CSS is BAD - my survey

[Mason A. Clark]

I use Opera (the best browser). In Opera I can switch instantly
from the page style sheet to my own, which is:

TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
TD { border: 1px dotted red; }

Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
much more readable by using my own style sheet.

Most web pages use tables. Most web pages are
made *less readable* by the use of CSS.

OK, ok, I understand the logic of CSS. I use CSS on
my web site, which has many pages. Re-decoration of
many page is much easier with one CSS file.

After much effort and education here on ciwas I've decided
that CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
page-design demands and diverse browsers.

I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
including color choices, concealed links, and general
obfuscation. It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
is communication.

Conclusion: Design with tables. Focus on readability. Make
the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off and
on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
readability -- restraint !

Mason C

P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.

[Bouncer]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

In article <oo7mb150uufqb8 0pnblba5lrie221 8516u@4ax.com>, Mason A. Clark
<masoncERASETHI S@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

[snip]

Don't feed the troll.

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 06:33:59 GMT, Bouncer <bounce@onyou.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <oo7mb150uufqb8 0pnblba5lrie221 8516u@4ax.com>, Mason A. Clark
><masoncERASETH IS@ix.netcom.co m> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Don't feed the troll.[/color]

You just did. By the way, did you get any lesson from the troll?

Smart fish learn and live.

Mason C

[kchayka]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Conclusion: ... Focus on readability. Make
> the design functional[/color]

That's what you should do regardless of the layout mechanics.

I find that table layouts often fail miserably in this regard, probably
because the vast majority of them are fixed-width and don't adapt (well)
to my not-exactly-average browsing environment. Poorly designed CSS
layouts fail, too.
[color=blue]
> P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.[/color]

Not everyone is so lucky.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Mel]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey


"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHI S@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:oo7mb150uu fqb80pnblba5lri e2218516u@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
>
> I use Opera (the best browser). In Opera I can switch instantly
> from the page style sheet to my own, which is:
>
> TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
> TD { border: 1px dotted red; }
>
> Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
> much more readable by using my own style sheet.
>
> Most web pages use tables. Most web pages are
> made *less readable* by the use of CSS.
>
> OK, ok, I understand the logic of CSS. I use CSS on
> my web site, which has many pages. Re-decoration of
> many page is much easier with one CSS file.
>
> After much effort and education here on ciwas I've decided
> that CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
> pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
> page-design demands and diverse browsers.
>
> I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
> including color choices, concealed links, and general
> obfuscation. It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
> is communication.
>
> Conclusion: Design with tables. Focus on readability. Make
> the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off and
> on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
> readability -- restraint !
>
> Mason C
>
> P.S. my eyes and monitor are good.[/color]

Well PUT
you have GUTS, me toooo

[Christoph Päper]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark:

I know that you have exhibited troll-like behaviour before, more than
once. I'm replying anyhow.
[color=blue]
> TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
> TD { border: 1px dotted red; }
> Ninety-percent[/color]

98.4% of percentage values are made-up spontanously.
[color=blue]
> of the web pages I see are made
> much more readable by using my own style sheet.[/color]

How do some red borders enhance readability?
[color=blue]
> Most web pages use tables.[/color]

So?
[color=blue]
> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.[/color]

What do you mean?

Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
...
[color=blue]
> (...) CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
> pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
> page-design demands and diverse browsers.[/color]

CSS-P indeed requires extensive knowledge and testing, because
- it was superimposed onto the normal stylistic CSS (level 1)
and of course
- browser misimplementati ons,
but it is doable. HTML tables OTOH provide quickly more or less what the
newbie/deeziner wants---too quickly! They are easily abused and then
force inconveniences.
[color=blue]
> I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
> including color choices, concealed links, and general
> obfuscation.[/color]

Nothing that wouldn't be possible with presentational HTML as well
(except for non-underlined links). Nothing that can't be worked against
with browser settings or user stylesheets either, the latter being
reserved for the advanced user.
[color=blue]
> It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
> is communication.[/color]

What do you mean by "tricks"?
[color=blue]
> Conclusion: Design with tables.[/color]

You meant to write: "I design with tables."
A simple, serializable, non-nested layout table of two to five cells
hardly causes any more harm than CSS-P would. (They are still no good
mark-up, though, but neither is divitis and classitis.)

It should be noted that the usual website layouts (if they are presented
as intended by the designer) are far from perfect. Most of them have way
too much pseudo content---marketing, gimmick and legal ballast and
unnecessary redundancy. That taken away, often neither layout tables nor
CSS-P is required.
[color=blue]
> Focus on readability.[/color]

Readability has nothing to do with CSS-P vs. layout tables. It is more
about colors and fonts.
[color=blue]
> Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
> and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
> readability -- restraint ![/color]

Sure, how else would anyone do it?

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:47 +0200, Christoph Päper
<christoph.paep er@nurfuerspam. de> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mason A. Clark:
>
>I know that you have exhibited troll-like behaviour before, more than
>once. I'm replying anyhow.
>[color=green]
>> TABLE { border: 1px solid red; }
>> TD { border: 1px dotted red; }
>> Ninety-percent[/color]
>
>98.4% of percentage values are made-up spontanously.
>[color=green]
>> of the web pages I see are made
>> much more readable by using my own style sheet.[/color]
>
>How do some red borders enhance readability?[/color]

Of course they do not. I put them there to detect the tables.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Most web pages use tables.[/color]
>
>So?[/color]

Nothing. Just an observation of the *state of the art* and
perhaps the standing of CSS formatting[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.[/color]
>
>What do you mean?[/color]

My observation: I turn off the CSS to read many (most?) pages.[color=blue]
>
> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
> ...[/color]

I don't understand any of those three statements.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> (...) CSS is too unstable for page arrangement with diverse
>> pages on the site. By "unstable" I mean with regard to
>> page-design demands and diverse browsers.[/color]
>
>CSS-P indeed requires extensive knowledge and testing, because
> - it was superimposed onto the normal stylistic CSS (level 1)
> and of course
> - browser misimplementati ons,
>but it is doable. HTML tables OTOH provide quickly more or less what the
>newbie/deeziner wants---too quickly! They are easily abused and then
>force inconveniences.[/color]
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> I accuse CSS of encouraging (not *causing*) unreadable design,
>> including color choices, concealed links, and general
>> obfuscation.[/color]
>
>Nothing that wouldn't be possible with presentational HTML as well
>(except for non-underlined links). Nothing that can't be worked against
>with browser settings or user stylesheets either, the latter being
>reserved for the advanced user.
>[color=green]
>> It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
>> is communication.[/color]
>
>What do you mean by "tricks"?[/color]

I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
by hovering. It's clever. I needed it. I tried to use it. But the font
is not controllable and is too small. It gives inherently low readability.
OK, poor example -- just came to mind as recent experience.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Conclusion: Design with tables.[/color]
>
>You meant to write: "I design with tables."[/color]

No. I mean it as advise. And, as I reported, this the most
standard, current, state of the art. I did do a statistically-
meaningful survey.
[color=blue]
>A simple, serializable, non-nested layout table of two to five cells
>hardly causes any more harm than CSS-P would. (They are still no good
>mark-up, though, but neither is divitis and classitis.)
>
>It should be noted that the usual website layouts (if they are presented
>as intended by the designer) are far from perfect. Most of them have way
>too much pseudo content---marketing, gimmick and legal ballast and
>unnecessary redundancy. That taken away, often neither layout tables nor
>CSS-P is required.
>[color=green]
>> Focus on readability.[/color]
>
>Readability has nothing to do with CSS-P vs. layout tables. It is more
>about colors and fonts.
>[color=green]
>> Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
>> and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
>> readability -- restraint ![/color]
>
>Sure, how else would anyone do it?[/color]

Want to know how many don't do it? Surf the web.

Mason C, common scold

[David Dorward]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
> by hovering.[/color]

CSS Edge is about what can be done with CSS, not what should be done with
CSS. That sort of thing is *really* better done with the addition of DOM
and JavaScript.
[color=blue]
> But the font is not controllable and is too small.[/color]

You are kidding?

http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/demo.html - a different size of popup text on each
item on the left hand menu.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Kevin Scholl]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHI S@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
[color=blue]
>I use Opera (the best browser).[/color]

That one comment alone makes it abundantly clear that all you are
offering thereafter is pure and unadulterated opinion... :)

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

=============== =============== =============== =========
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl@comcast .DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
=============== =============== =============== =========

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:41:42 +0100, David Dorward <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Mason A. Clark wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
>> by hovering.[/color]
>
>CSS Edge is about what can be done with CSS, not what should be done with
>CSS. That sort of thing is *really* better done with the addition of DOM
>and JavaScript.
>[color=green]
>> But the font is not controllable and is too small.[/color]
>
>You are kidding?
>
>http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/demo.html - a different size of popup text on each
>item on the left hand menu.[/color]

Ooops. I goofed. Badly. Sorry about that. Thanks for setting me straight.

I forgot my real reason for not using it. I wanted to do those pop-ups on
an image map. Couldn't make it do that.

Mason C

[Mason A. Clark]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html

I just today got it all in the same format (with some
exceptional pages).

Mason C criticisms more than welcome

[PhilG]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
> Since I have your attention, in all fairness, my web site is:
>
> http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html
>
> I just today got it all in the same format (with some
> exceptional pages).[/color]

Which contains CSS
[color=blue]
>
> Mason C criticisms more than welcome[/color]

[Christoph Päper]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:47 +0200, Christoph Päper[color=green]
>> Mason A. Clark:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Ninety-percent of the web pages I see are made
>>> much more readable by using my own style sheet.[/color]
>>
>> How do some red borders enhance readability?[/color]
>
> Of course they do not. I put them there to detect the tables.[/color]

That paragraph made no sense then.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Most web pages use tables.[/color]
>>
>> So?[/color]
>
> Nothing. Just an observation of the *state of the art* and
> perhaps the standing of CSS formatting[/color]

First off, many webpages (or page generators, CMSs) are old and never or
only evolutionary updated.

Secondly, "State of the art" is never what the majority is doing, but
what the best-knowing ones do and the interested ones want to be able to
do and try to copy.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of CSS.[/color]
>>
>> What do you mean?[/color]
>
> My observation: I turn off the CSS to read many (most?) pages.[/color]

And that's the fault of CSS? No, it's the fault of (some) users of CSS.
Unlike guns, which can only be used badly, CSS can be used well.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <font>.
>> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <table>.
>> Most web pages are made *less readable* by the use of <img>.
>> ...[/color]
>
> I don't understand any of those three statements.[/color]

Your "conclusion " applies to CSS just as much as to HTML. Or kitchen
knives, which can be used to kill someone.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> It's many *tricks* do not add to site function, which
>>> is communication.[/color]
>>
>> What do you mean by "tricks"?[/color]
>
> I'll take for example Eric Meyer's trick of displaying text
> by hovering. It's clever. I needed it. I tried to use it.[/color]

You cannot handle advanced CSS, so CSS is bad? Strange logic. Well,
actually it's a childish act of defiance. Guess why Eric Meyer put
"Edge" into the name of his site. Nobody forces you to use that stuff,
that for alarge part isn't possible with plain HTML, though.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Conclusion: Design with tables.[/color]
>>
>> You meant to write: "I design with tables."[/color]
>
> No. I mean it as advise.[/color]

Sorry, but you don't seem competent enough to give general advice.
[color=blue]
> And, as I reported, this the most standard, current, state of the art.
> I did do a statistically-meaningful survey.[/color]

Yeah, sure. (The---for some reason---interested reader may google this
group for examples of your "statistica lly meaningful surveys"---if I'm
not confusing you with someone else.)
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Make the design functional with CSS and Javascript turned off
>>> and on *all* browsers. Then decorate with CSS with *no* loss of
>>> readability -- restraint ![/color]
>>
>> Sure, how else would anyone do it?[/color][/color]

Actually I didn't read that paragraph carefully enough: the third word
should not be "design" but "page", "document", "content" or "mark-up",
then I would agree.
[color=blue]
> Want to know how many don't do it? Surf the web.[/color]

Still no reason for why CSS would be bad. After all one of its key
features is that you can easily turn it off or overwrite, something that
is not so trivial for most aspects of presentational HTML.

[Lauri Raittila]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets, Kevin Scholl wrote:[color=blue]
> "Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHI S@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>[color=green]
> >I use Opera (the best browser).[/color]
>
> That one comment alone makes it abundantly clear that all you are
> offering thereafter is pure and unadulterated opinion... :)[/color]

At least it indicates that he isn't judging problems with CSS only
knowing brosers with lousy CSS support like IE or FF...

Anyway, if you can't do good CSS layout, it is much better to do good
table layout. Doing good CSS layout is not excatly easy, and none of the
most popular sites has done it.

Of course, 99% of all layouts are not good, no matter if layout is by CSS
or by tables. In case of frames, it is 100%, but that won't change the
avarage of 99%, as frames are so rare today.
(I guarantee that there is less error than 1 in those figures.)




















1=100%, of course...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Kohtuuhintainen yksiö/huone haussa Oulusta syyskuusta eteenpäin.
Searching places to sleep on axis Bonn - Tsech - Poland - baltic sea in
july

[Stan McCann]

Re: CSS is BAD - my survey

Mason A. Clark <masoncERASETHI S@ix.netcom.com > wrote in
news:jo9qb15mf3 g1ta2crsijrm6nk 10rusmhj3@4ax.c om:
[color=blue]
> http://masonc.home.netcom.com/index.html[/color]

Not as bad as I expected from reading your ideas that started this
thread. I would dump the table in favor of CSS though. But what you
have seems to work ok visually; probably not as well audibly.

My very first impression was "too busy." I recommend adding some more
white space. You are not using the same amount of padding or margins
(didn't look at the CSS) in the right column as in the center. Making
them the same would add a bit of white space to the right column making
the page less busy.

As for your markup, you vary widely in some of your methods. For
instance, you leave many attribute values unquoted while quoting
others. All non-numeric values should be quoted; personnally, I've
taken lately to quoting all values, even numeric.

While using tables, you also use divs extensively. In many places
where you have a div inside of a td, you could simply style the td and
not need the div. This would at least tighten your code up making it
more readable.

Making the code more readable is my main reason for dumping table
usage. I find my code much easier to follow and make edits without
tables.

My opinion of strict vs. transitional is that transitional is to allow
*old* pages to still be viewed. With the HTML 4.01 recommendation
being made in 1998, the transition period, IMO, is long past. All new
pages should be created using the most modern method: strict.

Of course, the above paragraph is my opinion and nobody must do things
my way unless they are in one of my classes and being graded on their
work. I teach to use strict and CSS. Without thoroughly studying your
index page which is the only one I looked at, you would lose some
points for your table and transitional usage; maybe a C on it.

One other thing I noticed is an alt="O" on one image. Why would you
want a blind person to hear O there?

When I first read your initial post, I thought "troll" and did not
respond. After I saw that you were joining in as a discussion, that
initial judgement has changed. I disagree with most of what you wrote
but that's ok. It'd be a pretty boring world if we all thought the
same.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.