feedback

[Travis Newbury]

Well, I think the point is that if it is optional, it will validate but that
NS4 might still not like that brand of valid code...

Threads like this, (and other "awe crap my css or validated code is not
working" threads), are the reason so many developers ignore both.

 

[windandwaves]

windandwaves wrote:
Hey folks

I have taken all your comments on board and those who found errors on the
page will now probably find less of them....

I took out all the float stuff and replaced it with tables, because I found
out that Mac IE 5.0 does not really understand float (oh well....)

Thank you for all your comments. If there is anyone still out there with
any browser that can read my page as it was intended then I would love to
hear from you. I think I have covered about 99% of all users now.

Thank you.

- Nicolaas

 

[kchayka]

Threads like this, (and other "awe crap my css or validated code is not
working" threads), are the reason so many developers ignore both.

I take this as meaning that those developers don't bother taking the
time to actually learn their craft.

Hacking away at CSS without understanding the box model, how positioning
and floats are supposed to work, and other fundamentals is a sure-fire
way to get crap results. It only takes a little common sense to know
that not all browsers are created equally, too, and about 5 seconds of
searching google to find out about browser bugs.

Ignorance can be corrected, but it takes time and effort, plus
willingness to expend both. Stupidity and laziness are tougher to overcome.

 

[kchayka]

I took out all the float stuff and replaced it with tables, because I found
out that Mac IE 5.0 does not really understand float (oh well....)

Since you removed all the floats, I can't verify this, but I'll make a
guess that you did not specify an explicit width on one or more of those
floated elements.

MacIE 5 follows the CSS 2.0 spec that requires an explicit width on
non-replaced floated elements. This means that a floated element
defaults to 100% width.

That spec changed in CSS 2.1, since most modern browsers do some sort of
shrink-wrapping on floats that have no explicit width.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

Threads like this, (and other "awe crap my css or validated code is not
working" threads), are the reason so many developers ignore both.

Users that make mistakes ("aw crap i just deleted the letter it took me
three hours to write") are the reason so many programmers ignore
legitimate compiler warnings.

Failing to use tools that automatically check syntax simply because some
(ancient, obsolescent, all-but-vanished) browser applies slightly
stricter rules seems like false economy. You know, "throwing the baby
out with the bathwater."

 

[Travis Newbury]

I take this as meaning that those developers don't bother taking the
time to actually learn their craft.

Yes, and no. Yes they need to learn their craft. No because there are
too many un cooperative browsers (including version) for them to take
it seriously yet. ESPECIALLY since websites have a tendency to be very
fluid in their content.

Hacking away at CSS without understanding the box model, how positioning
and floats are supposed to work, and other fundamentals is a sure-fire
way to get crap results. It only takes a little common sense to know
that not all browsers are created equally, too, and about 5 seconds of
searching google to find out about browser bugs.

Converting may not be an issue for a simple mom and pop site, but
converting something like the Siemens website is a completely different
and MUCH more costly matter.

I am not saying they should NOT do it, but pointing out WHY they don't
do it. Money is a HUGE motivator when making decisions. And converting
to the "right" way does not guarantee greater success with the site.
Now if you are starting from scratch, then there is no reason not to
use it.

Ignorance can be corrected, but it takes time and effort, plus
willingness to expend both.

And MONEY. Sometimes LOTS of money.

Stupidity and laziness are tougher to overcome.

But they are FREE, and their site works virtually everywhere now
anyway. So what's a corporation to do? The answer seems to be
obvious.

 

[kchayka]

Yes, and no. Yes they need to learn their craft. No because there are
too many un cooperative browsers (including version) for them to take
it seriously yet.

Hmmm... considering that it may take *years* for some people (and
organizations) to upgrade their browsers, how long do you propose we all
wait around before CSS (or any other technology) becomes viable? 5
years? 10? Maybe we shouldn't even bother at all?

ESPECIALLY since websites have a tendency to be very
fluid in their content.

non sequitur

And MONEY. Sometimes LOTS of money.

The subject was web developers and their actual knowledge of their
craft, not why big corporate or ecommerce web sites might still be using
table layouts.

IMO, it doesn't matter if a developer is a freelance contractor or
in-house at some corporation. If they don't really understand the
technologies they are working with, they need to get educated rather
than blindly hacking away at stuff they don't understand, whining that
it doesn't work, and using that as a rationale for things like
abandoning CSS (as you put it).

It doesn't take lots of money to buy a book, take a tutorial/class, or
search the google group archives for information. It does, however, take
time and effort. That's time and effort the developer should be spending
to advance themselves, not just for their clients or employer. If they
aren't interested in doing that, then I wish they'd get out of the game
for all our sakes. The web will probably be a nicer place to be if they did.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Failing to use tools that automatically check syntax simply because some
(ancient, obsolescent, all-but-vanished) browser applies slightly
stricter rules seems like false economy. You know, "throwing the baby
out with the bathwater."

The fact is browser support for the standards and css (taking into
consideration all version) is weak at best. Because of this weakness,
the cost of converting a website, trying to make sure that you are
sticking to the standards, and using CSS to separate content from
presentation is not worth it yet. Especially when using html for
presentation works fine in a much higher number of browsers.

I am not commenting on if this practice is right or wrong, only that it
exists and providing a reason for it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hmmm... considering that it may take *years* for some people (and
organizations) to upgrade their browsers, how long do you propose we all
wait around before CSS (or any other technology) becomes viable? 5
years? 10? Maybe we shouldn't even bother at all?

I can't answer that. How long do you suggest?

non sequitur

To you maybe. I don't agree.

The subject was web developers and their actual knowledge of their
craft, not why big corporate or ecommerce web sites might still be using
table layouts.

Threads evolve, and I find the two go hand and hand.

IMO, it doesn't matter if a developer is a freelance contractor or
in-house at some corporation. If they don't really understand the
technologies they are working with, they need to get educated rather
than blindly hacking away at stuff they don't understand, whining that
it doesn't work, and using that as a rationale for things like
abandoning CSS (as you put it).

They may not understand the new technology, but they completely
understand the technology they are currently working with, and the
technology that is being looked for by a very large portion of the
business community. Search the job boards. Look at what companies are
asking for. If I developed web pages that is what I would be an expert
in, the things they are looking for.

It doesn't take lots of money to buy a book, take a tutorial/class, or
search the google group archives for information.

That has nothing t do with my point.

 

[windandwaves]

And MONEY. Sometimes LOTS of money.

Yes, I live in a country with a lot of small business who need a web
presence but can not afford more than about US$700 for a website, meaning
that they need to cut corners somewhere.

- Nicolaas

 

[windandwaves]

The fact is browser support for the standards and css (taking into
consideration all version) is weak at best. Because of this weakness,
the cost of converting a website, trying to make sure that you are
sticking to the standards, and using CSS to separate content from
presentation is not worth it yet. Especially when using html for
presentation works fine in a much higher number of browsers.

I am not commenting on if this practice is right or wrong, only that
it exists and providing a reason for it.

Yes, IMO is alll about getting it right for 95% of the people. Just like
servers have down time, you can never expect your site to work for everyone.
Consider, for example, not only NS4.0 but also TV and Mobiles. They have a
completely different range of problems to be catered for.

 

[windandwaves]

Since you removed all the floats, I can't verify this, but I'll make a
guess that you did not specify an explicit width on one or more of
those floated elements.

MacIE 5 follows the CSS 2.0 spec that requires an explicit width on
non-replaced floated elements. This means that a floated element
defaults to 100% width.

That spec changed in CSS 2.1, since most modern browsers do some sort
of shrink-wrapping on floats that have no explicit width.

Thanks for that, I actually saw that one in action!

I actually kept floats on imagess (eg.)

------- XXXX
------- XXXX
---------------
---------------

where X is the image floating right, but I converted all the floating DIVS
into tables.

I find that I can not remember all the rules in CSS, so I try to keep it
simple for myself. I do so much different work that I always try to keep my
sites as simple and modulair as possible so that I can update them with less
strain.

- Nicolaas

 

[kchayka]

I actually kept floats on imagess (eg.)

FYI, images are replaced elements, so float behaviors are not the same
as for a floated block of text, even in MacIE.

 

[kchayka]

They may not understand the new technology, but they completely
understand the technology they are currently working with,

I suppose that means that they know how to operate Dreamweaver,
Photoshop, or <insert tool here> coz I see little evidence they really
know HTML beyond how to mark up a layout table. In my book, that's far
from completely understanding the technology.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, I live in a country with a lot of small business who need a web
presence but can not afford more than about US$700 for a website, meaning
that they need to cut corners somewhere.

If these are new, or you are building something from scratch, then you
lose nothing and it is no more expensive to follow the rules and use CSS
over tables. I am addressing established websites that are "wrong".
There is currently very little incentive for them o take the time and
effort to convert to strict, and css.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I suppose that means that they know how to operate Dreamweaver,
Photoshop, or <insert tool here> coz I see little evidence they really
know HTML beyond how to mark up a layout table. In my book, that's far
from completely understanding the technology.

You are out of college, looking for a job, all the jobs out there
require you know tables layout and dreamweaver. What are you going to
do? Stand by your principals and starve, or go learn what the job
providers are looking for?

Again, I am not commenting on right or wrong, only providing an
explanation of why the problem exists, and why it will not go a way in
the near future.

 

[windandwaves]

FYI, images are replaced elements, so float behaviors are not the same
as for a floated block of text, even in MacIE.

That is right, that is why I kept the images... Thank you for confirming my
suspspicion, you are pretty knowledgeable.

Nicolaas

 

[Joel Shepherd]

The fact is browser support for the standards and css (taking into
consideration all version) is weak at best.

And getting stronger.

Because of this weakness, the cost of converting a website, trying
to make sure that you are sticking to the standards...

I agree that it can be costly to take a hacked together website and
rewrite it to A) Use valid markup and B) Bear some resemblance to the
original (notwithstanding the usual futility surrounding WYSIWYG when it
comes to the Web).

I suspect the cost of simply writing valid markup from the get-go is
considerably less. And, hey, if you want to use presentational markup,
no one is stopping you. Not even the validator if you validate against
the transitional dtd. But if you _do_ use a validator, you can at least
have the peace of mind of knowing that your markup doesn't contain
bone-headed errors (unclosed tags, etc.).

... using CSS to separate content from presentation is not worth it

I don't entirely disagree. That is, I've used CSS to eliminate a lot of
presentational markup, but (as writing web pages is just a hobby for me,
and not a profession) haven't developed the courage to use it
significantly for layout, in large part due to the difficulty it seems
others have in compensating for various browsers' incompatible behaviors.

 

[windandwaves]

And getting stronger.


I agree that it can be costly to take a hacked together website and
rewrite it to A) Use valid markup and B) Bear some resemblance to the
original (notwithstanding the usual futility surrounding WYSIWYG when
it comes to the Web).

I suspect the cost of simply writing valid markup from the get-go is
considerably less. And, hey, if you want to use presentational markup,
no one is stopping you. Not even the validator if you validate against
the transitional dtd. But if you _do_ use a validator, you can at
least have the peace of mind of knowing that your markup doesn't
contain bone-headed errors (unclosed tags, etc.).


I don't entirely disagree. That is, I've used CSS to eliminate a lot
of presentational markup, but (as writing web pages is just a hobby
for me, and not a profession) haven't developed the courage to use it
significantly for layout, in large part due to the difficulty it seems
others have in compensating for various browsers' incompatible
behaviors.

Dude, I totally use CSS, I always write html strict, only way to go, my
webpages are usually never more than 1Kb, with the rest coming from server
side includes (PHP) and CSS ... that really makes it SO much easier.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Dude, I totally use CSS, I always write html strict, only way to go, my
webpages are usually never more than 1Kb, with the rest coming from server
side includes (PHP) and CSS ... that really makes it SO much easier.

And you should be proud. But the fact is if you walk into virtually
any large corporation and say that is what you know how to do. The
first thing they will ask you is "Do you know how to do table layout
and use Dreamweaver..."

Right? Wrong? Who is to say, but for the time being, it is reality.