Aqua-Soft ForumsOnce agian my pathetic self was reading articles to help me decide what I should use...this time CSS VS Tables....After reading THIS ARTICLE that I was linked to from a forum member..it seemd that my answer was clear..and so I poped opend PhotoShop and designed a newer version of my site....began reading tutorials on css and so far have a FULLY validated site in CSS. I used no Tables all I used was div tags and proper Css Styles to accomidate each div tag. I was SO happy to see my hard work and effort in my face in W3C... :cry: My html was fully Validated (My site is currently down I am working on this locally.) My CSS has no errors...simply incredable! 
Now your probably think WTF the title is making no sence what so ever...well this is the dum part...to me it isnt. I found THIS ARTICLE On CSS VS TABLES, some ass once agian decided to prove his point by doing extensive research. He has attempted to infuriate web designers like Stevie and Seph that use full CSS sites. ( I belive..) Now my next version will have a external css file and will be linked into my html pages (and this is the type of sites I think this man is refering to..)..well...according to this man he doesnt like "CSS elitist" because they make CSS seem like a web standard or something that is better and will become a standard....I dont know what the hell is is problem, even HIS SITE is using CSS, so what the hell is his deal! 
I for one am switching from using Tables as my layout to CSS, because of the fact that by changing something in my external CSS doc it will update the whole site rather then going into every page and update the lines in each table. I never read anywere in any css site telling people to drop tables completely. They have just recomended using it for a sites layout. Maybe the guy is right in one thing...in a HUGE site it will be hard to do it in full css, but in personal sites like mine I see no problem in using or going over board with css and div's.....I have never been so happy in my life that my site is fianlly Vaild....and this guy comes and talks ****... <_< LINK AGIAN I do not know when that article was done but it is good that I ran into it today. I just wanted to post it here so people can read it...I also want to know how many people agree with him and HIM and THIS GUY and THIS GUY and ALL OF THESE PEOPLE or do you agree with HER and THEM and with THEM My question is...why do some people say it sucks?! and other really like it. I for one have tested my current version in Fire Fox, IE 6, MyIE2, Savanna, and Opera (or whatever) and it looks exactly the same!!!! :rant: If anything it is ie's fualt for being so damn crappy not the fualt of the language or those that use it...
[link] Css Vs Tables....tables Won?!?!
Well that made sense...
Anyway, look at this site I made for a local club. It's not finished yet, but look, it works across all browsers, even lynx, it validates as xhtml, css and even bobby aaa and section 508 accessible. It took less time to make than a tabled layout, and I can change the look of the whole site at the drop of a stylesheet. Thats all I can say to those who say it isn't the future.
Having said that, I don't hold hold it against people if they want to use tables for their sites. I just won't usually have them in mine.
Can'r believe. But maybe there is really a bit sense :-P
My site is done REAL in CSS2.0 and xHTML1.0 transitional and it works fine with every browser in my near (havn't tested safari yet - would anybody do?)
Originally posted by pichfl@Aug 9 2004, 09:00 PMCan'r believe. But maybe there is really a bit sense :-P
My site is done REAL in CSS2.0 and xHTML1.0 transitional and it works fine with every browser in my near (havn't tested safari yet - would anybody do?)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your site works in Safari.
ludge, less time then tables?? I could probably do a layout in tables in 5 minutes with dreamweaver...in css its taken me over 2 hours to try and come out with nothing.
Originally posted by Flarex@Aug 9 2004, 01:29 PMludge, less time then tables?? I could probably do a layout in tables in 5 minutes with dreamweaver...in css its taken me over 2 hours to try and come out with nothing.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't use dreamweaver because I don't like the way it rearranges my code. Also it doesn't like my php code. I use Zend studio and CSSEdit to hand code everything. That site I linked is fully finished design-wise and is only missing the words. It took me a morning to build it from a psd file (ie from a single graphic) and test it in several browsers, fixing one or two things on the way.
Also, I reckon (but don't know since I've not tried) that the banner logo on the site where the curved red/green bit layers over the text when you resize the window couldn't be done easily in tables. Took a few minutes with CSSEdit.
u-oh, i can feel Stevie coming 
Why oh why would you not use line breaks? It took me courage and tears to read your post babypapichulo >.<
In everthing, there are pros and cons, there is no such thing as the "right" or the "perfect" web standard, cause, in all fairness, a new standard is always about to come and kick the "perfect" standard's a55 (thanx Ji Eun for the 1337 version of the word).
What i like about CSS is how it allows you to change things in a whole website by just editing 1 file.
After working with bahamut sites like www.samsung.com/mea/ in which everything is still done with tables (with a bit of css here and there) this versatility is highly welcomend.
It does make sense to say that tables can still be used in conjunction with CSS, I do agree. What i think "CSS Elitists" try to get across by saying "oh god, why tables" is just the point i talked about before, editability. Not only that but "CSS Elitists" are usually people who know what they do on the web and most of them just like to be standard compliant (a kinda hard mania to avoid once you have gotten used to it).
The loading time can be also discussed, but not to that extent as editability.
The feature that, to me, allows CSS coded sites to have faster loading times is that it is not a simple imageready slice export of a psd to an HTMl (as many people still do) but it makes the coder/designer think more about what can be a color filled div, what necessarily HAS to be an image and so on. The other way around a lot of "designers" just drop the psd into imageready, export the file as an html and then just change a thing or two in dreamweaver...
My recommendation? it really doesnt matter all that much if you are "insert web standard" compliant. The most important things to consider are the usability of your site and the speed of loading. If you can achieve this by tricks and hacks here and there, do it, as long as you dont need to set an example but only make a personal site...
// Seph
That article proves how worthless it is on the second line of content...
Originally posted by http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspxNo. There is no real benefit when you start to replace
each-and-every-single
tags and attempt to use full CSS to display your webpages properly across popular browsers.So what this dullard is saying is that there's no benefit to changing
<table>
<tr>
<td>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
</table>...to...
<div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Well ain't that a surprise - the (X)HTML is almost exactly the same size/complexity.
If the imbecile had read and understood the point of CSS, he'd realise that it's designed to complement semantic markup - ensuring that presentation and meaning are stored and provided to the user as two distinct elements of the overall "experience".
None of the links in favour of tables actually recognise their key error - they don't like XHTML/CSS because they don't understand it. The second link (APC Mag), for example, compares appreciating the nuances of XHTML and CSS to being a communist, when, in fact, it's more like... Writing XHTML and CSS. Using XHTML and CSS is not done because it's new and cool, or because it's "cooked up by a bunch of overpaid intellectuals" - people use XHTML and CSS because there is a real, definable benefit to using them - the sites I work on would save roughtly 9TiB of bandwidth a month by switching to pure, unoptimised XHTML and CSS. Not only that, but it makes the task of indexing documents for searching vastly simplified. That's two benefits. I could real out a load.
Then RedTailCanyon.com... The guy quotes Andy Budd, a respected member of the Blogosphere, and a very big name in the web design community. Except he takes Andy's comments out of context. Andy was referring to the hoo-haa that people make over simple use of tables against complex CSS... Andy was actually explaining that yes, Tables are "easier" in the short term, but, in the long run, they're a general pain in the arse.
Barry Pearson's site... He makes some valid points (use tables if you know what you're doing; use CSS if you know what you're doing; you're smart, educated people, do what you feel is best), but then basically backpedals to a nice, safe "this is how it's always worked, so why change now?" kinda stance... If people never took the opportunity to try new things and see if they work, nothing would have ever been acheived.
I'll reiterate - what all those sites seem to miss (save the last, but he discounts it later on) is all the advantages of CSS - they either oversimplify their table examples, or overcomplicate their XHTML/CSS ones, and generally miss the entire point.
They also forget that they're comparing a subject which they are fairly familiar with (positioning/layout in HTML with tables) to one which they quite obviously know little about (positioning/layout in XHTML with CSS). That's like someone who's worked on a Windows XP box with no terminal access for their entire computing life trying to run a *nix box with naught but a terminal - it's going to be hard going and seem weird and wrong to start with, but once you get used to it, it's just as powerful, if not moreso. Yes, there are caveats, but there are always tradeoffs between different methods and styles of development of systems - the key to being a good web developer is knowing where the lines lay between good development and awful development...
For what it's worth, the first two pages weigh in at ~35K and ~55K respectively, in their current incarnation (excluding images). I managed, just through playing around, to near halve this. I assume they're telling me that's not a saving?
babypapichulo, in future, I'd recommend sticking to reputable sources on this sort of thing... If you want some good links, lemme know
Also, try breaking your posts up a little, in future... A stream of consciousness like that is really hard to read...
That was a good read, thanks babypapichulo; I haven't done any real webdesign in ages, so I'm a little rusty. XHTML and CSS sounds very good, and looks like it might be worth taking the time to learn. Stevie, can you point me towards any "Beginners Guides" to XHTML and CSS?
I am on msn Simon....chat if you need me.. 
(of course I dont pare up agianst Steivie or Ludge but..I will offer what I can)
Originally posted by babypapichulo@Aug 9 2004, 08:02 PMI am on msn Simon....chat if you need me..
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As it happens, those are the exact links I'd have pointed him at - there's no better place to start for beginners than w3schools and w3...
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Aug 9 2004, 07:13 PMAs it happens, those are the exact links I'd have pointed him at - there's no better place to start for beginners than w3schools and w3...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
lol...Yes it's ture....you are "the one"... :canadian:
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Aug 9 2004, 08:13 PMAs it happens, those are the exact links I'd have pointed him at - there's no better place to start for beginners than w3schools and w3...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Great minds think alike
Anyway, thanks guys. Printed some of those pages off for some a'readin'
That was das überpost indeed, Stevie
Always a good read (your posts, that is)
Good links too. Ill print them out to have something of weith to read in my 24 hour plane trip back to the desert >.<
Originally posted by Seph@Aug 9 2004, 08:37 PMmy 24 hour plane trip back to the desert >.<
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Have fun!
*Simon wanders off laughing his evil laugh...
I'd also recommend going to alistapart.com if you need any CSS hacks for getting around IE's little peculiarities.
So, whats the point in using CSS if Microsoft doesnt care about them, ie. 90% of web viewers wont see them correctly?
Originally posted by alilm@Aug 24 2004, 10:34 AMSo, whats the point in using CSS if Microsoft doesnt care about them, ie. 90% of web viewers wont see them correctly?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Because, if you make your CSS well, 90% of web viewers will see them nearly correctly...
That, and the fact that it makes your content and layout far easier to maintain over time...
And don't even get me started on the bandwidth savings...
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Aug 24 2004, 07:48 AMBecause, if you make your CSS well, 90% of web viewers will see them nearly correctly...
That, and the fact that it makes your content and layout far easier to maintain over time...
And don't even get me started on the bandwidth savings...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't get me started on how fun it is to get things to look right in all browsers, i know you love fixing that. 
Originally posted by Timan@Aug 24 2004, 09:57 PMDon't get me started on how fun it is to get things to look right in all browsers, i know you love fixing that.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh. It's fun, it's fun alright.
But easy if you use the html>body .yourclassname/#youridname method for showing stuff in Safari/Firefox. It's how I fixed the Front Page style Seph/Stevie BM did (Not the default).
Originally posted by kjwebb@Aug 24 2004, 01:01 PMOh. It's fun, it's fun alright.
But easy if you use the html>body .yourclassname/#youridname method for showing stuff in Safari/Firefox. It's how I fixed the Front Page style Seph/Stevie BM did (Not the default).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Exactly.
And I could have fixed it myself, given direct access to a KHTML-based browser.