Can CSS benefit non-liquid layouts?

[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? Here's a few examples of what I'm
talking about...

WWE.com
THX.com
Vw.com

 

[David Dorward]

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.

 

[Steve Pugh]

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

 

[Davmagic com]

From: (e-mail address removed)

(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

 

[Lauri Raittila]

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.

 

[rf]

From: (e-mail address removed)

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!

What about ones that are bigger?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/test/magic.jpg

<grin />

Cheers
Richard.

 

[OJ]

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

 

[Mark Parnell]

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]

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 %.

 

[Isofarro]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kris


I did that about a month ago.

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

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Isofarro

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.