Can CSS benefit non-liquid layouts?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Half Dolla 2003, Jul 22, 2003.

  1. So they say don't use tables for layout.

    But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard width and hight
    no matter what the resolution or widow size? What advantage would a CSS layout
    have with these sites over HTML layouts? Here's a few examples of what I'm
    talking about...

    WWE.com
    THX.com
    Vw.com
    Half Dolla 2003, Jul 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Half Dolla 2003 wrote:

    > But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard width and
    > hight no matter what the resolution or widow size?


    i.e. badly

    > What advantage would a CSS layout have with these sites over HTML layouts?


    That same as for any other site. It makes maintence easier, uses less
    bandwidth, and provide different presentations for different media types,
    etc.

    --
    David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
    David Dorward, Jul 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Half Dolla 2003

    Steve Pugh Guest

    (Half Dolla 2003) wrote:


    >But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard width and hight
    >no matter what the resolution or widow size?


    Why would you design a site that's so fundamentally broken? What if
    your so called standard width and height is larger than my display?

    >What advantage would a CSS layout
    >have with these sites over HTML layouts?


    Less code, hence faster download.
    Quicker updating.
    Easier to convert to liquid layout when reality dawns.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Jul 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Half Dolla 2003

    Davmagic com Guest

    >From:
    >(Half Dolla 2003)
    >So they say don't use tables for layout.
    >But what about sites that are designed to
    >be seen at a standard width and hight no
    >matter what the resolution or widow size?
    >What advantage would a CSS layout have
    >with these sites over HTML layouts?


    IMHO .... no advantage.... because of the potential loss of
    presentational effects that tables can produce and because of the FACT
    that certain commonly used Browsers (like MSN-TV to mention only one)
    are not fully compatable (yet) with CSS!

    I did it here: http://davmagic.com/magic/PAGES1.html

    Width of 544 px which views on all browsers that view at or above that
    width... for those that don't... (an EXTREMELY small percent)... TOO
    BAD!

    Web Design-Magic-Painting-Junking-Games
    INFO 2000 For You
    http://www.davmagic.com
    See how your webpages look on a MSN-TV Browser:
    Download it here: http://developer.msntv.com/Tools/msntvvwr.asp
    Davmagic com, Jul 22, 2003
    #4
  5. In article <>, Half Dolla
    2003 wrote:
    >
    > So they say don't use tables for layout.
    >
    > But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard width and hi
    > no matter what the resolution or widow size? What advantage would a CSS layout
    > have with these sites over HTML layouts? Here's a few examples of what I'm
    > talking about...


    Lets just say that making non liquid design using CSS much easier and
    faster than doing same using HTML and tables, far more easier than with
    tables.

    And, people is even able to read the page, when they disable stylesheet.

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
    tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
    Lauri Raittila, Jul 22, 2003
    #5
  6. Half Dolla 2003

    rf Guest

    rf, Jul 23, 2003
    #6
  7. Half Dolla 2003

    OJ Guest

    Steve Pugh <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Half Dolla 2003) wrote:
    >
    >
    > >But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard width and hight
    > >no matter what the resolution or widow size?

    >
    > Why would you design a site that's so fundamentally broken? What if
    > your so called standard width and height is larger than my display?
    >


    Hi,

    Believe it or not, you may have to scroll your browser. Heavens!
    That doesn't make it fundamentally broken.

    oj

    > >What advantage would a CSS layout
    > >have with these sites over HTML layouts?

    >
    > Less code, hence faster download.
    > Quicker updating.
    > Easier to convert to liquid layout when reality dawns.
    >
    > Steve
    OJ, Jul 23, 2003
    #7
  8. Half Dolla 2003

    Mark Parnell Guest

    OJ wrote:
    > Steve Pugh <> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    >> (Half Dolla 2003) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> But what about sites that are designed to be seen at a standard
    >>> width and hight
    >>> no matter what the resolution or widow size?

    >>
    >> Why would you design a site that's so fundamentally broken? What if
    >> your so called standard width and height is larger than my display?
    >>

    >
    > Believe it or not, you may have to scroll your browser. Heavens!
    > That doesn't make it fundamentally broken.
    >


    No, but it means I will go to another site that doesn't try and make it hard
    for me to read.

    --

    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Jul 23, 2003
    #8
  9. Half Dolla 2003

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Davmagic com wrote:
    >> From:
    >> (Half Dolla 2003)
    >> So they say don't use tables for layout.
    >> But what about sites that are designed to
    >> be seen at a standard width and hight no
    >> matter what the resolution or widow size?
    >> What advantage would a CSS layout have
    >> with these sites over HTML layouts?

    >
    > IMHO .... no advantage.... because of the potential loss of
    > presentational effects that tables can produce and because of the FACT
    > that certain commonly used Browsers (like MSN-TV to mention only one)


    MSN-TV is not what I would call a "commonly used Browser".

    > are not fully compatable (yet) with CSS!
    >


    Yet CSS layouts will degrade gracefully in browsers that do not support CSS,
    so the content is still accessible.

    > I did it here: http://davmagic.com/magic/PAGES1.html
    >
    > Width of 544 px which views on all browsers that view at or above that
    > width... for those that don't...


    Like PDAs, mobiles, lots of those who don't have their browser maximised -
    you have no way of knowing what sort of percentage that may be.

    > (an EXTREMELY small percent)...


    Smaller than the handful that use MSN-TV? Unlikely.

    Catering to 100% of your visitors is better than catering to some lesser
    undefined %.

    --

    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    Mark Parnell, Jul 23, 2003
    #9
  10. Half Dolla 2003

    Isofarro Guest

    Isofarro, Jul 23, 2003
    #10
  11. Half Dolla 2003

    Adrienne Guest

    Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Isofarro
    <> writing in
    news:p:

    > Adrienne wrote:
    >
    >> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kris
    >> <> writing in
    >>>
    >>> Your boss is broken. Download a better one.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I did that about a month ago.

    >
    > Hmm... did you try the zipped-up version? Runs beautifully here -
    > absolutely quiet.
    >
    >


    Yup, tried the zip version, but it kept on failing the CRC check, kept
    talking. Finally had to upgrade my system and go solo. Working quite well
    now.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    http://www.arbpen.com
    Adrienne, Jul 26, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    370
    Brian
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. kayodeok

    Liquid Layouts: The Easy Way

    kayodeok, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    366
  3. KatB
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,173
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
  5. jenny wilkinson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    600
    jenny wilkinson
    Mar 20, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page