Css vs presentation page with cartoon

[Nik Coughin]

There is a page that uses pop art style cartoons to argue css over
presentational markup. Can't find the url, can anyone help?

--
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.nrkn.com/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

[kchayka]

There is a page that uses pop art style cartoons to argue css over
presentational markup. Can't find the url, can anyone help?

<URL:http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/> ?

 

[Nik Coughin]

<URL:http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/> ?

That's the one, thanks!

 

[R2G2]

That's the one, thanks!

I like that - very clear. <em>But</em> they say to use divs, and I had
big problems with divs because I use percent for text size, instead of
a set size, which completely messed up my layout if people were
viewing with anything larger than medium. For the time being, I think
I'll stick to tables and css, because it works for me.

 

[Travis Newbury]

<URL:http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/> ?

CSS layout is nice, but because of inconsistant rendering on all
browsers (ALL do something wrong) may not achieve all of the layouts
one might want. (And "well change the layout" is not nessesaraly the
correct answer)

If you can create your site, the way you want, with CSS, then by all
means you should. If you need a combination of CSS and tables to
achieve your goals, then by all means do that, if it takes tables, then
by all means use that.

No matter what you use (css, tables, javascript, flash, what ever), it
is the correct way if and only if the site acomplishes its goal.

An all CSS site that fails to meet its goals may be politically
correct, but the bottom line is it still failed to meet its goals.

Most important is that your web site performs the way you need it to to
acomplish its mission.

 

[Andy Dingley]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when R2G2

I had big problems with divs because I use percent for text size, instead of
a set size,

You might have had big problems when you used divs, but not _because_
you were using divs.

 

[R2G2]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when R2G2


You might have had big problems when you used divs, but not _because_
you were using divs.

No, it was because I positioned them where I wanted them, and where
they looked good _unless_ the viewer had a different screen
resolution, or had text size on anything bigger than medium. That
made the divs with text bigger, so they weren't where I placed them
(made speech much bigger than the speech bubble etc.). The problem
wasn't the divs, but swapping to tables solved the problem

 

[kchayka]

No, it was because I positioned them where I wanted them,

So you're saying that Andy was right.

Absolutely positioning text elements on a page is a disaster waiting to
happen, as you found out.

For best results with CSS layouts you need to:
- understand the box model
- understand how positioning and floats work
- design for flexibility
- apply KISS principles

My guess is you didn't do at least one of the above.

 

[R2G2]

So you're saying that Andy was right.

Yes, I was saying no, it wasn't divs... ;-)

Absolutely positioning text elements on a page is a disaster waiting to
happen, as you found out.

Big time! I was gutted when I saw it with bigger text size!

For best results with CSS layouts you need to:
- understand the box model
- understand how positioning and floats work
- design for flexibility
- apply KISS principles

My guess is you didn't do at least one of the above.

I didn't do any of the above, I just played around in Dreamweaver.

I'd not heard of any of those (and I thought I was getting my head
around basic CSS!). I was going to ask what KISS stood for ;-)

Thanks for those tips - more to read about and improve with )

 

[kchayka]

I was going to ask what KISS stood for ;-)

<URL:http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=kiss>

Go with the first result.

 

[R2G2]

<URL:http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=kiss>

Go with the first result.

;-p

 

[Andy Dingley]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when R2G2

I didn't do any of the above, I just played around in Dreamweaver.

That's the trouble with WYSIWYG, and particularly the "just playing
around" approach.

- Your browser is not my browser

- If you defer decisions to your editing tool by "just playing
around", you don't know what it decided, or why it decided it.

Absolute positioning is great, as far as it works, but it's not robust
f the underlying assumptions change. _Why_ is that column that width?
Should it be big enough to hold some text (use ems), big enough to
hold an image (use pixels), or splitting the window (use percentages).

How should that column resize if the window size changes? Should it
hold its own, resize in proportion, or expand to fill all available
space at the expense of other columns?

 

[Lauri Raittila]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when R2G2


That's the trouble with WYSIWYG, and particularly the "just playing
around" approach.

Actually, it is not trouble with wysiwyg, in fact, with wysiwyg it is
usually practical aproach. But, of course, there is no such thing as
wysiwyg when talking about webpages.

- Your browser is not my browser

And as importantly, your settings are not my settings. Many people are
fooled, because they test with all these browsers, with all having
similar settings.

I'll recommend people to make few sets settings for browser(s), and just
keep changing those whyle doing webpage. It helps a lot.

Absolute positioning is great, as far as it works, but it's not robust
f the underlying assumptions change. _Why_ is that column that width?
Should it be big enough to hold some text (use ems), big enough to
hold an image (use pixels), or splitting the window (use percentages).

When you have 2 lenghts involved with absolute positioning of one
element, you should consider it carefully.