I wanna do it the right way...

[kate.simpson]

http://www.lissaexplainsitall.com

try it - you'll like it
Ginae!
http://www.ginae.us

 

[kchayka]

And I would guess the most of us have never stepped foot
in a target. The site gives
the average TARGET shopper everything they want. (The Key words are
"TARGET shopper")

You came to this conclusion after surveying all the Target shoppers, eh?

I'm a regular Target shopper. As a user, I think their site sucks - the
homepage just about gives me seizures, it's laid out poorly, they use
stoopid fixed widths and microfonts that don't adjust well to my viewing
environment, and they can't even get their character coding straight.
I'll shop in their stores any time, but can't tolerate using their site.

Is there some reason why my opinion shouldn't count just as much as the
next shopper?

 

[The Doormouse]

Is there some reason why my opinion shouldn't count just as much as the
next shopper?

You shop at Target. Obviously your shopping judgement is severely impaired.
There are only two lower classes of shoppers - Walmart, and BigLots.

The Doormouse
*Hiding her Walmart bags behind her*

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

http://www.lissaexplainsitall.com

try it - you'll like it

Wow, an ad page from one of those domain grabbers. How exciting!

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Bring back the rickshaw!

There are rickshaws in central London.

 

[Whitecrest]

You came to this conclusion after surveying all the Target shoppers, eh?

No I applied a little common sense.

I'm a regular Target shopper. As a user, I think their site sucks

I did not say that EVERYONE liked it did I? I used words like,
Overwhelming majority, and average shopper. The fact that you are in
this forum shows your are NOT part of that group.

Is there some reason why my opinion shouldn't count just as much as the
next shopper?

Yes, you are more informed than the average person browsing.

 

[kchayka]

No I applied a little common sense.

No, I think you probably concluded that since the Target site is what it
is, Target must have made it that way on purpose, with their particular
users in mind. There is no evidence of this.

What I see more is some marketing guy whose only consideration was the
red and white branding, and ignorant of anything else.

 

[Whitecrest]

No, I think you probably concluded that since the Target site is what it
is, Target must have made it that way on purpose, with their particular
users in mind. There is no evidence of this.
What I see more is some marketing guy whose only consideration was the
red and white branding, and ignorant of anything else.

Gee different opinions on usenet, who would have seen that coming?

 

[Barry Pearson]

Because seperating content from presentation lets you change how every
page in your site looks without having to change every page in your
site.

[snip]

But that is not incompatible with using tables for layout. You can use
table-layout and still get a great variety of presentations by using CSS as
well. See:
The CSS Patio Garden
http://www.barry.pearson.name/tableaux/

And, for completeness, typically CSS doesn't allow you to separate content
from presentation. CSS depends on the document parse tree. CSS positioning
properties depend on the element nesting, because (for example) absolute
positioning & floating are relative to the relevant container. This isn't
always (or often) the body-element.

CSS positioning & table-layout lie on a continuum, not at opposite poles. They
have lots in common. To work best, they both need a sensible combination of
HTML & CSS.

 

[Barry Pearson]

And easier for a new designer to pick up when you leave the company.

Certainly not! Consider this. Give the task of positioning (say) 2 or 3
columns to 100 authors and tell them to use CSS positioning. You will get lots
of different combinations of mark-up & CSS. Lots of different types of nesting
& wrapping & sequencing. I've seen very many examples. I've used a number of
different techniques myself.

Now tell the same authors to do those 2 or 3 columns using a table. There will
be much more similarity. There will be a basic 3-level nesting, with
clearly-identified elements (table, tr) at the outer 2 levels. Content will
only be in the inner-most level. Very predictable.

Simple layout tables are normally more predictable and more understandable
than CSS positioning of the equivalent. It is visually more obvious from the
code (HTML and CSS) what is going on.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Correct again! Tables are good for what this client wants done.

The purpose of a web site is to communicate with the audience. Everything else
is a means to that end.

(I'm not sure whether I am agreeing with you or disagreeing!)

The CSS alternative - easier or harder? If I shrink the page, will it
break? CSS has excellent uses, but laying out this type of page is not
one of them.

I believe it is easier to make a flexible web page using simple layout tables
than CSS. (But it needs the intention to make a flexible page. Without that,
neither will work properly).

In fact, I believe it requires more skill to make a page that behaves well,
under lots of user conditions, using CSS positioning than it does using simple
layout tables in conjunction with CSS. Tables are inherently flexible &
adaptable, while CSS positioning needs lots of care to be flexible &
adaptable.

 

[The Doormouse]

CSS positioning & table-layout lie on a continuum, not at opposite
poles. They have lots in common. To work best, they both need a
sensible combination of HTML & CSS.

Excellent points! Thank you.

The Doormouse

 

[The Doormouse]

The purpose of a web site is to communicate with the audience.
Everything else is a means to that end.

I agree!

The Doormouse

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

But that is not incompatible with using tables for layout. You can use
table-layout and still get a great variety of presentations by using CSS as
well. See:
The CSS Patio Garden
http://www.barry.pearson.name/tableaux/

But a lot of your examples seem to use absolute positioning, which
removes all of the flexibility and ease-of-use benifits of tabled
layouts while keeping their bad parts. Why not just mark it up with div
elements?

Also, it would be a better idea to use an unordered list for the
navigation instead of divs with IDs. Easier to maintain.

 

[Andy Dingley]

I am always convinced of the validity of arguments made by those who
resort to Ad Hominem attacks so quickly.

That's not an ad hominem, it's an insult. My apologies for posting
both in the same message.

I find a great many of your contributions to be twee and _intensely_
patronising. "Correct again!", "I agree!", "Poor Baby!" - if you could
do it in ASCII, this would have little hearts dotting the I's. At the
same time, your technical input seems to be at the level of, "Math is
hard!" (to go from XML to PDF, follow the very-heavily beaten path
through XSL:FO, FOP and Coccoon)

A "smiley" is there to represent the moment when people smile. Their
face _moves_ from their usual curmudgeonly scowl to an expression of
happiness. It is not a punctuation character, nor the moral equivalent
of the perpetual McHappy face worn by those who have no emotional
range beyond it (and at a lesser level, this goes for exclamation
marks too).


I never indulge in ad hominem attacks in an IT-related forum. The
simple fact is that the most knowledgeable and quite possibly most
helpful person on some technical subject very likely _does_ have the
temperament and the personal hygiene of a komodo dragon. In people I'm
planning to eat dinner with, this is a problem. If I want to get my
Apache un-bunged, I really don't care. In fact I'm happy that everyone
can find their niche to be appreciated in.

 

[The Doormouse]

That's not an ad hominem, it's an insult. My apologies for posting
both in the same message.

I really am very hard to insult, partly due to being so jaded on Usenet. My
apologies for being so hard to ruffle. If I act offended, will that help?

I find a great many of your contributions to be twee and _intensely_
patronising.

What does "twee" mean? If it means "insufferably cute" I should agree.

if you could
do it in ASCII, this would have little hearts dotting the I's.

Yes, I would do that ... damn ascii!!

At the
same time, your technical input seems to be at the level of, "Math is
hard!" (to go from XML to PDF, follow the very-heavily beaten path
through XSL:FO, FOP and Coccoon)

I offer advice about what I know. If you know more, that's great.

A "smiley" is there to represent the moment when people smile.

But ... I *am* smiling at you!

I never indulge in ad hominem attacks in an IT-related forum.

Quote:
"Now you've crossed the border from your usual irritatingly patronising to
being plain stupid."

This is clearly an attack on my character, and alt.html is an IT-related
forum. Would you care to dig a deeper hole, or is this one sufficiently
deep for you?

The
simple fact is that the most knowledgeable and quite possibly most
helpful person on some technical subject very likely _does_ have the
temperament and the personal hygiene of a komodo dragon. In people I'm
planning to eat dinner with, this is a problem. If I want to get my
Apache un-bunged, I really don't care. In fact I'm happy that everyone
can find their niche to be appreciated in.

That whole paragraph is completely unintelligible. What were you trying to
say?

The Doormouse

 

[Barry Pearson]

But a lot of your examples seem to use absolute positioning, which
removes all of the flexibility and ease-of-use benifits of tabled
layouts while keeping their bad parts. Why not just mark it up with
div elements?

Thank you for that. My "CSS Patio Garden" examples are playful, and I don't
normally layout pages that way. I'm just exploring what is possible. After
all, if 99% of the pages on the web use layout tables, perhaps there will be a
demand for ways to handle them in future.

My observation is that a huge number of pages on the web started with a
visual-design concept, and the HTML + CSS came from that. I believe it makes
sense for the HTML to achieve an approximation to the target layout, (which I
believe is a different concept from "presentation"), and for CSS to complete
the task. If the designer really wants 2 columns, I don't see the point in
using divs, when we have an element that is clearly intended and very capable
of laying out material in rows & columns. When I want headings, paragraphs,
and lists, I use relevant mark-up. So when I want to layout material in rows &
columns, why not use relevant mark-up there too - tables?

When used properly, tables have few "bad parts". I think they get a bad press
from people who use them badly. But should we also condemn CSS because some
people use it badly? We should look at what all of these techniques do well,
and combine them to greatest effect.

Also, it would be a better idea to use an unordered list for the
navigation instead of divs with IDs. Easier to maintain.

No. I have used unordered lists for navigation elsewhere For example, I have 3
templates, and many pages currently published using them, using that
technique:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/templates/

I found that the cross-browser differences in list-handling were too much
trouble. I was using a background image for the roll-over effect, and so
needed pixel-level control. IE 5's box-level problem, and other
browser-differences, wasted a lot of my time. I'm still struggling with some
of the details of how to make my background photographs match the foreground
properly. I'll work it out eventually, but it isn't easy.

Of all the navigation techniques I have used: lists, single-column tables, and
a set of divs; my current favourite is a set of divs. It is the technique I
use for a web site I am currently developing, and combines flexibility with
convenience:
http://www.kingsnorton.info/