|
Quote:
http://www.jakpsatweb.cz/css/css-ver...-solution.html |
Quote:
I'm not even gonna comment, both Stewart, Potter, and many others who arn't stuck in the past KNOW what CSS can do for you, and that's all that matters. Keep designing in tables and waste extra bandwidth by not caching the .css file and having it load LOCALLY instead of REMOTELY. http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html Read that. |
Quote:
|
Also I'd like to comment on "CSS doesn't display properly in all browsers" arguement.
Yes it does, All standard compliant browsers it displays properly on, the only one it doesn't is Internet Explorer, and that's because Microsoft thinks that they need to have their own way of displaying stuff... And still theres easy ways to fix that, it's usually widths, heights, padding, margins etc that are different, so make an extra attribute for ie with a * infront of it, that tells browsers that it's a IE only attribute, problem fixed. |
Quote:
|
http://www.csszengarden.com/ is really the only explanation needed.
*Edit: Damn it StuartD...beat me to it. ;) |
Quote:
LOL...this comment made me fall on the floor laughing so hard! if your still worried about bandwidth from some tables code then your in the wrong business :2 cents: |
Quote:
Why are you making this seem more difficult than it is? |
Quote:
just a reminder to all: i am FOR css lol. just making a point. don't taze me |
Quote:
Keep wasting bandwidth, your choice, but I'd rather have that extra $10/day in bandwidth saved over the years then paying it just because I'm to lazy to, or can't figure out for the life of me, to get with the times. Idiots throwing money away are the same people who can't get up to date with stuff. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
edit: 2 pages wtf? is it this serious people? |
Using HTML tables mixed with CSS, correctly is no smaller or larger than doing table layouts in css.
Stop using dream weaver people. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's the software when the designer is using software to do the work for them. It's the designer when they are doing it by hand. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Dreamweaver came a long way since it was introduced, shit it came along way since Adobe took over Macromedia. |
Quote:
Sure, he can make the hole look a WHOLE LOT better when he gets in there with the shovel, but why shouldn't he use the backhoe to do the majority of the dirt removal? I use DW to start out, but mostly in the "code" view. I can do it in notepad just as easily, but I like some of DW's automated commands, plugins, colored code, etc. A site designed exclusively in notepad by someone that knows what he's doing is head and shoulders above a site designed exclusively "drag and drop" in DW. However, an experienced site designer using DW vs. an experienced site designer using notepad isn't the same argument.:2 cents: |
Quote:
I strive for light, scaleable code that also is to w3c standards for xhtml strict. You don't have to use notepad to achieve that at all. |
If you're looking into having some REAL fun with CSS, do some googling on using sprites instead of different image files for backgrounds and shit. It is awesome. ;)
|
i guess it doesnt matter much with current internet speeds.
|
Quote:
|
Hehe, you guys are funny. You sit here and love on DW yet your own sites aren't compliant and have basic html mistakes on them.
DW may allow you more control than it once did. But you still are using its standard, learning its styles of setup. Rather than the real way of doing it. I don't use notepad, I use notepad2 or do it in shell. |
I use them both and think the whole argument is a joke.
I have seen table-less design code that had div tags up the ass worse then any table tags I ever seen. A total mess. But CSS is great for accessing html elements that tables can't. Tables are excellent for dynamic content that can scale to any browser size with one easy piece of code : "width=100%". The easiest way to keep your website from scrolling in small windows is to use tables. I love all the SE theories that assume that google is so fucking stupid that it can't crawl tables. You just have to be an idiot to believe that. The fucking Chrome browser has to parse tables but somehow google search didn't figure it out.....OH PLEASE!!!!! Stop drinking. The reason those theoies are so stupid is because no search engine is even looking for tables. It's looking for text, images and links. My tube script crawls hosted galleries and gets the videos and thumbs and not one piece of my code gives a shit if a table or CSS is there. Just opened the source on a youtube video page and it's full of tables. Maybe google can't afford to hire someone to do a CSS design????? </sarcasm> This whole thing is just where people who like css have over sold it to people who don't really know what the search engines do or how a browser actually works. Reminds me of Miller lite commercials back in the day : "Less Filling!!!" "Great Taste!!!" All those fuckers just wanted to get drunk and none of it actually mattered. |
Quote:
I can code 100% compliant, cross browser compatible code - In ANY doc type. Seriously, the program a person uses makes no difference. It is indeed the person that makes the difference. I could do what I do in any program available, because the program literally has no effect on the end result as everything is hand coded. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
actually the browsers will soon be allowing for CSS tables which will make things soo much easier.
|
Quote:
DO not let big words like "Tabulated Data" shake you either. I do not think them idiots that profess "Tabulated Data" being read differently by SE's know what Tabulated Data is. It's a farce claim. Fact is... When a SE spider comes to your website it reads the content, not the tables or other mark up language. Even the W3C acknowledges that the CSS portion of the W3C are people that basically dont "Get It" and the W3C also acknowldges that CSS based design is still unstable. |
Quote:
And my cock was not designed to be stuffed in some chicks mouth so next you're gonna say that I should quit doing that and get back to the original design purpose??? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh The internet was not designed for porn so what do you think I should do about that? Fuck what someone "designed" for; what can it be "USED" for is the path to money. People used it because it made perfect sense. It made so much sense that not a single legitimate argument has been made as to why it shouldn't be used except that some dumbass can't understand tables when they are nested. That's the only reason for this extremely dumb argument. Hey, I will give the client what they want. But don't ask me to believe in dumb shit just to make you happy. |
It's also about accessibility, scalability, and the future of your site lol. The thing about SE not being able to crawl tables is a new one on me, so I won't chime in on that. Seems kinda dumb to assume that all of a sudden, after a decade or better or table designs, that SE for some reason won't get the info in them.
That being said, it DOES make a difference to onscreen readers. It DOES make a difference to how it's displayed on mobile devices. Say I made a design, and the main layout of 1000 pages of content was put together in tables. Now, let's also assume that I'm not using some sort of CMS for the sake of argument. What's going to be easier on me in the future? To go through 1000 pages of html, changing out <tr>'s and <td>'s? Or changing a single file that says that div id "X" should display as "blablabla"? I think that should be enough right there. What it boils down to is this. If your client is happy with it and paid you...then fuck it. Mission accomplished. BUT...lol...when said client 2 years from now says "Hey, you know what, I think I would rather have my headers look like so-and-so" you're gonna be kicking your own ass for putting all those tables in, unless ofcourse, you were smart and used <td class="blablabla"> ;) There are a million pro and con arguments for or against css or tables. I prefer a mix of both and think really, it comes down to personal preference and client happiness. |
My rule of thumb goes like this:
If it's a Halloween promo design that's gonna be up for a month...I'll hack that bitch in the best way I can till it displays the way I want it. Tables, css, whatthefuckever to get it done. If it's a site that I may have to go back and make changes to a month, 6 months, a year from now? I try to make as many things as I possibly can using css. Period. |
Quote:
|
If CSS is so god damn awful,
how come Dickman's Design (best in the biz) uses it? |
Quote:
"ZOMG.YOU.USED.TABLE...SINNER! YOU WILL BURN FOR YOUR BROWSER ATTROCITIES!!" You find a lot of those guys in the comments sections of the mainstream design blogs (and truth be told, 90% of them aren't making a dime off their design work) lol. |
Quote:
> The thing about SE not being able to crawl tables is a new one on me That's touted by idiots that confuse tables with frames/iframes. When the search engine gets a frame/iframe it has to do a new http request to get the actual source of the frame. Early search engines just didn't bother to do it; maybe some still don't. > Say I made a design, and the main layout of 1000 pages of content was put together in tables. Now, let's also assume that I'm not using some sort of CMS for the sake of argument. What's going to be easier on me in the future? To go through 1000 pages of html, changing out <tr>'s and <td>'s? Or changing a single file that says that div id "X" should display as "blablabla"? Let's say you don't build sites like an amateur as stated above. HTML templates can be inserted to cover all those pages just like any CSS. Lets talk about resources. CSS has to be pulled from a file on every page in order to do what you said(site wide update). That's a additional server request for each page. But you can skip that and write a simple script that uses a template to update all the pages in one click but those pages don't need the extra CSS file request and thus saves on a lot of server resources on a heavy traffic site. There are plenty of pluses for using CSS; it's silly to argue otherwise; but to argue that tables should be avoided at all cost is so stupid it's like witch hunting. |
Quote:
Nobody thinks CSS is awful. |
Oh fuck off sortie,
you know what I meant. Apparently you have the wrong thread also, because I just read through it completely and many people obviously dislike CSS. |
xhtml/css is the only way i will code a site.
I hate tables, i always have and always will do. Its a load of shit (my opinion only) Its been like 2-3 years since i last used tables! |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123