Fight for css layout being lost?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Henry, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. Henry

    Henry Guest

    You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    Google, etc. What they all have in common..

    1) They all use HTML tables.

    2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
    like Netscape 3.0.

    CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
    HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
    ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
    Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
    cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.

    It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

    1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
    2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.

    Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
    Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
    simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
    internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
    After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
    know what happened to them.

    Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
    HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
    should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
    that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
    billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
    don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
    build something like CSSzengarden.
     
    Henry, Nov 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Henry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Henry wrote:
    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.
    >
    > 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
    > like Netscape 3.0.
    >
    > CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    > browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    > you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
    > HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
    > ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
    > Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
    > cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.
    >
    > It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    > links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    > up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.
    >
    > 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    > 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    > 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
    > 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
    >
    > Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
    > Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
    > simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
    > internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
    > After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
    > know what happened to them.
    >
    > Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
    > HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
    > should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
    > that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
    > billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
    > don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
    > build something like CSSzengarden.



    You're mostly right. It takes a LOT of work to get CSS to run on all
    browsers, and frankly right now it's NOT worth the hassle. It simply
    doesn't work as well, and you end up spending forever fixing niggling
    browser-specific bugs. What has happened is we have a balance of
    technologies; where you know your audience you can perhaps lean one way
    or the other but there is no strict set of rules that actually work.

    We recently finished abig project for a client. Initially we started
    out 100% css. But the client wanted the site fully scalable on the page,
    and the design (look and feel) was as important as the content. It
    became rapidly apparent that CSS just couldn't cut it. We were spending
    DAYS fixing obscure browser glitches only for some other change in the
    XHTML to cause the whole thing to fall apart again. In the end we
    reverted to a "mostly CSS" solution, wrapped up inside tables. We've not
    had ANY browser problems since then.

    As for Flash - we're also going down that route for our reporting
    system. Flash offers far better pressentation of reports and graphs than
    any form of CSS or HTML.

    We mix and match the front end technology depending on the project and
    the content, as any designer should.

    Throughout all of this, the data and actual content has remained pretty
    much the same... XHTML with XML data. Whatever front end we stick on
    that doesn't matter so much.


    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Nov 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Henry wrote:
    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.


    Yahoo has a CSS layout in testing. I wouldn't be surprised if some of
    the other sites you mentioned have plans too.

    > It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    > links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    > up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.


    No properly-designed CSS-based layout will "blow up" in a browser that
    doesn't support CSS, it simply won't be quite as pretty. The content
    will still be perfectly usable.
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Nov 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Henry

    Guest Guest

    "Henry" <> wrote in message
    news:419942ca$...
    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.


    > CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    > browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    > you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
    > HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
    > ANY browser.


    I must say I agree. I've been trying to learn about CSS for layouts and
    frankly it's a pain. Tables are dead easy, intuitive, and are much easier to
    debug, if there are problems. I've been visiting some award-winning sites
    lately and all of them use tables.

    I've visited a few of the pages of the CSS purists in this group. For the
    most part they tend to be very simple -- a reflection of the difficulties of
    designing complex sites that work for all browsers, I suspect. There are
    some notable exceptions. I admire Toby Inksters' site. www.csszengarden.com
    also features some breath-taking examples of CSS-only layouts as well.

    BUT. . .

    way too much trouble for most of us "weekend" designers. :)

    M
     
    Guest, Nov 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Henry

    Neal Guest

    <<M>> wrote:

    > "The guy I plonked" wrote
    >> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    >> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >>
    >> 1) They all use HTML tables.


    You can look at WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, and they all use cheap foreign
    child labor. Should I emulate that?

    >> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    >> browsers.


    Wrong.

    >> You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    >> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues.


    You can see folks worldwide struggling for peace. Should they resort to
    violence instead, as it's so much easier and more predictable?

    > I must say I agree.


    NOOOOOOO!!!

    > I've been trying to learn about CSS for layouts and
    > frankly it's a pain.


    Get off the ledge!

    > Tables are dead easy, intuitive, and are much easier to
    > debug, if there are problems. I've been visiting some award-winning sites
    > lately and all of them use tables.


    What kind of sites give the awards? Wouldn't Mussolini give Hitler an
    award?

    > I've visited a few of the pages of the CSS purists in this group. For the
    > most part they tend to be very simple -- a reflection of the
    > difficulties of
    > designing complex sites that work for all browsers, I suspect.


    Humph.

    > There are
    > some notable exceptions. I admire Toby Inksters' site.
    > www.csszengarden.com
    > also features some breath-taking examples of CSS-only layouts as well.


    There's so much hope!

    > BUT. . .
    >
    > way too much trouble for most of us "weekend" designers. :)


    Well, tell you what. I conduct a community orchestra. Most of my musicians
    are "weekend warriors" too. Little formal training. Less time to practice.

    So, we put on a concert. You want to hear it? Will you come again?

    See, quality wins in the end. You can go ahead and argue that tables give
    you more quality, but it's simply not true. And especially if you're a
    weekend warrior (and if you are, it's not the weekend, what are you
    doing?!?), CSS makes it so much quicker to fix things - once you get it.

    And that's the problem. CSS is hard to "get". If you quit, you're
    relegated to a lifetime of slaving through bloated HTML files heavier than
    your Aunt Mary. Once you "get it", the speed you can work at is amazing.

    Don't write off CSS so soon. You show so much promise...
     
    Neal, Nov 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Henry

    Neal Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > You're mostly right.


    *whimper*

    > It takes a LOT of work to get CSS to run on all browsers, and frankly
    > right now it's NOT worth the hassle. It simply doesn't work as well, and
    > you end up spending forever fixing niggling browser-specific bugs. What
    > has happened is we have a balance of technologies; where you know your
    > audience you can perhaps lean one way or the other but there is no
    > strict set of rules that actually work.


    But with CSS you're on the front of a brave new way to do things. You're a
    pioneer!

    We need the type of person who says that graphic design is nice, but
    better technology and implementation is better. Tat's me. Maybe someday
    we'll convince you.

    In 5 years, I'll be a whiz at this CSS thing. How's about you? If CSS is a
    dodo by then, Miranda, I'll owe you a beer.
     
    Neal, Nov 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Henry

    Rob Martin Guest

    "Henry" <> wrote in message
    news:419942ca$...
    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.
    >
    > 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
    > like Netscape 3.0.


    No. Funny, I've just signed off from my Yahoo mail and thought how bad the
    page looks (using Opera).


    > CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    > browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    > you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
    > HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
    > ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
    > Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
    > cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.
    >
    > It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    > links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    > up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.


    Totally disagree. While there *are* certain things that are not supported
    (by IE) which may mean the odd thing will have a workaround until all
    browsers are CSS standards compliant, but... this is the odd occurrence I
    would say. We are in the process of rewriting a CGI webapp to J2EE and
    taking the opportunity to redo the HTML output from the JSP to remove all
    the tables and brush up the CSS (had an early attempt 5yrs ago). What we're
    seeing is much smaller, concise, easily maintainable, much simpler pages.
    With (thanks to CSS) much more control (positioning... colours....); we can
    do stuff to our <form>s using the CSS - in all our pages - without touching
    the pages.

    It is bleedin' obvious how much better the pages are without all the table
    markup (nested crap) all over the place. I say this from recent experience.
    So what's winding you up so much over this? Why would you rather have all
    this extra markup all over the place making it harder to maintain, bigger
    pages etc etc etc. Yes, you need to ensure the pages look fine on all or
    most browsers and thats been done here, part of the job. Take the time to
    learn (and learn from some of the people here) and, it is a helluva lot
    better. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet over this from recent
    posts, not sure why (found it hard to learn CSS? It is a curve, but once you
    do...).

    > 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    > 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    > 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.


    > 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.


    Yes... works fine thanks.


    > Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
    > Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
    > simple,


    The pages ARE much simpler now I've removed all the td tr bollocks all over
    the place, thanks.


    functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
    > internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.


    Surely they 'beat their competitors' through the functionality (hate that
    word! *grin*) offered by the applications themselves (incl cost etc), not
    whether they have better markup?

    Give it a go...
    Cheers
    Rob
    Melbourne
     
    Rob Martin, Nov 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Henry

    Adrienne Guest

    Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Henry <> writing
    in news:419942ca$:

    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.


    Actually, that's not true. Wired - http://www.wired.com is all CSS. There
    are many other, I just can't think of them right now, oh wait, here's a
    list - http://www.meryl.net/css/cat_big_sites.php .

    >
    > 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
    > like Netscape 3.0.


    No, actually, they don't. Most of them use a fixed font that I can't see,
    and everything is jumbled up in one corner of the window because they've
    designed for "800 x 600", optimized for IE.

    >
    > CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    > browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    > you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
    > HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
    > ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
    > Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
    > cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.


    If the author wrote the markup correctly, it will degrade nicely. That's
    one of the good things about separating content from presenation. If the
    presentation fails, the content is still there. This is not the case,
    however, with badly nested tables that have errors. Some browsers,
    Netscape for one, just won't render anything at all.

    >
    > It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    > links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    > up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.


    You are absolutely right - don't use CSS to remove underline on links.

    >
    > 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    > 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    > 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
    > 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
    >


    It takes a long time to rewrite large sites, especially if the site is
    dynamic and many people work various parts. These sites, too, will learn
    that it's much easier to change a stylesheet than it is do redo nested
    table bloat.

    > Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
    > Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
    > simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
    > internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
    > After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
    > know what happened to them.


    Amazon, Ebay and Google have valid reasons for using tables. The data that
    they deliver is suited for that type of markup. No one said get rid of
    tables completely, just use them for their intended purpose.

    >
    > Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
    > HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
    > should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
    > that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
    > billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
    > don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
    > build something like CSSzengarden.


    Have you ever had to debug a website that's generated server side, in
    nested tables? With lovely markup like this:
    <td background-color="#FFFFFF" width="100"><font size="2" color="#000000">
    <b></b></font></td><td><table width="20"><tr><td><font color="#000000"><hr>
    <span style="font-size:8px">&nbsp;</span></font></td></tr><table></td>

    Beleive me, when you have to debug hundreds of pages like this, you'll soon
    yearn for the simplicity of CSS. Not to mention that SE bots seem to be
    happier with presentationless markup - they couldn't give a rat's ass if
    the word is bold or not.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne, Nov 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Henry

    Guest Guest

    "Neal" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > <<M>> wrote:
    >
    > You can look at WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, and they all use cheap foreign
    > child labor. Should I emulate that?


    > You can see folks worldwide struggling for peace. Should they resort to
    > violence instead, as it's so much easier and more predictable?


    > What kind of sites give the awards? Wouldn't Mussolini give Hitler an
    > award?


    > Well, tell you what. I conduct a community orchestra. Most of my musicians
    > are "weekend warriors" too. Little formal training. Less time to practice.
    > So, we put on a concert. You want to hear it? Will you come again?


    To all of the above. . . ????

    > CSS makes it so much quicker to fix things - once you get it.
    > And that's the problem. CSS is hard to "get". If you quit, you're
    > relegated to a lifetime of slaving through bloated HTML files heavier than
    > your Aunt Mary.


    I'm not convinced of that. Content tends to change incrementally if at all
    for most sites. It's a nice gimmick to be able to give visitors a
    "different" look for a site by pressing on a button, but that can be
    replicated with "sub-sites." To a visitor, it's transparent and they would
    never know the difference. You can talk about bloated code but the fact is
    for most sites, time to download and view is near instantaneous, CSS or
    HTML. When I surf, I've never encountered a site slow to load purely because
    of HTML "bloat." My machine is 5 years old, my OS is older. A page is
    usually slow to load because it's graphics intensive, or it's downloading
    some plugin content, not because it's contending with nested tables.

    Furthermore, through the careful use of search and replace functions of most
    text editors (Notetab Pro et al), it's possible to rip through a directory
    of HTML files in seconds to swiftly modify common elements -- the supposed
    advantage of CSS. Combine with the judicious use of templates and I suspect
    a good HTML webmaster could modify his site as swiftly as someone using CSS.

    And why should CSS be hard to "get?" Generally, if something is hard to get,
    it tends to be ignored or discarded by the general population in favour of
    convenience.

    For now, I'm convinced that CSS layout is for "hobbyists" only. If you're a
    fan, go for it by all means. Me, I'm sticking with my tables. . .

    M
     
    Guest, Nov 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Henry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Adrienne wrote:


    > If the author wrote the markup correctly, it will degrade nicely. That's
    > one of the good things about separating content from presenation. If the
    > presentation fails, the content is still there. This is not the case,
    > however, with badly nested tables that have errors. Some browsers,
    > Netscape for one, just won't render anything at all.
    >


    Same goes for a table layout.

    >>It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
    >>links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
    >>up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

    >
    >
    > You are absolutely right - don't use CSS to remove underline on links.


    Blanket statement. Just not true.

    >>1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    >>1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    >>2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
    >>2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
    >>

    >
    > Amazon, Ebay and Google have valid reasons for using tables. The data that
    > they deliver is suited for that type of markup. No one said get rid of
    > tables completely, just use them for their intended purpose.


    Which can be layout if you want.

    > Have you ever had to debug a website that's generated server side, in
    > nested tables? With lovely markup like this:
    > <td background-color="#FFFFFF" width="100"><font size="2" color="#000000">
    > <b></b></font></td><td><table width="20"><tr><td><font color="#000000"><hr>
    > <span style="font-size:8px">&nbsp;</span></font></td></tr><table></td>
    >
    > Beleive me, when you have to debug hundreds of pages like this, you'll soon
    > yearn for the simplicity of CSS. Not to mention that SE bots seem to be
    > happier with presentationless markup - they couldn't give a rat's ass if
    > the word is bold or not.
    >


    Perhaps that's why you have a balance between the two? I dont think
    anyone is advocating not using CSS. Just not using 100% CSS.

    As for redoing "nested table bloat", this is where it comes down to
    experience. *if* you built your site right, then even a site consisting
    of nested tables can be completely changed by modifying just one or two
    files. One of our sites uses a few nested tables... these tables are put
    together via a header, footer and menu SSI. If I wanted to change the
    look and feel of the entire site I have 4 files to modify and all 400
    pages in the site will be changed. The look and feel and divs within the
    tables are controlled by CSS. The flexible layout itself is controlled
    by a series of small tables. There are no browser problems, no little
    CSS hacks to get floats to work on IE etc etc. It's a really simple
    technical design, but the front end looks very high-tech.

    It's HOW you use the technology. CSS is great, but it has some limits
    which can cause a lot of problems. 100% CSS sites are a LOT harder to
    produce, and actually sometimes harder to maintain because of the
    delicate nature of browsers. But pretty much all browsers happily render
    tables.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Nov 16, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <uVgmd.178799$9b.99469@edtnps84>, "<<M>>"
    <> wrote:

    > You can talk about bloated code but the fact is
    > for most sites, time to download and view is near instantaneous, CSS or
    > HTML. When I surf, I've never encountered a site slow to load purely because
    > of HTML "bloat."


    And you're not on a 56k modem either. I am and I'm probably in the majority.

    > My machine is 5 years old, my OS is older. A page is
    > usually slow to load because it's graphics intensive, or it's downloading
    > some plugin content, not because it's contending with nested tables.


    Again, you're not on 56k. A graphics intensive nested table site requires
    the patience of a goose hunter. If you're not familiar, that's a lot.

    > For now, I'm convinced that CSS layout is for "hobbyists" only. If you're a
    > fan, go for it by all means. Me, I'm sticking with my tables. . .


    Go with what you know.

    leo

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, Nov 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Henry

    Toby Inkster Guest

    <<M>> wrote:

    > And why should CSS be hard to "get?"


    Is it? I certainly don't think so. If you want all paragraphs to be blue,
    you type:

    p { color:blue }

    If you want them to be bold as well, you do:

    p { color:blue ; font-weight:bold }

    And if you think they'd look purty with a yellow background:

    p { color:blue ; font-weight:bold ; background:yellow }

    And to confuse the hell out of people, if you want to make the bold bits
    within these already-bold paragraphs stand out:

    p b { font-weight:normal }

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Nov 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Henry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Neal wrote:
    > <<M>> wrote:
    >
    >> "The guy I plonked" wrote
    >>
    >>> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
    >>> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >>>
    >>> 1) They all use HTML tables.

    >
    >
    > You can look at WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, and they all use cheap foreign
    > child labor. Should I emulate that?


    mehehhe

    >>> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    >>> browsers.

    >
    > Wrong.


    If you write to the standards and use CSS, it wont work in IE, period.
    You have to trick IE into displaying the right stuff.

    <snip>

    > See, quality wins in the end. You can go ahead and argue that tables
    > give you more quality, but it's simply not true. And especially if


    Prove it. In a real development environment tables ARE a solution. They
    work just fine. Have tables suddenly stopped working in all browsers?
    No. Are tables able to layout a page and/or display tabulated data? Yes.
    Does CSS work in all browsers? No.

    > CSS makes it so much quicker to fix things - once you get
    > it.


    Not always. And I do get it. 50% of my sites are 100% CSS. 50% of them
    are a mix of tables and CSS. I get it; and CSS is not some magical
    solution for all our web design woes.

    > And that's the problem. CSS is hard to "get".


    No it's not. What's hard is knowing what technology to apply where, and
    efficiently. That's what people dont get. When you see people arguying
    that they shouldn't use scripts, shouldn't use Flash, must not use
    tables... these are the people who dont get it. A good designer knows
    WHAT technology to use and WHEN. Not just follow some ignorant trend.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Nov 16, 2004
    #13
  14. Henry

    Guest

    Henry wrote:
    > You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,


    > Google, etc. What they all have in common..
    >
    > 1) They all use HTML tables.
    >
    > 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers


    > like Netscape 3.0.
    >
    > CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
    > browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
    > you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues.

    With
    > HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in

    virtually
    > ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on

    Mac,
    > Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an

    airport/internet
    > cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.
    >
    > It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from

    some
    > links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't

    "blow
    > up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.
    >
    > 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
    > 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
    > 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
    > 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
    >
    > Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon,

    Yahoo,
    > Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping

    it
    > simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999%

    of
    > internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
    > After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we

    all
    > know what happened to them.
    >
    > Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll

    see
    > HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you


    > should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website


    > that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by

    the
    > billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If

    you
    > don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site,

    then
    > build something like CSSzengarden.



    Where I work we have a site with around 18,000 pages, all using a mess
    of nested tables. To go straight from tables to table-less design is
    impossible, however the designers have opted for the "hybrid" approach,
    where the main structure (side bar and header) are done using tables,
    but the actual content is being converted to table-less, CSS based
    design. This is what the BBC have adopted. Once most of the content is
    done using CSS, then the designers will make the main structure using
    CSS.
     
    , Nov 16, 2004
    #14
  15. <<M>> enlightened us with:
    > You can talk about bloated code but the fact is for most sites, time
    > to download and view is near instantaneous, CSS or HTML. When I
    > surf, I've never encountered a site slow to load purely because of
    > HTML "bloat."


    Well, I have. I've seen a difference of about 0.75 to 1.5 seconds when
    I converted a page from a nested table layout to a cleanly built CSS
    layout. Now you might think that difference is nothing, but I tell you
    it makes a LOT of difference. It makes all the difference between an
    "okay" site, and a "pleasantly feeling" site. Yes, people have a
    feeling about a website. This directly translates into a feeling for
    the company behind the website. If the revenue of a company is
    directly or indirectly related by how people feel about the company,
    having a snappy website makes a huge difference.

    > For now, I'm convinced that CSS layout is for "hobbyists" only. If
    > you're a fan, go for it by all means. Me, I'm sticking with my
    > tables. . .


    As a professional, I can sure tell you CSS layout is not just for
    hobbyists...

    Sybren
    --
    The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
    capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
    safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
     
    Sybren Stuvel, Nov 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Henry

    Karl Core Guest

    "Sybren Stuvel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > <<M>> enlightened us with:
    >> You can talk about bloated code but the fact is for most sites, time
    >> to download and view is near instantaneous, CSS or HTML. When I
    >> surf, I've never encountered a site slow to load purely because of
    >> HTML "bloat."

    >
    > Well, I have. I've seen a difference of about 0.75 to 1.5 seconds when
    > I converted a page from a nested table layout to a cleanly built CSS
    > layout.


    I've seen it even worse.
    We were recently hired on by a large gov't agency to do a project which
    involves re-making their page templates to reduce the load time of their
    pages. They have a relatively clean & straight forward design, yet use about
    8 nested tables (3-4 deep), about 50 spacer gifs per page, and images for
    almost everything, including stuff like table borders, headings, etc. They
    only use CSS for basic typography. The HTML alone is over 100kb on most
    pages, and they have another 80kb+ of images. I estimate that I can get
    their HTML down to about 14kb and reduce their images down to about 30-50kb.


    --
    -Karl Core
    Please Support "Project Boneyard":
    http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard
     
    Karl Core, Nov 16, 2004
    #16
  17. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:05:53 +0000, Adrienne wrote:

    > Actually, that's not true. Wired - http://www.wired.com is all CSS. There
    > are many other, I just can't think of them right now, oh wait, here's a
    > list - http://www.meryl.net/css/cat_big_sites.php .


    espn.com

    --
    Jeffrey Silverman

    ** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email
     
    Jeffrey Silverman, Nov 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Henry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Adrienne wrote:

    > Actually, that's not true. Wired - http://www.wired.com is all CSS. There
    > are many other, I just can't think of them right now, oh wait, here's a
    > list - http://www.meryl.net/css/cat_big_sites.php .



    Almost all the sites on that list are fixed font size, fixed width and
    have Flash on them. Yes they use CSS. But they are using CSS to emulate
    all the things that are wrong with table-based designs.

    *sighs*

    See what I mean? CSS does not fix ANYTHING. It's just one more bit of
    technology that can HELP design a web site, but as with ALL web
    technologies it has to be used right. There's nothing wrong with tables
    when done right. There's nothing wrong with CSS when done right. But
    arhuing that either are a be-all and end-all solution is just
    short-sighed and demonstrates a lack of open-minded design sense from
    the designer who things they ARE.
     
    SpaceGirl, Nov 16, 2004
    #18
  19. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:14:50 +0000, <<M>> wrote:

    > For now, I'm convinced that CSS layout is for "hobbyists" only. If you're a
    > fan, go for it by all means. Me, I'm sticking with my tables. . .


    Well, I'm a professional and I will only be using CSS layout from here on
    out.

    There are many advantages. Just because something is hard to learn
    doesn't mean it is bad. Separating content from layout is just a Good
    Thing(TM), and maybe you have to be a web professional (and not just a
    hobbyist) to see that.

    Advantages of CSS over table-based layouts:
    * Smaller pages (potentially)
    * Improved SEO-ability
    * Improved Accessibility
    * Easier to debug (yes, it is, its just that you have to get over the
    learning curve)
    * Planning for the future
    * Others...

    Disadvantages
    * Hard to learn at first
    * MSIE sucks monkey nuts

    So, IMO, the one major disadvantage is Micro-fucking-soft's "great"
    browser. MSIE 5 had a lot of promise and supported a lot of CSS1 and 2.
    But have they improved upon that and made it actually work? No. However,
    if Firefox and/or Opera can do anything, maybe they can spur some more
    "innovation" at MS so that MSIE7/LonghornMSIE at least does CSS correctly.

    Within a coupla years, CSS will be king. CSS is *not* Frames, or "push",
    or Macromedia Flash or Java Applets or <fill in other questionable
    technology>. CSS is here to stay.

    --
    Jeffrey Silverman

    ** Drop "PANTS" to reply by email
     
    Jeffrey Silverman, Nov 16, 2004
    #19
  20. Henry

    Guest Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:p...

    Aaah, but I don't disagree with you for TEXT FORMATTING. CSS is definitely
    an advantage there. My comments refer strictly to CSS for layout of elements
    on the page. I believe the original poster also was referring only to the
    tables vs. CSS for layout purposes.

    I've seen your website and it impresses me a lot. However, I think you're an
    exception to the rule. The other CSS-sites of some of the purists here are
    very simple. No reflection on their talents -- I think it's more a
    reflection of the fact that designing complex layouts in CSS isn't as easy
    as the "hobbyists" would have me believe. I had never heard of the word
    "kludge" before I started studying CSS. :)


    M
     
    Guest, Nov 16, 2004
    #20
    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. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    747
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. SoftComplete Development

    NEW STEP IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SOFTWARE PIRACY

    SoftComplete Development, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    405
    Timothy Madden
    Sep 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    603
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. Malcolm

    RPG fight engine.

    Malcolm, Aug 18, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    377
    Malcolm
    Aug 21, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    377
    Victor Bazarov
    Jan 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page