Is the end of HTML as we know it?

E

Ed Jensen

Chris F.A. Johnson said:
With a well-designed site, you don't have to do that.

(Besides, with Firefox, you needn't do that, either; just set a
minimum font size.)

I tried setting a minimum font size. All those web sites that use
broken CSS based layouts make that solution suboptimal.
That is bad coding; there is no need for that to happen.

It's just a shame the vast majority of web sites fall into the
category of "badly coded". :(
That is not a function of tables versus CSS; it's a matter of good
coding versus bad coding.

Perhaps tables are "more forgiving" when it comes to badly coded web
sites. <shrug>
 
J

John L.

Chris said:
No, you don't.


Don't use anything; it's unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Can you imagine the response most web developers would get
if they produced a site for a client with no font size set in the CSS
and then said, "I know the PSD file you sent me had a nine point font
but if you want that, you need to reduce your browser's default font size."?

The reality is that most people want their website to use small
sans-serif fonts because they see it on slick corporate sites and think
it equates to coolness.
 
J

Jerry Stuckle

1001 said:
You should get a website before attempting to even open your mouth,
you phony "instructor".
Hey people, Jerry Sucker does NOT have his own website.
That says it all, doesn't it?

Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
don't advertise them.
Have you been able to "instruct" your dog at least.?
Can't even do that, can you?

Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
than you have all year.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

John said:
Unnecessary? Can you imagine the response most web developers would get
if they produced a site for a client with no font size set in the CSS
and then said, "I know the PSD file you sent me had a nine point font
but if you want that, you need to reduce your browser's default font
size."?

You miss the point. You should not set the base font size, i.e., body {}
anything other than 100%. Also 9pt!
The reality is that most people want their website to use small
sans-serif fonts because they see it on slick corporate sites and think
it equates to coolness.

Also it's not about corporate, they're not buy the product, but it's
about corporate's customers!
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Nope, I don't have a website YOU KNOW ABOUT. My training company
doesn't need one - I've got more work than I want right now. I do have
other websites - but they have nothing to do with webmastering and I
don't advertise them.


Actually, my training company probably brought in more money last month
than you have all year.

Nice pissing contest guys! But it does really have anything to do with
the topic at hand, whether quality of design and skill translates to a
better web delivered product?
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:42:18
GMT 1001 Webs scribed:
No idiot, no.
The text has to fit in the box, moron.

Er, why does an opposing opinion make one an idiot?
It is plain foolish, to say the least, to give opinions without
knowing about the dimensions of the box.

But by now I know that's a typical reply of smartalec rf.
The poor soul ...

rf isn't a smartalec, he's just politically incorrect.
 
B

Bone Ur

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:32:43 GMT
Ed Jensen scribed:
Small fonts aren't a problem in Firefox (my browser of choice). I
just increase the text size until the text is a comfortable size for
reading.

The problem is web sites that render incorrectly after the font size
is increased.

I'm not trying to start a "table based layouts" vs. "CSS based
layouts" war here, I'm just sharing my personal experience: Web sites
designed with table based layouts seem to handle it reasonably well
when I increase the text size. Web sites designed with CSS based
layouts seem to rarely handle it gracefully. YMMV.

Maybe so, but css is _much_ better able to handle changing font-sizes than
tables ever were, -take my word for it. If you've happened to run into a
lot of bad css in the past, I think the future will be considerably
brighter.
 
E

Ed Jensen

Bone Ur said:
Maybe so, but css is _much_ better able to handle changing font-sizes than
tables ever were, -take my word for it. If you've happened to run into a
lot of bad css in the past, I think the future will be considerably
brighter.

I'm hopeful that as IE7 displaces IE6 (or, even better, Firefox,
Opera, and Safari displace IE6!) that things will improve. :)
 
D

dorayme

Good advice.[/QUOTE]

Especially about resize point. Often, html/css tutes are *so bad*
on this that you need to have your confidence in it shaken.
Perhaps failing validation is a lesser crime, but it depends on
what and how it fails.
 
D

dorayme

Ed Jensen said:
Perhaps tables are "more forgiving" when it comes to badly coded web
sites. <shrug>

Table cells by default grow to fit the content. This shrink to
fit can be seen as a built-in intelligence. That is why you don't
see so much content spilling out (and even messing up other
things outside the table) as in badly made non-table layout.

But that does not mean it is a desirable thing *on balance* to
layout with tables. There are arguments that override the pros
for tables as layout for non tabular data as a general authoring
practice.
 
D

dorayme

"Chris F.A. Johnson said:
That is not a function of tables versus CSS; it's a matter of good
coding versus bad coding.

Perhaps so. But Ed Jensen has another complaint that has been
partly dealt with but is probably interesting enough to deserve
more. Namely, that the tools used to do the good and bad coding
are unnecessarily as poor as they are.
 
D

dorayme

Ed Jensen said:
While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.

Are you including in the 99% anyone who makes a website?
You can argue they're all dummies, or you can argue that the tool just
doesn't work that well, or you can argue that the problem is somewhere
in between those two extremes.

Following on from an earlier point I made to you concerning
browser manufacturers following agreed standards more. Try to
abstract from the picture, the effect that having to cope with so
many browser variations, sometimes quite radical ones (mostly to
do with IE intransigence) has on author time and skills.
 
C

Chris F.A. Johnson

Perhaps so. But Ed Jensen has another complaint that has been
partly dealt with but is probably interesting enough to deserve
more. Namely, that the tools used to do the good and bad coding
are unnecessarily as poor as they are.

They are no worse than, for example, a car, which one can use for
speeding and ignoring rules of the road just as easily as for
driving sensibly.
 
B

Ben C

Table cells by default grow to fit the content. This shrink to
fit can be seen as a built-in intelligence.
That is why you don't see so much content spilling out (and even
messing up other things outside the table) as in badly made non-table
layout.

Yes exactly. They also have the unique property that explicit width is
treated as a minimum, which is why content doesn't spill out.

Using auto width floats with min-width rather than width set on them
would do just as well. But people don't use min-width because it doesn't
work in IE...
But that does not mean it is a desirable thing *on balance* to
layout with tables. There are arguments that override the pros
for tables as layout for non tabular data as a general authoring
practice.

A lot of CSS layouts seem to be built around floats. If display:
inline-block and display: table-cell were more widely supported they
might be better alternatives in some cases.

But really you rarely need display: table-cell. If you have inline-block
you can just use that for centered shrink-to-fit.

It's useful if you want multiple columns that all get the content height
of the highest one. This is possible to sort of do with those border
tricks we've seen ("holy grail" etc.) but table-cell would be better.

And it's useful if you want a layout that looks like a grid. A few sites
these days have complex CSS layouts that contrive the appearance of
tables (look at http://www.t-mobile.de for example), I suspect because
people are revamping their old table sites without wanting to change
anything outwardly.
 
D

dorayme

"Chris F.A. Johnson said:
They are no worse than, for example, a car, which one can use for
speeding and ignoring rules of the road just as easily as for
driving sensibly.

If this analogy was even remotely apt, there would be far more
accidents on the road than there are. In fact, what strikes one,
in so many countries, is that things are as orderly as they are,
that drivers are, by and large as predictable and sensible as
they are. There are reasons for this and none of them apply to
the world wild west of websites.

The truth is that it is not easy to make really good websites and
if you think it is, you are talking from the advantage of having
mastered sufficient skills to achieve simplicity and competence
in design.

The problem of why there are so many bad websites is a
complicated problem. It is not because the tools are so poorly
designed, nor because it is so unregulated nor a lot of other
things. It is a combination of many things.
 
D

dorayme

Ben C said:
Yes exactly. They also have the unique property that explicit width is
treated as a minimum, which is why content doesn't spill out.

Indeed, they override foolish decisions by authors to fix widths,
that shows a certain higher intelligence... <g>
 
C

Chris F.A. Johnson

If this analogy was even remotely apt,

You can substitute any tool you like; the analogy still applies.
there would be far more accidents on the road than there are.

If web developers had to qualify to put up a web site (not that I'm
recommending it), there would be a similar reduction in bad
'drivers' on the web.
In fact, what strikes one, in so many countries, is that things are
as orderly as they are, that drivers are, by and large as
predictable and sensible as they are. There are reasons for this and
none of them apply to the world wild west of websites.

If as many web developers knew the 'rules of the road' for HTML and
CSS as know it for driving cars, the WWW would be a much better
place.
The truth is that it is not easy to make really good websites and
if you think it is, you are talking from the advantage of having
mastered sufficient skills to achieve simplicity and competence
in design.

We've had this discussion before, and I disagree that it is hard
to make a good web site.
The problem of why there are so many bad websites is a
complicated problem. It is not because the tools are so poorly
designed,

That's what I was saying.
 
1

1001 Webs

If you give a fixed size to the box, the text you provide, no
matter what it is, may or may not fit in the box. It all depends on
the font size in the viewer's browser.

If you don't specify the size of the box, it will expand to fit the
text.


It is plain foolish to give a fixed size to a box when you don't
know what size the viewer is using for text (and you don't).

Correct .
But I'm not going to change the design now.
It is a template that I should have validated before.
I took for granted that it was valid.
That's my fault and I am paying dearly for that gross mistake.
 
1

1001 Webs

Or dimension the box in units proportial to the text, i.e., em's. Or you
have to scroll the overflow... The classic 10lbs of /whatever/ in a 5lb bag.

I am using percentages now for font-size.
Thanks anyway
 

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

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,777
Messages
2,569,604
Members
45,218
Latest member
JolieDenha

Latest Threads

Top