web2.0flow.com— You won?t believed how many they are. Some of then are your daily web routine. Stop hunting those IE CSS tricks and bring back your Frontpage 98 my friend designer, we are still in web 0.8889
Nov 17, 2007View in Crawl 4
Your columns will not have equal height:"With the columns equal height extending to fill the entire page, if there is insufficient content."That's the sad fact of the matter. Things that were "easy" using tables become harder with CSS. Personally, I'm in the CSS-P camp. To achieve the equal height look, you have to use a wrapper div and composite your background in to one image that repeats in the background of the wrapper div. It's really not all that hard, and I prefer this method, because the resulting code is much easier to read/edit. I loath tables mostly because they make it a real bitch to find your way around the code.At some point, we all break down and become pragmatists. We have to get a job done. Most people's preference just happens to coincide with what they're most familiar with. We've all got 10+ years of table code under our belt. Old habits die hard, and all that jazz.
Why would you bother validating the code if you're not going to follow the recommendations of the guidelines? Seems like you're turning on the air-conditioner because it's so hot as your house burns down around you.
This seemed kinda pointless to me too. Why care what a design did to lay out a site. Is it clear and functional? Do visitors find what they're looking for quickly? Are visitors satisfied with the site and return? That's all that matters. You could make a page in iWeb, Word, or Netscape Composer for that matter. If the content is compelling, or the overall design functions well, it works. Who really looks at code? Most people wouldn't think to think to care.
That's all very nice in theory, but we all know that the download size for the average web page has hardly decreased since CSS and Javascript became more common.
Of course not, but we have better tools now. We make better cars now than we did when we first started making them because now we have better tools and a better understanding of how they work; we make better websites now because we have better tools with which to make them.
I'm not sure what is worse - the fact that you actually believe - guilt free - that it is perfectly fine and "necessary" to layout a website with tables or the fact that so many people are actually agreeing with you. I thought we moved on from this attitude?This has nothing to do with "web 2.0 evangelists" or "web 2.0" - these are just buzz words. It's about WEB SEMANTICS. Look this up and you will see why its important for a number of reasons. This is crux of the matter - sure, it might be EASY to use tables for layouts - but it's not RIGHT to use tables for layouts. There is a big difference. Big businesses are concerned about time and money, and some don't embrace CSS as it will cost them extra time and money. Many are stuck in their ways with the "if it aint broke" attitude. Web semantics is fairly young, change will take time - but it will happen.You talk about "complicated sites" - here I honestly believe you don't know what you are talking about. There is a huge number of web developers and designers over the last 5-6 years who have embraced CSS and put it to great use. Browser compatibility is just a fact of life - many people cry about it. I prefer to fix problems as opposed to abandon IE6 altogether. My guess is why so many people have your attitude is because you have tried CSS, run into trouble with floats and the box model and IE6 and just abandoned it and gone back into your comfort zone of tables. Hence the hostility towards CSS. Am I right?
Yeah, I guess we shouldn't be so absolute in saying no tables. I think it's best to use whatever will work most efficiently - in both the short run and the long run. CSS is usually MUCH less work if you have to make changes across the site, if it is used efficiently. (I've seen CSS/HTML code that creates a lot of extraneous tags.) I'm not sure that people should be ostracized for using tables, but I personally couldn't imagine working with them. I've had to update sites that were table based, and it was a lot of work when I had to change the structure of the layout. When I have to do the same thing with CSS, it takes a small fraction of the work.
Most of you don't realize the number one reason why people still use tables... It's because of time! You can waist days in development trying to get every bastard browser out there to give you the same result all around by messing with divs and css. Do what you have to do to get the job done! And really, NO ONE CARES! As long as the damn website is functional appealing and serves its purpose. The average user isn't going to view source and bitch that the site structure is laid out in tables or divs!
bradleylandNov 17, 2007
Your columns will not have equal height:"With the columns equal height extending to fill the entire page, if there is insufficient content."That's the sad fact of the matter. Things that were "easy" using tables become harder with CSS. Personally, I'm in the CSS-P camp. To achieve the equal height look, you have to use a wrapper div and composite your background in to one image that repeats in the background of the wrapper div. It's really not all that hard, and I prefer this method, because the resulting code is much easier to read/edit. I loath tables mostly because they make it a real bitch to find your way around the code.At some point, we all break down and become pragmatists. We have to get a job done. Most people's preference just happens to coincide with what they're most familiar with. We've all got 10+ years of table code under our belt. Old habits die hard, and all that jazz.
Closed AccountNov 17, 2007
Except that these sites are fine without it. So to change WOULKD be changing for hte sake of changing.
dnabeastNov 17, 2007
Why would you bother validating the code if you're not going to follow the recommendations of the guidelines? Seems like you're turning on the air-conditioner because it's so hot as your house burns down around you.
Closed AccountNov 17, 2007
This seemed kinda pointless to me too. Why care what a design did to lay out a site. Is it clear and functional? Do visitors find what they're looking for quickly? Are visitors satisfied with the site and return? That's all that matters. You could make a page in iWeb, Word, or Netscape Composer for that matter. If the content is compelling, or the overall design functions well, it works. Who really looks at code? Most people wouldn't think to think to care.
hermiodNov 18, 2007
That's all very nice in theory, but we all know that the download size for the average web page has hardly decreased since CSS and Javascript became more common.
foolsrunNov 19, 2007
Of course not, but we have better tools now. We make better cars now than we did when we first started making them because now we have better tools and a better understanding of how they work; we make better websites now because we have better tools with which to make them.
boucheNov 19, 2007
please, get started ya f**kstick.
wildx22Nov 21, 2007
Except, tables makes it inaccessible for a lot of users.
wildx22Nov 21, 2007
Useful for tabular data, yes. Layouts, no.
monkeynewsNov 21, 2007
I'm not sure what is worse - the fact that you actually believe - guilt free - that it is perfectly fine and "necessary" to layout a website with tables or the fact that so many people are actually agreeing with you. I thought we moved on from this attitude?This has nothing to do with "web 2.0 evangelists" or "web 2.0" - these are just buzz words. It's about WEB SEMANTICS. Look this up and you will see why its important for a number of reasons. This is crux of the matter - sure, it might be EASY to use tables for layouts - but it's not RIGHT to use tables for layouts. There is a big difference. Big businesses are concerned about time and money, and some don't embrace CSS as it will cost them extra time and money. Many are stuck in their ways with the "if it aint broke" attitude. Web semantics is fairly young, change will take time - but it will happen.You talk about "complicated sites" - here I honestly believe you don't know what you are talking about. There is a huge number of web developers and designers over the last 5-6 years who have embraced CSS and put it to great use. Browser compatibility is just a fact of life - many people cry about it. I prefer to fix problems as opposed to abandon IE6 altogether. My guess is why so many people have your attitude is because you have tried CSS, run into trouble with floats and the box model and IE6 and just abandoned it and gone back into your comfort zone of tables. Hence the hostility towards CSS. Am I right?
justanother9Nov 21, 2007
Yeah, I guess we shouldn't be so absolute in saying no tables. I think it's best to use whatever will work most efficiently - in both the short run and the long run. CSS is usually MUCH less work if you have to make changes across the site, if it is used efficiently. (I've seen CSS/HTML code that creates a lot of extraneous tags.) I'm not sure that people should be ostracized for using tables, but I personally couldn't imagine working with them. I've had to update sites that were table based, and it was a lot of work when I had to change the structure of the layout. When I have to do the same thing with CSS, it takes a small fraction of the work.
apdsdOct 9, 2008
Most of you don't realize the number one reason why people still use tables... It's because of time! You can waist days in development trying to get every bastard browser out there to give you the same result all around by messing with divs and css. Do what you have to do to get the job done! And really, NO ONE CARES! As long as the damn website is functional appealing and serves its purpose. The average user isn't going to view source and bitch that the site structure is laid out in tables or divs!