Quick CSS rant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Cascading Style Sheets



Message

thatguy -> Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 10:11:17)

I'm trying to figure out why CSS is suppose to be so much better than tables. I finally got my page to do all the min widths and heights and auto expanding stuff I wanted it to which is hardest to do in the most popular browser out there (IE).

I have wrappers around my wrappers and sometimes an extra wrapper for good measure. There are so many times when one browser allows things the other doesn't (a floated child can go outside the parent - even if the parent is hiding overflow - in FF but not IE). Even now I can't believe I got W3 to validate it all while showing the same results in both browsers and without using Javascript.

Just looking for some reassurance as to why I shouldn't wait for the browsers to get theirs acts together (go off the same standards) using CSS and just use tables in the mean time. Other than the worse of getting this site together may now be over...I hope.



BonRouge -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 11:05:07)

I'd start by reading this article : http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/, and then go on and read a few of the debates that have been done to death on the net... http://www.google.com/search?q=tables+css. That will take you all day.
A few quick points from me:

  • Tables are for tabular data.
  • CSS positioning is like anything - easy once you get the hang of it.
  • You'll be waiting forever if you think you're going to wait for IE to get up to speed. IE7's not going to implement CSS2.1 properly - never mind CSS3. Microsoft is going to throw another spanner in the works and it's time the world woke up to the fact that Microsoft really shouldn't be making browsers (because they're not very good at it).



dpf -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 11:26:37)

quote:

it's time the world woke up to the fact that Microsoft really shouldn't be making browsers (because they're not very good at it).
..idealistic. wont happen. as for "tables are for tabular data"- a tool is a tool - its "for" whatever you can use it for. tables work for layout; so does css.



BonRouge -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 12:19:38)

You're missing the point. HTML is for labeling what is inside the tags - headings go in hx tags, paragraphs go in p tags, lists go in ul/ol/li tags and tabular data goes in table tags.
Besides, have you ever listened to a screen reader? It reads some seriously messed up nonsense when it's reading the contents of tables. Give it properly marked-up pages and it makes sense.

(I really wasn't planning to get into a debate about this - as I said, there are some pretty heated ones already out there).



dpf -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 12:37:15)

quote:

Besides, have you ever listened to a screen reader? It reads some seriously messed up nonsense when it's reading the contents of tables
I have - it read the first line of the first cell in a row and then went to the first line of the next cell rather than reading the entire contents of the cell. To these old eyes, that makes no sense at all and I consider that a screen reader flaw not a downside of tables. If it were tabular data, wouldnt you want the entire contents of cell 1 read first?

quote:

You're missing the point
you have your points and I have mine. I see your point - dont mistake missing the point with disagreeing.



Tailslide -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 13:06:48)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thatguy
I have wrappers around my wrappers and sometimes an extra wrapper for good measure. There are so many times when one browser allows things the other doesn't (a floated child can go outside the parent - even if the parent is hiding overflow - in FF but not IE). Even now I can't believe I got W3 to validate it all while showing the same results in both browsers and without using Javascript.


I think my first few CSS only designs had about 400 divs on a page! It takes a while to get comfortable with the technique and the amount of divs you have to use to get it done reduces and reduces as your confidence grows.

Is it worth the effort? Well I think so. I haven't used a table for laying out a site for about 3 years and I wouldn't ever consider going back. My sites are faster, lighter-weight, more accessible, easier to maintain and easier to produce than they used to be.




spitfire -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 13:20:43)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dpf
I have - it read the first line of the first cell in a row and then went to the first line of the next cell rather than reading the entire contents of the cell. To these old eyes, that makes no sense at all and I consider that a screen reader flaw not a downside of tables. If it were tabular data, wouldnt you want the entire contents of cell 1 read first?

Agreed and it would be seriously messed up in a text browser (some people still use them because they are faster than the visual ones). That is unless the table developer's expertise extends to linearized tables



caz -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 13:24:09)

quote:

..idealistic. wont happen.


So young, so cynical...[:D]



dpf -> RE: Quick CSS rant (3/17/2006 13:55:18)

quote:

So young, so cynical...
now who is that to?? silly, you know I am cynical and am not young....[:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.445313E-02