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!
Henry said:Nik Coughin wrote:
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!!!
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.
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.
Toby said:Henry wrote:
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.)
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.
Henry said:rf wrote:
You don't have to like it, others do... ask muzos at Garage Band.
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?
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?
I really like your implementation of the
GarageBand design BTW, very clean.
Henry said:Tables have been adopted by vast majority of web designers as the base
for the layout of web pages.
Mr said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes said: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.
Take your medicine (most likely C2H5OH) and go to bed.
Michael said:That isn't funny in the least. I find it insulting.
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.