Definitive Guide is a pure eye opener.
However hybrids work, we should still be using semantic markup in them.
Nesting tables or using <td class="heading"> doesn't help. I've come to CSS
from an interest in creating accessible web sites. From my experience with
working with screen readers and speech browsers, web sites are simply more
accessible when the markup makes sense without the CSS and the CSS is there
to create a visual presentational layer that is nice to look at, but doesn't
mask the underlying content. I'm lazy. I want to write one page and have it
be read by any type of user agent out there. (Note I said user agent, not
browser, this includes mobile phones, printers, car appliances and screen
readers including visual browsers).
I am very frustrated with the level of support for CSS the current browsers
do, its difficult to support, but is it more difficult than writing pages
that code to browsers? I think this is simpler. If I can write one HTML
document and make it look okay in 95% of the browsers out there today (not
perfect, okay). I'm happy. If I have to use some browser hacks to achieve
this so be it. Its still a lot easier to fix a browser hack in one style
sheet than a cross browser implementation of something in x number of html
pages.
I for one, code my pages in the simplest HTML possible now. Much easier to
maintain than those nested table thingies I did for years. When I am
satisified that the HTML document says what I want and is understood in both
visual and aural browsers, then I start playing with the look. I might add
some structural markup then (such as classes, divs or span) to help achieve
a look, but what I want to say in a page remains a heck of a lot more
important than the eye candy (IMHO).
I'm not a designer, I'm a programmer. I want to solve problems. I also
work a lot with Federal Government agencies and departments that are
required by law to have everything be accessible to those with disabilities.
Separating my content from my presentation helps me get there easier and
faster. I am also not invested in the idea that everyone has to see my page
in the same way. I can't control the size of someone's screen, the size they
might set my font, or the colors they choose to use. If I get over the fact
that they might not see my layout or my design they way I envision it then I
am much more concerned that they get the content the way I envision it.
_____
From: Irvin Gomez
Good readin material for you, Sandy, from Zeldman, a well-known standards
advocate:
http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/pdfs/0735712018C_08.pdf
Especially insightful is the part that goes:
A Transitional Book for a Transitional Time
To the kind of standards geek who spends hours each week arguing about the
evils of presentational markup on W3C mailing lists, what we've done here is
evil and harmful. For that matter, we've also sinned by using tables as
anything other than containers of tabular data, by specifying widths and
heights in our table cells and by setting image margins to zero in markup.
In fact, in the eyes of some, this entire chapter is sinful. Some standards
geeks might not think much of this book, quite frankly. In their view, we
should be telling you how to write semantic markup instead of letting you
think it's okay to sometimes use tables for layout.
But the thing is, it is okay. Maybe it won't be okay some years from now,
when designers use and browsers support purely semantic future versions of
XHTML and rich future versions of CSS and SVG. But this is a transitional
book for a transitional time. "Web standards" is not a set of immutable
laws, but a path filled with options and decisions. In our view, people who
insist on absolute purity in today's browser and standards environment do as
much harm to the mainstream adoption of web standards as those who have
never heard of or are downright hostile toward structural markup and CSS.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
