Wed designers / programmers / authors - read this!

[chequita guevara]

cnn.com will come over. Now that espn has taken the plunge, we redesigners have a powerful weapon to argue to management about switching.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MattH
****e that's a lot of javascript.And there is one table

Well, they still need to handle older browsers and such. Also, tables have legit uses.

Originally posted by MattH
I still say that tables are just fine- unless you're in a real serious web design situation.

Still, table isn't meant for doing layouts.

Besides, most websites already use CSS to control things such as typeface and colour anyway.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's no accident that CSS was instantly embraced by professional designers and developers when it was first released.

I wouldn't say instantly. It came out in 1996, and since few browsers supported it then, we continued along with our font tags. But now that all the browsers support CSS-1 completely, and CSS-2 mostly, there's no reason not to use them.

[MattH]

msn.com? apple.com?

[chequita guevara]

What about them?

[MattH]

The tables.

[MattH]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.asp

mozilla.org

You can't have one or the other.

[MattH]

(tables or CSS, that is)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MattH
The tables.

Up 'till now, most large websites have been loathe to switch over entirely to a new technology which will inevitabely leave some viewers out. The idea is that even 1% of the viewers have money to spend, but we punish 99% with bloated and kludgy pages for the sake of the 1% who are too timid to upgrade their browsers. Anyway, XHTML/CSS pages can be viewed in old browsers, it just won't look good.

Now that ESPN has done it (just a few months ago), designers can point to it when arguing with management. It's smaller file size, it loads faster, it's supported by 99% of browsers and is forward compatable. On top of that, by changing the CSS only, you can effect a redesign without having to recode hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of pages. One CSS file and whatever new images you need and pow! It will make redesigning super easy.

Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files.

http://www.csszengarden.com/

[Ted Striker]

sony, microsoft, new york times, wall street journal

[MattH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files.
http://www.csszengarden.com/

Wow, that's really quite neat. Merits a LOT more investigation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
sony, microsoft, new york times, wall street journal

So they still do things the old way. So what? Five months ago, ESPN used tables instead of CSS. They changed, so will the others once their managers realize the benefits far outweigh the one time costs of switching over.

The fact is, the vast majority still use table based layout. Why, because it's what they know. Just like the majority of company still use Windows 98 or Win2K when WinXP is superior. When they have managers like you and Ashur, who don't understand the massive superiority of CSS layout, it's difficult to convince them to make the switch, but i's happening. ESPN is just the first step, but it's a big one.

[Hueij]

Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files.
http://www.csszengarden.com/

Hmm... Some of those CSS files don't render right in Opera

[Asher]

That's why CSS is a royal pain in the ass still.

[:) Smiley]

I suspect CSS is a conspiracy by pro web designers to get companies to hire them to redesign perfectly good websites.

With automated code generating programs these days, CSS is not necessarily that much easier to alter than non-CSS.