table borders

Quoth the raven SpaceGirl:

Just because technology is there doesn't mean you have to use it.

I still use the privy down at the end of the back yard...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Quoth the raven Ben Measures:

The BBC owns radiotimes.com and they've recently done a redesign.
To highligh but a few problems, it has poor validation, fixed-width
layout, low contrast text, and javascript links.

http://radiotimes.com/
Nice redesign. A blank white page. <g>

Unfortunately, this is typical of the efforts of big-brand
companies.

Yes, all too typical.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Quoth the raven Deryck:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote

http://wired.com

Sure, its a good site. But Ive yet to see anything in the "amazon
style" done in CSS that works well in all browsers.

I'm sure there are some, but I'm not a big WWW shopper.

Here is the prototype for the project that we wanted to do in 100%
CSS but will have to go and use a table or 2 for:
http://dusrc.org/km/main/ This is the CSS version. I dont doubt

I like the page. It does degrade well when CSS is off, fits pretty
well in a narrow browser - unlike Amazon which fails badly.

that Brucie et al could write much better CSS than me but would it
work well on all browsers? We wanted min-width to stop the pages
wrapping below 768 pixels but didn't want to use javascript, that
alone pushed us back to tables. Then there were all the other
IE5/mac issues.

Very few folks on desktop machines will browse lower than 640px, so be
sure they can use your site. I shoot for about 500px.

As an aside, this group and alt.html have a good philosophy
regarding accessibility but we dont seem so interested in making
sites accessible for older browsers.

Have you had your 10 year old car serviced recently? <g>

Older browsers imply older PCs and often users with less cash for
buying PCs. Are we going to discriminate against less wealthy
users?

I have two friends who are both millionaire$ and both have old slow
PIII's using IE 5.0. They just aren't interested in computers, but do
occasionally do email or buy something online.

[OK, we can't be expected to support Really Old Browsers but where
is the cut-off?]

Personal taste: I ignore the 4.x browsers and older, less than 1% of
my visitors. They do however, get the entire lot of the content. It
just looks plain. Same as on a PDA or a mobile phone (which is easy to
do with CSS).

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

brucie <shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> wrote:

i was sooo looking forward to claw marks down the side of my face.

Face?

I'm short. I goes for what I can reach!
*evil grin*

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

SpaceGirl wrote:

brucie wrote:
The Doormouse said:

Tables are FINE for layout.

several years go tables for layout were the only option but not anymore.

Just because technology is there doesn't mean you have to use it.

True. However, for a complete answer the advantages and disadvantages of
the alternatives have to be considered.

For example, I don't have to use my computer to write letters, I could
use a pen and paper. Computers can be very complicated and are far more
prone to falling to bits because of some totally random crash.

CSS can be very complicated, and it is FAR MORE prone to falling to bits
because of some totally random browser incompatiblity.

....usually an IE incompatibility. Luckily, there are only a few bugs and
if these are kept mind [1], coding is simple. Result: you won't be
suprised by seemingly "random" incompatibilities.

People should be *encouraged* to use CSS for thousands of reasons,
but that does NOT mean you HAVE to use them. Tables are NOT just for
tabular data.

Weighing the advantages and disadvantages [2], table-layout is just not
attractive, especially for those who know where the browser
incompatibilities with CSS are.

[1] http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
[2] http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

brucie wrote:

The Doormouse said:

Tables are FINE for layout.


several years go tables for layout were the only option but not anymore.


Just because technology is there doesn't mean you have to use it.


True. However, for a complete answer the advantages and disadvantages of
the alternatives have to be considered.

For example, I don't have to use my computer to write letters, I could
use a pen and paper. Computers can be very complicated and are far more
prone to falling to bits because of some totally random crash.

CSS can be very complicated, and it is FAR MORE prone to falling to
bits because of some totally random browser incompatiblity.


...usually an IE incompatibility. Luckily, there are only a few bugs and
if these are kept mind [1], coding is simple. Result: you won't be
suprised by seemingly "random" incompatibilities.

People should be *encouraged* to use CSS for thousands of reasons,
but that does NOT mean you HAVE to use them. Tables are NOT just for
tabular data.


Weighing the advantages and disadvantages [2], table-layout is just not
attractive, especially for those who know where the browser
incompatibilities with CSS are.

[1] http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
[2] http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html

It's not as simple as that. For example, the difference in CSS between
builds of FireFox is different. Tables render the same. IE sometimes
"forgets" to load the CSS (especially if you have more than one attached
to your HTML). This totally screws CSS-based layout. And so on... These
things ARE sometimes random. No amount of clever CSS coding will get
around rendering issues if the browser in questions fails to load the CSS!!!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Quoth the raven Ben Measures:

The BBC owns radiotimes.com and they've recently done a redesign.
To highligh but a few problems, it has poor validation, fixed-width
layout, low contrast text, and javascript links.


http://radiotimes.com/
Nice redesign. A blank white page. <g

Unfortunately, this is typical of the efforts of big-brand
companies.


Yes, all too typical.

It also doesn't render properly in FireFox at all. Just try one of the
listings pages and it falls to bits.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

SpaceGirl wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
SpaceGirl wrote:

CSS can be very complicated, and it is FAR MORE prone to falling to
bits because of some totally random browser incompatiblity.

...usually an IE incompatibility. Luckily, there are only a few bugs
and if these are kept mind [1], coding is simple.

Weighing the advantages and disadvantages [2], table-layout is just
not attractive, especially for those who know where the browser
incompatibilities with CSS are.

[1] http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
[2] http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html

It's not as simple as that. For example, the difference in CSS between
builds of FireFox is different.

I've not heard any reports like this, do you have an example?

Tables render the same.

Common misconception. Tables only render the same if every aspect of
them is controlled (and not left to default).

Likewise, if CSS margins, borders, paddings and widths were controlled
to the same extent as table-layouts, it'll render the same. (That is, if
the code is valid, esp. re. DOCTYPE.)

IE sometimes "forgets" to load the CSS (especially if you have more
than one attached to your HTML).

Most likely it's because the wrong DOCTYPE is being used. IE in
quirksmode is notoriously difficult to work with.

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/

Basically, if you're having a troublesome time with a CSS design, there
are 3 simple questions you should ask:

1. Does the site validate?
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

2. Is the site rendered in standards mode?
http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles...tch/table.html

3. Have you encountered one of IE's bugs?
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

There are very few problems that aren't solved by asking those questions.

And so on... These things ARE sometimes random.

As an aside, computers don't really do randomness. In fact, Chaos theory
states that nothing is random, we're simply observing complexity - it's
all cause and effect.

Hth,
--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

It's not as simple as that. For example, the difference in CSS between
builds of FireFox is different.


I've not heard any reports like this, do you have an example?

Yes; the latest version of FF (PR1) has a lot of problems with layered
content (divs with z-indexes). While it works *most* of the time,
playing with the order via in DHTML (DOM stuff) sometimes causes
elements (forms, objects, flash movies etc) to become corrupted and only
partially display until the window is resized. This doesn't happen all
the time, but I've managed to get it to happen on all four of our test
machines.

Tables render the same.


Common misconception. Tables only render the same if every aspect of
them is controlled (and not left to default).

So, I was right in other words? I didn't include any of the caveats.

Likewise, if CSS margins, borders, paddings and widths were controlled
to the same extent as table-layouts, it'll render the same. (That is, if
the code is valid, esp. re. DOCTYPE.)

Not really. Place items around your page using CSS. Do the same using a
table. Turn off CSS. What happens to your page? YOu cannot turn off tables.

IE sometimes "forgets" to load the CSS (especially if you have more
than one attached to your HTML).

Most likely it's because the wrong DOCTYPE is being used. IE in
quirksmode is notoriously difficult to work with.

Nope. Pure 100% validating XHTML. IE sometimes forgets secondary CSS etc...

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/

Yes I know all about doctypes. My pages dont throw IE into quirks mode.
They fully validate.

Basically, if you're having a troublesome time with a CSS design, there
are 3 simple questions you should ask:

1. Does the site validate?
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Yes.

2. Is the site rendered in standards mode?
http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles...tch/table.html

Yes.

3. Have you encountered one of IE's bugs?
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

Yes. Floats still die.

There are very few problems that aren't solved by asking those questions.

Yes, and you dont have these problems in the first place if you use tables.

And so on... These things ARE sometimes random.


As an aside, computers don't really do randomness.

If only. 'Effective randomness', if you prefer. If the same thing
doesn't happen every single time, I'd call that random, wouldn't you?

In fact, Chaos theory
states that nothing is random, we're simply observing complexity - it's
all cause and effect.

I think you think to much

Hth,

Not in the least.

My current two projects *are* almost 100% CSS, and have very complicated
designs. They work okay, but it was a real headache getting them to
render the same (I dont mean pixel perfect, but even close would be nice
sometimes!) on all the major browsers. What concerns me is the time
taken - a simple table based layout would have been much faster to
construct So why go the CSS route at all? Well, I like to keep my sites
flexible, and I get REALLY fickle about my own projects so I might
change my mind on layout significantly tomorrow morning or a week on
Sunday, so using CSS gives me the ability to change things dramatically
and quickly. But the cost of that is development time. With tables it's
the other way around - very quick development, but you're screwed if you
change your mind on layout later on

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

SpaceGirl wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
SpaceGirl wrote:

It's not as simple as that. For example, the difference in CSS
between builds of FireFox is different.

I've not heard any reports like this, do you have an example?

Yes; the latest version of FF (PR1) has a lot of problems with layered
content (divs with z-indexes). While it works *most* of the time,
playing with the order via in DHTML (DOM stuff) sometimes causes
elements (forms, objects, flash movies etc) to become corrupted and only
partially display until the window is resized. This doesn't happen all
the time, but I've managed to get it to happen on all four of our test
machines.

Does work allow you to show me any code? Email me if you don't want it
posted public - just remove the word 'remove' from either side of the @.

Likewise, if CSS margins, borders, paddings and widths were controlled
to the same extent as table-layouts, it'll render the same. (That is,
if the code is valid, esp. re. DOCTYPE.)

Not really. Place items around your page using CSS. Do the same using a
table. Turn off CSS. What happens to your page? YOu cannot turn off tables.

Actually, you /can/ turn tables off :-o . For most browsers, a user
stylesheet can be used [1]. Opera 7 goes one step further and gives the
user a quick-access menu [2].

Regardless of how you layout the page, it's merely a suggestion to the
browser, and as such can ultimately be refused or changed by the user.

Is this a bad thing for designers? Perhaps. Is it a good thing for
users? Most definitely. If a user chooses to override the way something
looks on their computer, it's usually for good reason.

[1]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome.../msg00043.html
[2] http://www.webaim.org/techniques/articles/opera

--
Ben M.