Do anti-CSS people have a point? ( 3 Views )

I came across this page while reading Usenet:

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...sOrLayers.aspx

To me, it comes off more as a long insane rant rather than anything coherent. Does he really have a point?

(hayri, Cape Verde)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

I don't think tables are bad because I know there are times when they are necessary.

Try viewing a page, where nested tables are used for the layout, in a text only browser, or listen to the page in a non visual browser. ;)
Image, Image, Image ... (and the image is "spacer.gif" or similar) :rolleyes:

(ýlgýn, Samoa)

Why doesn't everyone just use what suits them the best? Why are we (and other people) arguing over a personal preference?

To me that's all that this is; preference. I don't think tables are bad because I know there are times when they are necessary. I also know that CSS was an answer to a problem seen at the time, seperating content from presentation. I don't see why people complain about either camp when they have the ability to choose... Personally I don't care if your site uses tables, it isn't going to make me not visit it.

(mehmet, Uruguay)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

The css approach will make your pages well-received cross-device, and if someone persists in using IE2 or whatever, they will get the plain html, without stylesheet, from me.

Not exactly, unless you insist on serving your pages through HTTP < 1.1 ;)

(nuri, Turkmenistan)

This thread has been moved to the CSS forum.

(yunus emre, Botswana)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VodkaFish

... I see a lot of anti-table arguments that make no sense either. ...

OK, I can't know what you see - but I can guess... ;)
My opinion: There's one big fat anti-table argument; don't use tables for layout.

But then there was this "well-received cross-browser" argument you mention; when you had to make a page look normal in Njetscape 4 etc, you had to use tables. Luckily, we don't have to design for backward compatibility with 6 year old buggy browsers anymore. At least I don't do it.
The css approach will make your pages well-received cross-device, and if someone persists in using IE2 or whatever, they will get the plain html, without stylesheet, from me.

(Kamil, Denmark)

I dident take the time to read it all because its mostly non-scence, its just anthor case of someone not wanting to learn something new. Let him drag his feet, hes only hurting himself.

(cansu, Syrian Arab Republic)

Tis' a poor technician that blames his tools.

(cihan, Ghana)

I'll say this: I did not read his article, but I see a lot of anti-table arguments that make no sense either. "Tables are bad, they're not the way... blah blah blah" and a lot of the time, those arguments are kind of silly too.

I have a few sites, some that are older I have not embraced CSS as much as I can (due to time it takes to redesign many pages), but I'm not going to go completely tableless on many (I have on only one, where it made sense).

Just as many tricks usually need to be used for pure-css as they do for tables. Combine the two concepts (utilizing much of css with some tables) and you've got a nice design that is probably pretty well-received cross-browser. Unfortunately people take some of these concepts like religion and never stray from them.

(güller, Mali)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vgarcia

Not exactly, unless you insist on serving your pages through HTTP < 1.1 ;)

Okay Mr. Nit-picky ... :D
IE3 or whatever... Happy?

(azize, Norfolk Island)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

Okay Mr. Nit-picky ... :D
IE3 or whatever... Happy?

Yes :p

(doðan, Thailand)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougBTX

Err, that isn't an argument.

No, because I was too lazy to continue with the concludent: "[don't use tables for layout] ...because you only add a lot of unnecessary junk like spacer images etc, and tables shouldn't be used for positioning of text etc, they should be used for tabular data blah blah..." :D

(AYTEN, Togo)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

My opinion: There's one big fat anti-table argument; don't use tables for layout.

Err, that isn't an argument.

Douglas

(osman, Czech Republic)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

Luckily, we don't have to design for backward compatibility with 6 year old buggy browsers anymore. At least I don't do it.
The css approach will make your pages well-received cross-device, and if someone persists in using IE2 or whatever, they will get the plain html, without stylesheet, from me.

Same here. I agree 100%.

(tuçe, South Africa)

Quote:

Originally Posted by samsm

Off Topic:

résumé, resumé, and resume are all accepted spellings. In my dictionary, résumé is the primary spelling and the others are alternates but it wouldn't surprise me if that varied from source to source.

Good to know :D

(neslihan, Marshall Islands)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

But I don't use a text only browser... And I probably never will. Also, not all sites need to be accessible by a non visual browser (ex. a graphics website).

But is your website visible in any of these countries or regions: Australia, Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States of America:

Because if it is then the legistation linked from this page http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ may be of interest.

As a web provider, you are a service provider and covered by much of the legislation referred to on this page. Service providers can be companies, governments or individuals. If you do not make your content available then you can be accused of discrimination, the purpose of this legislation.

(sibel, Anguilla)

There's nothing wrong with arguing over personal preference, usually the motive should be to arrive at a mutually agreeable consensus that most accurately reflects reality.

In short, people argue about personal preference so that they can mold their personal preference to fit the best practice, and help others do the same.

Off Topic:

résumé, resumé, and resume are all accepted spellings. In my dictionary, résumé is the primary spelling and the others are alternates but it wouldn't surprise me if that varied from source to source.

(kemal, Chile)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

But I don't use a text only browser... And I probably never will. Also, not all sites need to be accessible by a non visual browser (ex. a graphics website).

But you have to remember that non-visual people have visual friends, and they do talk. This is the one failing of e-commerce sites. They think the blind don't use the Web, especially for purchases. This is a rampant falsehood; actually the blind are more apt to buy online, because they don't have to fear any embarrasment walking into a store and asking for help. The blind also have sighted friends who they purchase gifts for.

Anyway, that's all beside the point. Accessibility doesn't really require a tableless layout, as long as you code your table properly. I think that's what jofa was getting at. By removing umpteen nested tables and spacer gifs you've already won half the battle on that front. :)

(jale, Turkey)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

Try viewing a page, where nested tables are used for the layout, in a text only browser, or listen to the page in a non visual browser. ;)
Image, Image, Image ... (and the image is "spacer.gif" or similar) :rolleyes:

But I don't use a text only browser... And I probably never will. Also, not all sites need to be accessible by a non visual browser (ex. a graphics website).

(selay, Malawi)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jofa

Isn't that in your résumé, where a table makes a lot of sense ?

Off Topic:

And résumé should be spelled like that (i.e. not resumé) - correct?
:p

That's one of 'em :)

Off Topic:

And I think you're right. Dammit, time to check dictionary.com and update! :(

(cemile, Senegal)

Quote:

Originally Posted by vgarcia

... I even have two tables on my site where it makes sense

Isn't that in your résumé, where a table makes a lot of sense ?

Off Topic:

And résumé should be spelled like that (i.e. not resumé) - correct?
:p

(Kaan, Tajikistan)

Well, from what I understand, using 100% CSS site doesn't mean that you can't use tables. If you're dumping data straight out of a database, there's nothing wrong with that.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that using tables for design elements is just bad design practice. (Though I've recently been convicted of doing so to an extreme degree myself...) *sigh*

And no, I wouldn't eat at McNasty's if he worked there, either. He obviously has issues when it comes to standards, and I'm afraid that his view of web standards may spill over into other areas of his life. (Ya know, hygiene, work ethic, etc.)

(adem, Belize)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbalsdon

sorry... it might just be because i'm tired, but thats the most confusing thing i've ever read.. i have absolutely NO idea what he's trying to say, or where hes going with it. could somebody please try to translate it into something that i can understand??

he's saying that a database is tabular, and therefore info from a database should be displayed in a table. it's a crock, but that's where he's going with it

(hüseyin, Mali)

Quote:

# TABLES are for TABULAR DATA and not meant for Layout whereas CSS is more suited for this.
# Last time I checked, most web sites use a database. Hence, tabular data. Furthermore, there was typically more than one column in a database. Thus, ROWS and COLUMNS. Otherwise why even use a database?

And, as far as I know, the shopping cart has at least 2 columns, the name of the product and the price.

Thus, if you are going to build a web site, you are going to need tabular data in the first place, and if not now, it will eventually.

Thus, this totally defeats the using CSS in the first place.

Edit:

this is the worst article i've ever read btw....

(özlem, Rwanda)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjmedlock

(Flipping burgers at McNastys maybe?)

No way I'd want him touching my DIB (Death In a Bag)!

(muhammed, Dominican Republic)

same ol' arguments from anybody dragging their feet into learning something new. half or more of the VB6 crowd did it when VB.Net was released as one example. and they give the same arguments. it's basically, "the old version works, why should i learn something new", so they don't even try.

(oðulcan, Saudi Arabia)

I love his spelling of "INTEGATION" in the header of the article.

Quote:

FULL CSS makes surfing FASTER
MYTH. FALSE. UNPROVEN.

Hang on a sec, if it's unproven, that implies that it hasn't been proven false, either.

Quote:

HAS an Independent ROI ever been done?
RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)

Seems to be throwing around some buzz words to make himself sound smart.

Quote:

EASIER TO MAINTAIN web site with a CSS site in the LONG RUN
FALSE

Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Ignorance can be deadly to your IQ.

Quote:

Separation of Structure and Content via CSS makes things more organized.
UNPROVEN. Just how does this make a web page more organized? Does this really save time?

He's obviously not a programmer. At least, not a good one.

Quote:

It's millions of times cheaper and faster to have a single programmer update a popular screen reader or non-visual browser to look for that ID attribute in the <td> tag instead of having millions of web designers in the entire world do a complete redesign the entire web site.

Sounds like he'll pay me a million bucks or so to let him work for me, huh? If it's millions of times cheaper, why not? How much can his work be worth?

Overall, this is a poorly written article, with very little thought put into it. There are about a million holes in it that I could see just from scanning his main points.

I haven't quite converted to 100% pure CSS yet, but I use it a lot for normal layout and design and just doing that much makes site maintenance a lot easier. Besides, I personally think that only changing one file in order to change the entire look of the site makes everything exponentially more flexible and much more valuable.

Verdict: This guys a first class nut job that needs to get a new job... (Flipping burgers at McNastys maybe?)

(Cahit, Sri Lanka)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mind21_98

To me, it comes off more as a long insane rant rather than anything coherent. Does he really have a point?

I don't see that he does have a point. Other than he hates CSS. I also don't see that he even knows it very well either. Looks like another one who doesn't understand it and therefore, it is CSS that sucks -- not his skills with it. Go figure.

Edit:

tell me about it, I'm may be new to table-less design, but css is not a new thing to me either

(enes, Seychelles)

No

Edit:

Quote:

... this new tool CSS

New? :rolleyes:
Cascading Style Sheets, level 1
W3C Recommendation 17 Dec 1996 ...

(Adem, Papua New Guinea)

Somehow, i feel this smilie describes whoever wrote that article perfectly: - http://www.tinyplanet.org/images/smi...con_stupid.gif

Sorry for using that smilie H

(asaf, Peru)

The funny thing about that is he linked to page 2 of an article to prove his point, but page 1 of that same article rebutted all of the points of his own article.

(müge, Hungary)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

I will say that CSS isn't always the answer because there are situations when tables are absolutely necessary. Secondly, I am not on a mission to rid the world of the <table> tag... :rolleyes: I am merely trying to seperate content from presentation. CSS is the answer to that.

Even I agree with this. Some layouts and/or circumstances dictate tables; anybody should be able to realize that. CSS is cool, but sometimes you just need tables (hell, I even have two tables on my site where it makes sense).

And to the guy who wrote the article, why doesn't he try a mix of tables and CSS? It won't hurt him any, and a CSS layout isn't an endpoint; it's merely another option! Also, ROI is a meaningless business ratio used by people who don't know any better. It's absolutely dumb to use in most cases when it comes to technology, which can at best hope to reduce a company's costs.

(ahmet, Guadeloupe)

No

Rik

(mc, San Marino)

Hehe, a little misspelling, I guess you meant "I think the man has a joint"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Johansson

Ooogla bloogla flaxgar.

Couldn't agree more :agree:

(musa, Gabon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Johansson

It's a well known fact that CSS users have smaller genitalia

:lol:
So...the reason I'm having so much trouble getting the hang of the CSS layout is because my [insert euphemism here] is too big? You mean I should've bought a smaller one??

(ali , Bhutan)

I think the man has a point.

Quote:

RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI).....ahhh..this is a good acronym to know.....if we cojust when is the new Fully CSS web site going to pay off?????
As you can see, from the above, the bandwidth argument is less and less because it's IMAGES that can take up 50% of the bandwidth anyway....thereby increasing the time for any recovery of your investment of time and money......Some have said you need to have 1 or 2 years to recover your investment.....NONSENSE, you are not given that much time to prove your idea in the real world.....2 months tops!!!!....Just think all the time and money could have been spent somewhere else: hardware, marketing, sales, .......those can have a better return on investment than 2 years!!! If mpare a before and after web site that uses <table>s or <div> you put it into sales, it would be immediate.

Here, he describes the value of ROI and CSS capabilities in the world order, and it's NONSENSE that my dog is green.... 75% of my bandwidth is used by my site, and the other 40% are used by aliens. I can have a better ROI by judging the personality of my hardware and software and CD:s. It's a well known fact that CSS users have smaller genitalia get get less chicks. Ooogla bloogla flaxgar.

And REMEMBER THE RULE:
ALWAYS ASK FOR THE ROI of the LATEST STANDARD before going to that standard. Ollie wollie!

(aynur, Wallis and Futuna)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidjmedlock

Well, from what I understand, using 100% CSS site doesn't mean that you can't use tables. If you're dumping data straight out of a database, there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree, for say like an invoicing system, sure, the data for the invoice is going to be displayed in a table.
I think he was comparing something like sitepoint's article database and saying they should be dumped into tables. That because the articles are stored in a database, they should be displayed on a table layout. That by doing a css layout "we" (not me personally but proponents of css layout) are breaking our own rules about tabular data belonging in a table. If that isn't cracked logic, I don't know what is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartmann

You cannot experience growth if you do not embrace change.

:agree: don't wuss out because you aren't learning it fast enough either!

(cenk, Cape Verde)

This is the problem with a small percentage of software developers and web designers, the fear of embracing something new. The VB6 -> VB.NET example is perfect. You cannot experience growth if you do not embrace change. Look at Bill Gates, he knew that the Macintosh was going places and that IBM would be left in the dust. What if he didn't move over and get the Windowed OS?? Would everyone be using Macs and would Bill be rich?

I will say that CSS isn't always the answer because there are situations when tables are absolutely necessary. Secondly, I am not on a mission to rid the world of the <table> tag... :rolleyes: I am merely trying to seperate content from presentation. CSS is the answer to that.

(mücahit, Palau)

And this image describes what we think:
http://www.wise-women.org/images/illus/bug.gif

(zehra, Cayman Islands)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Colby

Well if someone wants to sue me because my blog isn't readable to them then there are serious issues with the law... :rolleyes: In that case I should sue any site that is in French that I can't read...

(filiz, French Polynesia)

Do anti-CSS people have a point? ( 3 Views )

Related Topics ... (or search in 1.720.883 topics !)