Your recipe website really isn't a great example considering it is really simple, but it also is using CSS. I'm not sure what kind of example that is when your whole argument is about tables being used, correct?
Printable View
Your recipe website really isn't a great example considering it is really simple, but it also is using CSS. I'm not sure what kind of example that is when your whole argument is about tables being used, correct?
The CSS specification was recommended in order to seperate content from design and allow accessibility to any device. Using tables for layout breaks this recommendation. I don't understand how someone can see it any differently.
The point is that in spite of the fanfare surrounding CSS with respect to accessibility, neither an iPAQ or a Blackberry interpreted a 'simple' site correctly -- The iPAQ tried to render the screen stylesheet (massive horizontal scrolling), and the Blackberry ignored even the 'correct' tables in the recipe site that are tables of ingredients.Quote:
Originally posted by Neczy
Your recipe website really isn't a great example considering it is really simple, but it also is using CSS. I'm not sure what kind of example that is when your whole argument is about tables being used, correct?
My point is not that it's right to use tables for layout. There's lots of reasons why it isn't. My point is that several of the biggest reasons don't stand up to scrunity in the current state of the Internet. And the CSS community needs to acknowledge that and stop turning off 'old-school' developers by forcing this stuff down their throats when they come looking for advice.
The fact is that the most common layout on the net today -- the 3 column with the sidebars fixed -- cannot be done really elegantly with CSS. Yes, Brill published an article about negative margins, and yes, there's the absolute positioning solution. But between the containers and wrappers required for 'faux columns' to work or the (gash) javascript required to place a footer properly under the absolutely positioned one..... isn't <table id="main"><tr><td id="left"></td><td="content"></td><td id="right"></td></tr></table> really a lot more straightforward?
No. If a device cannot access content because it improperly disregards specifications by rendering screen stylesheets and not handheld media stylesheets it is at fault. However, simply because some devices do not follow recommendations does not mean that we should use tables for layout until they do. The CSS technology should be pushed to its utmost limit until all devices properly interpret specifications. We can't let technologies be held back because companies are too incompetent to obey a simple set of rules.Quote:
Originally posted by mikepurvis
The point is that in spite of the fanfare surrounding CSS with respect to accessibility, neither an iPAQ or a Blackberry interpreted a 'simple' site correctly -- The iPAQ tried to render the screen stylesheet (massive horizontal scrolling), and the Blackberry ignored even the 'correct' tables in the recipe site that are tables of ingredients.
My point is not that it's right to use tables for layout. There's lots of reasons why it isn't. My point is that several of the biggest reasons don't stand up to scrunity in the current state of the Internet. And the CSS community needs to acknowledge that and stop turning off 'old-school' developers by forcing this stuff down their throats when they come looking for advice.
The fact is that the most common layout on the net today -- the 3 column with the sidebars fixed -- cannot be done really elegantly with CSS. Yes, Brill published an article about negative margins, and yes, there's the absolute positioning solution. But between the containers and wrappers required for 'faux columns' to work or the (gash) javascript required to place a footer properly under the absolutely positioned one..... isn't <table id="main"><tr><td id="left"></td><td="content"></td><td id="right"></td></tr></table> really a lot more straightforward?
Fundamentally, I agree with you. So it's pointless to debate how CSS is viewed by its unbelievers.Quote:
Originally posted by Jona
No. If a device cannot access content because it improperly disregards specifications by rendering screen stylesheets and not handheld media stylesheets it is at fault. However, simply because some devices do not follow recommendations does not mean that we should use tables for layout until they do. The CSS technology should be pushed to its utmost limit until all devices properly interpret specifications. We can't let technologies be held back because companies are too incompetent to obey a simple set of rules.
No hard feelings, of course. (I'd prefer not to have any sort of rude disposition or emotional tension between myself and anyone else on these forums, as it is yet another way to add negativity to, in this case, an already sensitive topic.) I understand that debating the very old "CSS-vs-tables" issue is beneficial to a certain point, but sometimes it can be taken too far. On either hand, it's always worth looking into and thinking about why we believe what it is that we believe. :)Quote:
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Fundamentally, I agree with you. So it's pointless to debate how CSS is viewed by its unbelievers.
A lot of people tend to say that the whole 3 collum thing is difficult in CSS. I think from now on I'll just point them here http://bluerobot.com/web/layouts/layout3.html
Thats not what they were talking about. They were talking about the whole equally sized 3 collumns layout, which is only possible to make using tables or Sliding Faux Collumns ( http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thought...-faux-columns/ ) which is utterly confusing and depressing LOLQuote:
Originally posted by the tree
A lot of people tend to say that the whole 3 collum thing is difficult in CSS. I think from now on I'll just point them here http://bluerobot.com/web/layouts/layout3.html
right... equally sized, three collums...Nope, I still fail to see the problem.Code:div {max-width: 30%; float: left;}
Equal Height with differently colored collumns
lol was just about to ask a question about the "3 columns" right before I clicked on this thread. Close one!
Actually, for most clients, that's not an acceptable solution, since you can't put a (cross-browser) footer on it.Quote:
Originally posted by the tree
A lot of people tend to say that the whole 3 collum thing is difficult in CSS. I think from now on I'll just point them here http://bluerobot.com/web/layouts/layout3.html
Much better examples are here: http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/
And for the folks arguing about pocket stylesheets, remember that you can just do td { display: block } and expand all your content inline anyways...
Thanks for that link mike - saved me lots of trouble with a footer I was working on.
With a lot of interest I have been reading this thread. I totally agree with Jona on using CSS and to avoid table designs and JavaScript. I have, however, a problem which I don't know how to solve. Would you please be so kind to have a look at this thread, and view the link to my test-page? I'd like to know if you have any suggestions.
Thanx a million!
Jochem
mmm yep would defo like to see more on whats good about site..
cos most of you guys ROCK at making sites but you were once starters yourself.
I made a SITE in 1 week, in that week learned loads about HTML and FRONTPAGE (sure I have read the stuff about TABLES and colums) but if you have never worked with any of them not even HTML I think frontpage can provide you with enough information on HOW to build a SITE. you can't expect every one to just go and work with CSS (and I got the biggest web provider in HOLLAND who doesn't support it) so i am glad i worked with frontpage.
but did I get any credit about the website looking OKE for a NEWBIE NO... but the reviewer said he would never put the first site he made online (as it's probebly more f*cked up then mine)
I just needed the site to work before MARCH as the fishing season will start.....
SRRY just needed to say something to reply to the first post which has probebly bin made BY A GREAT WEBMASTER... who forgot he was once a NEWBIE aswell....
