Re: Is the end of HTML as we know it?

On 2007/11/05 16:43 (GMT) Ed Jensen apparently typed:

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

It's a shame stupid design is so pervasive, but tiny fonts really are not the
result of not using tables to lay out web pages.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

Reasonably designed CSS-styled pages don't make you need to increase your
font from your default, but generally accommodate whatever your default is,
plus accommodating additional size tweaks. See e.g.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something. But the fact of the matter
is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
probably be considered fundamentally broken.

CSS is designed to suggest presentation. It isn't a publishing language.
Pages styled with CSS that "break" usually break because of failure by those
using it to accept it as what it is, attempting to do with it what it wasn't
designed to do. It's the users who are broken, not the tool they're misusing.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

The task of layout has traditionally been applied to targets that have
attributes of known dimension. On the web, the target doesn't have known
dimensions, so layout must necessarily must include flexibility to
accommodate that very significant difference. CSS's very nature implicitly
includes that flexibility, but unfortunately also provides plenty of power to
style stupidly. It works fine used intelligently.
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/