Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!


Sponsored Content

 

 
 

Photo
- - - - -

Benefits Of A Totally Css Driven Site


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#106 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,392 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 08 January 2007 - 01:17 PM

QUOTE(Skew @ Jan 8 2007, 01:05 PM) View Post
If you use tables for non-tabular data, websites will not always degrade properly in hand-held devices and other browser types, not to mention people with disabilities have their own problems with them.
Tables are not the problem in these instances. Poor implementation of tables is the problem.

FWIW, the exact same issues can (and do) hold true for sites in pure CSS that don't take accessibility and usability into consideration.

It's not the code, it's how you use it. smile.gif

--Torka mf_prop.gif

#107 Akuta

Akuta

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:04 PM

In hand-held devices, content will cause horizontal scrolling and confusion if you use tables for columns (non-tabular data) and other types of layouts. No, it won't make it unusable, but it's very annoying and doing it in CSS is even easier. Just think about the word table.... :O Tabular data. No reason to use it for anything else ;p

#108 mcanerin

mcanerin

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:35 PM

In the old days, we didn't say that something was "cool" or "a killer app" or whatever, we usually said it "sucked less" if it was an improvement, and "didn't suck" if we liked it a lot.

I kind of preferred that. CSS sucks less than tables. But it still sucks. Just because there isn't really a lot of other choices available doesn't mean that the choices we have are any good.

I'm reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill, which was "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for everything else."

That's the proper attitude, I think. As soon as people start getting into the "my way is the best" frame of mind, a lot of stupid and abusive things usually start to happen.

CSS sucks. I could count the ways, but it would take a really long time. Tables also suck. The reasons why could fill a very long essay.

This is not to say that either is useless, or that one doesn't have any advantages over the other. But as long as CSS is still being worked on as a standard, it's not even complete yet, so you can't possibly talk about it in any sort of absolute sense. Is CSS 1.0 better or worse than CSS 2.0? Depends on who you talk to - some people think it was broken by 2.0, others think it was vastly improved. Will 3.0 be an improvement? Maybe, maybe not.

From my perspective, I don't care. What I care about is my website. Does IT suck or not? That's where my focus should be.

My opinion,

Ian

#109 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 9

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:27 PM

QUOTE(Skew @ Jan 8 2007, 02:04 PM) View Post
In hand-held devices, content will cause horizontal scrolling and confusion if you use tables for columns (non-tabular data) and other types of layouts. No, it won't make it unusable, but it's very annoying and doing it in CSS is even easier. Just think about the word table.... :O Tabular data. No reason to use it for anything else ;p


Instead of repeating propaganda that clearly leads the way with straw man examples, stop and take a look at what you have been saying and how you contradict yourself.

QUOTE
CSS is actually easier to make websites ... cross-browser compliant, but you have to know what you're doing. ...


To be quite blunt, most people do NOT know what they are doing, including a great many who try to rely solely on CSS and avoid using tables (and you apparently don't understand what constitutes "tabular data" or the fact that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout).

There is a great deal of conflicting, misleading advice circulating about CSS and tables. Most Webmasters will never become Web designers, much less CSS-only Web designers.

Not without a tremendous change in technology and entrance requirements into Web page creation.

#110 Akuta

Akuta

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 08 January 2007 - 08:13 PM

QUOTE(Michael Martinez @ Jan 8 2007, 03:27 PM) View Post
(and you apparently don't understand what constitutes "tabular data" or the fact that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout).


Apparently you like to make things up since the W3C actually says to use CSS for positioning and layouts, not tables.

Right from the W3C (and there's plenty more if you dig deep):

QUOTE
Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.


And there you have it, my argument on the W3C website!

#111 piskie

piskie

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Location:Cornwall

Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:46 AM

Little wonder the Dinosaurs became extinct.
Heads buried in the sand and Misquotes such as:

"or the FACT that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout"
"the ADA don't allow tables"


It is not a choice of CSS or Tables but many blur the issue by entrenching in one of these 2 camps and then firing mortars at the other.

#112 projectphp

projectphp

    Lost in Translation

  • Moderator
  • 2,203 posts
  • Location:Sydney Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:01 AM

Two things:
QUOTE
minimize

Not get rid of, don't "never use", but minimize.

Second: the quote implies any of that matters. for something like "problems when rendering to non-visual media" to matter, that has to be a relevant issue. Lets just say that a telescope site might not need to bother too much wink.gif

Anyway, who cares? Use whatever you like, you just have to suffer the consequences of your actions smile.gif

Edited by projectphp, 09 January 2007 - 07:26 AM.


#113 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 9

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:47 AM

QUOTE(Skew @ Jan 8 2007, 07:13 PM) View Post
Apparently you like to make things up since the W3C actually says to use CSS for positioning and layouts, not tables.


Nope, but I do like to do my homework before saying something in a forum.

What the W3C has to say about using tables:

QUOTE
11.1 Introduction to tables
The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells.

...

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.


Your apology is accepted.

#114 Jill

Jill

    High Rankings Advisor

  • Admin
  • 32,315 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 01:28 PM

Let's keep it civil guys. We're only talking about CSS and tables here, not war and global warming.

#115 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 9

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,805 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:53 PM

QUOTE(Jill @ Jan 9 2007, 12:28 PM) View Post
Let's keep it civil guys. We're only talking about CSS and tables here, not war and global warming.


You're right, Jill.

I'll bow out of the thread. Sorry.

#116 Akuta

Akuta

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:54 PM

This entire subject has become such a mess because folks like to post incorrect material like "tables are recommended for layout and positioning". CSS is the "new standard" for this in the game (tables aren't meant for it, they never were, but there were no guidelines in the beginning), that's all. It's not a big deal and you don't have to do it, but I was just trying to set the record straight and give back a little for all the amazing information you guys give for free here. But, I think you SEOs have lived too long without guidelines... this thread is making you go through withdrawals! So, I'll stop the torture.

#117 Jill

Jill

    High Rankings Advisor

  • Admin
  • 32,315 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:15 PM

QUOTE
But, I think you SEOs have lived too long without guidelines...


We don't need no skinkin' guidelines! wizard.gif (That's my new tagline.)

#118 MetaTag

MetaTag

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 18 January 2007 - 11:00 AM

EDIT: It also cuts down the size of your page & it certainly cleans up a bit of the clutter if you're using 10+ different styles on one page. Compared to not using the code below, that is.

I always use this:
CODE
<!--
@import url("centaur.css");
-->


Because, I think it cuts down loading time of pages as they only have to download that CSS file once, instead of loading all of the random CSS stuff in all of your pages' source.

Plus, it's easier if you use a webdesigning tool like Dreamweaver. You can easily tick an option and you got the style you want.
So, for webdesigning, it's also faster.

Overall benefit for me? Faster.


QUOTE(mcanerin @ Jan 8 2007, 03:35 PM) View Post
In the old days, we didn't say that something was "cool" or "a killer app" or whatever, we usually said it "sucked less" if it was an improvement, and "didn't suck" if we liked it a lot.


In that case, my opinion about CSS is that 'it doesn't suck'.


-Mike

PS: If you're wondering why I'm using the name 'centaur.css', then I got a quicky answer for you. biggrin.gif
It's because I like weird names for files/webpages.

#119 MetaTag

MetaTag

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 18 January 2007 - 11:09 AM

QUOTE(Scottie @ Jun 21 2005, 10:12 PM) View Post
CSS-rendered sites are tricky to develop in a way that will display consistently across all browsers and resolutions. I have an all-css site that just drives me nuts because things overlap at lower resolutions and look oddly spread-out at higher ones.


Use percents instead of other things like pixels, cm, etc. that should fix it, I had the same problem and I was using pixels at that time, so I asked for a possible solution for that problem and they told me I should use percents instead. I can not remember where I got told I should use percents, though.

-Mike

PS: Sorry for doubleposting, thought it might get a bit cluttered in the message above if I added this.

#120 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,392 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 18 January 2007 - 11:27 AM

The problem with percents is that without consistent browser implementation of MAXWIDTH, at high monitor resolutions and large window sizes you can end up with lines of text that are so long as to be unreadable, which is a usability issue.

Again, though, it's not a matter of CSS versus tables. You can use percentages to size table cells same as you can CSS divs. smile.gif

--Torka mf_prop.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users