even as the images were still downloading, i.e. two separate processes (downloading and rendering). But that's me, how I define "rendering", I suppose -- and I guess if others include downloading in that process... well, there you go. 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
I must have a slow "brain connection", because something about the above just hit me: how fast a page renders has nothing to do with the speed of your internet connection, but rather the speed of your computer. You would *download* the files faster or slower depending on your connection, but they only start rendering once they actually reach your computer, of course -- and, hence, it's the speed of your computer that would be the relevant factor. In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow(er) computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, I would think, for it to be any difference greater than negligible. Ron :) It's ~both~ how quickly your computer can process the page and how quickly your computer can download the page; however, it's mostly how quickly you can download a page because the processing load of a single web page, no matter how complex, is very, very small. Think of how quickly an HTML page displays when you view it locally versus online. __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 09:25 AM 1/19/2009 +1300, Karl Hardisty wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections such as those most of us on this list enjoy. I must have a slow "brain connection", because something about the above just hit me: how fast a page renders has nothing to do with the speed of your internet connection, but rather the speed of your computer. You would *download* the files faster or slower depending on your connection, but they only start rendering once they actually reach your computer, of course -- and, hence, it's the speed of your computer that would be the relevant factor. In that regard, I still don't know how important a factor it is for CSS pages to render 1/3 faster than table layouts, even on a slow(er) computer -- it would have to be an extremely, extremely complex page, I would think, for it to be any difference greater than negligible. Ron :) __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 02:38 PM 1/18/2009 -0700, Cyber Cog wrote: >This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity >pulling toward trolling) Sorry, folks -- didn't mean to beat a dead fish, er, horse. :/ I do appreciate/have appreciated this thread, though, and it has been genuinely helpful for me (and, from some off-list responses I've received, it seems to have been helpful for some others here, too), and thus I do thank everyone who shared their own thoughts on this subject -- but, as the saying goes, 'nuff said. 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
This thread teeters precariously on the sharp edge of troll bait. (gravity pulling toward trolling) Time to stop. - CC On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > >one of more important reasons is speed . > > > >CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts > > So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top > of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- > at least on my computer), it'll only take a mere 2 to 4 seconds? > > Sorry, but I'm not sure how "important" a reason that is. > > 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/ > __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
On 19/01/2009, at 5:40 AM, Ron Koster wrote: > At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >> one of more important reasons is speed . >> >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts > > So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top > of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- > at least on my computer), it'll only take a mere 2 to 4 seconds? > > Sorry, but I'm not sure how "important" a reason that is. > > Ron ;) > > Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com > Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org > Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca > Ask anyone not on a fast internet connection. Not everyone has the luxury (utility?) of high speed internet connections such as those most of us on this list enjoy. k...@mothership.co.nz +64 21 999 990 Mothership | mothership.co.nz __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: > >> one of more important reasons is speed . >> >> CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts >> > > So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top > of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- > at least on my computer), it'll only take a mere 2 to 4 seconds? > > Sorry, but I'm not sure how "important" a reason that is. > > Ron ;) > Good grief. Give it up. Use tables. And be done with it. Please give me some good advice in your next letter. I promise not to follow it. -- Edna St. Vincent Millay, Letters US poet (1892 - 1950) -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ 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/
Re: [css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
At 11:31 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >one of more important reasons is speed . > >CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts So instead of rendering in, say, 3 to 6 seconds (which, off the top of my head, seems about average, for any average page on the 'net -- at least on my computer), it'll only take a mere 2 to 4 seconds? Sorry, but I'm not sure how "important" a reason that is. 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/
[css-d] RE; The CSS Overlords
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Ron Koster wrote: - > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:06:01 -0500 > From: Ron Koster > Subject: [css-d] The CSS Overlords > To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 02:20 PM 1/14/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote: >>Well, tables and CSS are not mutually exclusive. That is, they can be >>used together, though using them for layout is generally frowned upon by >>the CSS Overlords. > [SNIP] > I'm curious: why is this approach "frowned upon"? Please don't get me > wrong, because I do fully understand that the *goal* of CSS is for > the purpose of layout, etc., and tables were never really meant for > that, but at the same time I can *easily* create a site using tables > and have *no* cross-browser/platform problems at all -- on the other > hand, I've attempted to create sites with CSS layouts, and have only > ended up with a thoroughly buggy site. Perhaps I just don't know CSS > well enough to know what I'm doing, but having now been on this list > for a few months now (since last July), it seems like practically > everyone has innumerable, sometimes insurmountable, problems in > attempting to do so -- when quite often many of these problems would > simply "disappear" if a table had been used for layout instead of CSS. > I'm coming in to this discussion a bit late, so my apologies if required. That said I can think of more than a few reasons why CSS based layouts are far superior to Table based approaches. Most of them have already been discussed, but one of more important reasons is speed . CSS pages render about 1/3rd less time than table based layouts, Doug Boude, and Joe Gautreau tested this a while back, for the details see http://www.twoninemedia.com/blog/index.cfm/2007/4/19/TabledLayoutsvsCSSLayouts. Using the Web Page Analyzer at websiteoptimization.com the authors found that the CSS-based layout was 33% FASTER than the table-based layout on a T1 connection. I found that rather difficult to believe, so I tried a more rigorous test using JMeter and 100 simultaneous connections. The load test confirmed their findings, on average the CSS pages rendered much faster than table based layouts when under a significant load. This speed difference was maintained going from 5 through 100 simultaneous users. One of these days I'm going to have to blog about this. regards, larry -- The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do. - B. F. Skinner - __ 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/
