Best css hack / trick to recommend?

[Kabuki Armadillo]

Okay, CSS layout has lots of problems of its own due to the myriad different
browsers/ versions.

Despite the promise of CSS to really open up design, I see a lot of
relatively simple sites -- the ubiquitious 1 / 2 column (often but not
necessarily centred). I suspect that, like me, a lot of people just don't
have the time and energy to learn all the more arcane tweaks to get more
creative.

Better to either:

i. revert to tables (with or without CSS) for complicated stuff; (Not
interested in a tables vs css debate here. . .)

or

ii. KISS which is the status quo.


I'm a big believer in the 80 / 20 rule. I suspect that a few half-dozen
hacks/ tricks or so would be enought to satisfy 80 percent of my design
needs. Beyond that I suspect it's a case of diminishing returns -- not worth
the time to learn for the limited benefits to be gained. (But more power to
those souls who do. . .)

For a dabbler like me, which one or two hacks or so have served you best
over time and would you recommend? Otherwise, any good refs that cover this
issue that you can recommend?

KA

 

[C A Upsdell]

Okay, CSS layout has lots of problems of its own due to the myriad
different browsers/ versions.

Despite the promise of CSS to really open up design, I see a lot of
relatively simple sites -- the ubiquitious 1 / 2 column (often but not
necessarily centred). I suspect that, like me, a lot of people just
don't have the time and energy to learn all the more arcane tweaks to
get more creative.

Better to either:

i. revert to tables (with or without CSS) for complicated stuff; (Not
interested in a tables vs css debate here. . .)

or

ii. KISS which is the status quo.

KISS, always. But I also suggest IE conditional comments to link in
IE-specific CSS files. I routinely have a single CSS file with what is
required for standards compliant browsers, then create tiny CSS files
for any versions of IE which are a problem.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Okay, CSS layout has lots of problems of its own due to the myriad
different browsers/ versions.

Ah that usually is a myriad different browsers and then *IE*...

Code for the many, (hopefully IE will come around kicking and screaming
eventually) and then adjust for IE if needed.

Many times a hack is not required if you are not going for
"pixel-perfect" designs. If there is a little difference, but the site
is still accessible and looks okay then so what! Who other than the
designer opens up the page simultaneously in different browsers to compare?

 

[Nik Coughlin]

KISS, always. But I also suggest IE conditional comments to link in
IE-specific CSS files. I routinely have a single CSS file with what is
required for standards compliant browsers, then create tiny CSS files for
any versions of IE which are a problem.

Yes, and I find my IE css stylesheets almost always look like this:

bunch of different classes, ids and other selectors {
height: 1%;
}

 

[Travis Newbury]

Despite the promise of CSS to really open up design, I see a lot of
relatively simple sites -- the ubiquitious 1 / 2 column (often but not
necessarily centred).

I have found very few site that are CSS based that are not rather
boring. They all seem to follow the same (simple) pattern. 2 column,
and a header and a footer, 3 column, header and footer, oh yippie, the
center column expands and contracts... You get the idea.

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.

I'm a big believer in the 80 / 20 rule. I suspect that a few half-dozen
hacks/ tricks or so would be enought to satisfy 80 percent of my design
needs.

I follow the mantra of Robert Montgomery the CEO of CareerBuilder.com
He says "If you can provide a reliable, quality service to 80 percent
of your visitors, you will be one of the top websites in your field."
Since no one can realistically get 100% satisfaction of your visitors,
shooting to give the 80% what they want is the way to go if you want
to be successful. This 80/20 rule is used in ton of other applications
too.

 

[John Hosking]

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

Ha ha! ROFL!

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.

It's a big, black, empy space. How does that excite boys 12-25?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/

I hope I understand your intent was to throw a Flash site in our faces,
'cause there sure ain't no CSS at that one.

 

[dorayme]

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.

It is interesting that you think in terms of 12 year old plus boy-minds
(that's pretty wide ranging btw, maybe you meant 1-15).

You seem to think that websites are made to entertain people, especially
kids. Ever heard of a more serious primary purpose for them?

 

[Bergamot]

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

Yawn. Ignoring the animated "page" transitions (which I find gimicky and
dated, not to mention choppy), wander over to the CSS zen garden and
there are all kinds of layout variations, some of which also use tiny
text meant to fit within the confines (or around) some huge background
graphic, just like this site does. Design-wise, I'm not really impressed
with them, either, mostly because they tend to fall apart with my
browser settings.

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.

How many people here do you think fall into that demographic? Not me,
for sure. How about commenting on a site that *isn't* related to
entertainment in some way? CSS layout or not, I don't care. Show me your
idea of good design in a commercial, non-profit or information site, eh?

 

[Disco Octopus]

Okay, CSS layout has lots of problems of its own due to the myriad different
browsers/ versions.

Despite the promise of CSS to really open up design, I see a lot of
relatively simple sites -- the ubiquitious 1 / 2 column (often but not
necessarily centred). I suspect that, like me, a lot of people just don't
have the time and energy to learn all the more arcane tweaks to get more
creative.

Better to either:

i. revert to tables (with or without CSS) for complicated stuff; (Not
interested in a tables vs css debate here. . .)

or

ii. KISS which is the status quo.

I'm a big believer in the 80 / 20 rule. I suspect that a few half-dozen
hacks/ tricks or so would be enought to satisfy 80 percent of my design
needs. Beyond that I suspect it's a case of diminishing returns -- not worth
the time to learn for the limited benefits to be gained. (But more power to
those souls who do. . .)

For a dabbler like me, which one or two hacks or so have served you best
over time and would you recommend? Otherwise, any good refs that cover this
issue that you can recommend?

KA

I like the KISS approach. Using this, I have very rarely, if at all,
found a need to hack any CSS for any browser at all.
Don't search for a problem just so you can fix it. Better to go with
that which is not broken.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

I have found very few site that are CSS based that are not rather
boring. They all seem to follow the same (simple) pattern. 2 column,
and a header and a footer, 3 column, header and footer, oh yippie, the
center column expands and contracts... You get the idea.

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

How can an illegible site be good for anyone or anything?

 

[dorayme]

Only 20% of 80-year olds will go and see the film anyway (we know this
fact from the 80/20 rule). So there's no point designing for them.

<g>

What about the 20% of 12 year olds who wear glasses, are pretty sensible
and already know not to be overly impressed by flash and dazzle, who
know how to keep their powder dry for cleverer things? Are they not
worth designing for?

I suppose the 80/20 rule is good thing to espouse in hindsight *when*
you are sure you have made a buck with a crummy website.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I have found very few site that are CSS based that are not rather
boring. They all seem to follow the same (simple) pattern. 2 column,
and a header and a footer, 3 column, header and footer, oh yippie, the
center column expands and contracts... You get the idea.

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.

It's to sell a sci-fi movie, sure we get it, but if I just want to buy
an ink cartridge I wouldn't want to have to endure the spinning thing,
clanking steel doors with every mouse click, sliding screens, fixed font
sizes, lousy small pale text...

Sell you dang movies with Flash, but it sure makes lousy sites for
everything else. I remember some guy asking for help years ago with this
stupid Flash site to sell office chairs. You had to "shoot" the chair as
it whizzed by like a carny shotting gallery to select a chair!

BTW, since 40% of us in the US are *still* stuck on dialup, I bailed
long before I was able to get any information on the movie. Great sales
pitch.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It's a big, black, empy space. How does that excite boys 12-25?

Your choice.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I hope I understand your intent was to throw a Flash site in our faces,
'cause there sure ain't no CSS at that one.

Did you even read before you replied?

 

[Travis Newbury]

You seem to think that websites are made to entertain people, especially
kids. Ever heard of a more serious primary purpose for them?

Some website ARE made to entertain people. You can not duplicate the
Marvel site using HTML and CSS. That is my point.

 

[Travis Newbury]

What about the 20% of 12 year olds who wear glasses, are pretty sensible
and already know not to be overly impressed by flash and dazzle, who
know how to keep their powder dry for cleverer things? Are they not
worth designing for?

Actually in this case they aren't

I suppose the 80/20 rule is good thing to espouse in hindsight *when*
you are sure you have made a buck with a crummy website.

Making a buck IS the point of every commercial website. How you make
your money depends on who your target audience is. NO corporation's
target audience is everyone in the world. Marvel's target audience is
boys, teens, and young men that like comic books. It is sad that
there is a small percentage of boys that can not see the site (or the
movie), but that is NOT a reason to design it for them and take the
excitement away form the 80% who can.

Maybe we should just do away with movies all together and just have
radio? That makes about as much sense as designing a website like
this for the few that's can't enjoy it. But wait, what about the
deaf? Damn, I guess you CAN'T please everyone. You have to try to
please those you are targeting.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yawn. Ignoring the animated "page" transitions (which I find gimicky and
dated, not to mention choppy)

But those it was targeted to find it exciting, fun, and enjoyable

wander over to the CSS zen garden and
Snore....

Design-wise, I'm not really impressed
with them, either, mostly because they tend to fall apart with my
browser settings.

You are not in the target audience, so you really don't matter as far
as the site is concerned. As it should be.

How many people here do you think fall into that demographic? Not me,

Here? Probably 50%. How many will see the movie? Probably 40-50%%.
How many in the world can see it? 80+% of the target audience.

 

[Travis Newbury]

   How can an illegible site be good for anyone or anything?

You assume no one like this kind of thing. Obviously someone does.

 

[Bergamot]

Some website ARE made to entertain people.

But the only sites you ever mention, let alone give any praise to, are
entertainment types. Not exactly of high interest around here. Why never
anything more down to earth, or relevant to us middle-aged folk?

You can not duplicate the
Marvel site using HTML and CSS.

No, you can't do fancy sound and animation with just HTML and CSS. We
know that. So what?