-
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
>...I could do with tables in CSS, including
3D page boarders and backgrounds.
-
Bikeman,
With that said, do you have any working examples we could digest?
-
Bert
"Bikeman" <nomail@please.com> wrote in message
news:f298eb$e654@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> What utter rubbish:
>
> Standards = accessibility = future proof
>
> You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers will
> move on without you.
> Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.
>
> CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords the
> following:
>
> - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text
> readers.
> - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines can see
> your content better and so rank you more easily.
> - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned very
> very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site visitor to
> select the style they like on the fly.
> - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete redesigns to
> be done very easily.
> - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
> PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
> - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
> - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have a
> fixed presentation.
> - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future screen
> dimensions
> - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content managers
> can work independently.
>
> I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I need
> faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But eventually it
> clicked what CSS was all about and once I understood CSS, I have
> personally never had a problem replicating anything I could do with tables
> in CSS, including 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
>
>
>
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
Bikeman wrote:
> What utter rubbish:
>
> Standards = accessibility = future proof
>
> You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers will move
> on without you.
> Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.
>
> CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords the
> following:
>
> - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text readers.
> - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines can see
> your content better and so rank you more easily.
> - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned very
> very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site visitor to select
> the style they like on the fly.
> - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete redesigns to
> be done very easily.
> - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
> PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
> - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
> - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have a fixed
> presentation.
> - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future screen
> dimensions
> - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content managers
> can work independently.
>
> I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I need
> faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But eventually it clicked
> what CSS was all about and once I understood CSS, I have personally never
> had a problem replicating anything I could do with tables in CSS, including
> 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
>
>
>
I study Zeldman who is considered the master of validation. He states
clearly that html and tables are going nowhere and will remain
supported. The "workarounds" to make validation work in his first book
are enough to make anyone dizzy.
Second, what you mean by "clean" xhtml and css is the xhtml and css that
doesn't cause problems. So listen up everybody - make sure you don't
just use xhtml and css but only the "clean" xhtml and css.
I also stated the idea is a good one and it is "becoming soup" over
time. But you make it sound like html or tables will no longer show up
correctly and THAT IS WRONG ACCORDING TO EVERY EXPERT ON CSS I HAVE READ.
I repeat - I know of NO PERSON with disabilities that is not able to
fully use computers as they are programmed now. I do agree that if we
can make it even easier - beautiful - but let's not make it sound like
they have a blockade now - THEY DO NOT.
Search engines ranks will become more and more based on how much money
you pay, not how your page is designed.
Mobile phones, PDA and other small devices require THEIR OWN PROGRAMMING
AND PAGES TO SHOW UP PROPERLY. Css only helps out slightly in this area.
To say a xhtml and css page will show up properly on all these devices
is ignorant of the realities or you are naive. There are special mark
up languages for these devices.
Regarding speed for the average web page - the "increase" is so
ridiculously low it won't win any awards.
The degrading to older browsers verses tables? I would trust the
degradation of tables over the degrading of CSS any day. Oh, unless you
use "clean", "degradable" CSS and xhtml.
The reality of newer screen sizes is this: we all have to fix and
center our widths now to make sure our content is properly dimensioned.
It is css and xhtml that has created this epidemic of left centered
web pages all over the web.
Like I said - the whole standards thing is getting there and I am glad
it is. But it won't break every site that doesn't use it. Some of my
pages are now fully validated, most are not.
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
TheBox wrote:
>> ...I could do with tables in CSS, including
> 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
> -
> Bikeman,
>
> With that said, do you have any working examples we could digest?
> -
> Bert
>
> "Bikeman" <nomail@please.com> wrote in message
> news:f298eb$e654@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>> What utter rubbish:
>>
>> Standards = accessibility = future proof
>>
>> You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers will
>> move on without you.
>> Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.
>>
>> CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords the
>> following:
>>
>> - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text
>> readers.
>> - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines can see
>> your content better and so rank you more easily.
>> - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned very
>> very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site visitor to
>> select the style they like on the fly.
>> - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete redesigns to
>> be done very easily.
>> - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
>> PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
>> - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
>> - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have a
>> fixed presentation.
>> - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future screen
>> dimensions
>> - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content managers
>> can work independently.
>>
>> I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I need
>> faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But eventually it
>> clicked what CSS was all about and once I understood CSS, I have
>> personally never had a problem replicating anything I could do with tables
>> in CSS, including 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
I would like to see pure css and xhtml do what a table with a border of
10 does. Maybe I missed something.
-
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
If I can weigh in with a personal viewpoint...
CSS is good, but that does not automatically render tables bad.
Validation is to be aspired to, but the first priority for me is to have
a page that looks the same in all browsers.
All I read in web design mags is gurus telling me that CSS is king,
tables are the instrument of satan and should be avoided. But then I
look at some of the cutting edge commercial websites out there... 99%
still use tables.
I design sites to earn money, not to make statements, and I use whatever
will do the job to the standard in a timeframe that makes it
commercially viable. I design mainly budget sites and hand coding
(especially when you're as slow as me) is expensive, timewise.
Currently, NOF is doing the job. If another tool comes along that will
give me what I want and at the same time guarantee 100% compliant and
accessible code, I'll buy it and jump aboard the CSS bus. If NOF 11
manages this, I'll upgrade and applaud them.
Until then, tables still gives me sites that work. And that search
engines seem to like. On my main commercial site, all my favoured search
terms are in the top 5 on google, the majority an #1. Is it compliant?
Almost. Is it accessible? 99%. Does it make money? Yes, without any
promotion, and with callers arriving by search engine only, it's added
about $16000 a month onto the company's sales.
At the end of the day I want results. How I get them is irrelevant.
Richard Wayne Garganta wrote:
> Bikeman wrote:
>> What utter rubbish:
>>
>> Standards = accessibility = future proof
>>
>> You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers
>> will move on without you.
>> Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.
>>
>> CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords
>> the following:
>>
>> - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text
>> readers.
>> - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines
>> can see your content better and so rank you more easily.
>> - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned
>> very very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site
>> visitor to select the style they like on the fly.
>> - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete
>> redesigns to be done very easily.
>> - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
>> PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
>> - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
>> - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have
>> a fixed presentation.
>> - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future
>> screen dimensions
>> - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content
>> managers can work independently.
>>
>> I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I
>> need faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But
>> eventually it clicked what CSS was all about and once I understood
>> CSS, I have personally never had a problem replicating anything I
>> could do with tables in CSS, including 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I study Zeldman who is considered the master of validation. He states
> clearly that html and tables are going nowhere and will remain
> supported. The "workarounds" to make validation work in his first book
> are enough to make anyone dizzy.
> Second, what you mean by "clean" xhtml and css is the xhtml and css
> that doesn't cause problems. So listen up everybody - make sure you
> don't just use xhtml and css but only the "clean" xhtml and css.
> I also stated the idea is a good one and it is "becoming soup" over
> time. But you make it sound like html or tables will no longer show up
> correctly and THAT IS WRONG ACCORDING TO EVERY EXPERT ON CSS I HAVE READ.
> I repeat - I know of NO PERSON with disabilities that is not able to
> fully use computers as they are programmed now. I do agree that if we
> can make it even easier - beautiful - but let's not make it sound like
> they have a blockade now - THEY DO NOT.
> Search engines ranks will become more and more based on how much money
> you pay, not how your page is designed.
> Mobile phones, PDA and other small devices require THEIR OWN
> PROGRAMMING AND PAGES TO SHOW UP PROPERLY. Css only helps out slightly
> in this area.
> To say a xhtml and css page will show up properly on all these devices
> is ignorant of the realities or you are naive. There are special mark
> up languages for these devices.
> Regarding speed for the average web page - the "increase" is so
> ridiculously low it won't win any awards.
> The degrading to older browsers verses tables? I would trust the
> degradation of tables over the degrading of CSS any day. Oh, unless
> you use "clean", "degradable" CSS and xhtml.
> The reality of newer screen sizes is this: we all have to fix and
> center our widths now to make sure our content is properly
> dimensioned. It is css and xhtml that has created this epidemic of
> left centered web pages all over the web.
> Like I said - the whole standards thing is getting there and I am glad
> it is. But it won't break every site that doesn't use it. Some of my
> pages are now fully validated, most are not.
-
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
quote: I would like to see pure css and xhtml do what a table with a border
of
10 does. Maybe I missed something.
You like the chamfered edges? They will be different in every browser!
Tables are for data not for layout. Regardless of your resistance now you
will realise this eventually.
-
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
I am sorry I dont have time to debate this ad infinitum.
One point though regarding PDAs/mobile phones - we already use css to hide
selected content from these devices and reformat the rest to display
propery. This allows a single site to render correctly across different
devices. You couldnt do this with a table based site which will display very
badly on a mobile.
Page sizes become very relevant with the cost of data on mobiles.
I am surprised you want to spend time defending tables - they should now be
kept for data presentation only.
Back to my original point NOF writes bloated bad table based code - in this
respect the pages are fine for computer screens but have limitations.
Limitations that I am sure NOF recognise and will addrress eventually.
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
Mike Coombes wrote:
> If I can weigh in with a personal viewpoint...
>
> CSS is good, but that does not automatically render tables bad.
>
> Validation is to be aspired to, but the first priority for me is to have
> a page that looks the same in all browsers.
>
> All I read in web design mags is gurus telling me that CSS is king,
> tables are the instrument of satan and should be avoided. But then I
> look at some of the cutting edge commercial websites out there... 99%
> still use tables.
>
> I design sites to earn money, not to make statements, and I use whatever
> will do the job to the standard in a timeframe that makes it
> commercially viable. I design mainly budget sites and hand coding
> (especially when you're as slow as me) is expensive, timewise.
> Currently, NOF is doing the job. If another tool comes along that will
> give me what I want and at the same time guarantee 100% compliant and
> accessible code, I'll buy it and jump aboard the CSS bus. If NOF 11
> manages this, I'll upgrade and applaud them.
>
> Until then, tables still gives me sites that work. And that search
> engines seem to like. On my main commercial site, all my favoured search
> terms are in the top 5 on google, the majority an #1. Is it compliant?
> Almost. Is it accessible? 99%. Does it make money? Yes, without any
> promotion, and with callers arriving by search engine only, it's added
> about $16000 a month onto the company's sales.
>
> At the end of the day I want results. How I get them is irrelevant.
>
> Richard Wayne Garganta wrote:
>> Bikeman wrote:
>>> What utter rubbish:
>>>
>>> Standards = accessibility = future proof
>>>
>>> You can''t rely upon DTD to sort out your ills for ever - browsers
>>> will move on without you.
>>> Clean xhtml/css code doesn't require workaround for browsers.
>>>
>>> CSS allows content to be seperated from presentation which affords
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> - Tables restrict accessibility for blind people by upsetting text
>>> readers.
>>> - CSS allows placement of content at top of page so search engines
>>> can see your content better and so rank you more easily.
>>> - CSS allows the use of style sheets so that site scan be redesigned
>>> very very quickly - some sites even use this to allow the site
>>> visitor to select the style they like on the fly.
>>> - CSS therefore allows future modifications and even complete
>>> redesigns to be done very easily.
>>> - CSS allows pages to deliver to multiple user agents - e.g screen,
>>> PDAs/mobile phones, Print.
>>> - CSS pages are smaller and so download quicker.
>>> - CSS allows pages to degrade nicely in older browsers - tables have
>>> a fixed presentation.
>>> - CSS allows easier building of fluid pages to cater for future
>>> screen dimensions
>>> - CSS streamlines website production - designers and and content
>>> managers can work independently.
>>>
>>> I was like you once and fooled myself with statements like 'why do I
>>> need faster loading pages, everyone now has broadband'. But
>>> eventually it clicked what CSS was all about and once I understood
>>> CSS, I have personally never had a problem replicating anything I
>>> could do with tables in CSS, including 3D page boarders and backgrounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I study Zeldman who is considered the master of validation. He states
>> clearly that html and tables are going nowhere and will remain
>> supported. The "workarounds" to make validation work in his first book
>> are enough to make anyone dizzy.
>> Second, what you mean by "clean" xhtml and css is the xhtml and css
>> that doesn't cause problems. So listen up everybody - make sure you
>> don't just use xhtml and css but only the "clean" xhtml and css.
>> I also stated the idea is a good one and it is "becoming soup" over
>> time. But you make it sound like html or tables will no longer show up
>> correctly and THAT IS WRONG ACCORDING TO EVERY EXPERT ON CSS I HAVE READ.
>> I repeat - I know of NO PERSON with disabilities that is not able to
>> fully use computers as they are programmed now. I do agree that if we
>> can make it even easier - beautiful - but let's not make it sound like
>> they have a blockade now - THEY DO NOT.
>> Search engines ranks will become more and more based on how much money
>> you pay, not how your page is designed.
>> Mobile phones, PDA and other small devices require THEIR OWN
>> PROGRAMMING AND PAGES TO SHOW UP PROPERLY. Css only helps out slightly
>> in this area.
>> To say a xhtml and css page will show up properly on all these devices
>> is ignorant of the realities or you are naive. There are special mark
>> up languages for these devices.
>> Regarding speed for the average web page - the "increase" is so
>> ridiculously low it won't win any awards.
>> The degrading to older browsers verses tables? I would trust the
>> degradation of tables over the degrading of CSS any day. Oh, unless
>> you use "clean", "degradable" CSS and xhtml.
>> The reality of newer screen sizes is this: we all have to fix and
>> center our widths now to make sure our content is properly
>> dimensioned. It is css and xhtml that has created this epidemic of
>> left centered web pages all over the web.
>> Like I said - the whole standards thing is getting there and I am glad
>> it is. But it won't break every site that doesn't use it. Some of my
>> pages are now fully validated, most are not.
Exactly - table support in browsers is going NOWHERE and you are correct
, there is a snobbery now that tables are the instrument of satan.
Clients do not want rewrites of sites that will look and work the same
just to have a W3C tag on the bottom.
The whole standards thing is getting there and that is good. But table
support will always be there.
I am studying CSS diligently now and I am so tired that nightly there
will be the "this won't show up right in...so you have to code it this
way or this way or go to this page for a list of hacks."
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
Bikeman wrote:
> quote: I would like to see pure css and xhtml do what a table with a border
> of
> 10 does. Maybe I missed something.
>
> You like the chamfered edges? They will be different in every browser!
>
> Tables are for data not for layout. Regardless of your resistance now you
> will realise this eventually.
>
>
Tables are supposed to be for data but have other uses and yes, I have
gotten a lot of mileage out of those raised borders. By the way, I
notice you didn't offer a CSS alternative?
margin: auto is supposed to center things but you have to undo it in
other containers.
I could go on and on with the "supposed to" regarding CSS. So let's get
over it. CSS is good but tables aren't going anywhere and will ALWAYS
display properly. The differences in the way a table with a border of
10 looks is attractive in all the browsers I have seen it in.
You can't get that depth in CSS unless you play around with background
graphics - all of which is extra code and extra size to the page.
So CSS is good - but it AIN'T ALL THAT.
-
Richard Wayne Garganta
Guest
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
Bikeman wrote:
> I am sorry I dont have time to debate this ad infinitum.
>
> One point though regarding PDAs/mobile phones - we already use css to hide
> selected content from these devices and reformat the rest to display
> propery. This allows a single site to render correctly across different
> devices. You couldnt do this with a table based site which will display very
> badly on a mobile.
>
> Page sizes become very relevant with the cost of data on mobiles.
>
> I am surprised you want to spend time defending tables - they should now be
> kept for data presentation only.
>
> Back to my original point NOF writes bloated bad table based code - in this
> respect the pages are fine for computer screens but have limitations.
> Limitations that I am sure NOF recognise and will addrress eventually.
>
>
Agreed - but don't be so enamored with CSS that you can't see the
drawbacks. Now no one will have those tables with raised borders like I
have used and you know what will happen? A client will see it and say,
"hey, that is different - can you do that for me?"
I should tell him, "Oh no, tables are to be used for database display
only?" The reality is they can make some things look really good if
used right and CSS can't duplicate it without adding graphics and code
to a page.
I will use them because I can and CSS CAN'T.
Also, no one talks about the added weight of the extra .js files that
have to be loaded. I understand your enthusiasm for CSS - but I have
worked enough with it to see the warts and limitations.
Try to get a definitive answer to questions like what unit of measure
you should use. I have been reading for weeks and still can't make up
my mind.
-
Re: Why not use pure CSS? How important is "validation?"
Personally I think those table borders look crap but each to his own. If you
are using them around a table of data then there is no issue and I would let
a client have them. If they wanted a similar effect somewhere else like a
page border I would use css and a background image.
What ,js file? Do you mean .css file? Well it's only loaded once for the who
site and is about the size of one small image (3K) so there's not really any
issue there.
Tables will not let your site display without breaking up on PDAs/mobiles so
you will need to change it eventually.
I see no problem with surrounding my pages with a div and centering that
with 'auto' - the result is a fixed width centered page just like NOF
produces.
The only difference is that I can easily make it change in the future as
display resolutions and screen sizes change. We have already seen the rapid
takeup of wide screen and I fully expect that in the not too distant future
users will demand a consistent experience regardless of whether they use a
small handheld screen or a 42 inch wide screeen tv. CSS will facilitate
this.
I have never used a hack for different broswers with css. CSS has a few
issues still but like everything there is often more than one way to do
something and by using a way which works across browsers I have never had a
problem.
Regarding the comment by another that all the 'big names' still use tables -
firstly big names often have extremely large sites and so a changeover is
bound to be slow, secondly large companies are often slow to adopt new
developments as they watch to avoid expensive mistakes, thirdly sites such
as Amazon have to wait for their ecommerce supplier to move and finally the
statement is just not true anyway; for every big name site you see that is
still tables there will be another who has already moved to css e.g.
microsoft.com.
I certainly accept that technology for it's own sake is pointless and
rushing to convert a table based site to css may be of limited benefit but
if a client is requesting extensive changes or a redesign then I will use
that opportunity to rework the site from tables to css. I find that this is
now both quickest (rather than rework tables) and more profitable as it
affords me an opportunity to talk to them about the benefits of css which
often they will be happy to pay for.
I think the issue here is that NOF does the html for you and so you cant see
the alternative is better.... yet.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules