Garri,
I'll go for that so long as change equals improvement.
Alan
Web Design: CSS vs. Tables
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
-
livinginitaly
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:46 pm
- Location: Italy (at last!)
- Contact:
Although I'm sure we've been through this debate before .... despite my best efforts, I still can't resist the urge to post!
First point to get out of the way is ... "There's nothing 'new' about css".
In search of a comparison, one of the things that springs is 4star petrol .... why don't we use that anymore? it did the job.
Leadfree fuel is cleaner, leaner and better for the environment .... just like CSS
However, if people had the final 'say so', most would still be using good old 4star. For the simple reason that nobody 'likes' change.
Fortunately, that option was 'taken away' and i'm sure that somewhere along the line, the option of using tables will be removed too.
This will probably happen when the software used for designing sites, becomes more 'idiot proof' (no offence!) for non techies. Which really doesn't seem to be that far off nowadays.
First point to get out of the way is ... "There's nothing 'new' about css".
In search of a comparison, one of the things that springs is 4star petrol .... why don't we use that anymore? it did the job.
Leadfree fuel is cleaner, leaner and better for the environment .... just like CSS
However, if people had the final 'say so', most would still be using good old 4star. For the simple reason that nobody 'likes' change.
Fortunately, that option was 'taken away' and i'm sure that somewhere along the line, the option of using tables will be removed too.
This will probably happen when the software used for designing sites, becomes more 'idiot proof' (no offence!) for non techies. Which really doesn't seem to be that far off nowadays.
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Tony,
Lead-free was phased in while existing cars were converted to its use and new ones were designed for its use.
In the same way CSS is being phased in while the browsers are converted to its use.
In the meantime, the tried and tested will have to suffice. It does work and its not environmentally unfriendly.
I should add that I am much in favour of the advantages offered by CSS both in the creation of and the maintenance of websites.
Where does XML lie in all of this?
Alan
Lead-free was phased in while existing cars were converted to its use and new ones were designed for its use.
In the same way CSS is being phased in while the browsers are converted to its use.
In the meantime, the tried and tested will have to suffice. It does work and its not environmentally unfriendly.
I should add that I am much in favour of the advantages offered by CSS both in the creation of and the maintenance of websites.
Where does XML lie in all of this?
Alan
Alan, XML is being used to great effect with the emerging AJAX technologies, which is the next incarnation of javascript. The following article puts the case quite well:Where does XML lie in all of this?
http://www.adaptivepath.com/publication ... 000385.php
This is a non-proprietary bunch of technologies that when combined in the Ajax model are delivering rich user experiences. Google uses this in Google maps.
Tony is right of course, CSS is not new. What is new though are browsers now being able to render CSS properly, although IE6 is still annoying.
MS has declared that they will use XML in the next generation of Office applications - the penny finally dropped - people don't want to have their data chained to one proprietary system.
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Alan,
I'm well aware of the existing bugs and hacks, although the hacks required in modern browsers are nowhere near as lengthy as for IE5!
You have to remember that we're only at version 1 of Firefox, so of course there will be problems. But my guess is these problems will rapidly disappear when standards are fully adopted.
Some of the web applications I am using, and I use many, work brilliantly on my machine and they all use Ajax and are all CSS based. I'm sure there are some hacks involved - I should take a sneaky peek at their css source files.
My whole point is that we are at a transition right now between the road marked Web 1.0 and the one marked Web 2.0
As the man says in the article, it's going to be fun!
I'm well aware of the existing bugs and hacks, although the hacks required in modern browsers are nowhere near as lengthy as for IE5!
You have to remember that we're only at version 1 of Firefox, so of course there will be problems. But my guess is these problems will rapidly disappear when standards are fully adopted.
Some of the web applications I am using, and I use many, work brilliantly on my machine and they all use Ajax and are all CSS based. I'm sure there are some hacks involved - I should take a sneaky peek at their css source files.
My whole point is that we are at a transition right now between the road marked Web 1.0 and the one marked Web 2.0
As the man says in the article, it's going to be fun!
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
Garri,
Firefox is a reincarnation of something else (is it Netscape?) so I am not sure which version it is in reality. Not that it matters. What matters is that none of the browsers fully support all CSS features and functions and, until they do, tricks and hacks will remain and the "gurus" will continue to call the problems "undocumented features".
Sure, tables are tricks to overcome the hopeless positioning controls in HTML but they work consistently cross-browser (or do they?).
Roll on Web mark 2.0.
Alan
That's OK but I'll bet that the average person wanting to create his/her own website is not aware of them or how to use them.I'm well aware of the existing bugs and hacks, although the hacks required in modern browsers are nowhere near as lengthy as for IE5!
Firefox is a reincarnation of something else (is it Netscape?) so I am not sure which version it is in reality. Not that it matters. What matters is that none of the browsers fully support all CSS features and functions and, until they do, tricks and hacks will remain and the "gurus" will continue to call the problems "undocumented features".
Sure, tables are tricks to overcome the hopeless positioning controls in HTML but they work consistently cross-browser (or do they?).
Roll on Web mark 2.0.
Alan
No, they don't. Even some of the table based designs used by some of the listings sites I've been researching don't look good on a Mac. And that's not just because the designs leave a little to be desired but because technically they are incorrect.Sure, tables are tricks to overcome the hopeless positioning controls in HTML but they work consistently cross-browser (or do they?).
-
Alan Knighting
- Posts: 4120
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
- Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France
I did say that I was finsihed for this thread but was 'chatting ' with my daughter and asked her to look at it as I know whe is a CSS fiend. Below her comments:
what was the forum topic before this one. it is hard to place this discussion in context otherwise. I will say that this is a debate that is still ongoing and still unresolved amongst every group of web professionals I've met
the thing is this is a debate for purists though. it would be nice to produce semantically correct sites but we have to work in the real world. it is the same argument we get here by people saying as public funded bodies we should only use open source software. you have to balance what is possible with what is practical in the end.
There that's her two pennorth!
what was the forum topic before this one. it is hard to place this discussion in context otherwise. I will say that this is a debate that is still ongoing and still unresolved amongst every group of web professionals I've met
the thing is this is a debate for purists though. it would be nice to produce semantically correct sites but we have to work in the real world. it is the same argument we get here by people saying as public funded bodies we should only use open source software. you have to balance what is possible with what is practical in the end.
There that's her two pennorth!
Enid, cheers for that.
I'm not so sure the debate is unresolved. Here's an example of a site which is semantically correct and is designed using CSS:
http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk
It works on my Mac and it works on my Pac (PC) IE6. I'm not interested that it 'may' not work on IE5 for PC but worked well on IE5 for the Mac, and that was a mean achievement by Mr Hicks! I like how you can turn the styling off and I particularly like the Google-esque 'live search' function. I love the clean design he uses and the tone he speaks in. Mr Hicks, by the way, is also the man who designed the Firefox logo.
More and more of the internet heavyweights are moving towards pure CSS, such as Yahoo.
The case against sites not designed with web standards is they often are guilty of bad accessibility issues. We don't all view the internet using IE, or indeed modern browsers. Blind people use text readers to 'browse' the internet, some people use PDA devices, mobile phones etc. A semantically correct and CSS designed site will work well on the many different devices people use to access the internet. That's why web standards is becoming increasingly important.
There are laws governing the lack of accessibility of web sites and I believe these laws will become more stringent in time.
It's my view that companies such as Microsoft and Macromedia etc have helped to mess the internet up over the years and it's only now just being put back together again, with its original open spirit intact.
I'm not so sure the debate is unresolved. Here's an example of a site which is semantically correct and is designed using CSS:
http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk
It works on my Mac and it works on my Pac (PC) IE6. I'm not interested that it 'may' not work on IE5 for PC but worked well on IE5 for the Mac, and that was a mean achievement by Mr Hicks! I like how you can turn the styling off and I particularly like the Google-esque 'live search' function. I love the clean design he uses and the tone he speaks in. Mr Hicks, by the way, is also the man who designed the Firefox logo.
More and more of the internet heavyweights are moving towards pure CSS, such as Yahoo.
The case against sites not designed with web standards is they often are guilty of bad accessibility issues. We don't all view the internet using IE, or indeed modern browsers. Blind people use text readers to 'browse' the internet, some people use PDA devices, mobile phones etc. A semantically correct and CSS designed site will work well on the many different devices people use to access the internet. That's why web standards is becoming increasingly important.
There are laws governing the lack of accessibility of web sites and I believe these laws will become more stringent in time.
It's my view that companies such as Microsoft and Macromedia etc have helped to mess the internet up over the years and it's only now just being put back together again, with its original open spirit intact.