I'm not disagreeing about the strengths of CSS like being able to change entire website looks in one go. But my point is that having to learn CSS and all the hacks to make it work in all browsers, is not always worth the effort for a non-professional web designer/coder. In a few years, when the browsers get their act together, non-coders will be able to use CSS without dreadfully bloated code that works in all browsers consistently.
A friend sent me a website done in iWeb a few days back to check, not only was the code way more verbose than a HTML page, it didn't even work properly in IE.
Going back to the nonsense about tables and tabular data. Many years ago, I read a similar edict about how one should never ever use line breaks for design as that's what was used in early 'design free' web pages. So I designed a website that specifically used lines as the main design element. Not only did the site look good, it was relevent to the content and used no bandwith on graphics bar a small logo.
troyhark wrote:
Going back to the nonsense about tables and tabular data.
When I write letters/papers/articles/etc, I let the text flow from one line to the next, and the document flows from one page to the next. I do not try to position words or entire paragraphs on some sort of grid. If you want to make a webpage that is a collection of elements positioned on a grid - tables are the right way to do this.
troyhark wrote:
I'm not disagreeing about the strengths of CSS like being able to change entire website looks in one go. But my point is that having to learn CSS and all the hacks to make it work in all browsers, is not always worth the effort for a non-professional web designer/coder.
It is nice that CSS reduces the requisite repetition for changes, but I don't see that as the major benefit. I think CSS is great for providing stylistic information relating to content and display hints. The point of CSS is not to put each word/letter/pixel in a specific place on the display (an impossible task), and that is not the point of html. CSS does not require much learning time to provide useful results, nor does it require piles of horrible kluges - that comes from trying to make something look identical (to the pixel) for all browsers.
Insisting on using CSS for ALL layout designs is just silly (I'm a professional developer, and have since the early days of the web). Tables aren't the bane of HTML that many above are insisting, but rather a tool to get some design element done quickly and correctly. Tables are supported in non-web browsers like Blackberry, PocketPC, and so on: CSS isn't necessarily supported (or not implemented according to standards, such as on BB). There are always some basic techniques that I use on all websites and intranets I build: if the design is accepted by a customer, I'll use tables for a basic overall layout, then frequently use CSS to layout components within the site (such as navigation, text, effects, etc).
To say "don't use tables!" is just silly (like one of the reasons given as "no support in text-only browsers": were photographers, folks: if someone is viewing your site in a text-only browser then there's not a whole lot of likelihood that they'll do business with you!)
SoloHiker wrote:
Insisting on using CSS for ALL layout designs is just silly
Would you take issue with insisting on html rather than text?
SoloHiker wrote:
To say "don't use tables!" is just silly
To say "don't use css" is just silly.
Tables are fine if you don't care about any of the drawbacks, but basic design choices should be made with knowledge of the tradeoffs.
The OP asked if there is any point to CSS. I think the answer is clearly yes, there is some point to CSS (other than being the standards compliant way of specifying display information). If the design will be a grid - probably tables are best. If the design is something else, it is quite possible that using CSS for the presentation will be faster, easier and simpler than shoehorning tables into presentation.
invalid2 wroteThe OP asked if there is any point to CSS. I think the answer is clearly yes, there is some point to CSS (other than being the standards compliant way of specifying display information).
But there is no universal compliance though.
If the design will be a grid - probably tables are best. If the design is something else, it is quite possible that using CSS for the presentation will be faster, easier and simpler than shoehorning tables into presentation.
Most layout whether in a magazine or on a web page is done in grids.
For example this one you are looking at now is grid based.
When I write letters/papers/articles/etc, I let the text flow from one line to the next, and the document flows from one page to the next. I do not try to position words or entire paragraphs on some sort of grid.
And probably looks quite visually boring. Besides a letter/paper/article like a novel is very different form a web page which is more akin to a magazine or newpaper from a design point of view. Plus I doubt you have banner ads on your letters or navigation buttons. Or are they verrry long and need navigation? Anyway a letter page itself, is essential a single box with text in. If you want to make a webpage that is a collection of elements positioned on a grid - tables are the right way to do this.
Mock ups of websites are usually grids. Hang on I seem to be repeating myself here. Could it be that grids almost invariably lie beneath most website designs? Yup already said that.
I'm sure I also mentionrd above, most books on design will cover the use of grids in design and will illustrate it with what looks like.... yup, tables!
The point of CSS is not to put each word/letter/pixel in a specific place on the display (an impossible task)
Complete nonsense - I've managed it, then I did use tables and not CSS
CSS does not require much learning time to provide useful results, nor does it require piles of horrible kluges - that comes from trying to make something look identical (to the pixel) for all browsers.
Actually you need to know a lot of hacks/kludges to get CSS to work as browser support and compliance is somewhat varied. Therefore there's quite a lot of learning required. Not that HTML didn't need learning.
BTW, if you click on the 'Check Page' button in Dreamweaver CS3, it will test the CSS for known issues and then link to the Adobe site where there may be fixes for that bug. Though this will only work if Dreamweaver really knows all the bugs and is kept up to date with any new browser updates. Plus what Adobe claim their software can do and it can actually do are not always the same. But it's a big step in the right direction to solve the problems of CSS.
I couldn't find any bugs in the opages I just tested. So either my pages are perfect or DW doesn't know all the bugs.
Most layout whether in a magazine or on a web page is done in grids.
For example this one you are looking at now is grid based.
...a web page which is more akin to a magazine or newpaper from a design point of view.
Actually you need to know a lot of hacks/kludges to get CSS to work as browser support and compliance is somewhat varied. Therefore there's quite a lot of learning required. Not that HTML didn't need learning.
These are the parts of your comment that seem representative of the message you are trying to convey. Addressing them together:
I would agree with you that CSS is newer than html, and software support is not universally perfect. Also, many people may still use techology from a decade ago.
I do not think that peer pressure is a good reason to make decisions.
I have heard that browser support is weak for some portions of the spec, but the crazy kludges are only required for corner cases, or aggressive design. Furthermore, learning basic HTML should include some basic CSS, just as it should include basic tags and elements.
Actually there are kludges needed for simple little things not just for wacky design. There's the box model hack for IE 5+5.5 which addresses a very fundamental type of layout where padding and borders in a div container are treated differently than in other browsers. There are others issues with IE6. If you read the Zen Garden Book [highly recommended BTW] on the CSS designs used on the web eponymous site, it constantly mentions how to get around basic browser issues.
CSS will be good. Sadly, at present it's a mess of standards and annoying bodge fixes.
So if you know HTML well, then use tables and your site wil work fine in all browsers, if you want to be a web designer learn CSS as well. CSS regardless of its flaws allows one to update a website's look more easily and that is its true strength. Having said that, as the content and structure will probably be changed as well with an update, it has less real value than one may at first think.
Where's the peer pressure? Some people have offered views on either side. Though sadly I say there's been a lot of ignorant and innacurate rubbish written about design and CSS. Too many people swallow the latest bit of web hype without thinking about the reality of web design.
Anyway a letter page itself, is essential a single box with text in.