What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
65 Comments
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -1/+35I finally posted my first website with a tableless, completely css layout, but in my own defense, I can say that working with tables was wonderful, because I didn't have to worry about adding hacks for all the non-compliant *cough* IE *cough* browsers that were in popular use.
- hawksfan03, on 02/24/2009, -1/+27PRO TIP: don't use flash all over your website
- Chalks777, on 02/25/2009, -0/+20http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww ...
That's right. 302 errors. - magic6435, on 02/25/2009, -2/+17If you think tables are easier or better than CSS then you simply don't understand css. Stop doing a disservice to your clients and pick up a book.
- EvanGH, on 02/25/2009, -0/+10Buried, inaccurate title.
- Surferess, on 02/24/2009, -0/+9That Msft SQL ad on there is wild!
- inactive, on 02/25/2009, -0/+8foos2, I slightly agree with you, just in the sense that some of this standards compliant stuff doesn't really make sense to me.
You want bold text? <b>bold!</b> italics? <i>italics!</i>
But you shouldnt do that anymore because it's not proper, now you have to set a class in css and do <span class="i">italics</span>
or something dumb like <span style="font-style: italic;">italics</span>
I still do what they say. I write my websites so they validate css and html fully and dont use tables for layout, I just dont think deprecating a tag as simple as <u> and saying "well you should really do this out of the way thing to make it work.." makes sense.
Not like the dreamweaver era of 10 table per page layouts got any better in the css era of 200 div's per page.
Bad websites will always exist. - setfree, on 02/25/2009, -1/+9Some reasons why CSS is better than tables for layout:
1. Faster page loading
2. Lowered hosting costs
3. Redesigns are more efficient
4. Redesigns are less expensive
5. Visual consistency maintained throughout website(s)
6. Better for SEO
7. Accessibility
8. Competitive edge (job security)
9. Quick website-wide updates
10. Easier for teams to maintain (and individuals)
11. Increased usability
12. More complex layouts and designs
13. No spacer gifs
I pulled this off of a site after a quick google search. You should really take a few minutes and educate yourself on the benefits of CSS layout. It's not difficult to learn and the benefits are huge. - invalidnot4long, on 02/24/2009, -2/+8goodies all around.......C:
- Chalks777, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5figuratively speaking, of course.
- cubicledrone, on 02/25/2009, -0/+5Except it is difficult to learn, because 90% of the time CSS doesn't do what it is supposed to. I know eight programming languages, and CSS is a gigantic pain in the ass.
- onedeep, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4If you design with a reset or reboot CSS sheet, then the "IE hacks" should be minimal. Thanks to my reset sheet, my IE hack sheet is limited only to IE6, and usually only has one or two things in it tops.
If you are having to hack that much, then you are doing something wrong. - MikeyMoose, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4Did you not notice that the article was titled "When Good BROWSERS Go Bad?"
- Chalks777, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4You can literally taste the irony.
- arbulus, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4Not working by W3C standards is doing a disservice to your clients and to everyone on the web. Working with standards based code improves the entire web as a whole. And not only that, you work more efficiently, effectively, time is saved many times over and you have more capability to have MORE clients because you are working more efficiently and saving yourself money not just in time, but in hosting costs.
But people talk about IE hacks and having to make things work in some browsers, etc. that's because people don't stick to standards. And continuing to buck W3C standards is only reinforcing that *****. - MScrip, on 02/25/2009, -0/+4I love the argument "tables are not for layout... tables are for tabular data only." People need to go back in time and remember about 8 years of history when tables were the only thing you could use.
I started building websites before there was CSS. So, the only thing I could use was tables. Was I wrong? If so, you need to go back in time and tell each and every website that they were doing it wrong... because I learned from them.
It's funny how the web began using tables... and it was fine. But around 2003 when big sites started "switching" to CSS layouts... suddenly "tables were never supposed to be used for layout."
Now, of course, I use CSS for layout. And validate XHTML Strict, too. But I can't go back in time and undo 8 years of tables. - Metalcard, on 02/25/2009, -1/+4http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoo ...
65 - inactive, on 02/24/2009, -1/+4For modern websites, I would develop for Firefox 3 and Internet Explorer 7/8. Older browsers probably can't handle the cpu and ram intensive flash web pages out there. I know my current computer struggles with huge Flash pages.
- julianrod, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3I blame YouTube's embedding code.
- fotoman607, on 02/25/2009, -0/+3This is about browsers, not web pages. Now that you mention it though...Computer World's design is a bit behind.
- Metalcard, on 02/25/2009, -2/+4Web Standards are nice, but I make sure my sites look good in all the major browsers then, maybe, try to make them standards compliant. I could care less if my code doesn't match up with the W3C standards as long as it renders the same way across the major browsers and looks how its supposed to.
Plus most of my clients don't even know or care about these standards and don't want to spend the extra money on the time it takes to make the code standards compliant when the site will look and function exactly the same in the end. - silence7, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Bzzzzt.... Wrong...
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06 ...
" Q: Which Flash files can Google better index now?
We've improved our ability to index textual content in SWF files of all kinds. This includes Flash "gadgets" such as buttons or menus, self-contained Flash websites, and everything in between.
Q: What content can Google better index from these Flash files?
All of the text that users can see as they interact with your Flash file. If your website contains Flash, the textual content in your Flash files can be used when Google generates a snippet for your website. Also, the words that appear in your Flash files can be used to match query terms in Google searches. " - 7m7uf, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Know of a good reference for making CSS layouts - i'm sadly still using tables and i keep telling myself I'm going to move to using CSS. Well, today seems like a good day to start. :)
- 7m7uf, on 02/26/2009, -0/+2Don't know why you was dugg down, but thanks, dugg you up. Much appreciated.
- rossisdead, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2@ setfree: I'm not really following your list. I always opt for table-less layouts, but I think you're confusing "using CSS vs. tables" with "using CSS vs. not CSS". You can make a table layout done entirely in CSS, too.
"Lowered hosting costs" doesn't even make sense. - AntoineDigg, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2CSS is great. It might take a little more time to create a full scale website using css vs tables, but 6 months later you'll be happy to have chosen css. When it comes to standards and W3C, these guys need to get their act together and create real standards. In order for your site to be 100% compliant with W3C you will have to add some non-sense tags and styling, and that's just plain wrong and counter productive (funny too since W3C is suppose to help with that type of problems). At the end of the day, get on the CSS boat or get lost, cause 5 years from now you won't find a job without knowing css.
- setfree, on 02/25/2009, -1/+3A non-standards compliant site may render as intended, but it may be because the browser is able to catch the error and self correct. This happens a lot, and is not a good way to develop sites.
It is safer to develop with standards in mind. Then when your site looks good and validates it will have a far better chance of rendering properly across ALL browsers and future releases too. - inactive, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2The article was about the inconsistencies from browser to browser in how they handle outdated and w3c compliant websites.
e.g. gecko vs webkit
I've noticed that I can visit the numerous websites using Chrome, Firefox and Opera and they will render differently in each browser. - ThatWebGeek, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Check out http://csscreator.com/tools/layout also the main site is a great css forum for newbies and pros alike. Videos and reading websites that specialize in CSS . This video is great - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-740377160 ...
- prodigitalson, on 02/25/2009, -1/+3and if all browser supported display:table-cell; and display:inline-block; those issues would pretty much go away.
- inactive, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2Big ***** deal. Most of the best websites don't conform to these crappy standards. The fact is, that coding for web site layouts is absolutely terrible and something good needs to come along sooner or later. CSS is as an absolute bitch to get a good layout properly aligning and usually involves all sorts of annoying tricks. Tables are annoying because it lacks all the advantage of CSS, yet provides an efficient way of actually laying out a web site.
- MScrip, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2I start with a CSS template that I know works in all browsers. Then I just modify it for my own site. There are blank templates for any style of site... 2 columns, 3 columns, fixed, fluid, etc.
Find one template that works... and go from there. I've never had to build CSS from scratch. I could... but there's no need to.
CSS can be a bitch to learn and use... but if someone gives you a head start... it's much easier. And find a template that works in IE6... and you don't have to pull out your hair trying to make it work. - Gizza, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2My pet hate is web designers who feel everything needs to be done in Flash (or the people who tell them to do it). So many websites have gone from nicely designed and easy to use to a complete nightmare in usability.
For example the website for my local cinema chain use to make it perfectly simple to get a list of currently showing movies and the session times. Now you have to go through about 6 steps and can only see the session times of movies one at a time. It's a complete disaster to use. - zyko, on 02/25/2009, -0/+2And in the end, if a site looks and functions like ***** it doesn't make a difference what is used.
- logan47, on 02/25/2009, -1/+2It's ironic that Computer World printed such an article. I’m using Firefox version 3.0.6 and have problems loading their page. I had to use the “refresh” option to get the site to load and even then their toolbar did not look correct. I noticed this problem with their site a few months ago. I don’t recall having problems with the other numerous sites I visit.
- dawngordon, on 09/13/2009, -0/+1just 4.13% of the 3.5 million Web pages Opera searched were fully standards-compliant when tested against the W3C validation suite.
wow only 4 percent of millions tested with opera wow
Because there are still older Web sites that haven't been updated, and many developers still don't design their pages to meet modern standards and best practices - adasha, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1<b> and <i> are either deprecated or removed entirely from the specs all the way back to HTML 4. It is NOT OK to use them as officially they no longer exist.
- rossisdead, on 02/25/2009, -1/+2That has nothing to do with CSS and has everything to do with the difference between table rendering and every other browser tag.
- dawngordon, on 09/13/2009, -0/+1it does not go to say those what the modern standards are
- erikerikerik, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1The first thing I wondered and checked was "ok..your page better validate...."
newp! - elfprince13, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1I'm averaging 1 or 2 during development, and none once my pages are "done"
I occasionally declare my pages as transitional so I can use target attributes on my anchors, but that's it. - Louis11, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.digg.com& ...
- mhearne, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1Yes, but as html 3.02, there are only 5, with 2 errors. Now _that's_ behind the times!
- Cowicide, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1Rules are meant to be broken... by Microsoft.
- jordanmoore, on 02/25/2009, -1/+2It's funny because there aren't.
- adasha, on 02/26/2009, -0/+1Flash is only a tool. Blame the tards who can't make appropriate use of technology, or who have atrocious design standards, not the software they used.
Do you blame the brushes used if you don't like a painting? - zoom1928, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1American Express's web site is another good example of what you're describing. You have to install Flash to get to the page where you can view or pay your bill. I wrote down the URL from a computer in the local library so I could go directly to that page at home or work. That's the only option I have to get to that page because they use that Flash garbage.
- four100d, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1I think standards are a good thing. If there were no standards to aim for then you would have to hack up your designs even more than you do now just to get them to work in multiple browsers. Even if your pages do not fully validate, at least one can strive to get a design close to a standard.
Once you start to learn how to code by the standards, it's really not that hard. Yeah, there are bugs here and there, and there are still cross browser problems, but it would be way worse if there were no standards at all.
And to the TABLE people who don't like CSS or DIV's, you may be missing the point of CSS and (DIV's). No, you don't have to use them, yes, tables still work fine. But if you build a multi-page site for a client using TABLES for the layout, and a year later the client wants to switch the menu to the right side, and redesign layout, you will have a lot of work ahead of you. Where as with CSS, you could just change the style sheet(s)... - antdude, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1Good web pages go bad with too many pages for a single article.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ... = good web print page. :) - section14, on 02/25/2009, -0/+1With many of the statistics I receive for sites I develop, I find their stats are right on with the 20% of the market using IE6 as a browser. Also, the 30% extra development time is right on or maybe a bit conservative. Most clients who target a 20-30 year old crowd choose to save money by NOT supporting IE6. It's pretty safe to say most people in that demographic don't use IE6 anyways.
I, for one, can't wait to quit supporting IE6 all together. In a year from now, and especially after Windows 7 has launched and is gaining market share, I will quit developing sites for it. Unless of course the client asks for it. Then I will add the 30% fee increase for a 9 year old browser. Which, lately, has made many clients quit supporting IE6 (yay!).
I agree with most of the article except for the bit about "..users won't need to learn how to write CSS, let the software do it for you". I 100% disagree with that comment. It wasn't until I hand coded everything and quit using dreamweaver (ver. 3 lol) to write the code for me, that I built proper sites and had confidence in what I was designing.
Also, for all the table enthusiasts out there. If you have a job currently designing sites with tables as layout tools, NEVER LEAVE. No firm will hire someone who isn't using div's and css to work for them and design websites. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is