Re: I have a problem with this:

[Jenn]

CSS does not solve all design problems for all browser, but it makes
designing a lot simpler.

Here's another example which i couldn't find earlier that shows just how
powerful CSS can be.


<http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=099/099.css>

I looked at it... so what makes that such a great CSS example?

 

[Jenn]

Holy mackerel.

Do you think that RSS or XML have anything to do with the appearance of a
web page?
--

content .. silly

 

[Jenn]

The only thing that changes between the pages is the css that is loaded.

Well ... Unless I can study each css file and compare them, it's not going
to make any sense to me. I don't speak CSS, but I can read it. I can get
the same results with regular html, images, and tables.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Well ... Unless I can study each css file and compare them, it's not
going to make any sense to me. I don't speak CSS, but I can read it.
I can get the same results with regular html, images, and tables.

You keep missing the point. With a CSS-designed site, you can change the
complete design of the entire site by making some minor edits to just
one file. With your tables-for-layout pages, you need to edit nearly
everything for every single page of the whole site.

Let's say we each have a 100-page site, and the client wants a new
"look" for it. Let's say he wants to move from a menu at the top with
one browser-width column of content below it, to a two-column layout
with a menu at the left and the content to the right.

You: edit a hundred pages
Me: edit one CSS file

Let's say the 100 pages have a footer (copyright, contact us, usual
stuff). Client decides he wants it aligned to the right instead of
centered.

Repeat You/Me above. I would just change "text-align: center" to
"text-align: right" once in the #footer CSS and I'm done. How about you?

 

[dorayme]

You mean that the babble contains some major thesis that says CSS
does not have these parts?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Because that is the way they want it to look -- Three sets on top of the
line and two below.

Duh. So use a six-column table for the first batch, and a four-column
table for the rest.

The labels and values are related: tabular data.

 

[idle]

You keep missing the point. With a CSS-designed site, you can change the
complete design of the entire site by making some minor edits to just
one file. With your tables-for-layout pages, you need to edit nearly
everything for every single page of the whole site.

Let's say we each have a 100-page site, and the client wants a new
"look" for it. Let's say he wants to move from a menu at the top with
one browser-width column of content below it, to a two-column layout
with a menu at the left and the content to the right.

You: edit a hundred pages
Me: edit one CSS file

Let's say the 100 pages have a footer (copyright, contact us, usual
stuff). Client decides he wants it aligned to the right instead of
centered.

Repeat You/Me above. I would just change "text-align: center" to
"text-align: right" once in the #footer CSS and I'm done. How about you?

I'm just guessing here.
Outsource to India for 10 bucks and get it back in the morning's email?
NoteTab search string, replace string?
DW > Resources > Change shit?
Vodka, the new Kick Ass movie and a hankie?

 

[dorayme]

...I don't speak CSS, but I can read it. I can get
the same results with regular html, images, and tables.

Get "the same result" in tables with regular images and just
html, achieving the main aims of the following design - which is
to be pretty fluid and to make maximeum use of different screen
spaces. The centering is an extra, don't be distracted by this
feature and, most important, don't forget to post a URL of your
own.

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jcs5r>

So far its all been talk, right? And you saying how surprised you
are to hear about the movement to separate content from
presentation, how newsy this is to you, how you have been in some
sort of fox hole for years with head down using tables making
money and now refusing to research past discussions here and
google so that you can proactively understand things instead of
simply knocking down every advantage claimed by posts here, each
knockdown requiring someone to dedicate time to you to bring you
up to at least speed on the issue so that you can accept or
reject it with intelligence and understanding.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I looked at it... so what makes that such a great CSS example?

As web page, nothing great, but what is does demonstrate is how
radically you can change the look and layout only by changing the
stylesheet and not touching the content. The transformation is not
possible if locked within a table scaffold where a completed rewrite
would be required.

 

[dorayme]

As web page, nothing great, but what is does demonstrate is how
radically you can change the look and layout only by changing the
stylesheet and not touching the content. The transformation is not
possible if locked within a table scaffold where a completed rewrite
would be required.

Exactly, an ideal is being demonstrated. In practice, it is
always hard to live up to ideals but that does not mean there are
not genuine gains to be made by taking as many reasonable steps
as you can in the direction. This OP seems reluctant to take the
steps needed to understand the *basic idea* of separating content
from style, however much this distinction can be critically
examined.

 

[Jenn]

On 5/1/2010 10:48 AM, Jenn wrote:

Wow! I didn't think I would start a "religious" war. Sorry about that.

All I can say is that I think both CSS and tables have uses. To present
_this_ layout the way they wanted, I spent the better part of a week and
still had problems. When I went to tables, I did it in two hours --
with none of the problems. So, for _this_ case, tables were better.

yep .. tables usually end up being easier... LOL

 

[Jenn]

You keep missing the point. With a CSS-designed site, you can change the
complete design of the entire site by making some minor edits to just
one file. With your tables-for-layout pages, you need to edit nearly
everything for every single page of the whole site.

I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was built
with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out which style
sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering all the classes and
measurements that people like to put on sites like that. It's a nightmare
to change anything on that site. Now, if I have to change code I wrote
myself, it's commented out and I can go straight to where it's at.. and
often I just use *includes* and change that one file to get the edit done.
MUCH quicker and easier than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were
written by a committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built
soley with style sheets. LOL

Let's say we each have a 100-page site, and the client wants a new
"look" for it. Let's say he wants to move from a menu at the top with
one browser-width column of content below it, to a two-column layout
with a menu at the left and the content to the right.

You: edit a hundred pages
Me: edit one CSS file

nope.. I edit one page that is an *include*.

Let's say the 100 pages have a footer (copyright, contact us, usual
stuff). Client decides he wants it aligned to the right instead of
centered.

again ... edit the footer include.

Repeat You/Me above. I would just change "text-align: center" to
"text-align: right" once in the #footer CSS and I'm done. How about you?

yep .. on the *include* file LOL

 

[Jenn]

As web page, nothing great, but what is does demonstrate is how radically
you can change the look and layout only by changing the stylesheet and not
touching the content. The transformation is not possible if locked within
a table scaffold where a completed rewrite would be required.

I imagine it takes time to edit a style sheet and get it right... the idea
that you only have to edit one file and not mess with the content is sort of
impractical because I've never had a style edit that didn't have something
to do with a content edit too.... so, it's a bit of a moot point for me. As
long as the code works and it is done in the alotted time and on schedule, I
see no need to bow down to the mantra of CSS as the God code for websites.
LOL

All that counts is that the page works and it's what the customer wants. I
say screw the validators! LOL

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was
built with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out
which style sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering
all the classes and measurements that people like to put on sites
like that. It's a nightmare to change anything on that site. Now,
if I have to change code I wrote myself, it's commented out and I can
go straight to where it's at.. and often I just use *includes* and
change that one file to get the edit done. MUCH quicker and easier
than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were written by a
committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built soley
with style sheets. LOL

We can only assume that the committee members don't talk to each other.

If you bother to do some research, you will find that sites designed
without the haphazardness you describe are far easier to work on than
ones which includes presentation mixed within the content (including
hard-coded tables).

 

[Jenn]

We can only assume that the committee members don't talk to each other.

If you bother to do some research, you will find that sites designed
without the haphazardness you describe are far easier to work on than
ones which includes presentation mixed within the content (including
hard-coded tables).

I haven't ever been so lucky as to edit any website (that I didn't origially
code myself) that wasn't a nightmare going through their code. One site has
at least 6 style sheets that I had to edit because of a website design
update. I spent a couple hours just trying to find the right text to edit
for one column spacing issue I needed to change. Oh.. and editing for it to
look kosher in both IE and FF (various versions) had me almost pulling my
hair out. Our offices had computer that ran various systems and some of
those couldn't run anything but IE6, and that stupid browser HAD to be some
of the managers pcs. At any rate.. all browsers are not created equal, and
imo, neither are style sheets.

FWIW.. I do like using them.. I just hate an entire site (aspx site that has
ascx pgs, and aspx.config pages, too) built with style sheets. It's been a
learning experience for sure... but it hasn't warmed me up to the idea of
using them myself to code a site entirely based on them. Plain old HTML and
tables are much easier. IMHO

 

[dorayme]

I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was built
with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out which style
sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering all the classes and
measurements that people like to put on sites like that. It's a nightmare
to change anything on that site. Now, if I have to change code I wrote
myself, it's commented out and I can go straight to where it's at.. and
often I just use *includes* and change that one file to get the edit done.
MUCH quicker and easier than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were
written by a committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built
soley with style sheets. LOL

Why would you imagine the worst possible case of a nightmare
website made by many other people when what what you are being
asked to compare is where other things are equal. Ever tried
working with some nightmare websites made by others with table
layout? You have a gift for misunderstanding. I should know, I
have one too!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I imagine it takes time to edit a style sheet and get it right... the idea
that you only have to edit one file and not mess with the content is sort of
impractical because I've never had a style edit that didn't have something
to do with a content edit too....

It certainly requires skill to do anything well. Proper initial design
approach with your HTML can facilitate the flexibility so the edits can
be limited to just the CSS in the stylesheet.

so, it's a bit of a moot point for me. As
long as the code works and it is done in the alotted time and on schedule, I
see no need to bow down to the mantra of CSS as the God code for websites.

If you have a 6-page site then complete rework in some "WYSIWYG" editors
may be your "best" solution, but if you have to maintain a site with
hundreds of pages, data pulled from a db, etc, having to change dozens
or hundreds of documents instead of a single stylesheet or two then the
choices is clear.

Also not mentioned in the thread is that CSS allows the flexibility to
adapted the formatting to suit the device or client *without* changing
the content, e.g., for small display such as cellphones, or big screens
like projectors, limited graphics or oversize high-contrast text for
visually impaired, narrow screens vs widescreens, ..., whatever all
without touching the HTML. With table-layout HTML-attribute-formatted
sites "parallel" coding for each format may be the only way to offer
anything close. Ugh!

All that counts is that the page works and it's what the customer wants. I
say screw the validators!

Hmmm, "works: eh? Validation isn't everything, but it certainly reduces
putting out wildfires as a client calls up in a panic, "Our site's order
form doesn't work for customers with X browser!"

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

again ... edit the footer include.


yep .. on the *include* file LOL

Not if (I'll use R1C1 convention here) the bit of footer info is in cell
4,3 and now needs to be in 4,1! Or the site is a nested table
monstrosity with row and column spans and not the new company logo is a
different shape!!!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I use to have a gallery page that was quite similar to that. Nice,
innit?

Not with tables you don't. You you need some complicated JavaScript to
adjust the row/column count as viewport changes...

 

[Neredbojias]

Oh.. don't get me wrong.. I do use CSS for styling, and I've used it
for layering/z-index type stuff too, and even navigation, but I still
love using the table because it is simple and you don't have to
remember a hundred classes and you can actually see what you're
doing. I'm sure CSS has it's believers, but I consider myself to be
somewhere in the middle and will use whichever method that makes the
most sense to me for the task I need to get done.

That's logical, and I think I do pretty much the same. It's been
awhile, though, since I've used tables for anything besides that
vertical middling thang but I'm about to come out with a page that has
more of 'em than flies around grandma's ass! It's going to be the
greatest coup since Virgil gave his leg a subconscious! Will report
back soon...