How to convince my designer to use CSS

dc wrote:

If you read between the lines, and question their numbers and logic, you got
to ask yourself is there really that much advantage, and to who and really
how much advantage. They, Wired says their color scheme change EVERY week!
However, I haven't noticed it and I don't think people have time to totally
change their entire look and feel to their web site each and every week or
the year and I don't think people will appreciate it either.

it takes a couple of minutes to change the colours of an
entire web site using an external stylesheet...I've done
it...in order to deal with a corporate rebranding...it
took a few minutes to get the correct rgb values for the
colours from the supplied samples...and then a simple
find replace in a text editor to alter the stylesheet

it can be enormously useful...I've used external css on
an arts site to colour the site to match the
publicity for the next exhibition...and I've been able to
do it in a matter of minutes the day the preceding
exhibition closed...not required for all sites, but
sometimes invaluable...and next to no effort

Very little time saved in the end and there are NO numbers or example code
to backup saving in bandwidth. Nor are their any 3rd party independent
testing.

I get the feeling that you are frantically trying to
rationalise an objection to something you know nothing
about and have no experience of...anyone who has
converted a site to css can tell you that halving the
file size is pretty easy

there are sites where css could be a problem...especially
if it's an old established site where a very large number
of pages would need changing...and if the site is
primarily intended for students at one of the
universities that allow only Netscape 4 then it might be
best to hang fire as yet...there are also sites that have
a strong visual image that they wouldn't want to lose and
which is tied very much to table layouts...these are all
good reasons to not change

simply claiming that since you have no experience with
which to judge then everyone must be lying to you, is not
a good reason to ignore a useful technique

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

There is a big difference between

(a) changing colors and font in the CSS file

AND

(b) putting everys single <table> and <td> and <tr> tags in the CSS file and
replacing them with <div> tags in the html file.



dc
decloak, Inc.
__________________________________________________ ___________
Multi-Navigation Templates and Menus
http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...Templates.aspx


"Eric Jarvis" <web (AT) ericjarvis (DOT) co.uk> wrote

dc wrote:


If you read between the lines, and question their numbers and logic, you
got
to ask yourself is there really that much advantage, and to who and
really
how much advantage. They, Wired says their color scheme change EVERY
week!
However, I haven't noticed it and I don't think people have time to
totally
change their entire look and feel to their web site each and every week
or
the year and I don't think people will appreciate it either.


it takes a couple of minutes to change the colours of an
entire web site using an external stylesheet...I've done
it...in order to deal with a corporate rebranding...it
took a few minutes to get the correct rgb values for the
colours from the supplied samples...and then a simple
find replace in a text editor to alter the stylesheet

it can be enormously useful...I've used external css on
an arts site to colour the site to match the
publicity for the next exhibition...and I've been able to
do it in a matter of minutes the day the preceding
exhibition closed...not required for all sites, but
sometimes invaluable...and next to no effort

Very little time saved in the end and there are NO numbers or example
code
to backup saving in bandwidth. Nor are their any 3rd party independent
testing.


I get the feeling that you are frantically trying to
rationalise an objection to something you know nothing
about and have no experience of...anyone who has
converted a site to css can tell you that halving the
file size is pretty easy

there are sites where css could be a problem...especially
if it's an old established site where a very large number
of pages would need changing...and if the site is
primarily intended for students at one of the
universities that allow only Netscape 4 then it might be
best to hang fire as yet...there are also sites that have
a strong visual image that they wouldn't want to lose and
which is tied very much to table layouts...these are all
good reasons to not change

simply claiming that since you have no experience with
which to judge then everyone must be lying to you, is not
a good reason to ignore a useful technique

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

dc wrote:

"Eric Jarvis" <web (AT) ericjarvis (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a20ddf950aa1c798b505 (AT) News (DOT) CIS.DFN.DE...
dc wrote:


... They, Wired says their
color scheme change EVERY week! However, I haven't noticed it and I
don't think people have time to totally change their entire look
and feel to their web site each and every week


it takes a couple of minutes to change the colours of an
entire web site using an external stylesheet...I've done
it...

it can be enormously useful...

...and next to no effort

Very little time saved in the end and there are NO numbers or
example code to backup saving in bandwidth. Nor are their any 3rd
party independent testing.


I get the feeling that you are frantically trying to
rationalise an objection to something you know nothing
about and have no experience of...anyone who has
converted a site to css can tell you that halving the
file size is pretty easy

empirical evidence - works every time.

there are sites where css could be a problem...especially
if it's an old established site where a very large number
of pages would need changing...

There is a big difference between

(a) changing colors and font in the CSS file

AND

(b) putting everys single <table> and <td> and <tr> tags in the CSS
file and replacing them with <div> tags in the html file.

then don't do it. There's a big difference between bringing an old site
into the 21st century and creating a new site. I have yet to see/hear a
convincing argument for creating a new site with a layout based on tables.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:48:07 -0500, "dc" <dc-re-m-o-v-e-me- (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Here is my rebuttal to this CSS OVERKILL
Tables versus Full CSS Integration
http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...sOrLayers.aspx
(i.e. replacing all <table> tags with <div> tags and CSS positioning)

So you are attacking those people who "want the floating <DIV> tags and
CSS to completely replace every single <table> tag that exists on the
Internet".

Since there are no such people - at least I have never encountered one
here or elsewhere - isn't your page just a little pointless? Can we look
forward to your next page attacking the people who want to drain the
Pacific Ocean?

I further note your use of 35 Kb worth of GIFs where you could have used
a few lines of text, and wonder how seriously you actually want to be
taken.

With this snippit of markup:

</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</li>
</ol></td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<!-- Closing Table used for the 3rd Big Column here -->
</table>
</td>
</tr>


you make a point most eloquently. Only I'm not sure that was your point.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jim Dabell wrote:

b) Appear more credible. This means telling the truth and using better
English (unfortunate for people who don't speak English as their first
language, I know).

I generally have more problems with native speakers of English who use
sloppy language than with non-native speakers who try their best.

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jim Dabell wrote:

b) Appear more credible. This means telling the truth and using better
English (unfortunate for people who don't speak English as their first
language, I know).

I generally have more problems with native speakers of English who use
sloppy language than with non-native speakers who try their best.

to be honest I'm regularly shamed by the high standard of
English shown by people who learned it as a second
language...my spelling tends to be good...I have a
perfectly adequate vocabulary...and I know my grammar is
weak to say the least...but dammit, how come so many
Dutch, Swedes, Germans etc etc have learned to use my
native language more elegantly and eloquently than I can?

as for credibility through good use of language...fluency
is not required...because it's generally fairly easy to
find a native speaker of most languages to proof read the
pages...though you can have problems with that...I once
had two people proof read some pages in Swahili and they
both changed around 25% of the original...a different 25%
in each case

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

dc wrote:

There is a big difference between

(a) changing colors and font in the CSS file

AND

(b) putting everys single <table> and <td> and <tr> tags in the CSS file and
replacing them with <div> tags in the html file.

I think your missing a very important consideration here as your really
oversimplifying the comparison.

With CSS the divs (and class, ids) are the only things that are included
in every HTML page the actual layout ends up in an external style sheet
(if the designer has any sense). Moreover the browser caches the CSS
file so it doesn't have to be reloaded.

With tables attributes such as width, height, align, width, border,
etc... will appear with *every* html page and will have to be reloaded
for every page *even* if the page structure is similar to one previously
loaded.

This will affect download time and how quickly a page appears.

--Nikolaos

dc wrote:

Here is my rebuttal to this CSS OVERKILL
Tables versus Full CSS Integration
http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...sOrLayers.aspx
(i.e. replacing all <table> tags with <div> tags and CSS positioning)

They call themselves "internet evangelists" and if you've read enough
posts in this forum I can see why your subject line is the way it is.

That said however, I think that many of the arguments that you bring up
in your article are not very sound and I can't say that I agree at all.

CSS is the greatest thing since slice bread - just not yet - not until
the masses migrate to newer browsers and the newer browsers have the
stability for CSS positioning enjoyed by table layout designs today will
designers push strongly for CSS heavy sites. It's unfortunately a catch
22 but it has improved significantly over the last few years.

When this does happen and it will - CSS will make a huge impact.

Personally for the time being when designing for commercial sites I see
too options (a) CSS heavy knowing that some users may be impacted (and
yes there is an impact unless your site is 100% text or somewhere
therein OR your an "internet evangelist") OR (b) CSS heavy with the
exception of layout done via tables.

--Nikolaos

You guys are a bunch of SHOCKED CSS Elitists who attack anything but the
arguments. Some of you say no one is using what I say you shouldn't be
using. Yet some say it's the best things since sliced bread.


ONCE SOMEONE starts pointing out GRAMMER mistakes, you know that's same
kid/PUNK who says that you have spot on your tie only to hit you on the
bottom of your chin. HA HA HA HA.


dc
decloak, Inc.
__________________________________________________ ___________
Multi-Navigation Templates and Menus
http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...Templates.aspx



"Nikolaos Giannopoulos" <nikolaos (AT) solmar (DOT) ca> wrote

dc wrote:
Here is my rebuttal to this CSS OVERKILL
Tables versus Full CSS Integration

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Drea...sOrLayers.aspx
(i.e. replacing all <table> tags with <div> tags and CSS positioning)

They call themselves "internet evangelists" and if you've read enough
posts in this forum I can see why your subject line is the way it is.

That said however, I think that many of the arguments that you bring up
in your article are not very sound and I can't say that I agree at all.

CSS is the greatest thing since slice bread - just not yet - not until
the masses migrate to newer browsers and the newer browsers have the
stability for CSS positioning enjoyed by table layout designs today will
designers push strongly for CSS heavy sites. It's unfortunately a catch
22 but it has improved significantly over the last few years.

When this does happen and it will - CSS will make a huge impact.

Personally for the time being when designing for commercial sites I see
too options (a) CSS heavy knowing that some users may be impacted (and
yes there is an impact unless your site is 100% text or somewhere
therein OR your an "internet evangelist") OR (b) CSS heavy with the
exception of layout done via tables.

--Nikolaos

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:40:21 -0500, "dc" <dc-re-m-o-v-e-me- (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

You guys are a bunch of SHOCKED CSS Elitists who attack anything but the
arguments.

As I and others pointed out to you, your premise is incorrect, so your
arguments are not relevant.

Some of you say no one is using what I say you shouldn't be
using.

If you actually take the trouble to read the responses, you'll find that
no-one said that.

Do you seriously think that anyone is going to take any notice of you if
you present your views in this way?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/