Alternative to Frames

[Brian]

Re: Alternative to Frames

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue]
> (html is NOT a programming language; it's strictly a layout
> mechanism)[/color]

Pardon? How does one use html as a layout mechanism?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

[kaeli]

Re: Alternative to Frames

In article <nKrod.955491$G x4.819911@bgtns c04-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>,
usenet3@julietr emblay.com.invalid enlightened us with...[color=blue]
> kaeli wrote:
>[color=green]
> > (html is NOT a programming language; it's strictly a layout
> > mechanism)[/color]
>
> Pardon? How does one use html as a layout mechanism?
>
>[/color]

Bad choice of wording on my part. Semantics have never been my strong point.
The point is, it isn't a programming language.

Although one easily CAN use it as a layout mechanism -- and many do,
including myself. CSS still can't do some things that are easily accomplished
with tables, at least easily and in a cross-browser manner.
Examples could be provided, but are rather outside the scope of this thread.

--
--
~kaeli~
Experience is something you don't get until just after you
need it.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Brian]

Re: Alternative to Frames

kaeli wrote:[color=blue]
> usenet3@julietr emblay.com.invalid enlightened us with...
>[color=green]
>> kaeli wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> (html is NOT a programming language; it's strictly a layout
>>> mechanism)[/color]
>>
>> Pardon? How does one use html as a layout mechanism?[/color]
>
> Bad choice of wording on my part. Semantics have never been my strong
> point. The point is, it isn't a programming language.[/color]

Agreed.
[color=blue]
> Although one easily CAN use it as a layout mechanism -- and many do,
> including myself.[/color]

One can use a paper weight as a hammer, too. Whether that's the
appropriate tool or not becomes the question, particularly when you
smash a heavy rock into the shelf you're building, creating a big dent.
[color=blue]
> CSS still can't do some things that are easily accomplished with
> tables, at least easily and in a cross-browser manner. Examples could
> be provided, but are rather outside the scope of this thread.[/color]

I see no reason to start another css v. tables debate. I will point out,
though, that if you must sacrifice either layout or semantics due to
lousy browsers, I'd go for sacrificing layout.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)

[kaeli]

On layout, CSS, and script (was: Re: Alternative to Frames)

In article <PsMod.51754$7i 4.9539@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>, usenet3
@julietremblay. com.invalid enlightened us with...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > CSS still can't do some things that are easily accomplished with
> > tables, at least easily and in a cross-browser manner. Examples could
> > be provided, but are rather outside the scope of this thread.[/color]
>
> I see no reason to start another css v. tables debate. I will point out,
> though, that if you must sacrifice either layout or semantics due to
> lousy browsers, I'd go for sacrificing layout.[/color]

Another purist. ;)
You're certainly entitled to your feelings on this, but if you notice, the
vast majority of real-world websites out there do a nice combo, using CSS for
most things, but still using tables for other things. The stuff clients
actually pay for doesn't always meet the "best" standards. They want their
sites to look a certain way. If tables are the only way to accomplish that,
then tables it is. If CSS alone can do it, wonderful! Use that.
We could all do perfectly separated content/layout that works for every
single person in the world no matter what the UA. But if it looks like hell,
or only looks great in IE and is completely fubar in Gecko browsers, clients
won't much want to pay for it just to meet the ideal of separation.
If it takes the developer three times as long to make it work in all the
major browsers, the client has to pay for that. Many will choose to go with
the simpler, cheaper design.
In a perfect world, all the browsers would support everything just the same.
CSS, javascript, and all. But they don't.
A lot of sites out there these days are about a lot more than just
informational content. They need to look good, entertain people, and do
things. They are applications more than they are just some text being
displayed on a screen. They compete for visitors. They make money for the
owners. Their purpose is not to perfectly meet every ideal of standards. It's
to make money. The better they look, the better to attract visitors. They
need to function well to KEEP visitors. No one really cares if the function
is acheived with tables or CSS or script or whatever, as long as it does
function for most people.
I tend to be a purist when it comes to script in pages, but I'm well aware
that most sites do use it, so I can tell people until I'm blue in the face
that they shouldn't rely on it, but they will. The advice then becomes advice
to try to make it work in the most browsers possible (and not crash others)
and to use server-side script to double-check things, just in case.
Compromise. :)

(as an interesting note, the most popular sites I know of, ebay and amazon,
use tables for layout for at least parts of their sites)

(that got WAY longer than I intended...*LOL *)

--
--
~kaeli~
Support your local medical examiner: die strangely!

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Neal]

Re: On layout, CSS, and script (was: Re: Alternative to Frames)

kaeli wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:[color=green]
>> I see no reason to start another css v. tables debate. I will point out,
>> though, that if you must sacrifice either layout or semantics due to
>> lousy browsers, I'd go for sacrificing layout.[/color]
>
> Another purist. ;)[/color]

Most are proud of the label.
[color=blue]
> You're certainly entitled to your feelings on this,[/color]

How generous! ;)
[color=blue]
> but if you notice, the
> vast majority of real-world websites out there do a nice combo, using
> CSS for
> most things, but still using tables for other things.[/color]

Yes, they combine limited CSS with inappropriate usage of tables.
[color=blue]
> The stuff clients
> actually pay for doesn't always meet the "best" standards. They want
> their
> sites to look a certain way.[/color]

I want the outlets in particular places, but if it cannot be done the
electrician advises me to stop wanting that.

I want the room to not have a pillar in the middle, but if it cannot be
done the architect advises me to stop wanting that.

I want to install some special card in my computer, but if it cannot be
done the technician advises me to stop wanting that.

Now in each of the above cases, it still can be done, but at a cost. I
submit that the cost of employing table layout is great enough to warrant
advisement. Not to mention that control over the look of a site is
ephemeral anyhow.
[color=blue]
> If tables are the only way to accomplish that,
> then tables it is.[/color]

So long as you demonstrate the issues connected to table layout, and the
customer is willing to pay the price for such a design, I have no issues.
You have to run a business, and sometimes the best solution for the web
isn't the customer's desire. If you never mention the problems with table
design, I have an issue with that.
[color=blue]
> If CSS alone can do it, wonderful! Use that.
> We could all do perfectly separated content/layout that works for every
> single person in the world no matter what the UA. But if it looks like
> hell,
> or only looks great in IE and is completely fubar in Gecko browsers,
> clients
> won't much want to pay for it just to meet the ideal of separation.[/color]

Hmm. Nearly any competent CSS writer can develop a layout that is
consistent in all browsers. Excepting the case where what the customer
demands is one of the rare examples which is truly impossible in CSS and
possible in tables, the only excuse for the use of tables over CSS is a
lack of expertise in CSS - and certainly the designer won't be admitting
to that.
[color=blue]
> If it takes the developer three times as long to make it work in all the
> major browsers, the client has to pay for that. Many will choose to go
> with
> the simpler, cheaper design.[/color]

Cheap is cheap. Did the company buy the $20 office chair ordid they spring
for quality? Did they buy the least expensive machinery or did they opt
for a model which is easier to modify, maintain and requires less cost to
repair?

And again, a competent CSS designer should not require three times as much
work to do the job. Unless, of course, they have not learned CSS and are
just used to tables.
[color=blue]
> In a perfect world, all the browsers would support everything just the
> same.
> CSS, javascript, and all. But they don't.[/color]

I disagree. In a perfect WWW, every browser is customized for the
individual user, and the author must work around this advantage, not see
it as a disadvantage.

If my guess is correct, and this is the direction we're moving in, table
layout experts better get good at CSS and fast to stay competitive.
[color=blue]
> A lot of sites out there these days are about a lot more than just
> informational content. They need to look good, entertain people, and do
> things. They are applications more than they are just some text being
> displayed on a screen. They compete for visitors. They make money for the
> owners.[/color]

Irrelevent in the tables vs CSS debate. CSS can do all these things.
[color=blue]
> Their purpose is not to perfectly meet every ideal of standards. It's
> to make money. The better they look, the better to attract visitors. They
> need to function well to KEEP visitors. No one really cares if the
> function
> is acheived with tables or CSS or script or whatever, as long as it does
> function for most people.[/color]

Yep. Again, CSS can do this. Tables can as well, but with less
gracefulness than CSS.
[color=blue]
> I tend to be a purist when it comes to script in pages, but I'm well
> aware
> that most sites do use it, so I can tell people until I'm blue in the
> face
> that they shouldn't rely on it, but they will. The advice then becomes
> advice
> to try to make it work in the most browsers possible (and not crash
> others)
> and to use server-side script to double-check things, just in case.
> Compromise. :)[/color]

All you need to do is have them see what the site comes out as in a no-Js
environment, such as a search engine. That usually sells the "don't rely
on scripts" angle.
[color=blue]
> (as an interesting note, the most popular sites I know of, ebay and
> amazon,
> use tables for layout for at least parts of their sites)[/color]

Popularity of a site is not due entirely to the layout, though it can play
a part. Ebay and Amazon also offer a very relevant set of content. If
these sites were done in the most bland layout possible, with the same
content and functionality, I doubt they would lose a cent. Content
outweighs design when the user considers what site they will use.

[Brian]

Re: On layout, CSS, and script

kaeli wrote:[color=blue]
> usenet3@julietr emblay.com.invalid ...
>[color=green]
>> I see no reason to start another css v. tables debate. I will point
>> out, though, that if you must sacrifice either layout or semantics
>> due to lousy browsers, I'd go for sacrificing layout.[/color]
>
> Another purist. ;)[/color]

You just couldn't resist, could you? Well, neither could I. ;-)
[color=blue]
> You're certainly entitled to your feelings on this, but if you
> notice, the vast majority of real-world websites out there do a nice
> combo,[/color]

FYI: the sites that I produce, using css for layout, are real-world
sites. They exist for real on the www, and are used by visitors and
everything. So let's at least avoid the "get in the real world"
argument, which you hinted at here (perhaps unintentionally ).
[color=blue]
> using CSS for most things, but still using tables for other things.
> The stuff clients actually pay for doesn't always meet the "best"
> standards.[/color]

Most certainly not, as casual browsing will attest.
[color=blue]
> They want their sites to look a certain way.[/color]

Right. They think the www is for desktop publishing. They haven't
recognized its strengths and weaknesses.
[color=blue]
> We could all do perfectly separated content/layout that works for
> every single person in the world no matter what the UA. But if it
> looks like hell,[/color]

There is no excuse for producing ugly pages just because you decided
against tables for layout. The www had advanced to the point where most
users can get a reasonably attractive page, since every browser produced
over the last half dozen years can do at least some css.
[color=blue]
> or only looks great in IE and is completely fubar in Gecko browsers,[/color]

Then the author hasn't done his job, right?
[color=blue]
> If it takes the developer three times as long to make it work in all
> the major browsers, the client has to pay for that. Many will choose
> to go with the simpler, cheaper design.[/color]

Especially if it's a business. But the costs will be greater down the
road when marketing learns that their table heavy page falls apart in
some new hand held device that took the world by storm. ("Gee, we didn't
see that coming.") And if the higher ups are clueless enough, noone will
have to pay for the shortsited decision made today to just get it to
work in MSIE, use tables, and forget about separation of content and
presentation. Ho hum. Since when have businesses looked at the long term?
[color=blue]
> In a perfect world, all the browsers would support everything just
> the same. CSS, javascript, and all.[/color]

Noting that CSS and js are optional, ok.
[color=blue]
> A lot of sites out there these days are about a lot more than just
> informational content. They need to look good,[/color]

I'd dispute that they need to look good. There are lots of plain or even
ugly sites that are quite popular.
[color=blue]
> entertain people, and do things. They are applications more than they
> are just some text being displayed on a screen.[/color]

You have created a weird, and I'd say false, dichotomy. Information
sometimes does entertain us, or help us accomplish tasks.
[color=blue]
> They compete for visitors. They make money for the owners. Their
> purpose is not to perfectly meet every ideal of standards. It's to
> make money. The better they look, the better to attract visitors.
> They need to function well to KEEP visitors.[/color]

You keep mentioning functionality and attractiveness in the same breath,
as if they were interchangeable . I'd argue that they most certainly are
not. Functionality will attract and keep users, but how do you know that
a more visually attractive site will do the same?
[color=blue]
> No one really cares if the function is acheived with tables or CSS or
> script or whatever, as long as it does function for most people.[/color]

Indeed, no one cares, they just want it to work. Why then would markup
abuse be necessary?
[color=blue]
> (as an interesting note, the most popular sites I know of, ebay and
> amazon, use tables for layout for at least parts of their sites)[/color]

And they are popular *because* they use tables for layout? Or in spite
of that fact? Heck, I think eBay is ugly *and* badly coded. And a
usability nightmare. I use it anyways. That should tell you something.
The www is still a content driven pull technology.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)