At 09:38 AM 1/18/2009 -0600, [email protected] wrote: >I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most "perfect" >web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working >with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything >I've ever seen. Don't your clients ever send new requirements your way >that require major redesigns, and much sooner than 5 years? That's >absolutely amazing to me.
Actually, in all honesty, the answer is no. If I've ever had a client want any sort of "big" change in any site that I've done for them, it's basically only been a complete, total overhaul -- i.e. re-building the entire site from scratch, which a CSS layout probably wouldn't have helped much at all. And even that has only happened, oh, maybe once or twice. With that said, I should probably point out that I'm not really doing web design in a "professional" way any more. I used to years ago, but my main interest now is for my own sites, plus the occasional volunteer work that I do for non-profit orgs, etc. In that regard, and as I said in my last post, if I'm going to stick with tables for layout (and for the time being), then that's simply what I feel is best and most appropriate for *my* sites -- but I do totally understand if others feel that their needs require CSS layouts, etc. And I guess that was my point: I'm not trying to change anyone here, and get anyone to revert backwards and use tables for layout, but for those of us who do choose to use them, the reasons for doing so are (or can be) perfectly valid, just as valid as choosing to use CSS. It's just a matter of what one's needs/goals are -- but it's not fair for anyone to be condescending (like an off-list message that I just got, admonishing me for my sites, as well as my thoughts here) if I feel that tables are *currently* what works best for me. > I rarely post, because I so rarely have any problems in CSS that I'd >need to tap the list for help. In the meantime, I can get the benefit >of hearing other people's issues and seeing the solutions. Isn't that >what this list is for? Oh, I totally agree. I don't always understand the more nitty-gritty technical things that people might be talking about, but even just checking out peoples' sites and seeing what others are doing with CSS has been fascinating, and certainly educational -- indeed, it can be quite inspiring! >A few years ago, I undertook to switch all of the websites I was >maintaining from the old table-based layouts to pure CSS. It has been >so freeing, I could only wish the technology had arrived sooner. But oh >well, that's what we all deal with in computer science, right? Well, I'll get there, too, some day. Maybe I'm really just "chicken" -- you people are scary. Ron ;) Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
