Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Thomas Livingston wrote: The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation, it's too late. The client saw the design. the client wants the design he saw. If you could only do it with a table, you'd say no and/or walk. Just or the record, / I / wouldn't walk; I'd do what I had to do. This decision, of course, is based on certain prerequisites: 1: The design is, in point of fact, / im-friggin-possible / to archive without tables (something I've yet to encounter and find highly unlikely). 2: I've confirmed this fact by having someone, more skilled than myself, take a stab at the layout. I'd just use the table. I wish I didn't have too. I wouldn't _want to_, but in that exact situation, my superiors would not back me up in turning down the client/project because I was gonna have to use a table. And you'd be correct in your decision. If the layout is not achievable without the use of tables, what choice do you have? Personally though, I try to make sure everything I design can be worked out using CSS. I don't paint myself into a corner, so to speak, unless the client leaves me with no alternative. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? ADMIN THREAD CLOSED
ADMIN THREAD CLOSED Reasons for closing: The CSS driven thread has gone on far too long and has been dangerously close to flame-wars on several occasions. Time to move on please. Please do not reply to this post or continue this thread. If you have a comment or an issue with the closing of this thread, do not post to the list. Instead, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Terrence. Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this thread, I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real problem that is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to implement as it is with a table, Sure... clients who needs them? But see the real problem is clients making design decisions that may not be appropriate for the shape of the market today (and tomorrow). And given that they aren't designers... how can they make effective design decisions, if you don't tell them what works best? In other words, Terrance, the goal is a design as described above and the solution can't be change the design, but has to be: attain the design without a table. My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable. The point of both of these statements was to try and keep the thread on topic i.e; a solution to a specific, clearly defined problem in which the only choice is to realize it as stated, preferrably without a table. It obviously didn't work. I had hoped those of you making assumptions about the side bits, would leave aside your assumptions and take up the challenge on the actual problem. I didn't want to write War and Peace to explain that I have indeed tried to sway the client, have used intelligent arguments, etc., etc. ad nauseum to keep this thread from getting lost in those arguments, but maybe I should have. An example of the assumptions: you (or someone) said a design of this 1998 type should never have been presented to the client. Where in anything I said did I say I presented the design? Maybe the client came to me with his design and for the purpose of my original question, what does it really matter? how can they make effective design decisions, if you don't tell them what works best? Why do you assume I didn't? Its this type of flawed assumptions that has caused this thread to wander all over the landscape without arriving at a solution to the problem at hand. Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this thread, Sure... clients who needs them? A clear statement of my intent and your snide comment which shows you didn't get it. Do you think you are being helpful? Believe me, you're not. bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Why do you assume I didn't? Its this type of flawed assumptions that has caused this thread to wander all over the landscape without arriving at a solution to the problem at hand. And over the last few months, the list has devolved into unending threads that serve nothing wrt web standards. Most threads *never* end! I'm leaving. I'll check back in a few months and see what's goin' on. Have fun! Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Christian, Do these table layouts go in your portfolio? Since you asked. I have my very first site in my portfolio and it is a nested table/spacer gif monster. But except for you guys, I doubt if anyone has ever done a view source on the site. Do these clients recommend you to others as one of those designers who will still do those 1998 designs we like so much? No, they recommend me because I did a site they liked. Outside this list, I doubt if anyone thinks in terms of 1998 sites. I guess the big question is, how do these designs affect your image as a standards based designer? The big answer is: they don't. We all started somewhere. However, if it will help you sleep better: at the first re-do of the site, the nested tables and spacer gifs will go. My thinking is that if I ever had to do one of these sites, I would not put it in my portfolio. I would have made it clear to the client that I was doing it against my own good judgement and I would never want someone to think it was something I would do again. Maybe if I hang around you long enough, one day, I too will become arrogant, but I doubt it. bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:04 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote: Do you think you are being helpful? Believe me, you're not. I think I made it pretty clear that I was having a general rant, not talking directly to you Bob. I was just using your situation as a jumping off point. On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:06 AM, Terrence Wood wrote: Again, nothing personal Bob, this rant is for any designer who has clients wanting that 1998 look. And in fact, I have had off-list responses thanking me for my contribution to this thread. On 16 Dec 2005, at 11:44 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote: No can do Bob. I showed you the solution. End of story: solution, choices made, move on :) Yes Sir. Thank you Sir. I will just fold my table and slink away. It's been a honor being in your illustrious presence. I will return when I feel more worthy . Obviously you haven't found this thread helpful, but others have. I'm really not sure what you are looking for Bob, but clearly, we are two different people. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Terrence, Obviously you haven't found this thread helpful, but others have. Oddly enough I have, though the (seems to be) answer came in off list. If after doing some testing, the solution does indeed work as I need it to, I will post it for those who remember what the original question was. I'm really not sure what you are looking for Bob, but clearly, we are two different people. Probably not, just the pitfalls of communicating by e-mail. If we were sitting at an outdoor cafe sipping a good coffee, watching pretty girls go by and having this discussion, it would have an all- together different flavor. Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
No can do Bob. I showed you the solution. End of story: solution, choices made, move on :) Yes Sir. Thank you Sir. I will just fold my table and slink away. It's been a honor being in your illustrious presence. I will return when I feel more worthy . bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: How can you be stuck without a choice? Would you not at least alert them (clients or peers) to the fact that a better solution may exist? All good points sir. What I took from your original post was this (maybe I was just off base altogether): A clients wants a design. And you want developers, etc. to tell clients 'no, you shouldn't do that because the only way to achieve that design is to use tables, and tables are bad so how about you go with a similar design but without a, b, and c. My point was that a client isn't going to care how the design is achieved. Sure, we can tell them why table-less is better. We can talk all about standards. But if that certain thing he/she likes about the design is gonna go away because you don't want to use tables, then the client might just go somewhere where he/she can get the desired design. You are correct however, in that a design welded together with table soup shouldn't be presented in the first place. But I was talking about _not_ having a choice - other than the choice of making money or you yourself looking for a different project. We do exactly what you talk about here. We try very hard to head off non-standard-based page design. We internally steer designs to table-less, standards based sites. We attempt to build everything w/o tables, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense (but that's a different thread ;-) ). I agree with everything you said, but speaking in broad terms, if a design needed tables and w/o them the client would receive something they don't want, then I'd use tables. I'll match your 10¢, but it's my last dime... - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 15 Dec 2005, at 9:07 PM, Bob Schwartz wrote: For the record: I am past 1998 in my designs, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't do designs from 1998 because I want to, I have some clients who want that look. Like I said, it was not personal, and I didn't see you comment earlier - but still, it is a solution for future reference. There is another simple solution to sign off this mail if you don't want to read my rant. Again, nothing personal Bob, this rant is for any designer who has clients wanting that 1998 look. Should I tell them to go somewhere else? Maybe. If you really want to do web standard design because you believe in the benefits that it offers, then make a convincing case for your clients. You: The type of design you are asking for has been around for a while, it's a bit tired and doesn't perform all that well compared to more recent designs. You would prefer to go to market with a fresher design that works better wouldn't you? [say something else if you can't say this with *absolute sincerity*, and back it up] Them: Of course. [They will ask for clarification]. You: I'm glad you asked. [talk about the benefits of standards design, or how it's better to have a design that looks modern rather than one that looks like it's from last century] I usually find that the clients design preference is a proxy for some other ideals that they want to emulate. What is it about that design pattern that they like, and why? Is it actually the design or something about the company using that design that they want to emulate? More importantly, do the clients customers share those same opinions? Otherwise it is usually just a personal preference, nothing more... and luckily the web site is usually for the clients customers, not the client. It's helpful to get them to make that distinction. If you can't convince them then it really comes down a decision about if you need the work or not, or if you don't mind using tables for layout. If you really need to use a table and don't mind using tables for layout then use one. No sweat. It is usually better err on the pragmatic side ;-) Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this thread, I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real problem that is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to implement as it is with a table, Sure... clients who needs them? But see the real problem is clients making design decisions that may not be appropriate for the shape of the market today (and tomorrow). And given that they aren't designers... how can they make effective design decisions, if you don't tell them what works best? In other words, Terrance, the goal is a design as described above and the solution can't be change the design, but has to be: attain the design without a table. My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable. If it can't be done, I'd like to see a humble admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE solution so I can fell less unpure:-} about using a table to solve my problem. Why do you need a 'humble admission' from the 'non-table' people? Do these people claim that you can make designs in CSS that are exactly the same as a multicolumn multicolor layout created with tables? If you have a design that is non-negotiable then just do what it takes to to implement it. Personally, I would just make all the images 1000px tall and incorporate the background colors in the shorter images. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body in column 1 goes a 1000px high image in column 2 goes a 750px high image in column 3 goes a 500px high image the end result should be that all three columns are the same height in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable. If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a lucky man indeed. - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 17 Dec 2005, at 5:15 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote: A clients wants a design. And you want developers, etc. to tell clients 'no, you shouldn't do that because the only way to achieve that design is to use tables, and tables are bad so how about you go with a similar design but without a, b, and c. No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one design is better than another. I want you to stop showing the client designs that are based on a *visual hack* from 10 years ago and to talk to them about design in terms of features that benefit *them* and which solve their *real* problems. My point was that a client isn't going to care how the design is achieved. Sure, we can tell them why table-less is better. We can talk all about standards. We agree on this. See above. But if that certain thing he/she likes about the design is gonna go away because you don't want to use tables, then the client might just go somewhere where he/she can get the desired design. If you can't get a client to desire your design, then they *are* better off going somewhere else. For the sake of both parties. Seriously, there is nothing about a tables based design that is so compelling that said 'certain thing' is lost using a tableless design. If there was, then CSS design would have never taken off, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's about getting the client excited about (desiring) something else: reduced cost of ownership, improved performance, better user experience, contemporary visual design, whatever, we all know what the benefits are - use the ones that push your clients buttons. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 17 Dec 2005, at 9:21 AM, Thomas Livingston wrote: If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a lucky man indeed. I work with constraints in a competitive environment just like everyone else does. I'm not perfect, but I'm so damn close it's scary ;-) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one design is better than another. Yes, you do. The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation, it's too late. The client saw the design. the client wants the design he saw. If you could only do it with a table, you'd say no and/or walk. I'd just use the table. I wish I didn't have too. I wouldn't _want to_, but in that exact situation, my superiors would not back me up in turning down the client/project because I was gonna have to use a table. Simple as that. I'm not arguing theories. I agree with your theories. It's just that in the end, I'd have to use the table. - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:06 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: My apologies, I never realised the visual design was non-negotiable. If you have the complete and total luxury of doing whatever the heck you want no matter what your clients want or ask for, then you are a lucky man indeed. My question for Bob, and anyone else who has had to do table layouts recently, is this: Do these table layouts go in your portfolio? Do these clients recommend you to others as one of those designers who will still do those 1998 designs we like so much? I guess the big question is, how do these designs affect your image as a standards based designer? This is more a question for those who work alone; if you work in a big company then it isn't so much your reputation on the line but that of the company. My thinking is that if I ever had to do one of these sites, I would not put it in my portfolio. I would have made it clear to the client that I was doing it against my own good judgement and I would never want someone to think it was something I would do again. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Christian Montoya wrote: My thinking is that if I ever had to do one of these sites, I would not put it in my portfolio. Oops. My mistake. I accidentally wandered in to the elitist teachers' lounge. I'll just get back out into the hall where I belong. Do these table layouts go in your portfolio? Do these clients recommend you to others as one of those designers who will still do those 1998 designs we like so much? Well. A good design is a good design. Whether or not there is a table involved should have nothing to do with. If I have to use a table now, it it _not_ going to be a horrible retro nested mess. It's to achieve something I can't achieve otherwise. All styling done with CSS. _That's_ the difference between a 1998 layout and one I do today. it isn't so much your reputation on the line but that of the company Which could still put you in the unemployment line... - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/16/05, Thomas Livingston wrote: If I have to use a table now, it it _not_ going to be a horrible retro nested mess. It's to achieve something I can't achieve otherwise. Hi Tom - I don't mean this as a sarcastic question or anything. I fully admit I may have missed this if it was already discussed, but I'm curious to know if you have examples of this - things you couldn't have achieved in other ways? It sounds odd, but if you have examples, I'd be very curious to see them... Cheers, Derek. -- Derek Featherstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 613-599-9784 1-866-932-4878 (toll-free in North America) Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com Personal:http://www.boxofchocolates.ca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Thomas Livingston said: On Dec 16, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: No, I don't want you to tell them the technical reason's of why one design is better than another. Yes, you do. Did you not read the rest of the paragraph above Tom? I thought it was quite clear, but I'll put it another way: state the features and benefits in terms that appeal to the client in a way in which they understand. These are mostly quite different from how designers and developers see their work. It's also known as selling =) The whole basis to my point is that in our little virtual situation, it's too late. Maybe this time Tom... what about next time? What an opportunity! How valuable is a employee who knows how to innovate, has a deep seated concern for the well-being of the company, and contributes to the professional development of his colleagues? I understand the situation you are in, I do. You need to effect organizational change first. I have already said, if you must use a table, then use it. No sweat. I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bath water. I'm advocating actively changing something somewhere, rather than have change act upon you. Stand up and be counted. I believe in your situation *your* clients are the designers (?), account managers (?), and everyone else (?) who is involved in bringing a site to life and getting agreement from the people who are ultimately paying the bill. Get *these* people excited about standards design, again, in terms that appeal to them in a way that they will understand. Simple as that. Yes it is. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is ridiculous. I've seen a lot excellent visual design which is implemented in table form (some well others not so well). On the other hand some of what passes for design on this list may be great in terms of standards and accessibility but is laughable in terms of visual design. The point being, neither method has the monopoly on good design, certainly not CSS which has more than its fair share of bland cookie-cutter sites. I strive to exploit the power of CSS but if due to real world constraints (including my knowledge of CSS) I'm forced to use a table, then so be it. As it happens I've only built 1 table based site this year and I have no shame and no regrets, the site brings in millions of dollars a year. -Nigel ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Nigel said: The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is ridiculous. Yes, it is, but fortunately no-one here made that claim. It's a figurative term, not literal. We're not talking about a specific look (like techno, goth, post-postmodern, deconstructed), rather a design pattern: a head/3 column/foot table layout with multicolored columns from the 'killer site' era is what we're referring to as a 1998 design. I've seen a lot excellent visual design which is implemented in table form (some well others not so well). Yes, there are a lot of nice looking table based visual designs, but do they work? And, this may surprise you but, designers aside, not too many people surf the net looking for nice examples of visual design - in the same way most people don't collect 3-fold brochures, or design annuals. Visual design, usually supports content. On the other hand some of what passes for design on this list may be great in terms of standards and accessibility but is laughable in terms of visual design. That's a bit insulting isn't it, you really have no idea about the quality of design of this list's members? See the point above. 'Design' that begins and ends in the visual plane is really just playing with colors and shapes. The point being, neither method has the monopoly on good design, certainly not CSS which has more than its fair share of bland cookie- cutter sites. True, there is as much poor design using standards as there is with table based layouts, again, no-one claimed otherwised. I strive to exploit the power of CSS but if due to real world constraints (including my knowledge of CSS) I'm forced to use a table, then so be it. As it happens I've only built 1 table based site this year and I have no shame and no regrets, Good on you. the site brings in millions of dollars a year. Yeah, so do google and amazon, both of which are pretty laughable in terms of visual design. And oh, pre-1998 ;-) kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/16/05, Duckworth, Nigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea that table based designs look like something from 1998 is ridiculous. You are generalizing what was a very specific comment. What we call a 1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every column a different color. The key is the columns being different colors. It was very typical in 1998, and looks retro now. Many of us are just tired of seeing it. Obviously you can't make a distinction between table and css designs, because css can do everything ever done with tables and then some. I've seen a lot excellent visual design which is implemented in table form (some well others not so well). On the other hand some of what passes for design on this list may be great in terms of standards and accessibility but is laughable in terms of visual design. The point being, neither method has the monopoly on good design, certainly not CSS which has more than its fair share of bland cookie-cutter sites. This may be true, but there is one big difference between an ugly table based site and an ugly pure css site: the ugly css site is bad for one reason, while the ugly table based site is bad for two. I would rather have an ugly pure css site than an ugly table one. At least the CSS based one is lighter and easy to maintain, and most likely it's semantic too. As it happens I've only built 1 table based site this year and I have no shame and no regrets, the site brings in millions of dollars a year. Maybe, but a site's success is hardly ever due to it's appearance. What it offers to users, and how usable it is, is far more important than the pretty headers. I don't know what your site does but I doubt anyone would attribute it's success to the markup. You might be losing some money here and there on the server load for a few extra tags in the markup, but you obviously don't feel that when you are making millions. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Christian Montoya: What we call a 1998 design is 2 or 3 columns, equal height, every column a different color. The key is the columns being different colors. It was very typical in 1998, and looks retro now. Many of us are just tired of seeing it. Not sure of your point, though the implication is still table based designs are usually multi-colored columns in which case I disagree. Plain old column layouts different colored or not are a dime a dozen in CSS too. But yes, if we're doing them let's do them in CSS. (Side note: IMO the columns being different colors is a non-essential differentiator for something as complex as design styles.) This may be true, but there is one big difference between an ugly table based site and an ugly pure css site: the ugly css site is bad for one reason, while the ugly table based site is bad for two. I would rather have an ugly pure css site than an ugly table one. :) Me too, if I have to, but I was shooting for non-ugly. As it happens I've only built 1 table based site this year and I have no shame and no regrets, the site brings in millions of dollars a year. Maybe, but a site's success is hardly ever due to it's appearance. What it offers to users, and how usable it is, is far more important than the pretty headers. That's a superficial view of design, good design is about a lot more than a pretty header. It's about contrast, unity, logical structure, establishing the proper visual hierarchy, and all the other principles of design. Those have a huge impact on the usability of a site. In other words, I don't accept the appearance-usability dichotomy, they're deeply intertwined and good design enhances both. I really don't want to spend my time defending table based designs, they should be avoided as far as possible. And, as I said, the occasions when I've had to use them are *very* infrequent and of course it's done reluctantly, but given that time and resources are not infinite it can be a necessity and I accept that. Yes CSS rules! There, I said it, now leave me alone. Regards, Nigel ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Terrence said: We're not talking about a specific look (like techno, goth, post-postmodern, deconstructed), rather a design pattern: a head/3 column/foot table layout with multicolored columns Yes, I think I get that, I just disagree with the implication that table based designs are such in a way that CSS designs are not, but moving on... Visual design, usually supports content. Absolutely, it should, always. That's a bit insulting isn't it, you really have no idea about the quality of design of this list's members? Maybe but that was not my intention nor my point. The basis is the links posted for review, signatures etc (on this list and others) - it wasn't an arbitrary comment. Nor is it an insult, this isn't a design list but a standards list and a truly outstanding one. Finally, if you think that's harsh you should hear me review my work. The first requirement of being a designer is a thick skin. 'Design' that begins and ends in the visual plane is really just playing with colors and shapes. Who's advocating this view of design? Not I (see my comment to Christian). Yeah, so do google and amazon, both of which are pretty laughable in terms of visual design. And oh, pre-1998 ;-) :) I wouldn't say they're weak in design, on the contrary their effectiveness is thanks in large part to their design. But I see your point, throw in the default gray background and turn on the table borders and we'll be partying like it's nearly 1999. Regards, -Nigel ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Stuart,
Thanks for the example, but while it displays according to my
example, it's not what I'm looking for. (I guess my example assumed
too much intuition as to what I was trying to obtain).
Here's where your example fails (and perhaps better illustrates the
problem I'm trying to resolve).
If I make each column a different color, they show up as three
different heights.
Try to imagine col 1 is red and has a left menu, col 2 is white and
is the main content area and col 3 is blue and a right menu (or
something) and the body is green.
I need to be able to put different amounts of content from page to
page in the main text column and have all three be the same height as
the center one from page to page without going to 100% height. (Fixed
width, centered box that grows in height according to its content).
A table will do this.
Terrance Wood suggested this:
Here's an easy solution: don't create designs that look like
they're from
1998 (e.g the 2-col cnet yellow stripe and it's ilk)... there are
so many
more creative and useful possiblities once you get past that design
pattern.
For the record: I am past 1998 in my designs, but as I mentioned
earlier, I don't do designs from 1998 because I want to, I have some
clients who want that look.
Should I tell them to go somewhere else?
Plus I don't want to get into the quirks of clients in this thread,
I'd like to concentrate on finding a solution to a real problem that
is as reliable (browser-wise) and as easy to implement as it is with
a table,
In other words, Terrance, the goal is a design as described above and
the solution can't be change the design, but has to be: attain the
design without a table. If it can't be done, I'd like to see a humble
admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance
in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE
solution so I can fell less unpure:-} about using a table to solve
my problem.
Bob
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original
two cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
I did think more than Rimantas would pop-up with a quick answer for
your question, Bob:
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different
from that of the body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a 750px high image
in column 3 goes a 500px high image
the end result should be that all three columns are the same height
in other words:
below the image in column 1, no background color shows
below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows
below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows
My response (just for the record!) has a problem displaying the
background colour on Netscape 4.78 and Netscape 6.2 (as far as I
can tell via Browsercam), but otherwise rendering is pretty similar:
HTML:
div id=container
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=1000 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=750 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=500 width=100 alt= /
/div
/div
CSS:
* { margin:0; padding:0; }
body { background-color:#ff0; }
#container { width:90%; background-color:#fff; float:left; margin-
left:5%; _margin-left:2.5%; }
.column { float:left; width:33%; text-align:center; }
.column img { display:block; margin:0 auto; }
Have a look at http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/3col/
Unfortunately, due to the behaviour of our good buddy PC IE, an
extra hack is called for (the '_margin-left: 2.5%;')
I thought someone else might as well answer your request! ;)
cheers,
Stuart
--
http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
2005/12/15, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... If it can't be done, It can be done, and it has be done hundreds of times (in real world too): take a look at csszengarden.com, or sites featured in cssvault.com, stylegala.com, etc. I'd like to see a humble admission from the non-table people that maybe there is an instance in the real world where a table is not only OK, but probably THE solution so I can fell less unpure:-} about using a table to solve my problem. Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple encouragament to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to accept is table, and marking up table in you HTML is easier than single background: rule in CSS--use the table. But yes, it is unpure and against the spirit and the letter of standards (I won't quote, it was done before). Five years ago we did not have much choice, but we do have now. I've mad mine, you've made yours. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Rimantas, Seems like you are not looking for solution, but for simple encouragament to stick with tables. Ok, if the only solution you are going to accept is table, Is there anything to gain in these discussions by you always being so polemic If you have nothing except snide remarks to contribute, make way for those who may want to lend a constructive hand. Why does it seem I'm looking for encouragement, when I've stated 100 times I'm looking for a solution? Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. Regarding the sites you listed, I went there and didn't see any that fit the criteria I have laid out. Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz wrote: In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. The problem - and yes, it is a problem - is lack of browser-support for those existing CSS-solutions that meet the criteria. I can do all that a table can do without having a single hard-coded table in sight, but there will be pretty weak results across browser-land. That is not a flaw in CSS, although CSS is far from mature. CSS compliance is the barrier. I have not found one, single, design-challenge where tables as design-element were preferable. However, I have severe problems with all those nice-looking sites/pages that exists, where usability have been thrown overboard or not even considered, just because someone wants to prove the point that CSS can solve everything. It can't. I left tables almost as soon as I had started to use them, because they put too many limitations on design. CSS worked better without those tables, and CSS support is constantly improving. A few more years, and tables as design-elements can't be justified at all. Not yet there though, regardless of, or maybe because of, zen garden solutions and so on. There are different philosophies at play here... 1: Table-grid solutions, and limitations. 2: tables where needed (enhanced with CSS) - and full CSS where it works. 3: CSS freedom, and workarounds for weak support. 4: CSS mess that try to satisfy all camps, while ignoring the usability/accessibility side of web design - apart from those badges that are mostly signs of untested claims. Half of zen garden is there, IMO. I prefer to stay at no.3, and play around in no.4 in situations where it doesn't hurt anyone. I would fall back to no.2 if I ever found the need, but that hasn't happened during the last couple of years at my end. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/15/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reality I have evidently hit upon a problem with pure CSS. The fact that it may not be a problem for those who do not have clients asking for a certian site design is irrelavent. I do and am seeking a way to satisfy them and do pure (in the spirit of this group) CSS at the same time. Well, I showed you the equal height columns technique. I think I can safely say it is the only method for liquid columns with equal height. If you want fixed width, I might have another solution. It is, like I said, a holy grail of making equal height columns work where we can't rely on display:table. You claimed it was rife with hacks and that was that. Well, the hacks are to deal with poor implementations in old browsers. Browsers, not mistakes in CSS. There is no problem with pure CSS. And all the browsers being hacked are dead browsers, in which case using these hacks doesn't mean that the techniques will suddenly fail later on. The question is whether you prefer to hack the dead browsers or hack the specs. I would rather deploy these ugly hacks for crappy browsers than misuse an html element. That's my choice. Hacks don't hinder accessibility or semantics. They don't bloat markup, and they are surprisingly easy to maintain (just ask any list member). But like you said, I've never had a client ask for something like that. In 5 years when display:table cell has widespread support, you can start using it to give pure CSS equal height columns without table hacking. And since we'll still be supporting version 5 browsers and netscape and everything else we cater to (bang head on keyboard here), I'm sure someone will tell us that there is a problem with pure CSS and they just can't stop using tables yet. Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. No can do Bob. I showed you the solution. End of story: solution, choices made, move on :) -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz said: Just because I've stated that if a solution (P7 javascript not withstanding) does not exist that does not involve a table, you non- table people should at least admit it. I'm not aware of 'non-table people' making a claim that CSS can solve every design problem. Was that on this list? Who are these people? Why do you need such admission? I think what *can* be solved is encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout, because I believe there are real benefits in using a modern design patterns. I have a reply drafted on my home machine that discusses this and I will post it later. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout This is just completely unrealistic. First, don't submit a design that you can't build. Otherwise, if you are not the designer, and have no choice but to build the design the client wants/approved, then you're stuck. The client, in the _vast_ majority of cases, is not going to care how you build anything. Just build the site he/she wants. Period. If you can do it in a standards- based way, all the better. But in my world, if the client approved a design, we have to build it _somehow_. Of course, if a design left this office without saying yes, we can do it or no way, there would be heck to pay... 2¢... well maybe 5¢... :) - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Thomas Livingston said: On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: encouraging your clients to look to other design solutions that don't reply on the use of tables for layout This is just completely unrealistic. What It's unrealistic to advise your clients? Not in my world, my friend. First, don't submit a design that you can't build. So true. Otherwise, if you are not the designer, and have no choice but to build the design the client wants/approved, then you're stuck. How can you be stuck without a choice? Would you not at least alert them (clients or peers) to the fact that a better solution may exist? The client, in the _vast_ majority of cases, is not going to care how you build anything. Exactly, because they are not designers or developers, and that is the crux of my point. Just build the site he/she wants. Period. I've noticed over the years that I am acutally a better designer than my clients, just as my clients know more about fiscal policy, running an army, and rocket science for example. Clients don't always want, or know, what's good for them - simply because their expertise lies elsewhere - that's why design is a profession... or at the very least a professional service... and not a service industry. Would you like a MacDesign(tm) with that?. That's why we acutally have jobs and the web is not made up soley of pdf's, Word as HTML, and sites that look like Jacob's AlertBox. But in my world, if the client approved a design, we have to build it _somehow_. Clearly, we live in different worlds. Get in early. Even if you only come in at the end of the project, how can your designers get difficult-to-implement designs approved? Don't let the client (or your peers) make mistakes - Yes, I'll have a MacDesign(tm), be sure to give me lot's of blinking text, a yellow stripe on the side, and a skip intro with some pumping drum'n'bass. It is up to us to share our knowledge, make informed decisions, and offer professional advice to our clients and our colleagues. We don't have 2c in NZ, and 5c is being phased out so this will have to be my 10c rant. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al, Since, my whole point has been that using a simple layout table, as opposed to a nested monstrosity, can sometimes be a good thing I'm glad you are championing my original cause, which somehow got way off course in the thread. Not only can a simple table be a good thing, it is still the only way to get cross-browser (not just Opera or whatever) equal height columns (expanding to fit the content of the longest one) without resorting (as you pointed out) to javascript. Until such time as this can be done as easily (and reliably) without tables as it is with, I'm going to stick to my one table when needed. I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet. Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz wrote:
I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two
cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet.
I did think more than Rimantas would pop-up with a quick answer for your
question, Bob:
Which browser can correctly render the following:
3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the
body
in column 1 goes a 1000px high image
in column 2 goes a 750px high image
in column 3 goes a 500px high image
the end result should be that all three columns are the same height
in other words:
below the image in column 1, no background color shows
below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows
below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows
My response (just for the record!) has a problem displaying the
background colour on Netscape 4.78 and Netscape 6.2 (as far as I can
tell via Browsercam), but otherwise rendering is pretty similar:
HTML:
div id=container
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=1000 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=750 width=100 alt= /
/div
div class=column
img src=notableimg.jpg height=500 width=100 alt= /
/div
/div
CSS:
* { margin:0; padding:0; }
body { background-color:#ff0; }
#container { width:90%; background-color:#fff; float:left;
margin-left:5%; _margin-left:2.5%; }
.column { float:left; width:33%; text-align:center; }
.column img { display:block; margin:0 auto; }
Have a look at http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/3col/
Unfortunately, due to the behaviour of our good buddy PC IE, an extra
hack is called for (the '_margin-left: 2.5%;')
I thought someone else might as well answer your request! ;)
cheers,
Stuart
--
http://www.stuarthomfray.co.uk/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz said: I had hoped for some real solutions when I posted my original two cents, but none came. I can only conclude there are none, yet. Here's an easy solution: don't create designs that look like they're from 1998 (e.g the 2-col cnet yellow stripe and it's ilk)... there are so many more creative and useful possiblities once you get past that design pattern. Heres another: use a single color background. Disclaimer: this is not a personal attack on you Bob or anyone else who likes multicolor columns, it's just a couple of ways to remove reliance on using tables for layout. kind regards Terrence Wood email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: +64-4-8033354 mobile: +64-21-120-1234 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Christian, On 12/12/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not trying to center, the issue is height and more correctly height which expands to fit content of nested divs and probably even more correctly a box with columns in it which expands all columns to be equal in height to the one with the most content. Yes, you have missed something: equal height columns with pure CSS: http://positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/equalheight there are more links I could give you to older methods, but this is the *holy grail* of CSS columns. Anyone who hasn't seen this should. Thanks for the info, but reading the implementation of the technique reveals it is rife with hacks, which so far I've managed to avoid in the sites I've designed. Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already does, I'll stick with the one table. If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it seems they do), how can we be chastised for using a table to accomplish what can't be accomplished without resorting to javascript or hacks - it seems the lesser of the evils. As for more simply, just getting a container to contain floats: http://www.complexspiral.com/publications/containing-floats/ I'm not having problems with floats. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Given a choice of one table or hacks to do what one table already does, I'll stick with the one table. Only so called hacks go to the presentation layer (CSS file) and table stays in your HTML markup. If the current specs still have height issues for divs (which it seems they do), how can we be chastised for using a table to accomplish what can't be accomplished without resorting to javascript or hacks - it seems the lesser of the evils. There is one browser with issues, not the specs. And still - table for layout _is_ a hack. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
And still - table for layout _is_ a hack. I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file. Yes, I know presentation belongs in the CSS. No, I don't subscribe to Never ever ever use a table for layout purposes although I do frown on nesting them. No, I don't usually use a table for layout, but I can understand people who use a SINGLE layout table in some cases. If the alternative is too complicated, use a table, but don't nest them. We've had these discussions before, so I'll leave it there :-) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body in column 1 goes a 1000px high image in column 2 goes a 750px high image in column 3 goes a 500px high image the end result should be that all three columns are the same height in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body in column 1 goes a 1000px high image in column 2 goes a 750px high image in column 3 goes a 500px high image the end result should be that all three columns are the same height in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary. As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity. When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let you all know. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file. Amen ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
OK, we've had this before, but here we go again. Show me an example of
centering a div vertically and horizontally on the screen, where you
don't need to know ANY sizes beforehand, don't need negative margins,
AND the result works in the viewport even when the viewport is smaller
than the content. (i.e., you can get to the top of it, and scroll) AND
it's got to work in IE.
Answer:
style type=text/css
!--
body, html {
height : 100%;
}
#layoutgrid{
height : 100%;
width : 100%;
}
#layoutgrid td {
vertical-align : middle;
text-align : center;
}
--
/style
/head
body
table id=layoutgrid
tr
td
This text is in the middle!
/td
/tr
/table
/body
One simple table! Now do it without a table . . .
Christian Montoya wrote:
Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary.
As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity.
When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let
you all know.
--
--
Christian Montoya
--
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I've found this particular topic so interesting, as I've gotten an insight into the different approaches people take towards building standards based designs or should I say, CSS driven designs. As we all know, there is not one perfect, fully robust, all conquering 100% correct way to design any conceivable web interface for a client or user, and I think this is what a few people have alluded to in their posts, albeit they are saying it in different ways. So without a perfect solution being present, you're left to find the best solution you can, under your often unique set of circumstances. I'd like to think everyone on this list understands the holistic nature of designing with web standards, understanding why the effort is worth it, but also realising that the ideals of designing with web standards must always be taken with a good deal of common sense (and humour, cheers Russ). There are so many factors to consider when designing an interface and personally, that's what I love about this work, it's never boring and always challenging. As developers, all we can ever hope for is to do the best job we can with the knowledge we have at the time, delivering the best solution possible for the client and of course, the end user. If everyone who has posted different arguments is doing the best they can, then I say well done and good stuff! Ryan Blunden ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
As for a standards-based page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been done easily enough in CSS, why use a table? ... But, anyway, arguments against that example: 1) The standards say tables aren't for layout; this page uses a table for layout; it is not a standards-compliant page. Whether it validates or not, it is not true to the intention of the standard ... your opinion may differ, but that's mine :) 2) Building in a table means the page won't display so well on a small screen device - it's wide, small screens are mostly narrow (sony psp aside... :)). The side-by-side design also means it wouldn't lend itself to a zoom layout either. 3) The table means you are tied to that specific layout for the life of the page (or you have to modify every single page to change the layout). You can't use CSS to switch the navigation to the other side or any nifty tricks like that. Of course, that might not be an issue - but the example doesn't give a scenario so let's assume longevity and maintenance are a factor. At work I deal with a site with 20,000+ pages so these factors are big for us :) 4) Screen readers will hear the table before the content. Depending on their settings, users will be hearing 2-column page layout table instead of getting into the content. In the grand scheme of things, not the end of the world. But it's not necessary. Accepting the break from pure standards; it's not bad. I have actually recommended people use simple layout tables when other solutions fail; or as a transition stage from tables to CSS. Some specific things like vertical centring are still poorly supported in CSS (or more accurately, poorly supported in browsers). The example certainly doesn't prove that tables are ok for layout; just that you can build something which does use a table for layout and is still ok. To put it another way, if you were to put that in production I wouldn't really care; there are far bigger problems to tackle ;) h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Christian Montoya wrote: On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body ... the end result should be that all three columns are the same height That's the easy part: all browsers that can render according to spec... http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html ...which should be all of today's major browsers but the one mentioned on the page linked to below... Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary. As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity. When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let you all know. Those bells and whistles are fun to have in the background at times though - as long as they are kept relatively quiet :-) I'm not sure whether the following page is css-driven or css-enhanced or just a huge - flexible - hack, but it sure wouldn't work if there were tables in the source-code. http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/molly_1_20.html ...gosh, even that old Trident gets it. And, for the record: that's not a real page - just a sheet in my book of bells and whistles. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file. Amen So, how are you going to style your single table? Either with CSS with all multiple background imageas and extra divs, or with even more sliced pieces of images peppered accross that simple table? Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body in column 1 goes a 1000px high image in column 2 goes a 750px high image in column 3 goes a 500px high image the end result should be that all three columns are the same height in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary. As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity. When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let you all know. Bells and whistles without any neccessity What I have described is how sites were done for years. As for necessity, some clients just happen to like it this way. Do you try and please your clients when you do a site or what? Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 13 Dec, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: I'd rather have that single, easy to spot hack, which adds very little overhead, than multiple background images and extra divs coupled with hyroglyphics in my css file. Amen So, how are you going to style your single table? Either with CSS with all multiple background imageas and extra divs, or with even more sliced pieces of images peppered accross that simple table? What? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: ... http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html Opera: since version 4. Gecko browsers: works with the oldest I have got: Mozilla Seamonkey 0.6 (2000-12-05) build. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
heretic wrote: As for a standards-based page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been done easily enough in CSS, why use a table? ... But, anyway, arguments against that example: 1) The standards say tables aren't for layout; this page uses a table for layout; it is not a standards-compliant page. Whether it validates or not, it is not true to the intention of the standard ... your opinion may differ, but that's mine :) Fair enough. Of course, my opinion differs in that I believe that there is no standard mandating that a table not be used for layout. 2) Building in a table means the page won't display so well on a small screen device - it's wide, small screens are mostly narrow (sony psp aside... :)). The side-by-side design also means it wouldn't lend itself to a zoom layout either. Small-screen devices have a completely different relevancy than many people allow - or admit. But rather than get into a debate over the futility of writing to a Twer of Babel mix of small-screen browsers, I submit that standards-conformant small-screen user agents have no problems linearizing a simple layout table (let's sic the WaSP on the bad guys there). Remember, we're not talking about ugly, messy, nested table layouts as done by Photoshop or Fireworks, we're talking clean, simple, layout tables used to render stable columns. 3) The table means you are tied to that specific layout for the life of the page (or you have to modify every single page to change the layout). You can't use CSS to switch the navigation to the other side or any nifty tricks like that. Of course, that might not be an issue - but the example doesn't give a scenario so let's assume longevity and maintenance are a factor. At work I deal with a site with 20,000+ pages so these factors are big for us :) Have a look at this page: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics_ssi.htm 4) Screen readers will hear the table before the content. Depending on their settings, users will be hearing 2-column page layout table instead of getting into the content. In the grand scheme of things, not the end of the world. But it's not necessary. The summary can be made briefer :-) But you're right, it's not the end of the world, and JAWs and Co. will also be announcing lists and, depending on your preferences, lots of other stuff. Accepting the break from pure standards; it's not bad. I have actually recommended people use simple layout tables when other solutions fail; or as a transition stage from tables to CSS. Some specific things like vertical centring are still poorly supported in CSS (or more accurately, poorly supported in browsers). Agreed. And I hope you realize I'm not advocating the use of tables for layout becoming the dominant force in page design :-) What I'm trying to do is to let people know that if a certain projects and clients could be more efficiently dealt with by using a simple, clean table structure, they don't have to feel stupid, evil, or unclean. There is alleged to be a small faction of intolerant, and somtimes condescending, people within the standards/CSS community. The example certainly doesn't prove that tables are ok for layout; just that you can build something which does use a table for layout and is still ok. To put it another way, if you were to put that in production I wouldn't really care; there are far bigger problems to tackle ;) I'll conider that a philosophical victory ;-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Try it in IE Mac, you're in for a surprise. 2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: ... http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html Opera: since version 4. Gecko browsers: works with the oldest I have got: Mozilla Seamonkey 0.6 (2000-12-05) build. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Display: table-cell is a great tool, but its practicality will not be meaningful for several years. While IE5 Mac is fairly irrelevant, IE5 and IE6 Windows have a long life remaining. It's a fun declaration to play with, but serious commercial designers would be ill-advised to depend on it at this point. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? Try it in IE Mac, you're in for a surprise. 2005/12/13, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: ... http://rimantas.com/bits/notable.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Display: table-cell is a great tool, but its practicality will not be meaningful for several years. While IE5 Mac is fairly irrelevant, IE5 and IE6 Windows have a long life remaining. It's a fun declaration to play with, but serious commercial designers would be ill-advised to depend on it at this point. This is all true, but: Me: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Bob: Which browser can correctly render the following: Question was which browser can, not which cannot. ;) My point was: we should not blame CSS for shortcomings of the particular browser. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary. As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity. When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let you all know. Bells and whistles without any neccessity What I have described is how sites were done for years. As for necessity, some clients just happen to like it this way. Do you try and please your clients when you do a site or what? So you don't have a site where this was necessary? -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
It depends on who the recipient of the policy doc is. One, very large, contractor we were working with considered MUST to mean SHOULD, and SHOULD to be IF YOU CAN BE RSED. They're government funded so no-one cared. Stephen heretic wrote: I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) One quick comment on this... I always write must in draft policy documents; but the higher-ups change them all to should before the final version. I am told that should is Policy-Speak for must, since it allows for discretion in considered instances. Basically, it means for all intents and purposes, you must not do this on pain of death but there is wiggle room to plead your case if greater evil might occur by following the rule. Personally I'd keep must and let people sort it out for themselves, because you should never suggest the rules are still being followed if they're being broken. But policy speak dictates should. In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it). Crazy language :) h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber wrote: In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it). Crazy language :) Except it's not a rule but an aid to correct spelling. you could say I SHOULD be before E EXCEPT where usage dictated otherwise. It seems silly to sty and define something in a rule when there are so many exceptions. Like saying 'every day is a Tuesday except when it's not' is not an indication of a Crazy time system but an indication of a bad rule. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Sparber wrote: In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it). Crazy language :) Except it's not a rule but an aid to correct spelling. you could say I SHOULD be before E EXCEPT where usage dictated otherwise. It seems silly to sty and define something in a rule when there are so many exceptions. Like saying 'every day is a Tuesday except when it's not' is not an indication of a Crazy time system but an indication of a bad rule. Hi Stephen, Actually, I did not say that. The person responding to me said it. -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I take it, therefore, that none of your sites use style sheets at all (unnecessary), they all use a serif font for body content(easier to read long para's when in serifs) and that images are only used for visualization aids? Very little of what we do is determined by necessity, otherwise we would still all be farmers. The situation I had where I wanted to control column heights was when designing a fluid layout with image based borders and corners. The only way that I could do it (because of this problem) was to make one border non-image based (ie a 1px border). Stephen Christian Montoya wrote: On 12/13/05, Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one browser with issues, not the specs. Which browser can correctly render the following: 3 columns, no height defined and a background color different from that of the body in column 1 goes a 1000px high image in column 2 goes a 750px high image in column 3 goes a 500px high image the end result should be that all three columns are the same height in other words: below the image in column 1, no background color shows below the image in column 2, 250px of background color shows below the image in column 3, 500px of background color shows Please send us all an example of a site where this was necessary. As usual designers want bells and whistles without any necessity. When I find a reason to actually use equal height columns, I'll let you all know. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/13/05, Stephen Stagg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I take it, therefore, that none of your sites use style sheets at all (unnecessary), they all use a serif font for body content(easier to read long para's when in serifs) and that images are only used for visualization aids? Very little of what we do is determined by necessity, otherwise we would still all be farmers. You make funny conclusions. The situation I had where I wanted to control column heights was when designing a fluid layout with image based borders and corners. The only way that I could do it (because of this problem) was to make one border non-image based (ie a 1px border). Bob's example could easily be done with CSS, but it would probably involve one or two css techniques (like negative margins) that would make others dislike it. And knowing that in advance, I won't waste the time doing it. As for your example, the question is, are you sure you found the only way to solve your problem? Because, while I don't mind that you settled on a table as the solution, I would like to see if I can recreate what you did in CSS. Maybe you have a link to this example? As an aside, I see it this way: it isn't about what CSS can't do. CSS can do anything that was ever done with layout tables. The only problem is browser support. And if you are saying to use layout tables to support old browsers, that's one story. You won't see me arguing against that. But at least admit that it's a hack. We are definitely off topic from the original thread, too. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Tables are great divs are great and if you mix them it's almost twice as good or half as bad... whatever! (I think this subject has been driven way too hard and for x-mas I want it to run out of fuel :-) ) -- Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Kim Kruse - http://www.mouseriders.dk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber wrote: heretic wrote: 3) The table means you are tied to that specific layout for the life of the page (or you have to modify every single page to change the layout). You can't use CSS to switch the navigation to the other side or any nifty tricks like that. Of course, that might not be an issue - but the example doesn't give a scenario so let's assume longevity and maintenance are a factor. At work I deal with a site with 20,000+ pages so these factors are big for us :) Have a look at this page: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics_ssi.htm ;-) Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I would pose the counter question: agreeing that it could have been done easily enough in CSS, why use a table? No arguments for the table? :) Fair enough. Of course, my opinion differs in that I believe that there is no standard mandating that a table not be used for layout. Personally I'm going with the W3C, since they're the best we have ;) Small-screen devices have a completely different relevancy than many people allow - or admit. But rather than get into a debate over the futility of writing to a Twer of Babel mix of small-screen browsers, I submit that standards-conformant small-screen user agents have no problems linearizing a simple layout table (let's sic the WaSP on the bad guys there). Remember, we're not talking about ugly, messy, nested table layouts as done by Photoshop or Fireworks, we're talking clean, simple, layout tables used to render stable columns. Unless the device actually linearises tables properly, simple/complex doesn't matter - it's tables used yes/no. I wouldn't bet anything on any mobile device getting anything at all right. We've tested quite a few and most of them are absolutely rotten. Have a look at this page: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics_ssi.htm There must be a point here, but I'm not seeing it. Are you trying to suggest we should use SSIs? For one thing, we do. For another.. to separate the layout table from the content you'd have to pepper the file with SSI hooks - not something I'd do. Agreed. And I hope you realize I'm not advocating the use of tables for layout becoming the dominant force in page design :-) It's not entirely clear, but I had guessed that What I'm trying to do is to let people know that if a certain projects and clients could be more efficiently dealt with by using a simple, clean table structure, they don't have to feel stupid, evil, or unclean. There is alleged to be a small faction of intolerant, and somtimes condescending, people within the standards/CSS community. I've found that many developers out there would take that point and turn it into that standards guy said layout tables were fine and spray nested tables and font tags all over their apps again. Give an inch, they'll take ten miles. That's why standardistas can come across as being so inflexible I guess :) Basically though, my stance is that if people are willing to use simple layout tables instead of nested horrors; it's still a step in the right direction. Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. hehehe I'd say that about all web development... h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files. Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. :) Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
LOL... priceless. Thank you. Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. :) Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Kim Kruse - http://www.mouseriders.dk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
russ - maxdesign wrote: What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files. So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS driven ? My searching thus far has turned up Meyer, comments about the Zen Garden, and a few other proponents across the Net implying or stating that CSS driven means pretty much all CSS based, not just some.. and I'd like to know why they are right. Anyone? Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. Love the definition, Russ ;) :) Russ Lawrence -- Lawrence Meckan Absalom Media Mob: (04) 1047 9633 ABN: 49 286 495 792 http://www.absalom.biz ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/12/05, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files. Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. My CSS exhibits blind hate towards outdated browsers :) -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
russ - maxdesign wrote: I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. :) Russ Could I please request a tutorial on this method please Russ... - Geoff ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/12/05, Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: russ - maxdesign wrote: What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files. So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS driven ? My searching thus far has turned up Meyer, comments about the Zen Garden, and a few other proponents across the Net implying or stating that CSS driven means pretty much all CSS based, not just some.. and I'd like to know why they are right. Anyone? *raises hand* me! me! Because when you turn CSS off, there's no styling, other than the browser defaults.The page looks like it would if you typed it up as a text document... pictures, headers, lists, charts, but nothing unusual. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
A distinction needs to be made. The html coding can be table based or tableless and in both cases the page can be CSS driven or not. On 12/12/05, Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: russ - maxdesign wrote: What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? You could say that a css-driven site is one that has all or the majority of presentation removed from the markup and placed in CSS files. So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS driven ? My searching thus far has turned up Meyer, comments about the Zen Garden, and a few other proponents across the Net implying or stating that CSS driven means pretty much all CSS based, not just some.. and I'd like to know why they are right. Anyone? Having said this, I googled the word driven for a definition and found that it also meant mobs goaded by blind hatred I don't know about anyone else but I often use angry mobs to control my web pages - though it is hard to get them to exhibit blind hate. Love the definition, Russ ;) :) Russ Lawrence -- Lawrence Meckan Absalom Media Mob: (04) 1047 9633 ABN: 49 286 495 792 http://www.absalom.biz ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
What is the definition of a CSS driven design ? I would suggest that a CSS driven site is one in which the look and layout of the site is controlled by CSS, rather than by the default behaviours of 'traditional'[1] presentational elements. Changing a single CSS declaration can theoretically change the layout and appearance of the whole site. The key word here is 'driven', in that the site presentation is controlled by the CSS, much the same as a database driven sites content is controlled and easily changed by making changes to the database records. Regards Scott Swabey Lafinboy Productions www.lafinboy.com [1] Tables, spacer gifs, and the like - 'superior being' forbid! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A distinction needs to be made. The html coding can be table based or tableless and in both cases the page can be CSS driven or not. Sorry, that is wrong. A table based layout is not CSS driven. There's a difference between driven and complemented. A tableless layout is driven by CSS, and a table based layout is only complemented by CSS. Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table based. That's hacking, not coding. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Absalom Media [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So where's the dividing line between table based design and CSS
driven ?
My searching thus far has turned up Meyer, comments about the Zen
Garden, and a few other proponents across the Net implying or
stating
that CSS driven means pretty much all CSS based, not just some.. and
I'd
like to know why they are right.
While it's usually best if you can lay out a page without tables,
tables and CSS are not mutualy exclusive. Tables are not the opposite
of CSS :-). This scenario also separates presentation from structure:
markup:
tabletr
td id=content
Main content
/td
td id=sidebar
Sidebar
/td
/trtable
CSS:
#content {
padding: 1.5em;
border: 1px solid black;
}
#sidebar {
padding: 1.5em;
border: 1px solid black;
background-color: green;
}
Of course, it's just as easy to use DIVs and sometimes even to use
nothing :-)
http://65.110.72.165/tutorials/articles/css/div_less/
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table based. That's hacking, not coding. --- I hope you are joking. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber From: Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table based. That's hacking, not coding. --- I hope you are joking. Al, maybe Christian's wording was a bit brusque, but looking at the facts: a) the standard clearly states Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html - this makes the use of tables for layout pretty much a practice contrary to the standard (I have been known to call it a perversion of the standard, myself) b) this list is for the Web Standards Group True, from a pragmatic (as in need to support older browsers) point of view table based layouts are sometimes a necessary evil, but from a standards point of view Christian is right, IMHO. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table element from html and in my dictionary, hacking is modifying a program in an unauthorized manner. Are tables unauthorized? I never said that tables are meant for design. But even by w3.org standards they are used for displaying tabular data . What is in your oppinion the difference between a css driven and a css complemented page? Isn't in both cases the coding enhanced by the styling? Please do not qualify others' statements as silly. Let's keep this discussion in a friendly manner. On 12/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A distinction needs to be made. The html coding can be table based or tableless and in both cases the page can be CSS driven or not. Sorry, that is wrong. A table based layout is not CSS driven. There's a difference between driven and complemented. A tableless layout is driven by CSS, and a table based layout is only complemented by CSS. Please, no more silly statements like that. This is the Web Standards Group. To take it a step further, the html coding can never be table based. That's hacking, not coding. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al, maybe Christian's wording was a bit brusque, but looking at the facts: a) the standard clearly states Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html - this makes the use of tables for layout pretty much a practice contrary to the standard (I have been known to call it a perversion of the standard, myself) b) this list is for the Web Standards Group True, from a pragmatic (as in need to support older browsers) point of view table based layouts are sometimes a necessary evil, but from a standards point of view Christian is right, IMHO. Here is the full note: Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables. I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) Once again, I must clarify that I'm not advocating the use of tables for layout, nor am I saying they are a necessary evil for supporting old browsers. What I am saying is that they are not the opposite of CSS. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Are tables unauthorized? I never said that tables are meant for design. But even by w3.org standards they are used for displaying tabular data . Tabular data is, of course, a completely different matter. Using tables is of course the best, most semantic way to present that sort of information. In fact, any attempts at recreating a table, but just with spans, divs and similar, is a futile, nay illogical exercise, as the end result can never have the same level of explicit association and relationship between the various data cells and the headings. But I can see how the thread starter's question seemed to imply a complete site layout, rather than tabular data specifically. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Hi, on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 15:01 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: Sorry, but I have to disagree. Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table element from html and in my dictionary, hacking is modifying a program in an unauthorized manner. Are tables unauthorized? Well, I understood it in a very similar way as Christian. If we speak about table based layout, we mean layout tables not tables for tabular data. A css driven site may use tables, but for tabular data only. Martin. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? Hi, on Monday, December 12, 2005 at 15:01 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: Sorry, but I have to disagree. Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table element from html and in my dictionary, hacking is modifying a program in an unauthorized manner. Are tables unauthorized? Well, I understood it in a very similar way as Christian. If we speak about table based layout, we mean layout tables not tables for tabular data. A css driven site may use tables, but for tabular data only. That's sematically incorrect :-) Think of the meaning of should versus, must - actually, your sentence above has me wondering anew about the true meaning of may, as opposed to might. Tough language, this English. But whether this is a CSS or a Standards mail list, statements such as A css driven site may use tables, but for tabular data only are simply opinions. Here is a piece written by an old friend with, what I consider to be, a first-rate brain: http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/ Back to your regularly scheduled programming :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
2005/12/12, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) ... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective RECOMMENDED, mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. So yes, compatibility with older browsers would be one of those valid reasons...but ignoring a particular item to me means going against/outside of the standard/specification, thus hacking/perverting. Maybe just me being pedantic (me? never!) ;-) What I am saying is that they are not the opposite of CSS. But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Ah well, it probably does come down to the interpretation of how strong a recommendation should really is. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Maybe I'm behind in my CSS religious training, but... I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to incompass its nested content as a table cell does. This is something I need to have happen once-and-awhile. Have I missed some change to CSS or are there still height issues with divs? Bob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Patrick Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:50 AM Subject: RE: [WSG] CSS Driven? Al Sparber I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective RECOMMENDED, mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. So yes, compatibility with older browsers would be one of those valid reasons...but ignoring a particular item to me means going against/outside of the standard/specification, thus hacking/perverting. Maybe just me being pedantic (me? never!) ;-) What I am saying is that they are not the opposite of CSS. But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Ah well, it probably does come down to the interpretation of how strong a recommendation should really is. -- Yes. And that we are approaching the discussion cordially, indicates a healthy approach to the standards and recommendations with the primary difference being our opinions. Sadly, this is rare :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Maybe I'm behind in my CSS religious training, but... I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to incompass its nested content as a table cell does. This is something I need to have happen once-and-awhile. Have I missed some change to CSS or are there still height issues with divs? Until display: table-cell is adopted by IE, the usual means to accomplish what you want is to use faux columns or a scripted solution. You can google faux columns and view a scripted solution here: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/index.htm Note that there are lots of variations to faux columns, including some over-the-top tricks, which I'm sure others on this list will bring to your attention. Choose your own weapon :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Now you'll get the no javascript fanatics chiming in. I have clients who want pages that have a box floating in the horizontal center of the page and the height of the box to vary depending on its content, the simple solution has been one table, it works, no hacks, no javascript, no regrets (unless I'm tossed out of the garden). From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? But CSS is the de-facto preferred way of defining layout of (X)HTML documents, and using tables for layout is a case of ignoring a particular item in the HTML spec. Maybe I'm behind in my CSS religious training, but... I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to incompass its nested content as a table cell does. This is something I need to have happen once-and-awhile. Have I missed some change to CSS or are there still height issues with divs? Until display: table-cell is adopted by IE, the usual means to accomplish what you want is to use faux columns or a scripted solution. You can google faux columns and view a scripted solution here: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pvii_columns/index.htm Note that there are lots of variations to faux columns, including some over-the-top tricks, which I'm sure others on this list will bring to your attention. Choose your own weapon :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to incompass its nested content as a table cell does. If your nested content is positioned absolutely, then there is currently no plain vanilla way to get the div to expand. If your nested content is floated, you can use a clearing element (with clear: left|right|both; as appropriate) as the last item in the div. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? 2005/12/12, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) ... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Precisely :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? Now you'll get the no javascript fanatics chiming in. I have clients who want pages that have a box floating in the horizontal center of the page and the height of the box to vary depending on its content, the simple solution has been one table, it works, no hacks, no javascript, no regrets (unless I'm tossed out of the garden). There must be more to the story because it's fairly easy to center a box horizontally without using a table. Are there any other details? Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Thanks, Sometime it is absolutely positioned. Couldn't the if floated solution be considered a hack? :-} It is starting to sound as if my reasons for using one table once-and- awhile are still valid and that there are still some height issues with divs. Bob Schwartz I've found the need to use one table as a base layout because I still cannot get a div to expand in height (no height defined) to incompass its nested content as a table cell does. If your nested content is positioned absolutely, then there is currently no plain vanilla way to get the div to expand. If your nested content is floated, you can use a clearing element (with clear: left|right|both; as appropriate) as the last item in the div. P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I mis-spoke (maybe), the issue is not the horiz centered box, it is the box expanding in height according to its contents. (ie the whole box expands in height according to the content in the main cell). (Some clients don't want 100% height). From: Bob Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? Now you'll get the no javascript fanatics chiming in. I have clients who want pages that have a box floating in the horizontal center of the page and the height of the box to vary depending on its content, the simple solution has been one table, it works, no hacks, no javascript, no regrets (unless I'm tossed out of the garden). There must be more to the story because it's fairly easy to center a box horizontally without using a table. Are there any other details? Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Bob Schwartz
Couldn't the if floated solution be considered a hack? :-}
It is starting to sound as if my reasons for using one table
once-and-
awhile are still valid and that there are still some height issues
with divs.
If you're floating or absolutely positioning things, a table cell
won't help you either. Are you just after an equivalent of
td align=center
which would equate to something like
div#container { text-align: center; } /* for IE */
div#container whatever { margin: 0 auto; width: whatever; text-align: left; )
?
As aleady noted on this thread, centering does not necessarily
need floating in a CSS world...
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I'm not trying to center, the issue is height and more correctly
height which expands to fit content of nested divs and probably even
more correctly a box with columns in it which expands all columns to
be equal in height to the one with the most content.
Bob Schwartz
Couldn't the if floated solution be considered a hack? :-}
It is starting to sound as if my reasons for using one table
once-and-
awhile are still valid and that there are still some height issues
with divs.
If you're floating or absolutely positioning things, a table cell
won't help you either. Are you just after an equivalent of
td align=center
which would equate to something like
div#container { text-align: center; } /* for IE */
div#container whatever { margin: 0 auto; width: whatever; text-
align: left; )
?
As aleady noted on this thread, centering does not necessarily
need floating in a CSS world...
P
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Thanks for the answer Marilyn. As I wrote before, I never implied that tables are meant to be used for layouts.I for one don't use tables ...haven't used them for quite a long time. But that doesn't mean they can't be used, if tabular data is involved. And obviously I see no hacking in using tables. I am sorry if you assumed that I meant using tables for layout in my previous posts.As someone mentioned, this is the WSG - thus we are supposed to know a few things about standards and use them. Let's suppose you have a page that involves tabular data. You got two versions of this page, one built with divs/spans/lists and another one built with tables. Both versions are css enhanced. Why would you call one css driven and the other one not? Best regards, Emma Dobrescu -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marilyn Langfeld Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 7:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] CSS Driven? Hi Emma, I'd like to tackle your question. Yes, you can consider a table a container. However, in HTML a table contains tabular data, not other tables, not layout. HTML was designed by scientists, for whom tables of data were of utmost importance. It was a perversion of the language to use them for layout. Unfortunately, IMHO, designers were not part of the team developing HTML, so that presentation was given low priority. Allowing the mess that's call tag soup to develop. If the Web were only a visual medium, this wouldn't be too bad. But, one of the wonderful things about the Web is that it's a great equalizer--allowing disabled, abled, low bandwidth, high bandwith, etc. users to use it and gain information, develop networks, buy, sell, learn, teach, etc. So, in order to help the Web grow more and more useful, separate your content and presentation. That way, everyone can access your pages. That means, use tables as intended, for tabular data. Now, in my book, tabular data includes text, when presented in tabular form (with columns and rows, column heads and row heads). And use css to position, colour, define your text, images, etc. That's css-driven. As opposed to using tables for positioning and css for basic font styling. CSS can do everything I just mentioned (within browser limitations). Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.301.598.3300 business phone +1.301.598.0532 fax +1.202.390.8847 mobile On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but I have to disagree. Tables as well as divs, spans etc. are containers. They are both html elements. I don't think that any standard has suppressed the table element from html and in my dictionary, hacking is modifying a program in an unauthorized manner. Are tables unauthorized? I never said that tables are meant for design. But even by w3.org standards they are used for displaying tabular data . What is in your oppinion the difference between a css driven and a css complemented page? Isn't in both cases the coding enhanced by the styling? Please do not qualify others' statements as silly. Let's keep this discussion in a friendly manner. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** __ NOD32 1.1319 (20051212) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/12/05, Emma Dobrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's suppose you have a page that involves tabular data. You got two versions of this page, one built with divs/spans/lists and another one built with tables. Both versions are css enhanced. Why would you call one css driven and the other one not? Huh? How did this get so confusing? Let's say you have an unordered list, and a bunch of spans. Both versions are CSS enhanced. But the version with spans requires floats and clears to work. ** Let's say you turn CSS off ** Which one still looks like a list? That one is not CSS driven. It is CSS enhanced. As for the one that no longer looks like a list, it's layout was completely CSS dependent. Without it, it's a run on paragraph. Wait a second, that makes no sense. So far the discussion on tables has been as weird as the example I just gave. To something more realistic... let's say you have tabular data in a table, and something that looks like a table, when CSS is on. Wait. We are comparing apples and oranges. Paint the orange red, fine, but the comparison is weird. Tabular data goes in a table. Let's compare apples and apples: Say you have tabular data in a table, and tabular data in a table. The first table uses font tags, b, i, u, spacer gifs, nbsp, empty cells, etc. The second is totally awesome like any of these: http://icant.co.uk/csstablegallery/ Now let's say you turn CSS off. Which one falls back to the browser defaults? That one is CSS driven. This is what I was saying all along... we are talking about markup that is driven by CSS, so let's not compare two different forms of markup using the same CSS, but rather, the same form of markup using CSS or something else. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I'll take another stab at this, though others may disagree. I would define CSS-driven as probably requiring external CSS file(s), as opposed inline CSS enhancement (your term) per page. That separates the presentation (in the CSS files) from the content cleanly and allows the CSS file(s) to control the presentation of all your pages, not just one at a time with inline CSS. It's not clear how the CSS is written in your example. Can you clarify? I may still be missing your point. Are you asking if using lists is always better than using tables? Depends on the content. A definition list can work sometimes, but I find it's pushing the limits sometimes. I find people on this list aim to push HTML and XHTML to their semantic limits, from which I learn a lot. But IMHO, HTML and XHTML are very limited semantically, especially when compared to XML, so sometimes we go beyond the practical. Often discussions about tabular data displayed as definition lists pushes the limit for me. But again, I have no idea if that's what you're considering. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld Langfeldesigns http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Emma Dobrescu wrote: Thanks for the answer Marilyn. As I wrote before, I never implied that tables are meant to be used for layouts.I for one don't use tables ...haven't used them for quite a long time. But that doesn't mean they can't be used, if tabular data is involved. And obviously I see no hacking in using tables. I am sorry if you assumed that I meant using tables for layout in my previous posts.As someone mentioned, this is the WSG - thus we are supposed to know a few things about standards and use them. Let's suppose you have a page that involves tabular data. You got two versions of this page, one built with divs/spans/lists and another one built with tables. Both versions are css enhanced. Why would you call one css driven and the other one not? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
A desperate attempt to simplify: CSS Driven: No presentational markup, no semantic markup used improperly for presentational purposes. CSS handles all presentation. Not CSS Driven: Lots of presentational markup, but CSS for font sizes and colors. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
I guess your assertion hinges on how one interprets the word should. Perhaps I am English-challenged, but I always took should to have a suggestive or advisory connotation, while shall or must are obligatory :-) One quick comment on this... I always write must in draft policy documents; but the higher-ups change them all to should before the final version. I am told that should is Policy-Speak for must, since it allows for discretion in considered instances. Basically, it means for all intents and purposes, you must not do this on pain of death but there is wiggle room to plead your case if greater evil might occur by following the rule. Personally I'd keep must and let people sort it out for themselves, because you should never suggest the rules are still being followed if they're being broken. But policy speak dictates should. In any case, we are dealing with a language (English, that is) which produced the rule I before E except when it's not. I know, it used to be ...before C but that's not actually true (weird isn't it). Crazy language :) h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Al Sparber wrote: I do agree that English is a crazy language - but that's as far as I go :-) The gent from Harvard provide the link to the W3C's definition of should, which seems to jive with mine. As for a standards-based page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm Well, I don't think you can argue against it Al. The use of Bowie is a masterstroke. If you look at his various guises - vis: the thin white duke, aladdin sane, the young americans, his berlin period, for example - quite clearly they are thematic implementations of Bowie qua Bowie. How he's handled the ownership issues is a model of simultaneously working within, and subverting, the dominant capitalist paradigm. The importance of this, as you say, cannot be understated. Well done on presenting a complex notion so concisely. Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] CSS Driven?
Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single column? Say. for small screen devices like PDA's or XDA's? Seems to be a flaw of table-based layouts and crosses platform-independence off the list... correct me if I'm wrong (I usually am)... Regards, Miles. As for a standards-based page, agreeing that it is not a hard and fast rule that tables be banned for layout, can you present some logical arguments against this page - keeping strictly within the context of standards: http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/zealotry/linear_basics.htm Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
G'day
Miles Tillinger wrote:
Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single
column?
td { display:block; }
Works in Firefox and Opera (Windows).
Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] CSS Driven?
On 12/13/05, Miles Tillinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could CSS be used to display that two-column table layout as a single column? Say. for small screen devices like PDA's or XDA's? Seems to be a flaw of table-based layouts and crosses platform-independence off the list... correct me if I'm wrong (I usually am)... A smart person took a 5 column table and made this: http://icant.co.uk/csstablegallery/index.php?css=60 Of course, PDA support means it has to work without CSS, since most PDA's don't support CSS. Using P7's page, you would have to serve up another layout to handheld devices, or just swallow the platform dependency. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
