I actually wrote about half a dozen different replies to the article and posted none of them, other than my snarky comment on your blog, for which I apologize.
I didn't publish them because they were all a little, well, heated.
I usually write, I hope, with a little levity, and wit, if on occasion it can be quite dry. I just couldn't in this case.
I see where you are coming from, but really, I think it is up to those who honestly want to advocate for a non standards based approach to do so for themselves.
Funnily, they usually end up looking like David Emberton's article.
Judging by the comments to your post, you'll see that a lot of people want to use tables, largely because that is what they know and do now. They simply don't want to accept the arguments in favor of a standards based web. That's fine by me, they are quite entitled to do so. I don't think they are very wise, but while I evangelize web standards, I don't insist on people using them.
But unfortunately an article like yours is not read by them in the spirit in which you intended, it is read as a vindication of their position. "See, Andy Budd agrees with me".
So rather than seeing something like "at times, it may be necessary to use a non standards based approach to achieve an outcome within certain constraints, and that is ok" they see "all those standards zealots really don't know about the real world so everything they say can safely be ignored."
Then Dave Shea, and Nick Bradbury and others weigh in nominally agreeing, making it all like its all so reasonable and realistic and essentially you reinforce the context of the discussion about web standards.
And what was that context?
Bluntly, using the words of the article, that people who advocate standards are "zealots" "purists", live in "Ivory towers" (and so by implication, not the real world). They "demonize" tables, and so by implication the users of of tables, and they have a sense of "superiority" about their approach.
This is the bit that made me sigh. This isn't "objective", its only a slightly more subtle version of David Emberton's nonsense.
It is unjustified, unsubstantiated, and frankly I took it a little personally. It reminds me (I am sure unintentionally) of the current right wing rhetorical trump card of referring to anyone who thinks (you know that say invading countries in contravention of international law is not like, totally ok) as an "elitist", usually with "latte sipping" thrown in for good measure :-) ( dunno if that is a trend in the
UK but it sure is in Australia and the US).
In reality, the community of standards advocates, evangelists, whatever you want to call them is without question one of the most generous I have ever seen. If you want to get started there are any number of great free tutorials, guides, and other resources. There are mailing lists and newsgroups where people have been answering the same questions for nearly a decade, occasionally a little grumpily when the same question is asked for the 400th time, a question for which a good answer could be googled in a moment ("font-size + pixel + em" isn't that hard :-)
People you have never met will fix your problems for free, send you screenshots in bowsers on platforms you don't have.
Is there any evidence for the caricature of an elitist zealot here? Or anywhere for that matter? Not much that I have ever seen.
I feel you have done a bit of a disservice to that whole community of which you are a member.
I know it wasn't meant like that. I know it wasn't personal. But unfortunately you've just internalized and then reinforced this emerging stereotype of the web standards community.
I have to admit that I don't think it does work. I don't think you can argue for instance that it's easier to use font tags than CSS or that there are occasions when font tags are less weighty and complicated than CSS.
I was being metaphorical, in the sense that you could simply replace the words and have a perfectly coherent argument. Which is not that much less valuable than without interchanging the words.
But 4 or 5 years ago, that was the article that would have been written. Shift happens.
Andy, let those who wish to use tables, or whatever other approach design do as they will.
Let those who believe that web standards are a good thing advocate and evangelize and continue to spread the word.
Gil Scott-Heron, in the song I took the title of my "message to the messengers" article from says
"But I think you young folks need to know that...things don't go both ways.
You can't talk respect on every other song or just every other day."
He's talking to the rappers of today, but it's a bit like that with standards and accessibility. It is a commitment to something important, and like human rights, ethics, and other important things its not simply something we can cherry pick.
At times it is hard. Trivial things are often easy. Non trivial things are often difficult. But usually vastly more rewarding.
Keep fighting the good fight,
john
John Allsopp
:: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/
software, courses, resources for a standards based web
:: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/
:: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia
