TheGypsy wrote:

hmmm how about ...

Programmer + Designer = Developer

Lol......

Now there's something to drink to!

designer + programmer + seo + who gives a crud = Guru.... I love this game lol

Holy crap, I certainly started you guys off on one, didn't I?!

Well thanks for the info one and all. I now feel quite comfortable plodding along with tables. I'll certainly learn CSS if I stay in the web design business for much longer (I don't know what the plan is honesty), but I think for the price I charge people, it wouldn't be a significant enough benefit to me, to start learning CSS right now....

As for SEO, I'm doing just fine on that front and if you sort the rest of your site out, I think you'll do just fine with tables, though I'm sure there's probably a tiny difference.

Thanks again.

information architecture?

You can teach some one to code; but can you teach them to think?

Northie wrote:

information architecture?

You can teach some one to code; but can you teach them to think?

i think i just wet my pants.... hahahahaha

Northie wrote:

You can teach some one to code; but can you teach them to think?

Bwahahahha -- are you on the right Forum?

Just a thought....tables don't need hacks and fixes, CSS does because it it not universally accepted and displayed according to any 'standards'

Maybe it is a powerful tool but its not yet perfected.

As for accessibility - it might be an issue for large web design firms, but unlikely to impact on the majority of members here who are smallish, probably home based site builders.

Maybe a perfectly 'accessible' site needs to have two prices - one for those who access via the accessibility channels (to pay for the extra dev costs) and a everyday price for everyone else.

Yeah -- more than 95% of us are stupid, aren't we?  What a concept when you do research and you know what you're talking about...

From Table Hacks to CSS Layout: A Web Designer's Journey

Migrating from table hacks to Web standards: the big picture

so why are there so many IE hack required? - because there is not a universal standard that covers all the browsers adequately, nor accepted by all browsers. If this was the case we would not need to look at pages in various browsers,would we?

I think the point being made is that tables generally stuff out as much as a css layout if you dont apply hacks, difference being - IMO - if your site is built with tables it probably isn't meant be all that visually stimulating or at least creative with a set and fixed look in mind so it isn't the end of the world if your menu gets thrown ten pixels to the left, hence its not really complained about.... but it is definitely there. In css that 10pix difference is a big problem when trying to achieve a specific layout and it can throw a designer off... hence there are lots of complaints about it - especially when you have overlapping images.

Neither is perfect. Css is definitely the better of two evils though.

Ryan_steyn wrote:

Neither is perfect. Css is definitely the better of two evils though.

You have learned well, Grasshopper -- now; teach the rest of them!!!

Aw schucks TA, you really know how to make a guy feel special...

There's a lot of common CSS fround between IE and FF without the need for hacks.

hacks are there for the interesting stuff, stuff that tables can't do.

browser developers only have a spec to go on, but unfortunately that spec is interpreted differently.

I am so sick of people saying that if you use tables for website layout, you are doing it wrong.

Well you know what, I am very familiar with css, and to be honest, they suck at web layout.  They have far more problems in displaying uniformly on all browsers than websites that are designed with tables.

Lets face it, CSS just isn't implemented very well in  a lot of browsers, and in order to make them work, you have to use hacks about 100% of the the time.  I never have to use hacks to make a website work with tables.

If a technology is so poorly implemented that it requires Hacks to do basic layout, then why is it the better way of doing it?

If CSS was supported properly in the browsers, then by all means us it for layout.  But the simple truth is they just aren't, and it isn't going to be a few years until you can count on your visitors having browsers that implement them properly.

In my opinion when faced with the choice of using the approach that you have to waste tons of time hacking, and the approach that works 100% of the time on all browsers and can be implemented quickly, I am going to go with the later.

When I surf the web, I come across sites that use css all the time, and you see things like text running out of their boxes.  Sections of the website overlapping other sections and making them unaccessible, etc..  And I say to myself, yep, another perfect CSS site.

CSS is great and has it's place, and in the future when it is implemented properly in the browsers (When you can actually use them they way they are described in the CSS standards and actually have them work predictably on the various browsers) I will make my switch over to them.  Until them, designing a site with just div tags isn't for me.

And if you notice most websites that use the straight CSS approach pretty plain jain.

WOW..... welcome aboard Jensen .... I think U and I are gonna get along just fine!!!!

Did you join the forum just to put some of that 'smack down' on?? One heck of a great (fearless) first post!! Huurah for U!!!

TheGypsy wrote:

WOW..... welcome aboard Jensen .... I think U and I are gonna get along just fine!!!!

Did you join the forum just to put some of that 'smack down' on?? One heck of a great (fearless) first post!! Huurah for U!!!

OH NO and just when I thought Gypsy was starting to to see a small glimmer of light.

Hey Gyps did you go out and recruit him?

Now we have somebody else to argue,  oops I mean discuss the issue with.

jigidyjensen wrote:

Lets face it, CSS just isn't implemented very well in  a lot of browsers, and in order to make them work, you have to use hacks about 100% of the the time.  I never have to use hacks to make a website work with tables.

Not sure what sites you have been looking at. Yes there are a lot of hacks that could be used. But to say they are used 100% of the time is a far cry from being an accurate statement unless you can back it up with some proof.

jigidyjensen wrote:

And if you notice most websites that use the straight CSS approach pretty plain jain.

OK, I'll bite, I have a proposal/challenge for you if your interested.

I implore you to take a sqiz further back into the thread and look at the differences between those two sites i posted (right click - view source)... stupid css done did push my code to text ratio up to 33.66% as opposed to the the original sites 20%) which although isnt the most exciting of factors is does spark the question... how on earth did i manage to get it to look exactly the same in ie and ff while only using one hack - pushing my content to the top and delivering a smaller... prettier page than the one with tables... dare i say... damn you plane jane css... damn you to heck!

Welcome to SR by the by

jigidyjensen, did you read this:

Northie wrote:

There's a lot of common CSS fround between IE and FF without the need for hacks.

hacks are there for the interesting stuff, stuff that tables can't do.

browser developers only have a spec to go on, but unfortunately that spec is interpreted differently.

The other problem is ignorance; if you don't know css well enough then you will be using hacks, etc.

Did you know that using CSS you can get the alpha transparency of PNGs to work properly in IE6? - can't do that with a table tag

Yep, I too disagree. 100% of the time you have to use hacks? Don't take this the wrong way, but you must not have learned proper CSS then.

Yes, I've seen sites where the CSS is a little weird, just as you've said. But, thats an extreme over-exaggeration to say that every single site that uses CSS requires hacks.

Take a look at my (still in progress) site. (Link is under my username "Website"). Completely laid out with CSS. Not a single hack. And shows the same in IE as it does in Firefox.

Everyone says "I'm so sick of hearing about tables being wrong." Well, I'm so sick of hearing that CSS is wrong. If you know what you are doing, it is a very powerful tool.

I ask that anyone who challenges CSS to take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com

That is the perfect example of the proper use of CSS. That site is completely laid out in CSS. All of the design, any formatting of text. All CSS. Look at the different designs. The HTML of that page NEVER changes, but look at how different each "theme" is.

Doesn't look plain jane to me.