Article putting forward a case for table layout

[dorayme]

Travis Newbury:


What an odd thing to say! The presupposition that rendering produces
something visible is wrong because two user-agents can render a
document in the same way without rendering anything visible.

It is only odd if you are convinced that every statement uttered
in this church should be made with the (untrue) idea that there
are no quite significant statistics on the matter of visual
rendering. Visual rendering browsers in use are the big elephant
in the room. I do not say it is not a good policy for a website
maker to ignore this, but it is definitely breathtaking that you
seem able to ignore it to the extent that you say it sounds odd
when this truth is implied in statements. You have it bad, Jock.

 

[John Dunlop]

dorayme:

[John Dunlop:]

Consistent in what way? Visually?

Yes.

Then what about non-visual user-agents? Are they forgotten about?
While table layouts might still be consistent for them, are they
consistent in a good way or a bad way? I'm afraid I'm not familiar
enough with, for example, screen readers or braille devices to answer
that, but I think the question's worthy of consideration.

 

[John Dunlop]

dorayme:

Visual rendering browsers in use are the big elephant in the
room. I do not say it is not a good policy for a website maker
to ignore this, but it is definitely breathtaking that you seem
able to ignore it

What makes you think that I have ignored the big elephants? I rather
see myself as pointing out the wee mice to those who are oblivious to
them or who **** a snook at them.

to the extent that you say it sounds odd when this truth is
implied in statements.

Travis Newbury's statement was much stronger, categorical even, in so
far as the assumption was that rendering produces documents that are
visible, not that the *majority* of user-agents render documents
visible. Unlike the elephant, he forgot about the mouse.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme:


What makes you think that I have ignored the big elephants? I rather
see myself as pointing out the wee mice to those who are oblivious to
them or who **** a snook at them.


Travis Newbury's statement was much stronger, categorical even, in so
far as the assumption was that rendering produces documents that are
visible, not that the *majority* of user-agents render documents
visible. Unlike the elephant, he forgot about the mouse.

I think you have a healthy attitude towards website making. I do!
Like someone on a strict veg diet! <g>

Seriously, though... there was this earlier on:

"> Tables impose a grid structure which responds more benignly

to different browsers.

What the blazes are you talking about, man?"

For me, such a statement has a simple, acceptably vague ring of
truth. For you, it causes a wild Scottish Highland broadsword and
shield charge (the fear the Highlanders engendered in the English
Redcoats was great and leaves its mark to this day!)

I don't think Travis is unaware of the smaller percentage of
non-visual renderings that happen...

Look, Jock, I have no big argument with you. Nor want to defend
old Travis too much, in fact, I want this Republican-Bush-voting
baby for myself one day (for when I am king and can throw him
into a dungeon. But I might occasionally fatten him up till then)