Re: [css-d] Blowtorches at the ready...
Chris Ovenden wrote: http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html I'm not going to argue with that at all. It's completely true. Generally, there is wisdom in the pseudo-religious standards-compliance of CSS gurus, but I have always felt that the case against tables was exceptionally weak. Apart from the sheer pressure of Not Invented Here policy, there is really only one argument that prevents me from using tables when they are the obvious layout solution: the fact that different screen-readers supposedly go through tables in different sequences (ie some go row by row, others column by column etc.), which chucks an unknown into accessibility. I ask you though, how many of you base your design convictions on the basis of appealing to screen-readers that you have never used or done any research on (w3's accessibility guidelines as far as sightless use is concerned is entirely based on idle theory and no research)? And if sequence is so important (especially for blind users), how come I still bump into 'compliant' professionally designed sites with the navigation after the content, and other apparently completely forgivable gaffs? Other people are amazed that I would use a table when what I want is not , per se, 'a table' - and get hung up on the semantic issue. Okay - your div within a div within a div with identifying attributes of ids like 'wrapper' are making it far easier for those people who can only understand where they are via markup. I'd like to hear what people have to say to this. Regards, Barney __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Blowtorches at the ready...
Have you ever used a screen reader to navigate a nested table page? I have, and the experience is nightmarish. Have you ever had to maintain the look and feel of a table-based site? I have, and the experience is nightmarish and a waste of time and money. Not to mention the fact that when you use tables for layout you are not reflecting the semantic structure of your content - ie how it is searched, how it can be styled for different devices (not just the screen readers you callously dismiss). A weak case? I don't think you understand the case at all, ot care. As for evangelism, it's fast becoming common sense and a natural sense of evolution rather than preaching. As far as bumping into 'compliant' sites that have nav after content for example, at least people are trying - it's a learning curve. Anyway, I don't think you'll get much purchase with this argument on this list - it's to help people learn, understand and use css, not to enforce outdated ways of working or start a philsophical debate. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Blowtorches at the ready...
I'm sorry - is it now passe to have the navigation after the content? I thought screen reader users (not to mention search engine spiders) hated wading though the navigation to get to the content? This certainly appeared to be the case last year when I was trying to get www.five.tv through level 2 accessibility - has the thinking now changed, and if so could you illuminate me as to why? On 10/31/06, Dave Goodchild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip As far as bumping into 'compliant' sites that have nav after content for example, at least people are trying - it's a learning curve. -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Blowtorches at the ready...
This is how I build sites: 1. Start by creating the xhtml structure, which forces me (and hopefully the client) to look at the structural and semantic organisation of the CONTENT. 2. Once I have that, I can then assign the relevant divs to each part of the layout, with names that identify the structural content (ie #primaryContent) rather than where it is or how it looks (ie #sidebar, #redText). Once that xhtml is validated I know I have a sound structure that can be understood by any browser or device. 3. I then build stylesheets to give me sitewide control over presentation and delivery to alternative devices (ie browser upgrade notice for N4 using an image that is not displayed in css-compliant browsers; skip nav link for screen readers etc), and the nav and content etc can then be ordered however I like for presentation (ie given an absolute position or negative margin to force a different display order). I then add alernative stylesheets that allow the user to modify text size or contrast without having to go through their own browser menus. 4. Once this is done I have a clean site that means I can maintain the content on one hand without wading through bloated tag and table soup, and control the design by editing several, or in many cases just one, css file. I use tables, for tabular data, and ensure I use things like caption, summary, headers attribute etc to make them structurally sound and accessible. 5. If I used a table-based layout, point 1 would be impossible, point 2 a hamstrung compromise, and point 3 redundant. I'm not saying having nav after content is passe, far from it, it's very useful. I'm just saying many people are on a learning curve and still trying, which is more helpful than bailing and reverting to outdated methods. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Blowtorches at the ready...
No mention or understanding of accessibility, ease of maintenance or semantics then... __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
