Fight for css layout being lost?

H

Henry

Henry said:
Nik Coughin wrote:


Actually an great idea for fixed css layout. Just put a huge pic and lay
divs and tables on on top of it!

But... that pic is 36 kb!

:(
 
R

rf

Henry
rf wrote:







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!!!

Whatever.

It's still one of the worst bloody pages I have seen for a long time.
Complete rubbish.
 
N

Nik Coughlin

Henry said:
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...
Nik gave us a proof that I'm right.

See my comment above. Those tables were *not* for layout. They represent
tabular data. CSS layout != no tables. CSS layout == no *layout* tables.
Look at just where those tables are and what they do. It would be pitifully
easy to reproduce them with just CSS, but it "would have been just as wrong
as using tables for layout" as I said above; tables for tabular data, and
CSS for layout.

That said, I like Wyrm's version much better than mine.
 
R

rf

Mr Bean

That is equally as bad. Without any content in there it is impossible to
tell which bits actually *are* tables (ie tabular data) and which bits
merely use tables for layout.

Besides it is often quite pointless exactly porting a table design to CSS.
They are two very different things and achieve things in very different
ways. The best thing for that whole site is a total rewrite.
 
H

Henry

rf wrote:


That is equally as bad. Without any content in there it is impossible to
tell which bits actually *are* tables (ie tabular data) and which bits
merely use tables for layout.

It doesn't matter.

My definition of tabular data.

Everything what can fits in tables, slices, images, paragraphs of text
are tabular data.

Tables have been adopted by vast majority of web designers as the base
for the layout of web pages.

Live with that and don't parrot that crap, that tables are only for a
tabular data, because there is plenty of evidences that they are used
with great success in web design industry.

Saying, that "tables are only for a tabular data" is unpopular sayings
of just few css nuts.

Reality is total different to their wishes.


Besides it is often quite pointless exactly porting a table design to CSS.
They are two very different things and achieve things in very different
ways. The best thing for that whole site is a total rewrite.



Download Times*
Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 15.61 seconds
28.8K 7.80 seconds
33.6K 6.69 seconds
56K 4.01 seconds
ISDN 128K 1.23 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps 0.11 seconds


Analysis and Recommendations

* TOTAL_OBJECTS - Caution. You have 9 total objects on this page.
Consider reducing, eliminating, and combining external objects
(graphics, CSS, JavaScript) to reduce the total number of objects, and
thus separate HTTP requests.
* TOTAL_IMAGES - Caution. You have a moderate amount of images on
this page (8 ). Consider using fewer images on the site or try re-using
the same image in multiple pages to take advantage of caching.
* TOTAL_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this page is
20139 bytes. This page should load in less than eight seconds on a
56Kbps connection - or 4.01 seconds. But there's always room for
improvement.
* HTML_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this HTML file is
12879 bytes, which less than 20K. Assuming that you specify the HEIGHT
and WIDTH of your images, this size allows your page to display content
in well under 8 seconds, the average time users are willing to wait for
a page to display without feedback.
* IMAGES_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of all your images
is 7260 bytes, which is less than 15K. Ideally each image should be less
than 1160 bytes, to easily fit into one TCP-IP packet.
* MULTIM_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of all your
external multimedia files is 0 bytes, which is less than 4K.



Again, what's wrong with it? I've left heaps of unwanted coding like
links, font tags, mouseovers etc. Can be optimized to near half of
current size.

Don't like it?

And that's all?

You don't have to like it, others do... ask muzos at Garage Band.

:)
 
W

Wyrm

Henry said:
rf wrote:
You don't have to like it, others do... ask muzos at Garage Band.

:)

Interesting enough, you gave that one site layout to be done with CSS
doubting if it can even be done, so funny you haven't bothered to comment...

http://www.kolumbus.fi/ace/gband/

Layout changed to be fluid but didn't bother to put contents, but it can be
easily done too. Trying to dodge issue that layout was very easy to do in
CSS? ;)
 
N

Nik Coughin

Wyrm said:
Interesting enough, you gave that one site layout to be done with CSS
doubting if it can even be done, so funny you haven't bothered to
comment...

http://www.kolumbus.fi/ace/gband/

Layout changed to be fluid but didn't bother to put contents, but it
can be easily done too. Trying to dodge issue that layout was very
easy to do in CSS? ;)

....or the issue that there are CSS layouts that simply can't be done with
tables, but not vice versa? :) I really like your implementation of the
GarageBand design BTW, very clean.
 
W

Wÿrm

Nik Coughin said:
Wyrm wrote:
...or the issue that there are CSS layouts that simply can't be done with
tables, but not vice versa? :)

Yes, seems that main purpose of this certain Henry character is just plain
trolling ;)

I really like your implementation of the
GarageBand design BTW, very clean.

Thanks, I had tested before something bit like this so I had alread thought
out how such thing can be done. I like to keep things as simple as possible
(in html, css, or any programming task too), that seems to lead (atleast for
me) to the fact that code etc. are decently clean and easy to tweak later :)

Oh well, done enough html/css related for this week now, better bury few
beers in me belly while watch some movie or two :)
 
N

Nik Coughin

Henry said:
Tables have been adopted by vast majority of web designers as the base
for the layout of web pages.

Why do I feel like you are trying to convince us to abandon CSS for layout,
in favour of tables?

Name one good reason why I should use tables for my layout instead, if I am
comfortable and competent with using CSS for layout, *and* can code any
layout I wish using it.

Any table-based layout can be reproduced with CSS. The reverse is not true.

The simple fact is that the majority of web designers are graphic
designers -- not coders. For them, a table is easier. Therefore, more
sites which are *visually* well designed use tables. That doesn't make them
an authority on how to best code websites.

It's like saying that an architect is better suited to building a house than
a carpenter.

There *are* designer/coders around, but they're far outnumbered by those who
are only really any good at one or the other.

In a perfect world, designers without good coding skills should stick to
designing a page, and having a coder implement it -- a coder who writes
good, clean, *semantic* HTML. Good coders without (visual) design skills
should have a designer design the page if it is for a commercial undertaking
where looks are important. Not every website needs to look slick however.
 
H

Henry

Nik said:
Henry wrote:
Why do I feel like you are trying to convince us to abandon CSS for layout,
in favour of tables?

Name one good reason why I should use tables for my layout instead, if I am
comfortable and competent with using CSS for layout, *and* can code any
layout I wish using it.



Did I ever said that one of other method is crap and you or someone else
is a moron because he uses this or that? Just read some my posts to find
that I'm talking mainly to use all these methods with balance.



Any table-based layout can be reproduced with CSS. The reverse is not true.



There are two different tools.


The simple fact is that the majority of web designers are graphic
designers -- not coders. For them, a table is easier. Therefore, more
sites which are *visually* well designed use tables. That doesn't make them
an authority on how to best code websites.

Agree...




In a perfect world, designers without good coding skills should stick to
designing a page, and having a coder implement it -- a coder who writes
good, clean, *semantic* HTML. Good coders without (visual) design skills
should have a designer design the page if it is for a commercial undertaking
where looks are important. Not every website needs to look slick however.


Agree again...

People will talk about us! ;-O

I'm learning html and css as well. I'm not good enough to start a
business making web pages. I read here a lot and lately I have a clear
picture what is happening on this NG and I don't like an approach of
those ones, who are giving advices.

These advices are in one, very specific climate. Give up html,
especially tables because these are shit and wrong, use only css for layout.

So I've followed initially that advice and I have encountered some
serious problems with css if compare them with tables.

Started asking some questions and than I was abused and called moron and
other not very nice words.

And that drove me slightly mad.

After several tries and readings in different ng's I have realized that
in most places guys are nicer, smarter and much more professional in
their skills and advices then these gods here. And they never abused
anyone but they were giving some great advices in all subjects of web
design, Flash included.

Just ask here a question about Flash!

OMG!!! These guys will go mad and will be ready to use machine guns!!!


Hahahahahaha...


My plan with progress is easy. I know not bad Photoshop and I can design
not bad layout.

My first step is use tables with slices, master these ones with some
help of css's and second step is to use more css with tables, eventually
maybe giving up tables.

At this stage I don't know how I will feel using css for full layout so
I can't comment.


But I hate if some one as brucie or other smartie will tell me that my
path is crap, I'm moron and with my plan I should go to hell.

Especially in a view, that most pros are using techniques I'm trying to
master firstly.


True pro would never said that so I've lost any respect to these guys
and I'm giving them a bit sour medicine for their tendency to be a
bosses and gods.

Let me tell you a smart proverb.

Idiot is sure of everything. Wise man will check everything.

I'm not addressing these words to you Nick!

I have respect for you and your skills and willingness to help and
understand.

Some guys here are seriously lacking all of these ones.


Have a nice weekend.
 
N

neredbojias

Without quill or qualm, Henry quothed:
Did I ever said that one of other method is crap and you or someone else
is a moron because he uses this or that? Just read some my posts to find
that I'm talking mainly to use all these methods with balance.

Well you certainly didn't say that very well. Perhaps the problem is not
that you're unbalanced but ambiguous.
 
N

neredbojias

Without quill or qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:
Yep sure. I have to go to work now though. And I'm busy this weekend. But
I'll do it Monday.

Hmm, I usually procrastinate on Monday and speed up on the weekend.
 
H

Henry

neredbojias wrote:

Hmm, I usually procrastinate on Monday and speed up on the weekend.

Thank you for revealing that unquestionable truth.

Take your medicine (most likely C2H5OH) and go to bed.

;)
 
L

Lauri Raittila

Yes said:
Why do I feel like you are trying to convince us to abandon CSS for layout,
in favour of tables?

He's trolling, or just plain dumm.
Name one good reason why I should use tables for my layout instead, if I am
comfortable and competent with using CSS for layout, *and* can code any
layout I wish using it.

There is such reasons, for special cases. There is no such for 99.99% of
times.
Any table-based layout can be reproduced with CSS.

That is not true. But lets say that no-one that has argued against CSS
seems to know one...
The reverse is not true.

There is much more and more relevant CSS layouts that can't be doen using
tables than other way around.
The simple fact is that the majority of web designers are graphic
designers -- not coders. For them, a table is easier. Therefore, more
sites which are *visually* well designed use tables. That doesn't make them
an authority on how to best code websites.

It would really pay off to have graphics designer and CSS expert in same
person. Or person with enaugh time for both... (only real graphic design
I have done is logos for a school (got about $50) and one for
orgwnisation that I was founding...)
It's like saying that an architect is better suited to building a house than
a carpenter.

Yes. And just like any architect will design beautiful city, but real
planner is needed to make city that works...
There *are* designer/coders around, but they're far outnumbered by those who
are only really any good at one or the other.

And unfortunately those people are still doing both, instead of being
managers with lots of designers and coders...
In a perfect world, designers without good coding skills should stick to
designing a page, and having a coder implement it -- a coder who writes
good, clean, *semantic* HTML. Good coders without (visual) design skills
should have a designer design the page if it is for a commercial undertaking
where looks are important. Not every website needs to look slick however.

One big problem is that order is way too often:

1. Design
2. Coding
3. Content
4. Fixing 1. and 2.
 
N

Neal

Michael said:
That isn't funny in the least. I find it insulting.

Reminds me of a middle school kid who tries to be cute but he's way too
old for it. As a result, he comes off like an immature ass.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top