UK: HTML/CSS Training

In article <op.s6vuadb0sl6xfd (AT) news (DOT) nas.net>,
GreyWyvern <spam (AT) greywyvern (DOT) com> wrote:

*One* table for layout is a semantic issue only. Use it at your own
discretion; I won't complain. Until a majority of user agents support
display:table-cell; properly, it can sometimes be the only cross-browser
solution.

It's *nested* tables which are the problem. Try it yourself.

Well, if I need one simple 2-column table for layout, and I also
have to display tabular data (rows and columns of numeric data)
within that layout, then nesting tables is unavoidable.

Even without the table layout, nesting tables are sometimes
mandatory, especially for scientific purposes. For example,
consider a periodic table of the chemical elements, with each cell
containing its own table of properties for all known isotopes. In
this case, vertical and horizontal relationships are important at
both levels of nesting, therefore you need nested tables.

A more trivial example would be a calendar showing 12 months in a
3x4 cell table, and each cell contains the calendar for each month
using 6x7 table (6 rows, 7 days per week). Granted, a calendar
has no need to have a horizontical-vertical relationship between
individual months, but for some purposes (horoscopes? relationship
with constellations in the sky?) it may.

CSS should be used only where it's not important to preserve
horizontal and vertical relationships between displayed elements.

Nested tables plus a few careless CSS rules can equal chaos in
one user agent while rendering perfectly fine in another. Such
undefined behaviour should be avoided by *everyone*, not just W3C
zealots.

That's why I test my stuff in as many browsers as I can get my
hands on. Whatever doesn't work gets added to my "don't do this"
list. Overlap regions in IE is one example -- perhaps it won't work
correctly for because I'm trying it inside a table cell? Oh well,
out it goes.

But just *one* table for layout? I like good semantics so it'd be
my last recourse, but if you have to, you have to.

As I said, I see little semantic difference between <td> and <div> to
delineate logical blocks.

-A

axlq wrote:

At least the table layout
is compatible with MORE browsers than the CSS layout.

No it isn't. This hasn't been true since around 2001 (and it wasn't
a particularly good argument even then).

Nowadays there are far more devices that have trouble with rigid pixel
sizes (small screens) than have legacy issues of not understanding CSS.
Although "phones" will generally render "tables", this is because the
phone networks transcode the content on the fly. It's better (from your
selfish goals as a site operator) to not require this step.

In article <1143210875.326610.70980 (AT) g10g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

axlq wrote:
At least the table layout
is compatible with MORE browsers than the CSS layout.

No it isn't. This hasn't been true since around 2001 (and it
wasn't a particularly good argument even then).

It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.

Nowadays there are far more devices that have trouble with rigid
pixel sizes (small screens) than have legacy issues of not
understanding CSS.

That's a good point. It never occurred to me that anyone would want to
access my site with their phone (and I can't imagine that anyone would
want to, whether I used CSS layout or not).

-A

axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net (axlq) wrote in news:e01d9v$g4q$2 (AT) blue (DOT) rahul.net:

In article <1143210875.326610.70980 (AT) g10g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:
axlq wrote:
At least the table layout
is compatible with MORE browsers than the CSS layout.

No it isn't. This hasn't been true since around 2001 (and it
wasn't a particularly good argument even then).

It's a good argument if much of your audience consists of people in
3rd-world countries who have pre-2001 browsers.

Do you have data on the number of people in 3rd world countries accessing
your site in legacy browsers? Moreover, are those people likely to be
paying customers of your products & services? If so, what percentage of
your purchases come from them?

Really now, if you're going to use Red Herring arguments, at least *try* to
back them with facts.

--
Karl Groves
http://karlcore.com
http://chevelle.karlcore.com

Accessibility Discussion List: http://smallerurl.com/?id=6p764du

axlq wrote:
It never occurred to me that anyone would want to

access my site with their phone (and I can't imagine that anyone would
want to, whether I used CSS layout or not).

http://www.opera.com/products/mobile/

Lots of people with mobile phones love to surf with them.

Karl Groves <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote in
news:Xns979088C514DD2karlkarlcorecom (AT) 216 (DOT) 196.97.136:

Really now, if you're going to use Red Herring arguments, at least
*try* to back them with facts.

"I came here for a good argument."

"No you didn't. You came here for an argument."

That will be five quid for another five minutes.

Judy
--
TechnoHippieChick's Stuff
<http://technohippie.com/geeklog/public_html/mediagallery/album.php?aid=6>
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

In article <Xns979088C514DD2karlkarlcorecom (AT) 216 (DOT) 196.97.136>,
Karl Groves <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote:

Do you have data on the number of people in 3rd world countries accessing
your site in legacy browsers?

Yes.

Moreover, are those people likely to be
paying customers of your products & services? If so, what percentage of
your purchases come from them?

Primarily American institutions pay us to participate in an
information database that is accessible for free to people in other
countries, with the intent that we bring together these institutions
with potential foreign customers. If we don't serve those viewers,
the visitation rate goes down, along with any motivation for the
paying customers to continue to do so.

Really now, if you're going to use Red Herring arguments, at least
*try* to back them with facts.

Really now, I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't a valid argument.
If you're going to make unwarranted assumptions, say so up front.

-A

In article <iXWUf.7757$Bj7.4761 (AT) newsread2 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx (AT) xmbstevensx (DOT) com> wrote:

axlq wrote:
It never occurred to me that anyone would want to
access my site with their phone (and I can't imagine that anyone would
want to, whether I used CSS layout or not).

http://www.opera.com/products/mobile/

Lots of people with mobile phones love to surf with them.

Well, that's interesting. Makes me wonder what the attraction is;
nothing on the web is so important that I need to use my phone to
access it. I can't imagine a more unpleasant way to browse.

But then I don't understand the appeal of internet messaging; typing
messages back and forth in real time seem such a time-wasting
inefficient way to communicate electronically. I mean, if you want
a real time conversation with me, pick up the damn phone and call
me. Those who need to converse in real time have my phone number.

Ahem... that said, are there any published guidelines for making
a web page more accessible and easy for these phone browsers? Or
maybe I could make a limited-content parallel web site specifically
for mobile phones.

-A

Fleeing from the madness of the "a2i network" jungle
axlq <axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net> stumbled into
news:alt.http://www.webmaster,comp.infosystem...ng.stylesheets
and said:

In article <iXWUf.7757$Bj7.4761 (AT) newsread2 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx (AT) xmbstevensx (DOT) com> wrote:
axlq wrote:
It never occurred to me that anyone would want to
access my site with their phone (and I can't imagine that anyone would
want to, whether I used CSS layout or not).

http://www.opera.com/products/mobile/

Lots of people with mobile phones love to surf with them.

Well, that's interesting. Makes me wonder what the attraction is;
nothing on the web is so important that I need to use my phone to
access it. I can't imagine a more unpleasant way to browse.

But then I don't understand the appeal of internet messaging; typing
messages back and forth in real time seem such a time-wasting
inefficient way to communicate electronically. I mean, if you want
a real time conversation with me, pick up the damn phone and call
me. Those who need to converse in real time have my phone number.

sheesh - you do mean voip of course

Ahem... that said, are there any published guidelines for making
a web page more accessible and easy for these phone browsers? Or
maybe I could make a limited-content parallel web site specifically
for mobile phones.

Like Toby said - Keep It Simple.

I never did see the attraction for parallel sites - unless the entire site
content is data driven - then the world (as they say) is your lobster.
--
William Tasso

whither a trophy?

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, axlq wrote:

Ahem... that said, are there any published guidelines for making a
web page more accessible and easy for these phone browsers? Or
maybe I could make a limited-content parallel web site specifically
for mobile phones.

The whole tendency of the web (as far as I can see) is for increasing
diversity of browsing situations. If you're so sure that you need a
"parallel web site" for one special subset of users, why not for two?
Or seven? Where are you going to draw the line?

It's not obvious to me that anyone has made a real success (in the
"going concern" sense, rather than the "expensive flash in the pan"
sense) of special kinds of format for special kinds of browsing
device.

Special kinds of *content*, yes - for example, real-time travel
information. But still marked-up for the web, and browse-able in a
wide range of web browsing situations.

Otherwise, aim for flexible design, make sure to grasp accessibility
guidelines and work them into the situation as best one can, and you
shouldn't go too far wrong.