What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38This be your guide to all cross browser compatibility issues: http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-css
- zzz@tkz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31You should slap your client.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I do, but for tabular data only. Tables are great when properly used, and even better when properly styled. ;)
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Out of curiosity I checked text-shadow, and it only worked on Safari.. not FF for Mac or Windows and not IE6/Win. I would consider this a "perhaps not use" unless you have a large Safari user base you want to annoy.
- Diggingspoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1815 CSS properties that, if you're a smart developer or designer, you haven't been using because they've been poorly supported.
Not really interesting. We know these exist, we just know better.
Visibility of course is common and valuable, though - JeremyL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Very nice. ANyone got a break down on which work with which browsers?
- greymarketbrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Nice way to make a site not work the same in any browser... These "tips" are nice ideals (someday), but really bad tips (since none of them work across the board and most only work in a single browser).
- gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I use them. On my last project I needed to present a list of dozens of chemical compounds, the quantities in which they can be manufactured and which plants were equiped to do so. A table was, quite obviously, the perfect solution.
Tables are for presenting...*drumroll please* tables of data. If you use pure css (great for everything BUT tables) to present tabular data, you are probably an ignorant css fanboy who needs to learn a bit more about web design. - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11People who have data on a website and I'll be a little crazy and make a guess that that's fairly common.
- DrGamez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This makes me sad we have to shy away from cool stuff because of some mIstakEs some company has made with their browser.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8roxya: Ugh. Not this conversation again. I'm going to have to make a macro for this answer...
CSS is necessary for separating how content looks from what the content is. The idea being that your webpage contains your content along with tags to describe that content. The style sheet then defines how it should be displayed on whatever medium you happen to be displaying it on (screen, printer, TV, whatever).
The benefits to doing it this way are many:
-It's a lot easier to make websites have a consistent look and feel throughout.
-If you want to adjust your look, you can adjust it in one place and have it take effect throughout your site.
-You can design different sheets for different purposes (one for printing, one for normal browsers, one for mobile phones, etc) and never have to touch your content.. Your webpage will look good on any given device you set it up for.
And so on. There's more, but you should get the idea.
-Search engines and other readers will be better able to understand your content when it doesn't have all this extra HTML in it defining how the page should look.
Above all, CSS is a tool, like any other. It's possible to use it badly. It's also possible to use it correctly. HTML was never intended to define page layout, it was intended to define content in a semantic fashion. Using it to define where things go on the screen is silly. CSS was made specifically to do that sort of thing. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@mikev:
The point is that HTML contains a lot of underused tags, and using them gives a greater semantic meaning for your markup. - radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Degradation is key. There's nothing wrong with using CSS2/CSS3 properties that are unsupported in some browsers as long as they degrade well. This is how we move forward. If those cutting edge web designers didn't start building css-based layouts back when css support was shoddy at best, where would we be today?
- textnotspeech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Keep dreaming. I'm not holding my breath for Internet Explorer to ever get with the program. It's pretty clear that MS is in no hurry to make web designers' lives any easier. Start enjoying the challenge it presents. Come on, admit it; we all love the challenge... hacking is fun!
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Tables are useful for layouts are as a 3rd leg is useful for walking. Not necessary.
- ElMoselYEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7no, i really don't like promising the client it'll be compatible in both FF and IE, and then getting stuck for hours in IE wondering why floats are all funky and my borders overlap, then having to go to a forum and ask the CSS experts exactly which bug i've run into this time. then they just tell me to look it up on page 24 of IE CSS Bugs Unabridged, Volume II.
- SteaminTmann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I actually got the recent opportunity to use a marquee tag. The client requested it, so we're using it, but it brought back alot of nostalgia.....
- rickjames47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For this to have been really useful, each CSS property mentioned should have been followed by a list of browsers that support it.
I know that some of these won't work in IE6. - FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7IE 6 is a POS, and the sooner idiots who use it realize they're relying on a browser that not only doesn't measure up, but REFUSES to meet internationally agreed-upon WWW standards, the better off such idiots will be. As well as the internet in general.
They've already proven incapable of researching the matter themselves. So: write accurate standards-compliant HTML/XHTML and CSS and let the clueless get with it or lose out. - indyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Riighht... 85% of my users can just go hang
- SteelFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I use "visibility: hidden" allot when I make Print stylesheets. It's a quick and dirty way to hide some of your UI that may not scale or print properly.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>>>Why do we still need to mess with out XHTML to make CSS work?
Three possible reasons:
1. You're not using CSS correctly.
2. Your XHTML was badly written to begin with.
3. You keep trying to work around crap browser support instead of designing your page and then fixing the browser to deal with it properly. - fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7How about: use table layouts if you want to, or don't if you don't want to. As long as you don't need the flexibility of semantic html, tables are fine. However, every website benefits in terms of usability with semantic html.
- zeenus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They should work on Opera, if they work on the Wii :)
- gnatinator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This would be a great article if all the properties mentioned were compatible with FF, IE, Opera and Safari..
It will be a long time (if ever, by the looks of IE 7) before the tags mentioned in this article will be ready for any serious usage. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14With all the hype over CSS (and I love CSS) I still think that tables are still useful for web app layouts.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Do people even use the q tag anymore? :|
- isbhod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i wish i could digg up zzz@tkz more than once.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The "perhaps should" portion of the title is only partially true. Visibility is the only one that I use regularly, but the other properties would only be used in very specific situations.
@btipling: good recommendation to check compatibility with properties. - zzz@tkz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The clip property is the only one that I've used on that list, it's great for rollover images.
Oh, by the way:
http://duggmirror.com//design/15_CSS_Properties_You_Probably_Never_Use_but_perhaps_should/plain.html - ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not really, but AListApart dedicated an entire article to it late last year: http://alistapart.com/articles/qtag
- aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Text shadow works on the Wii.
- bigkm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2khtml is the only thing i've found that supports text-shadow , (safari/webkit is built on this)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, I misinterpreted the article. However, I am confused as to why my design skills and intelligence were criticized. That was totally rude and unnecessary, gaoshan.
- vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use it, but I also make as much of an effort as possible to keep it working somewhat in IE. I love the Q tag, it's too bad IE doesn't support it properly.
- daroot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sorry but the most of them are not cross browser compatible so why should we use them?
articles like that make me think most SEOs are.. well.... SEOs and NOT developers. - sideral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google uses tables
- JaffaTheCake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ngmcs8203
Did you read the headline? This is sold to us as CSS we don't use but perhaps should. greymarketbrain pointed out that the reason most of these don't get used is because they're not well supported.
You could make a larger article just on CSS selectors that aren't commonly used, such as a:link[href$=".doc"] - and that one DOES work in the latest versions of all popular browsers.
If you want to read about CSS that doesn't get used, have a look at the spec. Then try some of it in IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera & Safari and you'll see why it doesn't get used often. - radiantm3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are actually really subtle uses for the text-shadow property (in safari). It's great for making very subtle bevels (depending on the foreground/background colors used) as well as thinning out the thick anti-aliasing. A good example for the 2nd use mentioned is http://www.shauninman.com. Of course you need to be running safari to see it.
And a good use of the text-shadow property is in the main navigation of http://mydreamapp.com/ . - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Few people know about the Q tag because of IE's lack of proper support for it. However, I'm going to start using it where appropriate now, for sure. IE users can just go hang. :P
- chapium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Be sure to charge extra for <BLINK>
- sideral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"HTML was never intended to define page layout"
Yes, it was. - ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They're ready for serious usage now. Deliver another template/stylesheet to broken browsers. Never update it. Treat it like Lynx. Put a Firefox ad at the bottom. Move along.
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cool. I was always sure that counter-reset and counter-increment were CSS3 properties (though I guess they're pretty useless on IE, which doesn't support the content property, and probably doesn't support them as well)
- jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kinda lame...
about "clip" CSS says: "An element's clipping region clips out any aspect of the element (e.g. content, children, background, borders, text decoration, outline and visible scrolling mechanism — if any) that is outside the clipping region." The article makes it sound like the opposite (i.e. "inside the clipping region")
Anything CSS3 in that article shouldn't be used obviously because CSS3 isn't actually finalized yet. - OrangeyTang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Shame that the lure of Digg was more important than actually seeing why these CSS features are rarely used. All I can say is Browser Incompatablity.
I don't make spelling mistakes, I am trying to create my own language using as many mis-spelt words as possible. - section31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/propidx.html
- MrSarcasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Web 0.1 alpha all the way!
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3No, you shouldn't. You should only use reliable CSS properties which work more or less the same on all browsers.
- Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A couple significant browsers and many other user agents don't support the "q" element correctly. The discrepancies are such that it is *impossible* to use this element and have it look reasonably the same in all major browsers. The only workarounds are to use JavaScript or CSS hacks which only solve the problem in most cases. Specifically, browsers will either display the element with delimiting quotes, without quotes, or (if you try to use a workaround) sometimes two pairs of quotes.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is