Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
The best way to learn the benefits of using CSS is by *doing* it. I started with tables too but never loved them @-...@. CSS was like _love at first sight_. Only the convincing(learning) part took some time, but it was worth it. - Mustafa Quilon __ 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] The CSS Overlords
Keeping in mind obviouce fact that not only web developers are a part of that list: Experience shows, those who don't like CSS are hoping that their secretaries will be able to keep websites updated. Table are WYSIWYG. In CSS you see nothing, you need to go through the code, and it might get frustrating if you know only Word with Excell. If you want to use you cellphone from mid 90 and use tables,- it's your personal choice. __ 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] The CSS Overlords
I nominate this posting for the least useful posting award. Christie Mason -Original Message- From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org]on Behalf Of Carla Bruni Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:13 PM To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: [css-d] The CSS Overlords Keeping in mind obviouce fact that not only web developers are a part of that list: Experience shows, those who don't like CSS are hoping that their secretaries will be able to keep websites updated. Table are WYSIWYG. In CSS you see nothing, you need to go through the code, and it might get frustrating if you know only Word with Excell. If you want to use you cellphone from mid 90 and use tables,- it's your personal choice. __ 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] The CSS Overlords
At 10:24 PM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote: Part of it is a generational gap between younger web designers and older. I never knew that table based designs were ever ok. The books always talk about table based layouts as if the Civil War were still raging, and the victory of the good North (CSS) was almost complete over the evil South (table-based layouts). Hey, we might be old, but we're not *that* old (and we're certainly still quite a way from the grave). ;) But another part of why tables hurt my brain is the lack of semantic structure. I can look at, analyze, and improve the code of a div and CSS based layout any day. Just to play Devil's Advocate... And I can create a site with tables, and -- assuming that I'm happy with my design -- I *don't* have to subsequently look at, analyze and improve on the code, having to come up with all sorts of hacks and fixes to make it work right (and always worrying, still, if I did actually get it right), and constantly worrying about what the next versions of browsers are going to do, all the testing and fixing that I'll have to go through, over and over again, forever re-doing and re-learning everything that I've already done/learning, forever having to fix things that were previously fixed (often with great time, effort and exasperation). On the contrary, the sites that I created 10+ years ago have lived through numerous browsers and browser versions, not once ever breaking in any of them, not once ever needing any change (indeed, the *only* major change that I've had to make on *any* of my older sites was when I first implemented CSS in them). The sites that you're making today with CSS layouts will quite possibly be completely obsolete within 5 years, but the sites that I've made with tables will in all likelihood still be around -- and working/looking perfectly fine -- in 100 years (unless, of course, the CSS Police decide to abolish and impound the entire concept of tables, forever and anon). ;) What is there to guess about this structure? It's easy, it makes sense, and is really easy to modify. div id=header/div ul id=nav/ul div id=content/div div id=sidebar/div div id=footer/div But when I look at the structure of even a simple table based layout, I have to blink my eyes a few times to even guess at what I'm looking at. Seriously? Messy/disastrous coding practices aside (which can apply to CSS layouts just as much as table layouts), but do you mean you can make sense of your code, above, but you can't make sense of this code, below? tr td id=header colspan=3/td /tr tr td id=nav/td td id=content/td td id=sidebar/td /tr tr td id=footer colspan=3/td /tr My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you have to implement behind the scenes -- whereas my code requires *none*, *zero*, and in all likelihood never will. 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] The CSS Overlords
At 10:51 AM 1/18/2009 +, Christian Heilmann wrote: Cool, then show the sidebar on the left. Doesn't require a hack with CSS :) What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it off with ease (if you can explain what you mean better). 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] The CSS Overlords
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Ron Koster wrote: What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it off with ease (if you can explain what you mean better). 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. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.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] The CSS Overlords
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/
Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
As a guy who grokked HTML in the days of table-based layouts, I loved, and still love, tables -- especially for tabular data or simple columns. As a guy who these days writes a ton of dynamic apps for delivery to multiple clients, I have love for CSS. And yes, CSS pwns font styling, no question. Crazily enough, you can use CSS styles within a table-based layout, and get the best of both worlds. As someone who despises the cross-browser cross-platform crap that's forced on us, table-based layouts are easier, but far less capable of being truly stunning looking/feeling/behaving, and less flexible of adapting one intricate layout to another for a new or seasonal or specific campaign look without massive rewrites. One's history, target platform(s) and audience(s) certainly dictate your perspective on this. Thanks- - Andy Badera - and...@badera.us - (518) 641-1280 - Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Ron Koster r...@psymon.com wrote: 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/
Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: And I can create a site with tables, and -- assuming that I'm happy with my design -- I *don't* have to subsequently look at, analyze and improve on the code, having to come up with all sorts of hacks and fixes to make it work right (and always worrying, still, if I did actually get it right), and constantly worrying about what the next versions of browsers are going to do, all the testing and fixing that I'll have to go through, over and over again, forever re-doing and re-learning everything that I've already done/learning, forever having to fix things that were previously fixed (often with great time, effort and exasperation). [...] My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you have to implement behind the scenes -- whereas my code requires *none*, *zero*, and in all likelihood never will. Ron: Frankly, I think your e-mails reflect the old way of thinking about the web. Yet in your own work from your signature you do not reflect the old way of development except in that you use tables for the outer layout. 1. You use a valid document type. Essential to modern development. 2. Your HTML validates (except for maybe some JS you haven't wrapped in !-- //--). 3. You use fairly semantic HTML instead of DIV for everything. 4. You do the bulk of your styling with CSS. So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you need a zillion fixes and hacks to make it work? I haven't had to do that kind of development in years. Don't let this list confuse you. People have innumerable CSS problems because we are all learning and growing in CSS, not because CSS is critically flawed in the ways you have come to believe. It is not only possible to develop 100% hack free CSS based web pages, but it is possible to do so quickly and efficiently. The browser wars are over and the good side won. Now 99% of non vision-impaired web users have browsers that are IE 6 or newer (80% are much newer than IE 6) and this means the days of hacking and witching our HTML into cross browser compatible pages are over. Trust me when I say that if I had to do the things you outline above to make money in CSS development then I would run far, far away from all of this. I challenge you to throw away the tables. If you have an issue between browsers you can't clear up then bring it to the list and we'll all talk about it. Developing for the web without tables should not be the stressful situation you outline above. If it is then you're doing it wrong. -Adam Ducker (http://adamducker.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] The CSS Overlords
At 08:55 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Adam Ducker wrote: So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you need a zillion fixes and hacks to make it work? I haven't had to do that kind of development in years. Well, that's what I meant -- *I* don't need all sorts of fixes/hacks in order to do what I want, but since I've been on this list (since last July) that seems to be all I see amongst those who do choose to create layouts (etc.) purely with CSS. I see one post after another go by with one problem or another, and quite often the answer will be that Yeah, IE is funny that way, and you have to do this and this and this and this in order to get it to work (or whatever similar solution might be for the question at hand). And yet, there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I *wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS. Don't let this list confuse you. People have innumerable CSS problems because we are all learning and growing in CSS, not because CSS is critically flawed in the ways you have come to believe. Well, perhaps flawed is the wrong word (although I don't believe I used that word, specifically). I guess what I mean, though, is that CSS is still very, very young (it's hardly hit puberty, let alone young adulthood!), and surely, surely everyone here can see and acknowledge that there's still all sorts of things that need to be worked out and really, genuinely standardized. In a way, how all the various browsers seem to be going off on their own, each creating their own standards, reminds me of the competition between HD and BluRay -- sooner or later someone is going to come out on top, and all the other browsers will follow. I mean, geez, if they don't then the need for all these ridiculous hacks and fixes will never, ever end! And that would be stupid, utterly ridulous and ultimately self-defeating, for *all* browser manufacturers and *all* web designers. But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with something that *does* work (i.e. table layouts), that works in the long, long, long term, without any problems at all. It is not only possible to develop 100% hack free CSS based web pages, but it is possible to do so quickly and efficiently. The browser wars are over and the good side won. Now 99% of non vision-impaired web users have browsers that are IE 6 or newer (80% are much newer than IE 6) and this means the days of hacking and witching our HTML into cross browser compatible pages are over. Interesting. So the thousands of posts that I've seen go by on this list, all of which require a solution that involves hacking and witching, are just my imagination? I challenge you to throw away the tables. If you have an issue between browsers you can't clear up then bring it to the list and we'll all talk about it. Developing for the web without tables should not be the stressful situation you outline above. If it is then you're doing it wrong. And I challenge you to not condescend, and not tell me how to create my web sites. :) Look, what you're expressing in that last paragraph is *exactly* the sentiment that I was referring to in my first, initial post in this thread: that those out there who advocate CSS layouts can be very intimidating for those of us who continue to use tables, and can leave us feeling extremely apprehensive in posting a question, any question, to the list (for fear that we be admonished for using tables for layout). I don't know about anyone else here, but I think the conclusion that I've come to through this whole thread is that, hey, it's up to you! I absolutely, truly and whole-heartedly applaud all of you out there that are making sincere efforts at designing web pages purely with CSS layouts (etc.), if only because it's because of *YOU* people that things will, indeed get better and better over time. But with things still being as buggy as they are -- and with only hope for the future that things will get better -- until things do get better then I see no reason why people should be condescended to for choosing to stick with tables for layouts, for what's tried-and-true, for what *works*, long-term and quite possibly forever. Hey, if I walk out my door tomorrow and get hit by a bus and die, at least I'll be able to rest in peace, knowing that my web sites will live on after me -- even if the manner in which they're made is archaic, at least they won't completely fall apart and then eventually disappear from the web forever, the next time the next version of browsers hits the airwaves. In the end, I think Andrew said it best, and most succinctly... At 07:11 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Andrew Badera wrote: One's
Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with something that *does* work (i.e. table layouts), that works in the long, long, long term, without any problems at all. You've alluded to this in your other posts, but I'll respond to it here. I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most perfect web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything I've ever seen. Don't your clients ever send new requirements your way that require major redesigns, and much sooner than 5 years? That's absolutely amazing to me. It is not only possible to develop 100% hack free CSS based web pages, but it is possible to do so quickly and efficiently. The browser wars are over and the good side won. Now 99% of non vision-impaired web users have browsers that are IE 6 or newer (80% are much newer than IE 6) and this means the days of hacking and witching our HTML into cross browser compatible pages are over. Interesting. So the thousands of posts that I've seen go by on this list, all of which require a solution that involves hacking and witching, are just my imagination? Well, sort of, yeah. All those thousands of designers who don't need to do any hacking and witching aren't the ones who are posting questions. I rarely post, because I so rarely have any problems in CSS that I'd need to tap the list for help. In the meantime, I can get the benefit of hearing other people's issues and seeing the solutions. Isn't that what this list is for? If I want to peruse examples of interesting, working, CSS, there are other venues to visit. A few years ago, I undertook to switch all of the websites I was maintaining from the old table-based layouts to pure CSS. It has been so freeing, I could only wish the technology had arrived sooner. But oh well, that's what we all deal with in computer science, right? Laurie m...@winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~milo __ 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] The CSS Overlords
At 04:53 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: If we all fell back to layout tables and minimal use of CSS, there would be very little incentive for growth. snip Layout tables will stay at 1998 level for a long time - probably for as long as HTML is in regular use. Thus, they're stable enough by now and those who wish can still use them. No progress in doing so though. Oh, I totally agree -- and that's basically what I was saying in my last/previous post in this thread. I absolutely, wholeheartedly do encourage anyone/everyone who does use purely CSS layouts, but... well, take my A Letter to an Imaginary Friend site, which is a literary piece of mine. At *this* point, I just wouldn't trust myself, nor CSS standards, to transform it into a CSS layout, simply because I just don't see any guarantee that it would then last forever (which, only naturally, is important to me). On the other hand, if I keep the table layout, then at least I have some semblance of assurance that it will last a long, long time. But perhaps I digress, and perhaps am becoming repetitive -- and having just been admonished off-list for being totally off-topic (along with various other admonishments), my apologies if this has, indeed, been the case. I am truly grateful for this thread, though. Believe it or not, but it really did help allay some confusion for me. I think I'll keep my table layouts for the time being, if only because I do know that they *work*, and I also just don't feel that I know enough about CSS (yet) to do anything otherwise. I suppose my only wish would be that others see that there's nothing wrong in my choosing to do that (for myself), if that's what works for me -- I mean, it's not like my doing so puts a rope around the rest of you, holding you all back. 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] The CSS Overlords
At 09:38 AM 1/18/2009 -0600, m...@winternet.com wrote: I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most perfect web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything I've ever seen. Don't your clients ever send new requirements your way that require major redesigns, and much sooner than 5 years? That's absolutely amazing to me. Actually, in all honesty, the answer is no. If I've ever had a client want any sort of big change in any site that I've done for them, it's basically only been a complete, total overhaul -- i.e. re-building the entire site from scratch, which a CSS layout probably wouldn't have helped much at all. And even that has only happened, oh, maybe once or twice. With that said, I should probably point out that I'm not really doing web design in a professional way any more. I used to years ago, but my main interest now is for my own sites, plus the occasional volunteer work that I do for non-profit orgs, etc. In that regard, and as I said in my last post, if I'm going to stick with tables for layout (and for the time being), then that's simply what I feel is best and most appropriate for *my* sites -- but I do totally understand if others feel that their needs require CSS layouts, etc. And I guess that was my point: I'm not trying to change anyone here, and get anyone to revert backwards and use tables for layout, but for those of us who do choose to use them, the reasons for doing so are (or can be) perfectly valid, just as valid as choosing to use CSS. It's just a matter of what one's needs/goals are -- but it's not fair for anyone to be condescending (like an off-list message that I just got, admonishing me for my sites, as well as my thoughts here) if I feel that tables are *currently* what works best for me. I rarely post, because I so rarely have any problems in CSS that I'd need to tap the list for help. In the meantime, I can get the benefit of hearing other people's issues and seeing the solutions. Isn't that what this list is for? Oh, I totally agree. I don't always understand the more nitty-gritty technical things that people might be talking about, but even just checking out peoples' sites and seeing what others are doing with CSS has been fascinating, and certainly educational -- indeed, it can be quite inspiring! A few years ago, I undertook to switch all of the websites I was maintaining from the old table-based layouts to pure CSS. It has been so freeing, I could only wish the technology had arrived sooner. But oh well, that's what we all deal with in computer science, right? Well, I'll get there, too, some day. Maybe I'm really just chicken -- you people are scary. 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] The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: [...] there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I *wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS. Sure, but we handle/serve such non-CSS solutions on other lists/forums, since [CSS-D] is mainly about making things work with CSS. Interesting. So the thousands of posts that I've seen go by on this list, all of which require a solution that involves hacking and witching, are just my imagination? That we're sometimes hacking old IE to pieces is not just your imagination. Not much else we can do for that and other old buggers that won't fade away, as long as clients insist not only on supporting them but also that they should look fresh and pixel-perfect. Most of what we serve better browsers are pure standard stuff though, that we sometimes split up and organize in certain ways so they can pick up what their level of standards-support allows them to. It's known as progressive enhancement. You see: we're all depending on those browsers, and their ability to deliver is growing somewhat slowly and unevenly. They do however grow because they're constantly being challenged. If we all fell back to layout tables and minimal use of CSS, there would be very little incentive for growth. The problem is that wishes for stability and progress tend to clash. If stability is ones only goal then progress will suffer. Microsoft have already tried that - freezing development at IE6 level, and despite all their attempts to catch up they'll be behind for years and versions to come. IE7 ended up as a minor stop-gap solution, and IE8 will be 3 to 5 years behind where other browsers are now when it's finally released. Layout tables will stay at 1998 level for a long time - probably for as long as HTML is in regular use. Thus, they're stable enough by now and those who wish can still use them. No progress in doing so though. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ 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] The CSS Overlords (Ron Koster)
Hey Ron, You said: 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 lis 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 taught a workshop recently in CSS design. These people were all still using hybrid designing because they couldn't get the knack of tableless design. In my intro, I asked them to each give their names and tell me which browser they used for testing their layouts during their workflow. Without a single exception, they all said IE. I made them develop for Firefox during the class, and then we fixed for IE, which only took MINOR adjustments. By the end of the one day workshop they had all completed two simple tableless layouts using the layouts at the layoutgala site. All their layouts worked in all browsers. I suspect you are just complacent and don't wish to make the effort to learn. And I suspect you might be making the same mistake my workshop students did. It never takes me more than 20 minutes to hack a layout for IE, and it already works in all the other browsers. And many times it takes me much less than that. I've been using tableless layouts for years. All the problems have already been solved for you. What are you waiting for? -- Ciao for now, bj mailto:b...@bitchslappin.net http://bitchslappin.net - Taking a Hard Look at the Business of Politics http://greenspeak.org - Small scale local environmental action http://kickasswebdesign.com NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant or notice and also without any judicial or legislative oversight. __ 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] The CSS Overlords (Ron Koster)
At 11:44 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, bj wrote: I suspect you are just complacent and don't wish to make the effort to learn. snip What are you waiting for? Thanks for your comments, BJ -- in response, please see my previous posts. In the meantime, back to this never-ending learning stuff for me (about CSS, about Photoshop, about video editing/DVD production, about typography and font design, about film studies/film history, not to mention updating my web sites, creating new artwork, and maybe even learning a new song on guitar). 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] The CSS Overlords
My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you have to implement 'behind the scenes' Let me just say that I have made perfectly functioning CSS sites without any hacks or fixes whatsoever. but it's just as fantastic that some of us out there choose to stick with what does, in fact, really and truly work in the long haul, bug-free and quite possibly lasting 'forever.' You think your enthusiasm for table-based layout means it's just as good. That's great. But there may be finer points here that you are not clear on. For instance, people always talk about how CSS has only been recently supported but many people (even professional web developers) don't seem to know that it's had quite a bit of support for quite some time. I have pages that I created in 1999 and 2000 where I haven't had to touch the CSS since then (or the layout) and they still work perfectly fine. I was making pages with changeable style sheets in 2000 and using (thanks to the Intermediate CSS course I took from the HTML Writer's Guild taught by Eric Meyer) sibling and child and pseudo-selectors in 2002. Those things actually worked in Netscape (gasp, Netscape!) in 2002 before Firefox came along and enhanced the pages I used them on while those who used IE still had a perfectly good page. When I check those pages now in 2009 they still work just fine and there is now greater browser support. I'd go into greater detail if I weren't rushing out the door right now. There are some things I like about tabled layouts over CSS layouts but I never do tabled layouts anymore. __ 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] The CSS Overlords
The interests and motivations are different. If I am asked to do a pretty newsletter for Word's rendering engine behind Outlook, I would like to tell them to ask an HTML table guy. It took me a few years to learn CSS, but I won't spend time with learning tables. Some don't like CSS because of the workarounds to be found and new methods to be invented every day, but that's the fun part of CSS, at least to me. Frankly, I find tables boring, the last new idea how to use them was born a decade ago, a solved and glued puzzle. Maybe the fun part of tables is the control you gain over them, I just don't know. However, the day the CSS-framework-guys win and produce something endlessly boring that does not require an understanding of CSS anymore approaches, so maybe it's time to move on. How about a discussion like: how do we use CSS 3 with an IE6-userbase of greater than x% in years to come? Can we re-think degradation, this time without grace, and convince clients and co-workers that a page does not have to look the same across browsers, as long as a basic functionality is preserved? But how to design with and without border-radius, with and without multi-columns, with and without multiple backgrounds? I don't know how to find a pragmatic balance between CSS 2 and 3. Ingo __ 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] The CSS Overlords
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. I'm not sure who these Overlords are, but I presume they're the ones referred to when people say that They say... or They think..., without actually specifically naming who it is that they are. ;) I am intrigued by that comment, though -- that is, the sentiment behind it -- if only because it does apply directly to where I'm currently at with regard to web design (including, of course, CSS). I started learning/doing web design back in the early 1990s, around the time when the capability of framed web sites had just been invented, and animated GIFs were all the rage -- CSS was, in fact, still years away at that point. I enthusiastically took part in various discussion lists for quite a few years in an effort to learn more and keep up with the changing technology, but for a variety of reasons I dropped out of them all about 7 years ago, and as a result I guess I'm now quite a bit behind. With that said, however, I do like to think that I'm a pretty good web designer (URLs in my sig, below, if you're curious), but all of my sites are still created using tables for layout. I do use CSS, but mainly for typographic purposes (specifying font sizes, etc.) but only very rarely for positioning things (like images, etc.) around the page. 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 do embrace CSS, and really would like to update my knowledge (and my sites), but at the same time one (anyone) can only acknowledge that all of this CSS stuff is still very, very young -- the simple fact that different browsers interpret so-called standards in different ways is certainly proof of that -- and no doubt anything that I might endeavour to do now (with a zillion fixes and hacks to make it work) will all change, all over again, within the next 5 or 10 years. So if tables *work* (for layout), and work *easily* and *perfectly*, without any bugs/problems at all, even it's technically the wrong use for them, what's so bad about using them anyway? I do look forward with great enthusiasm to the future, once they get their act together and things aren't so incredibly full of bugs, but in the meantime... - Table layouts are supposed to be inelegant, because they're the wrong, inappropriate use for them -- and yet, nevertheless they're extremely simple and easy to manage, and thus they *are*, in fact, extremely elegant, like a beautiful castle made out of stone. - CSS layouts are supposed to be elegant, because that's the purpose (amongst others) that it was designed for -- and yet it seems to be an absolute nightmare of problems and bugs and hacks (as evidenced, as I mentioned, by innumerable posts on this list), and thus they *are* in fact, extremely inelegant, like a house of cards, teetering on collapse. I signed up on this list back in July because I do have some typographic issues that I want to resolve. As a matter of course, and out of respect, I chose to wait a bit before posting my question, if only to get a feel for this list and what kinds of questions/answers came through. I've since read almost every post, and have checked out many of the various URLs that have come up (not only links relating to peoples' problems, but also those in peoples' email sigs), and I must say that I am *deeply* impressed with the efforts of those of you who do create your sites using CSS for layouts (among so many other purposes). It's rather intimidating, though, for a poor old behind-the-times sod like me, and if only because of that apparent perspective of them (the aforementioned invisible Overlords), it has only left me feeling rather shy and timid to post my questions to this list, even half a year later (and still with my problems unresolved). Just some thoughts -- I'm certainly interested, of course, in how others feel about these things. Ron :) PS. Assuming I get the nerve up to post the problems I have, they're all typographically related, but each relate to differing problems I'm having. They all
Re: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
Ask a person who uses a screen reader to answer why tables shouldn't be used for layout. You'll get your answer soon enough. Ask a person who has had to modify or alter a website made in tables, to add new features like a new sidebar or a pull quote within the middle of a block of text. Ask the person using Javascript to add or remove content to their page without it breaking. The issues with tables are numerous, but you specifically cite the speed of development. Yes, it might be fast to create the layout. But it adds tremendous amounts of time trying to modify it later. Just some thoughts -- I'm certainly interested, of course, in how others feel about these things. __ 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] The CSS Overlords
At 08:22 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote: Ask a person who uses a screen reader to answer why tables shouldn't be used for layout. You'll get your answer soon enough. Pardon my ignorance, but how is it that a CSS layout wouldn't have the same potential issues? Ask a person who has had to modify or alter a website made in tables, Well, I'm one of those persons, and although, sure, if I want to modify the overall structure of a tabled site then I'd probably then have to upload all the HTML files on my site, on the other hand if I'm happy with the structure of my site in the first place (and for the long run), how often would I have to do that? Like, once every five years? Maybe never? to add new features like a new sidebar You mean like adding in a little table? ;) or a pull quote within the middle of a block of text. Well, yes, that's exactly the sort of thing that I *would* do (now/already) using CSS -- but I was specifically referring to the overall main layout/structure of a site. Ask the person using Javascript to add or remove content to their page without it breaking. I'm not sure what you mean, that is, how that relates to my previous post/thoughts. The issues with tables are numerous, but you specifically cite the speed of development. Yes, it might be fast to create the layout. But it adds tremendous amounts of time trying to modify it later. But what if I don't want to modify it? I've changed the *content* (i.e. text, images) on my sites over the years, but I haven't changed the overall *structure* -- that is, the table that holds it all together -- at all. So rather than putting my site together in a way that's not only easier to create in the beginning (and may never have to be changed, because I'm happy with it) and has *no* problems (except, perhaps, for screen readers -- although I confess ignorance about what issues these might have, and how it is that CSS apparently wouldn't have these same issues), you're suggesting that I spend an *extreme* amount of time just getting my site layed out with CSS in the first place, incorporating innumerable hacks and fixes in order to get things to work... only to have to continually update and change those hacks/fixes in forthcoming years as those stupid browser manufactures (et al.) create more (and potentially bigger) problems? I'm not trying to be facetious or anything -- seriously, I genuinely want to understand this. Indeed, I really *would* like to completely transform all my old sites into purely CSS layouts -- but at this point it seems like one has to acquire the equivalent of a PhD in style sheets (like, 10 years of intense education and research) just to do what can already be done, easily and simply and bug-free, with tables. 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] The CSS Overlords
Hi Ron! Here's a short response: if you have not yet drank the w3c web-standards kool-aid, now's the time. Just do it. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) http://www.w3.org/WAI/ should explain why you should avoid use tables for layout purposes. Here's a longer response: I empathize. I too was *very* comfortable using tables for layout. In retrospect, I think this made it harder for me to acclimate to using CSS for positioning. Can you imagine, especially a few years ago, what a *pain* to try and learn CSS for positioning? For me, I never knew what I was doing right or wrong, I was just pushing/pulling to make things work. I'm a right-brained person who just wants to make it work, and doesn't fancy keeping a detailed list of what browser support what. On top of that, you're training your brain to stop thinking in a grid and think in the CSS box + visual formatting model. It's very different. So yeah, it *is* a difficult transition. No question. I'm still in the process of it myself. But like everything else, it gets easier the more you do it. There are tricks and techniques to make it all work. There are also a lot of good precoded-layout simple layouts out there that can help with an initial build. Finally, it helps to remember that markup is a way to describe the meaning of a document. Thanks to CSS, tables are once again a way to mark up tabular data. Erika PS: the CSS overlords are teeny-tiny people living in your browser who's job is make your page render. __ 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] The CSS Overlords
At 10:26 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Erika Meyer wrote: Here's a short response: if you have not yet drank the w3c web-standards kool-aid, now's the time. Well, it's been a long, long (and I do mean long) time since I dropped any acid, but if you think that's the way to go... ;) Just do it. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) http://www.w3.org/WAI/ should explain why you should avoid use tables for layout purposes. Actually, the W3C site has been, in fact, one of the deterrents which have kept me from getting up to speed! It's kind-of like... well, say I wanted to learn psychology, and basically was told that the way to do so was to read -- and memorize -- all 900+ pages of the standard Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), only to discover in the end that although it might well be the standard, it's hardly complete, extremely biased, and often entirely incorrect and unworkable in practice. ;) Here's a longer response: I empathize. I too was *very* comfortable using tables for layout. In retrospect, I think this made it harder for me to acclimate to using CSS for positioning. I suppose that's also been one of my problems -- I've had these sites up for years and years now (well over a decade in some cases), which have all worked just fine, no problem, and yet still I'm being told and urged (by them) that I should effectively just throw everything I've done out the window, not only *totally* re-doing them from scratch, but in order to accomplish that I also have *totally* re-learn practically everything I learned in the past. And it's not that my past learning won't still be useful in the future, of course, but even for something as simple as, say, a left-side nav bar, the whole concept of how to do that, all the coding and everything, is completely different. Basically, I'm just starting all the way back at the beginning again -- and what I look forward to learning is WAY more complicated, with WAY more bugs, etc. to take into consideration. :/ Can you imagine, especially a few years ago, what a *pain* to try and learn CSS for positioning? For me, I never knew what I was doing right or wrong, I was just pushing/pulling to make things work. I'm a right-brained person who just wants to make it work, and doesn't fancy keeping a detailed list of what browser support what. On top of that, you're training your brain to stop thinking in a grid and think in the CSS box + visual formatting model. It's very different. And this, too, is one of my difficulties -- designing with CSS seems to be (or, at least, be becoming) more like learning a hard-core programming language than visual design. It's like having to learn advanced physics and algebra just in order to hang a painting on the wall, and I just don't seem to have the brain (left or right) for programming-type stuff. But like everything else, it gets easier the more you do it. There are tricks and techniques to make it all work. There are also a lot of good precoded-layout simple layouts out there that can help with an initial build. That's reassuring, and that last thing is most certainly helpful, but I would still aspire to actually *understanding* what exactly I'm doing, and need to do, and not just copy/paste other peoples' templates. PS: the CSS overlords are teeny-tiny people living in your browser who's job is make your page render. And here, all along, I just thought those were bugs. 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] The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: 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. I'm not sure who these Overlords are, but I presume they're the ones referred to when people say that They say... or They think..., without actually specifically naming who it is that they are. ;) I have no idea who they are either, and finding out is off-topic on this list. We're here because we need or are able to provide help to solve CSS related problems, and advance the use of efficient, CSS based, design solution. If you're been around here since last July, then you've probably noticed that some of us - myself included - add a few of our very own thoughts here and there. If you find them useful - fine, if not - ignore. It's as simple as that. Just some thoughts -- I'm certainly interested, of course, in how others feel about these things. If it works for you - and the visitors to the sites you've created, then it's fine with me. If the problems you have are directly related to / caused by the methods you use, then responders will of course have to point that out and may feel the need to suggest other methods. Assuming I get the nerve up to post the problems I have, they're all typographically related, but each relate to differing problems I'm having. They all came to my attention because of one page that I'm working on (but which relates to how I've done things on virtually all of my sites), but should I post all my questions -- relating to this one page -- in one post here, or should I submit separate posts for each separate issue? If they're all present in one page, you may as well point to all of them in one post. Problems tend to be related. So, unless it runs into several dozen different problems; list them up in one post, one by one in ways so they're easy to spot. We can always split up the list in more manageable chunks once we see what it's all about. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ 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] The CSS Overlords
Ron Koster wrote: Just some thoughts -- I'm certainly interested, of course, in how others feel about these things. Ron :) Nothing truly worthwhile discipline is easy. CSS is among them. There is a very long and steep learning curve. It is not everyone's bag. The world may end. If so, I rather doubt it will be because you use tables for layout... __ 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] The CSS Overlords
At 07:57 PM 1/17/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: I have no idea who they are either, and finding out is off-topic on this list. We're here because we need or are able to provide help to solve CSS related problems, and advance the use of efficient, CSS based, design solution. Well, I *do* sincerely hope that I haven't been off-topic with my post(s) -- after all, if discussing/resolving problems with CSS is the subject here, I clearly do have a BIG problem with it. ;) If it works for you - and the visitors to the sites you've created, then it's fine with me. Well, in a way that's just it -- I've never had any complaints about the useability of my sites, the only complaints that I get are that I'm still using tables for layout and stuff, and that I should get up to speed with current standards. These complaints (or recommendations) come only from fellow web designers, of course -- the average lay person doesn't generally know any better, one way or the other. In that regard, rest assured that I *do* aspire to completely re-doing all of my web sites with CSS layouts and stuff -- but the longer I'm on this list, the more and more (and more) I discover just how much I still have to learn. :/ In that regard, however, one of my off-list responders indicated that things are slowly but surely becoming better, and that in time (at least), standards will be such that any additional future changes won't be the nightmare that switching from tables to CSS has been (and still is). Is that correct, i.e. that this is where things are headed (hopefully soon!), but that we're not quite there yet? If that's the case, well, then for myself I might as well just back-burner re-doing all of my sites, just leave them essentially as they are (with table layouts) for now, and, in the meantime, I can just continue to develop my knowledge and understanding of CSS, and then by the time I've got a better handle on it all (in a year or two???), then hopefully things will be more stable and stuff. Would that be, in fact, a fair recommendation for me to take, considering where I'm at right now? I'm not really up on what the future plans are for CSS, etc., so I don't know if there would be, in fact, a good reason to just hold off for the moment on making any major changes. If they're all present in one page, you may as well point to all of them in one post. Problems tend to be related. So, unless it runs into several dozen different problems; list them up in one post, one by one in ways so they're easy to spot. We can always split up the list in more manageable chunks once we see what it's all about. Sounds like a plan. Off the top of my head, there's only about three different issues, although I don't *think* they're related. I'll get back to you/the list on that (gotta get together some screenshots to illustrate the problem), but in the meantime thanks very much to you, and to everyone else, who responded (both on-list and off)! __ 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] The CSS Overlords
Hi Ron, You wrote: ... but if you think that's the way to go... Yes for most purposes, it is--I don't use any screen readers but I suppose they indulge in some version of Hey this material is data set in a table format to make the relationships more clear. and follow with an effort to use the table markup to help show the person who needs that help what information is presented. I imagine, **at best**, this would be annoying if the screen reader tried to explain the tabular relationships of your blocks of text, columns, and graphic elements! At worst, it could (but, keep in mind, I am not a lawyer) make a governmental or business site vulnerable to lawsuit or even a violation of law if it should become a matter of user complaint. That leaves us with CSS as the primary way to go. Actually, the W3C site has been, in fact, one of the deterrents ... I agree finding out how can be difficult. I think you should try Googling CSS tutorials and look through some that look helpful to you where you are right now on this. ... but in order to accomplish that I also have *totally* re-learn practically every- thing I learned in the past. Ultimately, yes, but you can start small. Try a few things with a local-file version of some of your material; I have my work notes organized in an outline format with a few photos floated right (major headings do the clear). It sure beats the yellow- loose-leaf-folder-that-becomes-a-shelfful approach; if the boss would let us use a DB program, I'm sure it could be done as a very messy database but this works fairly well. ... designing with CSS seems to be (or, at least, be becoming) more like learning a hard-core programming language ... Yes I see the similarity, but at least it doesn't involve nested if clauses LOL. ... but I would still aspire to actually *understanding* what exactly I'm doing ... Understanding will come slowly given that it is outside the purpose of this list, but I think it will come. -- Regards, Gene Falck gfa...@merr.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] The CSS Overlords
This discussion brings forward some of my own confusions regarding CSS and tables. I have had to redesign sites both ways and it's been my experience that CSS with nested divs and classes is much more difficult/expensive/time consuming than redesigning sites that use a table structure for basic layout. There are some tools to help trace what's descendent from what, but it's still a heck of lot of puzzlement time trying to find which combination of tag/div/class from which style sheets have been hacked for which browsers to affect a particular block of content. Then trying to change that style only to find that it blows up a different hierarchical descendent on another page. Plus I've seen a lot more sites break that are dependant on CSS for positioning when new browser versions are released. How do you justify going back to a client to redesign a site that is breaking because it used CSS targeted for X versions of browser when a new browser version is released? I've been very happy that CSS removed the need to have font declarations littered through the code and being able to change colors etc from one shared CSS resource, but I'm still not convinced of the practical usefulness of it for positioning. Christie Mason __ 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] The CSS Overlords
Christie Mason wrote: I've been very happy that CSS removed the need to have font declarations littered through the code and being able to change colors etc from one shared CSS resource, but I'm still not convinced of the practical usefulness of it for positioning. I've written, erased, rewritten, and erased about ten different replies each time a new reply comes in on this thread. I almost feel out of the loop: I didn't know that this battle was still even waged anywhere. As a boy, my father had this pair of channel lock pliers that he used for everything. Putting a nail in the wall? Turn the pliers around. Got a screw to tighten? Grab that bad boy with the pliers and give it a twist (lefty loosey...). Got a splinter? Oh, how I wish I was joking, but no, get the pliers. They were everything: wire cutters, hammer, screwdriver, sometimes even pliers. He used the pliers because he always knew where they were, not because they were the right tool for the job. Sometimes, I get the sense that people are using tables for layout are a lot like my dad used his pliers -- they know where the tables are. CSS requires a change in thought process, a re-envisioning of a website from a different perspective. If you haven't been able to get your head around the benefits of CSS, I don't think you'll ever understand the syntax and basic guidelines behind its usage, particularly with regard to positioning. Layouts done in CSS are in my experience, more robust, easier to understand, easier to code, easier to javascript and easier to manage in nearly every other way. This rebuttal is ridiculously incomplete, but I don't even know where to begin in explaining the benefits of CSS over tables, or how to fit it all into one read-able email. I wish some examples had been cited as layouts which were difficult in CSS, but easy in tables...it's sometimes easier to explain the differences using a sample or two. -- !-- ! Bill Brown macnim...@gmail.com ! Web Developologist, WebDevelopedia.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] The CSS Overlords
From: Bill Brown macnim...@gmail.com I, too, am surprised that there are still such strong feelings toward maintaining tables for layout. As a boy, my father had this pair of channel lock pliers that he used for everything. He used the pliers because he always knew where they were, not because they were the right tool for the job. Sometimes, I get the sense that people are using tables for layout are a lot like my dad used his pliers -- they know where the tables are. In my opinion you've written a very good analogy, Bill, and I'm sure that no one from the outside could tell that a nail had been reset by a pair of pliers instead of a hammer. CSS requires a change in thought process, a re-envisioning of a website from a different perspective. Exactly, at least for those who learned to create web pages without the benefits of CSS. If you haven't been able to get your head around the benefits of CSS, I don't think you'll ever understand the syntax and basic guidelines behind its usage, particularly with regard to positioning. Many of us, perhaps most, resist change, at least at the beginning. For someone who has been using channel-lock pliers to put his or her websites together, using a variety of tools instead of just the one is certainly daunting, especially when you have to learn how to use the new tools and how to get the most out of them. As one who grew up in web coding using CSS instead of tables to layout websites (almost nine years now), I personally am not struggling with the variety of tools, but I still see many new websites that do not follow the standards of construction that I learned. Layouts done in CSS are in my experience, more robust, easier to understand, easier to code, easier to javascript and easier to manage in nearly every other way. For long-time static sites, with material that isn't going to change or need updating, I can certainly see the the temptation to maintain table layouts that have been working for years. A few changes in typography or updating colors might be all that's necessary to keep a site fresh. This it not generally the type of site that the corporate and business world wants as their web presence, however. This rebuttal is ridiculously incomplete, but I don't even know where to begin in explaining the benefits of CSS over tables, or how to fit it all into one read-able email. I agree, that task of explaining is difficult, and I'm not going to try to do it either. However, CSS itself is moving toward allowing the types of benefits table-layout aficianados promote, so we all may merge into one big happy family some day. :-) Cheers, ~holly __ 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] The CSS Overlords
Christie Mason wrote: [...] Plus I've seen a lot more sites break that are dependant on CSS for positioning when new browser versions are released. How do you justify going back to a client to redesign a site that is breaking because it used CSS targeted for X versions of browser when a new browser version is released? I've seen those sites too, and I've been involved in some. It's what's known as fragile constructions, which rely on what browsers do more than on what they're supposed to do. That's a trap that it is easy to fall into, and one that it sometimes is hard to avoid. I don't know of any browser-version that has forced me to redesign a site, although IE7 did need a few additional CSS fixes on a number of sites when it arrived. Took a while to get that bugger somewhat in line across the board, but it had little to no impact on what was served to the other browsers. After all: IE7 was dead on arrival - stable, and we had nearly a year to prepare for it. Ideally, a design should be so well thought-out that one only has to remove fixes for old, obsolete, browser-versions when these fixes are no longer needed. For most sites that should never be necessary, as such fixes should never backfire and end up messing things up in new browser-versions. I guess getting the targeting/fixes for old browsers right and safe enough to be able to forget about them, is one of the hardest parts for many designers. That many also include fixes for new browser-versions, doesn't make fragile designs more future proof. Advice: don't add fixes for new browsers. Another cause for problems seems to be overstyling, as properties/values that don't seem to do any harm are left in the stylesheets - often after a round of trial and error styling. New browser-versions may start reacting on these superfluous styles, and unless one knows exactly what will happen when they do the outcome may not be good. Advice: know what those styles are there for, or delete them. -- The trick - if we can call it that, is to design for progress - close to standards - and let the browsers catch up with us - instead of us playing catch-up with the browsers. This is a mental model more than a method or template, as it means one only targets old/dead browsers for debugging, while checking standard compliance and logic in new, live, versions and hold back on the latest and greatest until they're somewhat stable. One can not trust any browser to get it right, until they all support the same standard-parts and react the same way when served the same code. New browser-versions tend to inch slowly closer and closer to the same standards, which, ideally, should mean they all end up doing more or less what we expect them to do. Browser developers seem to finally have figured out that it is money in standards and standardized development, and as a result of improved cooperation even the standards are starting to make sense. Would be nice if web designers/developers figured that out too, so the process could be sped up a bit. -- Arguing back and forth about CSS based vs. table based is futile, as each designer/developer/front-end coder can make the most out of what he/she knows best. Those layout-tables are pretty much frozen in time by now though, while CSS still has potentials to become a useful layout-tool. A few more rounds between standards- and browser-developers, and CSS may satisfy most web designers' needs and wishes. I still think it's fun to include layout-tables when someone explicitly asks for it, but I do find those layout-tables a bit limiting for all but the simplest designs. I don't like limitations so I nearly always find an excuse - or a whole bunch of excuses - to break out of those tables. CSS provides more fun without them :-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ 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/
