: [css-d] The CSS Overlords
Keeping in mind obviouce fact that not only web developers are a part of
that list:
Experience shows, those who don't like CSS are hoping that their
secretaries will be able to keep websites updated.
Table are WYSIWYG. In CSS you see nothing, you need to go throug
Keeping in mind obviouce fact that not only web developers are a part of that
list:
Experience shows, those who don't like CSS are hoping that their secretaries
will be able to keep websites updated.
Table are WYSIWYG. In CSS you see nothing, you need to go through the code, and
it might get
The best way to learn the benefits of using CSS is by *doing* it.
I started with tables too but never loved them @-...@. CSS was like _love
at first sight_. Only the convincing(learning) part took some time,
but it was worth it.
- Mustafa Quilon
__
The interests and motivations are different. If I am asked to do a pretty
newsletter for Word's rendering engine behind Outlook, I would like to tell
them to ask an HTML table guy. It took me a few years to learn CSS, but I
won't spend time with learning tables.
Some don't like CSS because of the
"My code might *look* like there's more work involved in creating it, but what
you're not showing in your code is all the countless hacks and fixes that you
have to implement 'behind the scenes'"
Let me just say that I have made perfectly functioning CSS sites without any
hacks or fixes wh
At 11:44 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, bj wrote:
>I suspect you are just complacent and don't wish to make the effort to learn.
>What are you waiting for?
Thanks for your comments, BJ -- in response, please see my previous
posts. In the meantime, back to this never-ending learning stuff for
me (about CSS
Hey Ron,
You said:
>I'm curious: why is this approach "frowned upon"? Please >don't get me
>wrong, because I do fully understand that the *goal* of CSS is >for
>the purpose of layout, etc., and tables were never really meant >for
>that, but at the same time I can *easily* create a site using >ta
Ron Koster wrote:
> [...] there's often been times when I looked at the person's problem
> and thought, gee, I could resolve that issue EASILY, if only I
> *wasn't* trying to do it exclusively with CSS.
Sure, but we handle/serve such non-CSS solutions on other lists/forums,
since [CSS-D] is main
At 09:38 AM 1/18/2009 -0600, m...@winternet.com wrote:
>I absolutely understand your drive to create the best, most "perfect"
>web site the first time around, for the requirements you're working
>with. But you must work in much more static environments than anything
>I've ever seen. Don't your cl
At 04:53 PM 1/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>If we all fell back to layout tables and minimal use of CSS, there would
>be very little incentive for growth.
>Layout tables will stay at 1998 level for a long time - probably for as
>long as HTML is in regular use. Thus, they're stable enough b
Ron Koster wrote:
>
> But that's basically where things are at now -- a world of hacks and
> fixes. I'd like to think, though, that hopefully within the next
> decade things will indeed become better in that regard. In the
> meantime, I can't understand why anyone would take issue with
> somet
At 08:55 AM 1/18/2009 -0500, Adam Ducker wrote:
>So I guess my question is what exactly is it that you're doing that you
>need a zillion "fixes" and "hacks" to make it work? I haven't had to do
>that kind of development in years.
Well, that's what I meant -- *I* don't need all sorts of fixes/hack
Ron Koster wrote:
> And I can create a site with tables, and -- assuming that I'm happy
> with my design -- I *don't* have to subsequently look at, analyze and
> improve on the code, having to come up with all sorts of hacks and
> fixes to make it work right (and always worrying, still, if I di
As a guy who grokked HTML in the days of table-based layouts, I loved, and
still love, tables -- especially for tabular data or simple columns.
As a guy who these days writes a ton of dynamic apps for delivery to
multiple clients, I have love for CSS. And yes, CSS pwns font styling, no
question. C
At 08:31 PM 1/18/2009 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>Christian means: move that sidebar (right column in your code) to the
>left of the page, without modifying your html code. That is very easy
>to do with a (decently) stylesheet.
Ah, okay. Well, sure, I see what you mean, and how that would
On Jan 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Ron Koster wrote:
> What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know
> what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it
> off with ease (if you can explain what you mean better).
Christian means: move that sidebar (right colum
At 10:51 AM 1/18/2009 +, Christian Heilmann wrote:
>Cool, then show the sidebar on the left. Doesn't require a hack with CSS :)
What do you mean -- on top of, and obscuring, the nav bar? Don't know
what you mean (exactly), but I'm sure I'd have no problem pulling it
off with ease (if you can
> Seriously? Messy/disastrous coding practices aside (which can apply
> to CSS layouts just as much as table layouts), but do you mean you
> can make sense of your code, above, but you can't make sense of this
> code, below?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
At 10:24 PM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote:
>Part of it is a generational gap between younger web designers and
>older. I never knew that table based designs were ever ok. The books
>always talk about table based layouts as if the Civil War were still
>raging, and the victory of the good North (C
>> CSS requires a change in thought process, a re-envisioning of a
>> website
>> from a different perspective.
>
> Exactly, at least for those who learned to create web pages without
> the benefits of CSS.
This is the interesting part, because I'm a professional web
designer, and until abou
Christie Mason wrote:
> [...] Plus I've seen a lot more sites break that are dependant on CSS
> for positioning when new browser versions are released. How do you
> justify going back to a client to redesign a site that is breaking
> because it used CSS targeted for X versions of browser when a
From: Bill Brown
I, too, am surprised that there are still such strong feelings toward
maintaining tables for layout.
>As a boy, my father had this pair of channel lock pliers that he used
>for everything.
>He used the pliers because he always knew where they were, not because
>they were th
Christie Mason wrote:
> I've been very happy that CSS removed the need to have font
> declarations littered through the code and being able to change
> colors etc from one shared CSS resource, but I'm still not convinced
> of the practical usefulness of it for positioning.
I've written, erased, re
This discussion brings forward some of my own confusions regarding CSS and
tables. I have had to redesign sites both ways and it's been my experience
that CSS with nested divs and classes is much more difficult/expensive/time
consuming than redesigning sites that use a table structure for basic
l
Hi Ron,
You wrote:
> ... but if you think that's the way to go...
Yes for most purposes, it is--I don't use any
screen readers but I suppose they indulge in
some version of "Hey this material is data set
in a table format to make the relationships
more clear." and follow with an effort to use
th
At 07:57 PM 1/17/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>I have no idea who they are either, and finding out is off-topic on this
>list. We're here because we need or are able to provide help to solve
>CSS related problems, and advance the use of efficient, CSS based,
>design solution.
Well, I *do* sin
At 01:17 PM 1/17/2009 -0500, David Laakso wrote:
>The world may end. If so, I rather doubt it will be because you use
>tables for layout...
*Phew*! Well, THAT is a relief.
Ron ;)
Woof?... http://www.Psymon.com
Ach, du Leni!... http://www.Riefenstahl.org
Hmm... http://www.Imaginary-Friend.ca
___
Ron Koster wrote:
>
> Just some thoughts -- I'm certainly interested, of course, in how
> others feel about these things.
>
> Ron :)
>
Nothing truly worthwhile discipline is easy. CSS is among them. There is
a very long and steep learning curve. It is not everyone's "bag."
The world may end
Ron Koster wrote:
> At 02:20 PM 1/14/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote:
>> Well, tables and CSS are not mutually exclusive. That is, they can
>> be used together, though using them for layout is generally frowned
>> upon by the CSS Overlords.
>
> I'm not sure who these Overlords are, but I presume the
At 10:26 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Erika Meyer wrote:
>Here's a short response: if you have not yet drank the w3c web-standards
>kool-aid, now's the time.
Well, it's been a long, long (and I do mean long) time since I
dropped any acid, but if you think that's the way to go... ;)
>Just do it. The Web A
Hi Ron!
Here's a short response: if you have not yet drank the w3c web-standards
kool-aid, now's the time. Just do it. The Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI) http://www.w3.org/WAI/ should explain why you should avoid use
tables for layout purposes.
Here's a longer response: I empathize. I too
At 08:22 AM 1/17/2009 -0800, Dan Gayle wrote:
>Ask a person who uses a screen reader to answer why tables shouldn't
>be used for layout. You'll get your answer soon enough.
Pardon my ignorance, but how is it that a CSS layout wouldn't have
the same potential issues?
>Ask a person who has had to
Ask a person who uses a screen reader to answer why tables shouldn't
be used for layout. You'll get your answer soon enough.
Ask a person who has had to modify or alter a website made in tables,
to add new features like a new sidebar or a pull quote within the
middle of a block of text.
Ask
At 02:20 PM 1/14/2009 -0500, Bill Brown wrote:
>Well, tables and CSS are not mutually exclusive. That is, they can be
>used together, though using them for layout is generally frowned upon by
>the CSS Overlords.
I'm not sure who these Overlords are, but I presume they're the ones
referred to when
34 matches
Mail list logo
