HAHAHA, I just found this, it makes me laugh. First off, I don't think you understand tables correctly or your w3c validation reason. CSS is for the lazy people that can't code or know how to design a good website. I can do alot more with tables then you can with a CSS site. Its easier to change things on the fly without interupting the layout of the whole page. Those who don't understand this never will. HTML is for the lazy people with no imagination.
Sorry, I'm confused. Exactly what do you use if not CSS or HTML? How about posting a link to one of your wonderfully imaginative sites that wasn't done the lazy way. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to be enlightened.
What do you mean. I don't need to post any more. Look at the facts already posted. I will state the facts already. These standards were made so stupid people like Dera can throw together a website without having any problems on how it looks in any browser. When the fact is, if it wasn't for this,then stupid people would not make their own site. The more I look around, I see all these ****ty sites that lack imagination, white back grounds all coded with html, try to make the w3c complient. When in reality, if they got off their asses and learnt how to do things on their own and not follow the masses, they probally would have a good website design. To me, following w3c standards removes ones individualality.In other words, you can't think for yourself by following someone else.Just like dera has been. taking others work and calling it her own.
I would really suggest you to be nicer with the members here.
Why don't YOU provide a website you've done, so that we can ALL have a look at the GREAT table coded websites you can do without css ?
Standards are here to help people make accessible websites, not to prevent people from being original.
If you have a look at CSS Zen garden ( link provided by David ), you'll see that people can still be original AND make accessible websites.
I would be glad to see one of your sites, though.
Vrking, get back to kindegarden. Don't try arguing with the big kids, seriously.
Disclaimer. (1) Whilst I will help you sometimes, if I feel like it, and my advice in relation to your actual question will be of good quality: my posts are to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will be sarcastic, deploy irony and include obscure cultural references for my own amusement without warning.
(2) You will gain nothing from complaining, and if you try to argue with me then you will not win. No matter how noble your battle seems, I am still better than you, don't be an hero.
Sorry, I'm confused. Exactly what do you use if not CSS or HTML? How about posting a link to one of your wonderfully imaginative sites that wasn't done the lazy way. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to be enlightened.
I don't think a "font color=red" is really the way.
Your sites are not bad, except :
they are not standard compliant, which may restrict acess to some people only
they take forever to load
I wouldn't like to be a blind guy surfing the net and coming on your site. ( but that's also true for lots of sites on the net )
I think it has clearly been explained why you should not use tables for layout, so I'm not going into this one again.
Your sites would do fine with css, and would load faster.
Besides, they would be really easy to update, and change layout.
But that's only my opinion.
I like the security website, this one is nice. ( the others are not bad either )
I don't think a "font color=red" is really the way.
Your sites are not bad, except :
they are not standard compliant, which may restrict acess to some people only
they take forever to load
I wouldn't like to be a blind guy surfing the net and coming on your site. ( but that's also true for lots of sites on the net )
I think it has clearly been explained why you should not use tables for layout, so I'm not going into this one again.
Your sites would do fine with css, and would load faster.
Besides, they would be really easy to update, and change layout.
But that's only my opinion.
I like the security website, this one is nice. ( the others are not bad either )
See. that is where you are wrong. Nothing you have stated would load the pages any faster. It is more then accessable. I use all standard browsers that a normal person would use. You like IE, firefox, Opera and so on. They don't look, or load any different. What you all seem to fail to realise, pageload is not directly reflected by its layout, but more on the content that site has. The more images and Text, the longer to load. Another key factor in page load is both the webhost server and you your ISP connection, the amount of users on each site, how many nodes it goes through before it reaches you. W3c standards are only guidelines for the less adapt developers and not necessary to be used. I have been to site that are fuly compliant to w3c standards and load very slow. Its all smoke and mirrors. What loads good to you, may not load well or look good to say someone in India or china. and vise versa.
Ok, you can have your opinion.
A year ago, I made my current website. All tables. It was exactly the same as the one I have right now. Except this one is css and divs, and doesn't include tables.
The design is exactly the same. And it loads about two times faster...
If you want to code with tables and archaic html code, noone will kill you for that, go ahead.
Personally, I know what I want, and I want to have a clean, fully customizable website, what I can achieve only with css.
If there had to be only one reason to my using css, it would be this one.
For most people on the net, the visitors and the clients, table or div don't matter.
They want something appealing, and that's accessible. If you achieve this goal ( what you actually do ), the rest is up to you. I like to have clean coded websites. My sites might not be really original, but I don't care. I'm not even a web designer, I'm just a writer adn a biologist.
But I know that I would code exactly the same if I were to sell my designs.
Ok, you can have your opinion.
A year ago, I made my current website. All tables. It was exactly the same as the one I have right now. Except this one is css and divs, and doesn't include tables.
The design is exactly the same. And it loads about two times faster...
If you want to code with tables and archaic html code, noone will kill you for that, go ahead.
Personally, I know what I want, and I want to have a clean, fully customizable website, what I can achieve only with css.
If there had to be only one reason to my using css, it would be this one.
For most people on the net, the visitors and the clients, table or div don't matter.
They want something appealing, and that's accessible. If you achieve this goal ( what you actually do ), the rest is up to you. I like to have clean coded websites. My sites might not be really original, but I don't care. I'm not even a web designer, I'm just a writer adn a biologist.
But I know that I would code exactly the same if I were to sell my designs.
Ok,I spend vast amount of hours talking to coders,developers and end users.I ask opinions, thoughts on stuff. and what not. The majority of them they sayWhy do something that some else does. We are all individuals on the net.To them, following standards is like following a person jump who just jumped off a bridge. I know, I wouldn't follow someone who just jumped off of a bridge. Heres another way to put it. Everyone here is different, but like to follow standards. Now what would you do if someone came out and said,"the only way you are allowed to surf the net is if you are all wearing the same cloths". This is basically saying the same thing with Standards and w3c complianceOther words, you have been stripped of your rights to have a good website, unless yo follow standards.
yeah why following standards and "laws" by the way...they are so pointless...are you some kinda anarchist?
In every society there are quite a lot of different people, but they do officially in most of the countries have the same rights and restrictions, it prevent chaos, the net needs some kind of standard institute, and i am very pleased with the way the web consortium does it.
I would say, if I follow your line of thoughts, why follow the trafic rules ? After all, why should we stop at the trafic lights ? Why should we have a car that is so and so ( and that doesn't pollute the environment ) ?
I mean, if I want to drive my old cart with two horses in the middle of Paris and park it just right in front of Notre Dame, why shouldn't I do it ?
I don't know, but I know I wouldn't want to do it.
If you don't want to follow standards, it's your choice.
Your certainly not a kid. We are not here to talk you into coding with regular code and letting aside all the obsolet expressions and tags.
Sorry for my English, it's 7 am and I'm still sleepy.
I went to each of your sites and as I suspected, each begins with <html>, so I'm still confused by your statement.
Each of your sites looked fine, except I didn't like the link color on that lavender background on one of them. Nothing especially imaginative, but nothing really bad looking. I have seen sites elsewhere that used tables (an element of html) for layout that were quite innovative and imaginative. Problem is, the tables aren't what made them imaginative and, they could have been made to look the same way using standards compliant css and html.
Each of your sites loaded very slow for me, partially due to the graphics, not the tables. Notice I said partially.
What you all seem to fail to realise, pageload is not directly reflected by its layout, but more on the content that site has. The more images and Text, the longer to load.
What you fail to realize is that standards compliant code doesn't stifle the imagination, it simply uses less text (code in your html) to present the exact same text and images on your site, thus making them load faster. I would even go so far as to say that you could keep the tables and only use some css to speed things up. You constantly repeat fonts and background colors - done with much less code in css. Don't get me wrong, the layout could also be done to look exactly the same in css with much less code.
Finally, forget the sites, tables, css, html, and anything related to web development. This could have been a friendly debate that was a learning experience for everyone. Instead, you began by throwing out insults, not a good way to start on a forum that's sole purpose is to be helpful.
Finally, forget the sites, tables, css, html, and anything related to web development. This could have been a friendly debate that was a learning experience for everyone. Instead, you began by throwing out insults, not a good way to start on a forum that's sole purpose is to be helpful.
That's true. We should all respect each other, even if we don't have the same opinion.
I went to each of your sites and as I suspected, each begins with <html>, so I'm still confused by your statement.
Each of your sites looked fine, except I didn't like the link color on that lavender background on one of them. Nothing especially imaginative, but nothing really bad looking. I have seen sites elsewhere that used tables (an element of html) for layout that were quite innovative and imaginative. Problem is, the tables aren't what made them imaginative and, they could have been made to look the same way using standards compliant css and html.
Each of your sites loaded very slow for me, partially due to the graphics, not the tables. Notice I said partially.
What you fail to realize is that standards compliant code doesn't stifle the imagination, it simply uses less text (code in your html) to present the exact same text and images on your site, thus making them load faster. I would even go so far as to say that you could keep the tables and only use some css to speed things up. You constantly repeat fonts and background colors - done with much less code in css. Don't get me wrong, the layout could also be done to look exactly the same in css with much less code.
Finally, forget the sites, tables, css, html, and anything related to web development. This could have been a friendly debate that was a learning experience for everyone. Instead, you began by throwing out insults, not a good way to start on a forum that's sole purpose is to be helpful.
Hmmm, I also guess you can't read either. I never said any of those site where mine or I had involvement in them.Those are just sites that I go to. I was asked for some links to non Css sites. Now for <html> some are html and some are not.
If they load slow for you then get a better web browser. they all load relatively quickly, 0.013 secs for me. Whats that, the same amount of time as a site that uses CSS. Thats right, these sites where optimised to reduced load time. By reducing the http request thus making them load faster.
Not all of them do that, but by reducing the amount of images,Css, javascripts it will reduse the time for http request and load faster. By keeping the page sizes down, they will load faster even with a 56kbps modem.
Originally Posted by Vrking
Bookmarks