Fight for css layout being lost?

[Michael Winter]

[1] I have to a point, and he was shocked at the difference in opinion.

Send him here. With his class work

I think it's a little late now. The course will finish soon, so there
would be no time to change whatever it is he's produced.

He seems to be eager to know how to do things properly though, which is a
good sign.

Mike

 

[Henry]

But you've *used* CSS in that page, so it doesn't count.

That's the idea. Use what is working and make a job done quick
without any BS.

Reworked it slightly because now I have a little time.


No tricks, not hiding from any browsers. 20 minutes of work. Used best
of both worlds. Css and html tables. Data is organized that way that has
became a TABULAR DATA.




If IE will be gone, than most likely I will use css fully, maybe version 4!

 

[Henry]

Steve Pugh wrote




<aol>Me too</aol>

Try make these...


http://www.garageband.com/


Just make sure these borders will look the same.


I wonder if that can be done at all.

 

[Karl Core]

Oh dear God. No wonder you didn't want to supply a sample of your work.
Henry, you can't even get a tables-based site marked up correctly.

http://members.westnet.com.au/satori/

You've got absolutely no business whatsoever giving anyone advice on HTML.

 

[Guest]

Yes, the border lines are an important element of the challenge.

I gave that a lot of thought and couldn't solve it. I could come close --
and I admit the code would look UUUUGLY -- but I couldn't replicate it.
However, I don't need no steenkin' thin blue lines. At least not enough to
convince me that's the reason CSS is gonna take over the Web.

Also your right margin is practically non-existant.

I didn't even address that. I was just trying to replicate your
functionality.

M

 

[Guest]

Playing the other side of the fence here, don't your STYLE statements count
as CSS? I was trying to think of a way to do it strictly with borders, neste
tables, etc.

M

 

[Mark Parnell]

He seems to be eager to know how to do things properly though, which is a
good sign.

As Richard said, send him here. We'll soon set him straight.

 

[Henry]

Oh dear God. No wonder you didn't want to supply a sample of your work.
Henry, you can't even get a tables-based site marked up correctly.

http://members.westnet.com.au/satori/

You've got absolutely no business whatsoever giving anyone advice on HTML.

That's my experimental page. Is changing almost every day, because I'm
experimenting a lot, trying to make good liquid design. I think that
pages 780 px are silly idea and while I love heaps of graphics in the
page, the lack of expandability is something which I'm trying to work out.


Css is on every page, often different and is changing frequently.



I'm not giving anyone any advices on html!

I'm arguing a value of full css layout against a table layout and more I
work with css, more I like tables.

I had main area in tables and IE bugs were bugging me so I have changed
to tables.

Try make my first page liquid in full css with all graphics!

 

[Henry]

Playing the other side of the fence here, don't your STYLE statements count
as CSS?

Yes... I do...

I got an idea from there...

http://academ.hvcc.edu/~kantopet/xhtml/index.php?page=css+table+styling&parent=xhtml+tables

I think tables could be improved a lot and most likely they will, using
more css to help them.

IMHO web design is a jungle where everybody does own thing and the
strongest is surviving. Some trying to impose some strict rules but most
designers are doing whatever they can to make a $.
And tables evidently are winners.

I'm not saing that css is a bad idea. Just right mixture of both will
make magic pages. Going only one way, regardles which direction is IMHO
a mistake, at least at this moment, when IE is the king in the web.


Cheers...




I was trying to think of a way to do it strictly with borders, neste

 

[Toby Inkster]

http://members.westnet.com.au/satori/hard.html

I said "without using any CSS".

 

[Toby Inkster]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/hardcandy.html

That's actually pretty damn close. You've not made the rookie mistake of
trying to divide up the main content into inappropriate rows.

The GIF backgrounds for borders are a bit clumsy though. I'm sure you can
improve on them.

But the fact is you have, by your own admission, been fiddling with this
for a year or so, whereas it only took me about half an hour or so to
knock up the design in CSS, supporting "Opera 3.6+ / Netscape 6.2+ /
Mozilla 1.0+ / Firebird 0.6+ / Konqueror 3.0+ / Safari 1.0+". It also
works, you might note in IE 5+ for Windows though I deliberately don't
mention it on the page, and is but a pixel or two away from working
perfectly in IE 4 for Windows. Earlier versions degrade nicely too --
certainly the page is usable in Netscape versions 1 through 4 and in IE 2
and 3, though one doesn't get the pretty layout.

+1 for the "CSS is easy" camp.

 

[Mr Bean]

Henry wrote:




I said "without using any CSS".

As I've said...

"I'm not saing that css is a bad idea. Just right mixture of both will
make magic pages. Going only one way, regardles which direction is IMHO
a mistake, at least at this moment, when IE is the king in the web."


Css are... GOOD. That's why I use it... sparingly!

 

[Henry]

Henry wrote:




I said "without using any CSS".

Can you match this without tables?


http://www.garageband.com/





IMHO the bottom line is right balance between tables and css.

Doing everything only one way is... out of balance.

Of course many things can be done but why remove from your workbench
some useful tools?

They simply can't live at this moment without each other.

Cheers...

 

[Nik Coughin]

Try make these...


http://www.garageband.com/


Just make sure these borders will look the same.


I wonder if that can be done at all.

Easy.

http://www.nrkn.com/garageBand/

Not pixel perfect but it doesn't have to be. Code is a bit quick and dirty.
I didn't want to spend much time on it. I didn't put the drop down box in,
couldn't be bothered. The bottom navigation should probably be marked up as
ul, and I didn't bother turning any of the items into links. I didn't
bother tweaking the font sizes to match the microfonts of the original. The
padding could be tweaked etc. You'll notice that I used a couple of
tables -- both of them for tabular data. I could have done the same without
the tables, just CSS, but as it IS tabular data that would have been just as
wrong as using tables for layout.

 

[Nik Coughin]

Can you match this without tables?


http://www.garageband.com/





IMHO the bottom line is right balance between tables and css.

Doing everything only one way is... out of balance.

Of course many things can be done but why remove from your workbench
some useful tools?

They simply can't live at this moment without each other.

Cheers...

See my post above.

 

[Mark Parnell]

http://www.nrkn.com/garageBand/

Nicely done. I had just started working on my own version, but I see
there's not much point now. Only one problem I can see - big gap above
the newsfeed in Mozilla.

Not pixel perfect but it doesn't have to be.

Indeed. I would also make it fluid, but yours is a good copy of the
original.

 

[rf]

Mark Parnell

Indeed. I would also make it fluid, but yours is a good copy of the
original.

Very good.

I started to dabble with it but soon decided that the entire page is so
atrocious that any tinkering with it is not worthwhile. The whole thing
requires rebuilding from the ground up. Must be an absolute bastard to
change.

The HTML is abysmal, there are errors easily spotted by eye, let alone the
validator. The CSS is absurd and bloated. All round up a sickening example
but then again look at the name of the band

 

[Toby Inkster]

Can you match this without tables?
http://www.garageband.com/

Yes. Though I'm not going to because it would take too long. (It's a bit
unfair you giving me a >100KB page when I gave you a <25KB page.)

 

[Henry]

Easy.

http://www.nrkn.com/garageBand/

Not pixel perfect but it doesn't have to be. Code is a bit quick and dirty.
I didn't want to spend much time on it. I didn't put the drop down box in,
couldn't be bothered. The bottom navigation should probably be marked up as
ul, and I didn't bother turning any of the items into links. I didn't
bother tweaking the font sizes to match the microfonts of the original. The
padding could be tweaked etc. You'll notice that I used a couple of
tables -- both of them for tabular data. I could have done the same without
the tables, just CSS, but as it IS tabular data that would have been just as
wrong as using tables for layout.

Yeah... initially I was impressed until I've looked a little deeper.

http://www.nrkn.com/garageBand/main.png

yeah... sure...

tables as well... so...

right ballance and everybody happy...

the best solution is...

graphics ( a lot )

css... ( to some degree )

tables to improve a feel and stability...

OK...

Now I know how to deal with it.



I'll repeat again...

"IMHO the bottom line is right balance between tables and css.

Doing everything only one way is... out of balance.

Of course many things can be done but why remove from your workbench
some useful tools?

They simply can't live at this moment without each other."


Nik gave us a proof that I'm right.

The bottom line is, to be a top web designer/coder, you have to know
WELL tables/ css/ graphics/ javascripts/ Flash etc.

Use all according to taste and needs.


THANX!!!

 

[Henry]

rf wrote:

but then again look at the name of the band

That site is HUGE!!!

It's a replacement for mp3.com. That's not a band. That's the name of
HUGE site with several thousands of pages!!!