January 28th, 2004, 08:48 PM
CSS vs. tables for NEW site layouts?
I've been reading over a bunch of threads and CSS vs. table websites & articles, all with varying degrees of CSS fanatiscm to "long-live-tables" viewpoints.
I too am trying to make a decision on how to embark on a new site strategy. I think for most developers, re-coding an existing site to full CSS is probably not cost effective. I'm using CSS for everything except positioning right now.
So my question is, how are you approaching from-scratch NEW site development layouts?
Last edited by wisconsinative; January 28th, 2004 at 08:52 PM.
January 28th, 2004, 10:10 PM
For anything new, when I visualize it in my head, I'm thinking to myself, "can I do this with just CSS?" Usually this leads me to simple layouts, which I like anyway. But if I have to design something complex, I may end up with some tables, while still using CSS to for color and as much "layout" as possible.
Part of the problem is having to handle every browser's different interpretations of the specifications.
Explain your problem instead of asking how to do what you decided was the solution.
January 28th, 2004, 10:32 PM
CSS-Positioning is not uniformly implemented in all browsers. I would advise against its usage until Microsoft gets IE's implementation of CSS-P ironed out.
January 28th, 2004, 10:57 PM
CSS or Tables opinion fr new member
I consider myself an on-going learner, so far am happy....
My thoughts are usually toward CSS, probably more for the User Interaction and Page Asthetics reasons... I focus alot on building sites that are friendly for the Visually Impaired (like me), so that users can increase the text size on IE (largest user base) without losing the page layout <?? make sense?>
However, if your target audience needs to support all browsers, that changes everything. You should not use any [Browser Type] specific features, as this will exclude others...
I use IE and build to exploit the features of IE, for me, what audience I have seems to be catered for this way...
Tables are more cross browser friendly (it would appear), however there are things you can do to achieve the same results with CSS etc. It just takes research.
I am of the opinion that eventually (one day.... real soon now *lol*), will be more dynamic, that all the standards will converge and conform.......... and that Elvis will be found cookin' burgers...
There are ways
Homepage Link at bottom (Non-Commercial Site)
Last edited by mswp; January 28th, 2004 at 11:01 PM.
January 28th, 2004, 10:59 PM
I would tend to agree that using strictly CSS-P is not a good idea at this juncture (for me), since the browser's interpretations are so different & IE's implementation of CSS-2 is pretty weak. The sheer number of nuances is enough to make me cry.
Would it make sense to use tables for the broad structure of the pages & use CSS-P as much as possible for layout inside of the tables? Again, I haven't used CSS-P at all, so I'm kind of in the dark. I just started my research/reading on it after coming back to work from 8 mos leave.
January 28th, 2004, 11:06 PM
I would say (after using my site for practise), yes.
CSS-P does have its' issues, but there are people whose work I really, really respect seemed to have got all the bugs ironed out.
January 29th, 2004, 04:14 AM
MSWP, I would start another thread in the reviews forum if you want your site critiqued.
I had a look at it in Firebird 0.7 (Mozilla), it it looks really bad, sorry: page overflowing, marquees , text ontop of images etc...
>_ skiFFie ? | Twitter
Let the might of your compassion arise to bring a quick end
to the flowing stream of the blood and tears .....
Please hear my anguished words of truth.
January 29th, 2004, 04:29 AM
It has been built for IE (with all the non-std extras), sorry.
January 29th, 2004, 05:34 AM
I have just added a "Built for/Best with IE" Notice, that is now a little more polite, I guess.