What is Digg?31 Comments
- aggiezach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Way too many images yo! You can do half of that stuff with proper CSS and XHTML.
Just my opinion!
Sure it looks pretty, but after that, what are you left with! - gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this digg title is definitely overstated.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You want CSS? http://www.w3schools.com - that's all you'll EVER need to know.
Of couse I use CSS. I've used CSS since BEFORE it was part of the W3 specification. My comment was in regards to the lack of using tables when factoring in IEs lack of adherance to the W3C standard. At this point in the game, you CANNOT build a site that uses CSS solely and expect it to look right in all browsers.
Unfortunately, complex table structures are still your best way of getting the job done. A combination of CSS for styling, and Tables for positioning is your best bet to get what you designed in Photoshop out to the world, in every browser.
If IE loses it's dominance OR finally becomes standards compliant, I'll be with you 110% on going all CSS for positioning. It's faster and the code is far cleaner.
And for those asking http://www.bleutuna.com. Feel free to right click and view my source code. You'll be hard-pressed to find cleaner, better-structured and documented code anywhere.
I've been doing this since IE3 was out, freelance and for numerous design houses. :p - rhyno2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice basic CSS tips, but if you want "mind boggling web design" in CSS, there's only ONE place to go:
http://www.csszengarden.com/ - kday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To be all honest, the designs aren't something that I would call great. The third design is just awful in my opinion. I'm probably being harsh since I'm a designer and know this stuff already. Oh well.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Me too. That would make life much easier.
- Greg-J, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In response to:
//
Of co use I use CSS. I've used CSS since BEFORE it was part of the W3 specification. My comment was in regards to the lack of using tables when factoring in IEs lack of adherence to the W3C standard. At this point in the game, you CANNOT build a site that uses CSS solely and expect it to look right in all browsers.
Unfortunately, complex table structures are still your best way of getting the job done. A combination of CSS for styling, and Tables for positioning is your best bet to get what you designed in Photoshop out to the world, in every browser.
If IE loses it's dominance OR finally becomes standards compliant, I'll be with you 110% on going all CSS for positioning. It's faster and the code is far cleaner.
And for those asking http://www.bleutuna.com. Feel free to right click and view my source code. You'll be hard-pressed to find cleaner, better-structured and documented code anywhere.
I've been doing this since IE3 was out, freelance and for numerous design houses. :p
\
Let's start with your first statement. While w3schools is a great place for people to learn the basics, it's poor advice to suggest you can learn all the css you'll ever need from there.
Furthermore, you can with very little patience build entire sites using no tables. Nesting divs and using floats is far better than nesting tables. It's cleaner, easier to decipher after-the-fact and just plain smarter.
As for "complex table structures" there is no such thing. Tables are not complex, no matter how many you bury within one another. There are smartly designed tables and poorly designed tables. Tables do however have their place for, well, displaying tabular data of course. What they were intended for.
For the record, I haven't been "doing this" since IE3. I've only been a web developer for 6 years, but I've been an artist for 20, a graphic designer for 13 and a programmer for 9.
The problem with people trying to turn divs into tables is that they know how to design the wrong way already. When you design using css, you build your pages with tags based on what type of content it is, not where it should be. Use your style sheets to design your site. Not html. The difference between a good designer and a designer is one that can design a site using the same content pages, but different style sheets for each browser or browser checks within the css. There's always different ways to make different browsers do what you want in css, you just need to know wtf you're doing.
For those of you who want to learn good css, check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But what you're saying is a matter of opinion. Because you believe that creating a myriad of stylesheets, employing browserchecks and 60 different classes is superior to creating one page with a strong table structure doesn't make it so.
The argument that tables shouldn't be used for content display is made erroneous by how well they work. And always, table structure continues to work in antiquated browsers, on other platforms, with little to no problems. A well written, well commented table is easy to understand, easy to build, and works without a problem.
I'd rather build a page with a series of tables in 20 mintues than spend 4 hours creating 4 style sheets, browser checking and praying, worrying about the different implementations of how IE vs Opera vs Safari will interpret what "top:15px" means.
The biggest secret to good web design isn't css...it's blank.gif :D - einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have to back the tuna on this. CSS is ideal, but in practical terms it simply doesn't behave as expected in all browsers. Tables stay where I put them, even if I have to resort to the ridiculous step of using shims/spacers to force it into shape.
I design first, code second. Usability is determined by layout & design, then ENABLED by code. CSS helps me control many aspects, and I love what it allows me to do.
Each to his own. If you're designing a blog or personal site entirely in CSS, great. But I've yet to see a major B2B site abandon the predictability of tables for an all-CSS design. And with IE7 not being compliant (why the hell do we act surprised by that news) I doubt my workflow will change much. Which is sad, because CSS has so much promise! - j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@bleutuna
CSS works extremely well if done properly and you can quite easily work it with IE6 as a seperate style sheet. But most of the time the best layouts will require a mix of tables and CSS (leaning towards CSS after the main tables are written). A pure CSS website loads quicker, and is about half the size as a website with tables. - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope that IE7 is standards compliant....
- j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The first two are nice (the second one being better). The third one is ass ugly and I would never even use a website if it was designed like that. Way too many images, horrible colors, ugh.
- dude3609, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0its nice.. but i can make websites far better then that. :P
- skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Nice link with good info. Thanks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@bleutuna
are you ***** kidding me? CSS when done right is 32890839460 times better then tables. Get with the times. - gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0good digg summer2k5 (your diggname will soon be deprecated)
- caspermilktoast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@bleutuna
Please, if you are going to just offer pure criticism, why not offer some alternatives so that those of us who are intermediate-advanced can learn something? The way it stands, your comment amounts to nothing more than a braggart's drolly bunk. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0PS> @bleutuna
please post some links to your work. As a webdesigner thats almost "grown up" as you put it, id love to see your work. - mel4ever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This entry just gave me a raise at my job! Extremely good digg.
- analogue40, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0nice digg, i just bought site point's 'Designing without tables using CSS' too, good book.
- digit9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I dugg this site. Almost all the web dev work I do is on the back end and building out apis, my CSS and graphics skills need some improvement. Though some of the designs on this site didn't get my willy up I still thought it a good article, good digg.
The links some of you guys posted are pretty good too. - maad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I didn't really find the sample design recipies very mind blogging, but rather quite generic.
On the other hand, any article that has this much raw information is gonna be useful to someone, especially to artists who may know how to make something that looks fresh but not how to translate it to HTML and CSS. - wnathans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Pretty good reference site. I personally prefer http://www.htmldog.com/ myself but maybe that's just me. I check on zengarden all the time rhyno2000. The amount of creativity flowing through that site makes my brain hurt. How do they do that stuff?
- TheMack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This layouts are awful examples of "great graphics" and css.
- dude3609, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0bleutuna styling with graphics and css is far better then using basic html. if digg.com didn't use css, it'd look like pure crap also(i would still go here hehe..). I've been doing alot of webdesign since 2000, so when you put down css, it only makes yourself look dumb. Basic html tables dont look as good with stylized css tables like DIGG.COM USES. Wow.. do you even know what css is?
- analogue40, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0sorry bleutuna(0) next time i'll consult you before learning anything new just to make sure you approved it...ass
- WorldBuilder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0If you want to see terrific graphics and CSS perfection, go to www.chrisbartlett.net
Yeah, it's my site. 100% valid XHTML STRICT, CSS3, WAI-AAA, and tableless.
The ultimate in technical perfection!
Sorry for the ego trip... - Squaros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0bleutuna -
I'd love to see your site. Do me a favor, and post the link. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0You shouldn't need a book to tell you how to do that. But, frankly, you shouldn't even do that anyway. Tables work amazingly well, and work in a liquid environment far better than CSS does - at least by current standards. Blame it on IE, but until the world's most popular browser actually supports the true standard, designers need to focus on what works. Not the best case scenario.
Anyway, this link is a big, fat, "meh." If you've done this sort of thing for more than a month, you should know this kinda' stuff. The tutorial is bad, and the little girl trying to teach grown-ups web design needs to just go home.
The grown-ups are here. Go back to the kiddie pool.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is