From: "Peter Asquith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Al Sparber wrote:
I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world
clients they sometimes are the right choice.
Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits
the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely
promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and
gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one?
A questionable technique? Would that be because people who make their
livings (or try to make a living) evangelizing standards have deemed
table layouts "dubious". Hmm :-)
A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are
a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll
solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting
bogged down and stressed with the finer points?
Ah. So web design is elevated to science. And all this time I thought
it was a skilled trade. Sheesh.
While I acknowledge that, if you understand the process, you *can*
create valid table-based layouts, I don't believe you *should*.
Interesting.
In my opinion, a significant contribution to the correlation that
John's identified is the sort of cut-and-paste style of page
building that allies an incomplete understanding and an eagerness
for results.
It is quite evident to me that this type of "cut-and-paste" technique
is just as ubiquitous in the CSS positioning arena - if not more so.
We too teach CSS layout - but keep it non-religious. We have tens of
thousands of customers and a massive support burden in fixing pages
that were "built" from poorly devised or overly complex tutorials and
articles popular in the standards ring of blogs and online magazines.
We don't get a fee for that, sadly.
It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with
everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand
the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey
presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders
as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development.
I think perhaps who are mistaken. A table-layout can be just as valid,
usable, and accessible as anything else. The key is what is optimal
for the project. Using tables on the rare occasion is not a hall pass
to skip knowing how to mark up a table - or understand the structure.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the same people who devised
ridiculous nested table constructs to make web pages look like
magazine pages are the very same people who are now condemning tables.
Perhaps if they'd taught folks how to make clean table layouts, we
wouldn't be having this discussion.
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
