H
Henry
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.
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.