What is Digg?61 Comments
- soulknowledge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+53Ah... finds like these remind me of the glory days of Digg
- Modestexcuse, on 10/10/2007, -11/+41That is what DIGG is supposed to be about. Not some popularity contest on who diggs my funny comments.... On a totally unrelated note, would you mind giving this the thumbs up? :P
- ttfadia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28There is no float 'element', it's a property, nor are there CSS elements.
This is the classic float tutorial I send people to, it's quite throrough and covers most of the issues people have (horizontal lists, basic bugs, etc.) - pixelguru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20The real fun starts when you try to get your heavily floated layouts to render properly in IE.
- ivanvanderbyl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Yes there was, they ended when you came a long.
- solarwind24, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Sweet! It explains liquid two and three column layouts perfectly! Haha, no more tables!
- tigerpaper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10dugg for using the words 'bad ass' when referring to floating elements with css
lol - tzmguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I hate to break it to you, but CSS2 has no inherent 'problems'. Every browser has "default" styles such as margins and padding which all just happen to be different from each other. Not to mention, every browser implements the so-called 'standard' differently. The real problem, then, lies in the implementation on the part of the browser - not CSS itself.
By default, CSS is powerful because it provides for more semantic code than your thousands of nested tables. Sorry to be the party pooper.
/rant - philwalsh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Who would have thought there's more to Digg than "GREATEST PIC EVA!!!11[PIC]"?
- sholdowa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Whether it's a good or bad implementation is immaterial. Separating the content from the presentation is far more important. Stick to your tables if you wish, google won't take much notice of you any more, either (:
- lunchbox170, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Oh yeah I love to write 6 lines of code instead of writing 2...it's a real thrill...but you know what is even better when I have to change the 6 lines of code that are over 12 pages that's a real blast. Those guys using CSS that only have to make one change that will apply to everything, don't know what they are missing....haha wow you obvious don't know CSS very well.
- emehrkay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wait until you try to get the columns to be the same height :gasp: look into the faux column technique from alistapart
- Zarthia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3css reset : http://dtott.com/thoughts/2007/09/10/css-tips-1-us ...
- tkmoney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I was just going to say that. Nice "Well Actually" moment
- Bukowsky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6good list!
- dilibau, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i did give you a thumbs up altho I don't appreciate the humor in your post
- fr34k5h0w, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's very easy to get the hang of. [Plug for jQuery]And once you've mastered selectors, jQuery is amazing as you can use the same selectors with javascript. [/Plug for jQuery]
- solarwind24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, it's very good. I used CSS for everything except for the actual two column layout part. I could never get the hang of it until now. Before I was forced into using tables and css to pad/margin them. Now, it's much cleaner with pure XHTML1.1 and CSS! Really great tutorial, a must read for general template design!
- leapius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That is actually a really nice little tutorial site - gives some clear and simple css lessons without complicating things.
- podgey22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Can't say as I've had too many problems in IE6 and above. A few that you get used to adding an extra float property here and there but nothing major. No hacks.
IE5 is a different story. - thebellmaster1x, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Why, what's wrong with Digg today?
"CSS IS FOR LIBERAL MOONBATS"
...Oh. - FancyLudwig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I can not comprehend how you can justify building a new website with tables over CSS. I'm guessing you just don't understand CSS.
Everything the posters above said is spot on, but I promise you, if nothing else, managing a huge website using tables for layout will make you never want to do it again when you're trying to make a mundane positioning change that requires looking through 20 nested tables. - esharkj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3clean + simple css tutorial.. good for beginners guideline.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It goes into so many separate categories, this is truly gold for the beginner CSS designer.
- Nitroadict, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1I never said I take any clients; and yes, I never had formal training, nor did I ever claim that I did, which I'm sure if I did had formal training, maybe I would buy enough aspirin to try and make a living designing sites for clients, etc. etc. I would be wrong in completely dismissing CSS, yes, but I am not doing that. And I do have the ability to create CSS and I do understand it, enough to use it, but not enough to not constantly refer to a few books and a site here and there to get something done right. *****, just yesterday I decided to ease up on my own css-table rhetoric a little, and utilize some CSS for postining since the code was designed to work without hassle (http://intensivstation.ch/). This was probably my 500th time rebuilding a site pruley for CSS reasons, so the cautious hop scotching of not ***** things up is a familar dance, and dare I say, a numb one since I've grown used to the anoyyances and idosyncrancies of what essnetially is an odd, hobbyist markup language.
I'm pretty sure I said that I'm speaking from a personal web site/ user & viewer perspective, where web design is a casual to moderate time consumer, and not a *career*. I'm not knocking down people who use CSS: for what it was set out to do, it somehow accomplishes despite being poorly designed, and it somehow ended up being the popular choice for style sheets (there are of course alternatives). I'm saying that it wouldn't hurt for the very people who made CSS to admit that maybe they did a ***** job, but had good intentions and good ideas, and that *maybe* it should be completely designed. As much as Tables sucked, everyone was using them, just like everyone is using CSS, and just like how everyone will use something that will eventually come along and does what CSS does, only better, but then some of them will deny every being a CSS zealot and being totally hip to this hypothetical new markup language, and the cycle continues forth.
An example of a possible, better alternative? PSL ( http://www.cs.uwm.edu/~multimedia/WWW8/www8.html ). That page is one of my resources which I derive my argument from, and my argument is that even if you use CSS, even if it's popular, that shouldn't make you public enemy number one for questioning on whether something is wrong with CSS inherently, and that maybe people should get together and do everyone a favor by making a better style sheet markup language. Alternatives can be created, but it won't be if too many people are riding the CSS Train blindly without bothering to ask if the train is on the right track, and just laughing at anyone who questions prevailing dogma. In the end, what will remain is a flawed markup language with wasted potential to be more powerful and easier to use.
Yes, if you have a client and they want CSS, you are not going to bust out with an argument like mine and piss them off and lose money and go out of business; nor are you going to argue with them about tables being still useful despite the elitist jerkoff's on the "semantic web" and the "standards community" arguing that the very use people found for tables was a hack from the beginning, when in reality the use of tables allowed people to built the beginnings of the web, even if in hindsight some of it (nested tables specifically) was ugly and downright nasty). If you are a web-designer by trade, and are paid for it, you must know a lot in order to be able to take on various clients. I'm not touching on that all; I agree that if I were in your position, taking on clients, I would be terrible, and that my arguments sound absolutely silly in this area.
But ask yourself this: if something like PSL were eventually made more popular (it's essentially just a proof of concept project for now), possibly by people like me questioning the common acceptance of CSS, and other's who knew nothing about it but wanted to it used in their web pages (especially clients), wouldn't you be inclined to learn it, much like if one were just discovering CSS1 back in the era of Tables, and realized their clients might eventually want to use this hip new CSS stuff? - bcarl314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This is a great site. A few others that cover similar topics would be:
http://www.alistapart.com
http://www.w3schools.com
Plus, if you're looking for a rock awesome practical application, you could always look at some drop down menus like http://www.udm4.com or similar - Nitroadict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't feel bad if you don't learn all of CSS; eventually someone will make a markup language that does what CSS does only less complicated, and without all the problems CSS 2 has, and better. That might be CSS 3 or HTML 5 or something else in the future; who knows at this point.
I would take your time honestly, learning CSS is the equivalent of waxing your chest every morning. - limezor2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Awesome, I was just looking for tutorials like this. Too bad there isn't some kind of search tool used to finding basic web design things like this!
- empirionx34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's certainly an oldie, but totally a goodie.
- bubbadoo989, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just take the css snippets and paste it locally... you can easily demo this code.
- lunchbox170, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3This is good find, Floats is probably one of the more difficult concepts to understand.
- iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yup, second that. This tutorial is amazing.
- Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are, however, CSS pseudo-elements, but that has nothing to do with this page.
- soopafly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2damn..what a snob!
- Empyrean, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, because good designers have nothing better to do than to look at every corner of the internet.
- arcane14, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I Fixed My Float Drop Problem and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt
- Forshman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Very nice, I need to learn CSS one day :(
- qwaszx, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Really good site; it just helped me fix a very tricky float bug!
- svivian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Buried for the unneccary 12+ pages per tutorial and the fact it over explains what is a fairly simple concept. Why do we need 9 tutorials across 50-odd pages to explain that "float:left;" moves the element to the left of the parent block, and wraps other content around it?
- TellusCitizen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There any good exampels on implementations of this code? Any1?
- billydisaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well you can ignore CSS if you want, but it depends if you want to do your job properly or not. If you're having problems with it you need to get some decent training or outsource your coding work.
Really, tables for layout. Pfft. So many reasons not to use them. The only reason you give for not using CSS is that you don't know how to use it. So we could either rewrite the CSS standard and change this through all the browsers and websites that have been set up to use the current standards, or you could learn to do your job properly. - NeoNevermore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just what I was looking for! I mean, I could have googled it myself, but still, this is very useful!
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2/sarcasm ?
- pineapplehead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I thought this was going to be rubbish, or blogspam, but I was pleasantly surprised finding a link to the original - and imo best - float resource available on the web.
Kudos to you good sire - your receive a digg from me ;) - billydisaster, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1You're just wrong and ill-informed. Please leave web development to those of us smart enough to use and understand it. Or do the design and outsource the coding. You obviously don't have the ability to do the development yourself so why waste your own time and your clients money.
- billydisaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Enough training means watching one video or reading one book that tells you the current techniques. My sites work fine, and I don't need to use any hacks. I really don't think you do know how to use CSS since you mention the box model hack. This is an out of date hack which simply isn't necessary any more. I'm betting that you've 'learnt' how to use CSS by reading free tutorials on the internet. Well, you get what you pay for.
Tables are a royal pain in the arse to work with. Want to make a minor change to a layout? Recode your entire site. Want to fix a browser related bug? Recode your entire site and serve a different version of the site to users of that browser. Want to provide a printable version of your site? Recode your entire site.Want to provide a version of your site for viewers using small screen sizes such as blackberries or mobile phones? Recode your entire site. Want to provide a version of your site for disabled viewers? Recode your entire site. Are you starting to get the picture.
The advantages that you have found by using CSS for font styling, the rest of use use those advantages for our layouts. Your inability to make your sites work they way you want is because you don't know how to use CSS. The rest of us are doing just fine.
Every table based layout is a hack. Tables were never designed to be used for layout. CSS was. So every site that you build is based on a hack from its very foundations. Congratulations on that. - Nitroadict, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Tables are a red herring in this entire debate; it only masks CSS' failures of difficult syntax, lack of variables, it's limited box model, it's less then stellar method of cascading. Who the ***** started the tables are for tabular data crap anyway? I bet no one knew that line until CSS zealots and opportunists (however a lot of people were just really excited by the potential of CSS and I think most people still are so blinded by it's *potential* that they seem to justify all the back-bending you have to do to get the damn thing to work) decided to rebel against the most popular use of tables, which was using them to organize the entire layout instead of just putting a bunch of images and text on a page.
Some of CSS's ideas are logically evolutionary ones, but CSS itself is no revolution, except for maybe in the potential arrogance of many (but not all) people advocating it. I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this, but people shouldn't yell and scream at a person for sticking with tables and CSS1 until something better comes along that does what CSS does only without all of it's flaws. If I have to take an un-popular side in the CSS Wars to highlight CSS's flaws, and hopefully inspire some people to look at CSS more objectively and possibly motivate people to either remake CSS or make something else altogether, then so be it.
In the mean time, I'll be ***** around with my hybrid layouts with the comfort of knowing I know where the hell my content will end up if I don't use a certain margin somewhere. Wake me up when some group of people that are not the W3C committee wake up and take the ***** out of CSS. - billydisaster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Use a content management system instead of CSS? Yeah, that's the simple solution.
- thinsoldier, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1lol? you're only now just discovering this site?
... :( web standards are doomed :( -
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is