"Why tables for layout is stupid"

Discussion in 'HTML' started by kayodeok, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. kayodeok

    kayodeok Guest

    kayodeok, Oct 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kayodeok

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, Oct 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kayodeok

    m Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    > Sometime around 30 Oct 2003 22:20:04 GMT, kayodeok is reported to have
    > stated:
    >
    >
    >>Why tables for layout is stupid
    >>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >
    >
    > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/04beginning.html
    >
    > HTML 3.2?
    >
    > Still, other than that it looks good. :)
    >


    They do look good. But I havn't yet been able
    to figure out what in the world the two big blocks
    of JavaScript in the source of each page are about.
    Continuing analysis...........
    --
    Cheers, m
     
    m, Oct 30, 2003
    #3
  4. kayodeok

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Sometime around Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:26:56 GMT, m is reported to have
    stated:
    >> Sometime around 30 Oct 2003 22:20:04 GMT, kayodeok is reported to have
    >> stated:
    >>
    >>>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >
    > They do look good. But I havn't yet been able
    > to figure out what in the world the two big blocks
    > of JavaScript in the source of each page are about.
    > Continuing analysis...........


    I didn't even look at the code. For all I know, they could be using tables
    for layout! ;-)

    I don't know much about Javascript, but that _does_ look strange...

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Oct 30, 2003
    #4
  5. kayodeok

    m Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    > Sometime around Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:26:56 GMT, m is reported to have
    > stated:
    >
    >>>Sometime around 30 Oct 2003 22:20:04 GMT, kayodeok is reported to have
    >>>stated:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >>
    >>They do look good. But I havn't yet been able
    >>to figure out what in the world the two big blocks
    >>of JavaScript in the source of each page are about.
    >>Continuing analysis...........

    >
    >
    > I didn't even look at the code. For all I know, they could be using tables
    > for layout! ;-)
    >
    > I don't know much about Javascript, but that _does_ look strange...
    >

    Yeah. I've got it in an editor now, trying to format it in some
    vaguely readable way. The answer must come!

    --
    Cheers, m
     
    m, Oct 30, 2003
    #5
  6. While the city slept, Mark Parnell <>
    feverishly typed:

    [...]
    > I don't know much about Javascript,


    .... but you know what you like? ;-)

    Cheers,
    Nige

    --
    Nigel Moss.

    Email address is not valid. . Take the dog out!
    http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!
     
    nice.guy.nige, Oct 31, 2003
    #6
  7. kayodeok

    Richard Guest

    Richard, Oct 31, 2003
    #7
  8. kayodeok

    Josh Lee Guest

    m wrote:

    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    >> Sometime around 30 Oct 2003 22:20:04 GMT, kayodeok is reported to have
    >> stated:
    >>
    >>>Why tables for layout is stupid
    >>>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >>

    >
    > They do look good. But I havn't yet been able
    > to figure out what in the world the two big blocks
    > of JavaScript in the source of each page are about.
    > Continuing analysis...........


    It encodes their email addresses, to protect against spambots. If you
    turn of javascript, then reload the page, their addresses will disappear.

    --
    josh ^_^
     
    Josh Lee, Oct 31, 2003
    #8
  9. kayodeok

    m Guest

    Josh Lee wrote:
    > m wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sometime around 30 Oct 2003 22:20:04 GMT, kayodeok is reported to have
    >>>stated:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Why tables for layout is stupid
    >>>>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
    >>>

    >>They do look good. But I havn't yet been able
    >>to figure out what in the world the two big blocks
    >>of JavaScript in the source of each page are about.
    >>Continuing analysis...........

    >
    >
    > It encodes their email addresses, to protect against spambots. If you
    > turn of javascript, then reload the page, their addresses will disappear.
    >


    Jeez! Seems like they could do it with a little less code.


    --
    Cheers, m
     
    m, Oct 31, 2003
    #9
  10. kayodeok

    informant Guest

    "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:...
    > kayodeok wrote:
    >
    > > Why tables for layout is stupid
    > > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >
    > > I particularly like this page:
    > > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/07better.html

    >
    > > (The images are a little slow to load and if anyone is curious, there
    > > are 33 pages in total)

    >
    >
    > 90% Bullshit.


    Care to expound on that statement, Mr. Bullis?


    Path:
    sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsg
    uy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3
    From: "Richard" <anom@anom>
    Newsgroups: alt.html
    Subject: Re: "Why tables for layout is stupid"
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:43:07 -0600
    Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
    Lines: 20
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <Xns9424E39622E44news4kayode@130.133.1.4>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: p-117.newsdawg.com
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
    X-No-Archive: yes
    FL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29
    Xref: sn-us alt.html:436301
     
    informant, Oct 31, 2003
    #10
  11. Those pages read like propaganda, and some of the statements are just as
    truthful.


    ---------------------------------------------
    *S
     
    Matthew Superstar Swass, Oct 31, 2003
    #11
  12. Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:

    > Those pages read like propaganda, and some of the statements are just as
    > truthful.


    Care to explain?
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Oct 31, 2003
    #12
  13. kayodeok

    Isofarro Guest

    m wrote:

    > Josh Lee wrote:
    >>
    >> It encodes their email addresses, to protect against spambots. If you
    >> turn of javascript, then reload the page, their addresses will disappear.

    >
    > Jeez! Seems like they could do it with a little less code.


    Say that when looking at a tables layout from a CSS perspective and no-one
    will believe you ;-)


    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
     
    Isofarro, Oct 31, 2003
    #13
  14. kayodeok

    m Guest

    Isofarro wrote:
    > m wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Josh Lee wrote:
    >>
    >>>It encodes their email addresses, to protect against spambots. If you
    >>>turn of javascript, then reload the page, their addresses will disappear.

    >>
    >>Jeez! Seems like they could do it with a little less code.

    >
    >
    > Say that when looking at a tables layout from a CSS perspective and no-one
    > will believe you ;-)
    >


    Don't be too easy on them, Iso.
    It's time to give these kids some
    tough love.

    They diet off some bytes by killing deprecated
    markup, then pack it right back on by chugging down
    two huge javascript malteds.

    They're showing all the signs of
    compulsive behavior.

    I'm afraid I'm going to have to sentence them
    to a 12 step program! ;)

    --
    Cheers, Judge m. Dredd
     
    m, Oct 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Hi informant,

    [Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:17:10 -0600/informant]
    >
    > "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:...
    > > kayodeok wrote:
    > >
    > > > Why tables for layout is stupid
    > > > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    > >
    > > > I particularly like this page:
    > > > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/07better.html

    > >
    > > > (The images are a little slow to load and if anyone is curious, there
    > > > are 33 pages in total)

    > >
    > >
    > > 90% Bullshit.

    >
    > Care to expound on that statement, Mr. Bullis?


    Before talking about evil layout tables, this guy should learn how
    to make a website that is fluid. Nobody needs idiots that are
    presenting their superduper easy css-styled sites to show the world
    how cool they are. Let me guess, why the above website has a fixed
    witdh. I dont need to guess - the header tells me: Adobe GoLive.
    Deactivate "seybold.css" to emulate a non-css browser and this site
    is unreadable crap.


    regs
    michael
     
    Michael Weber, Nov 1, 2003
    #15
  16. [Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:20:09 GMT/Leif K-Brooks]
    > Matthew Superstar Swass wrote:
    >
    > > Those pages read like propaganda, and some of the statements are just as
    > > truthful.

    >
    > Care to explain?


    <meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive" />

    &

    Adam Pratt | Adobe Systems Incorporated |

    Nothing new. Macromedia also provides wonderful tuts. They look
    great in Dreamweaver...
     
    Michael Weber, Nov 1, 2003
    #16
  17. Michael Weber wrote:

    > Before talking about evil layout tables, this guy should learn how
    > to make a website that is fluid.


    In his defense, it seems to be a series of lecture slides that he's just
    put on the web, so it would have just been designed for full screen at
    whatever resolution the projector did.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Nov 1, 2003
    #17
  18. kayodeok

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 03:25:27 +0100, Michael Weber
    <> wrote:

    >Before talking about evil layout tables, this guy should learn how
    >to make a website that is fluid.


    Which guy ? By the looks of the credits, this is a presentation that
    was written by one person and had the HTML coded by another. If
    you're suggesting their implementation is poor CSS, then might I
    assume that you support their basic point - CSS is the way to go.

    >Nobody needs idiots that are
    >presenting their superduper easy css-styled sites to show the world
    >how cool they are.


    The message still isn't through yet - we can use more presentations
    like this.

    >Deactivate "seybold.css" to emulate a non-css browser and this site
    >is unreadable crap.


    Maybe, but that's the medium not the message.

    --
    Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
     
    Andy Dingley, Nov 1, 2003
    #18
  19. kayodeok

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:43:07 -0600, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:

    >90% Bullshit.


    Why ? How would you do it ?

    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Nov 1, 2003
    #19
  20. Hi Andy,

    [Sat, 01 Nov 2003 12:35:19 +0000/Andy Dingley]
    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 03:25:27 +0100, Michael Weber
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Before talking about evil layout tables, this guy should learn how
    > >to make a website that is fluid.

    >
    > Which guy ? By the looks of the credits, this is a presentation that
    > was written by one person and had the HTML coded by another. If
    > you're suggesting their implementation is poor CSS,


    Their using of css for formatting. They say "dont use <br>" and are
    unable to keep their text in format without css.

    Do you think, it makes sense to define the content-div with
    MARGIN-LEFT: 350px;

    especially this:
    WIDTH: 33em; (em!)

    ? (33em in this browser IE6 = 1,5 times margin-left. When i set
    default font-size to bigger, 33em becomes twice the margin-left = a
    window-min.width of 1000+ px. Ahem)

    I am at 1280x1024 and have to widen the window up to 65% of the
    screen to get rid of the scrollbar. On most pages, 60-80% of the
    browser-window is filled with white. A really good way to tell me
    "Look at this cute CSS-Layout, much better than layout-tables" *g*

    > >Deactivate "seybold.css" to emulate a non-css browser and this site
    > >is unreadable crap.

    >
    > Maybe, but that's the medium not the message.


    Sorry, but the message i got, was: You don't need a big empty white colum
    below/underneath the image. You wont see this nice big empty white
    colum, because you have to scroll horizontally to read the content.


    regs
    michael
    (my english is poor, i know)
     
    Michael Weber, Nov 1, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page