«

You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
Google, etc. What they all have in common..

1) They all use HTML tables.

2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
like Netscape 3.0.

CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.

It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.

Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
know what happened to them.

Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
build something like CSSzengarden.

Henry wrote:
> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>
> 1) They all use HTML tables.
>
> 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
> like Netscape 3.0.
>
> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
> browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
> HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
> ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
> Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
> cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.
>
> It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
> links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
> up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.
>
> 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
> 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
> 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
> 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
>
> Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
> Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
> simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
> internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
> After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
> know what happened to them.
>
> Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
> HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
> should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
> that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
> billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
> don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
> build something like CSSzengarden.


You're mostly right. It takes a LOT of work to get CSS to run on all
browsers, and frankly right now it's NOT worth the hassle. It simply
doesn't work as well, and you end up spending forever fixing niggling
browser-specific bugs. What has happened is we have a balance of
technologies; where you know your audience you can perhaps lean one way
or the other but there is no strict set of rules that actually work.

We recently finished abig project for a client. Initially we started
out 100% css. But the client wanted the site fully scalable on the page,
and the design (look and feel) was as important as the content. It
became rapidly apparent that CSS just couldn't cut it. We were spending
DAYS fixing obscure browser glitches only for some other change in the
XHTML to cause the whole thing to fall apart again. In the end we
reverted to a "mostly CSS" solution, wrapped up inside tables. We've not
had ANY browser problems since then.

As for Flash - we're also going down that route for our reporting
system. Flash offers far better pressentation of reports and graphs than
any form of CSS or HTML.

We mix and match the front end technology depending on the project and
the content, as any designer should.

Throughout all of this, the data and actual content has remained pretty
much the same... XHTML with XML data. Whatever front end we stick on
that doesn't matter so much.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

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

Henry wrote:
> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>
> 1) They all use HTML tables.

Yahoo has a CSS layout in testing. I wouldn't be surprised if some of
the other sites you mentioned have plans too.

> It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
> links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
> up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

No properly-designed CSS-based layout will "blow up" in a browser that
doesn't support CSS, it simply won't be quite as pretty. The content
will still be perfectly usable.

"Henry" <> wrote in message
news:419942ca$...
> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>
> 1) They all use HTML tables.

> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
> browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
> HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
> ANY browser.

I must say I agree. I've been trying to learn about CSS for layouts and
frankly it's a pain. Tables are dead easy, intuitive, and are much easier to
debug, if there are problems. I've been visiting some award-winning sites
lately and all of them use tables.

I've visited a few of the pages of the CSS purists in this group. For the
most part they tend to be very simple -- a reflection of the difficulties of
designing complex sites that work for all browsers, I suspect. There are
some notable exceptions. I admire Toby Inksters' site. www.csszengarden.com
also features some breath-taking examples of CSS-only layouts as well.

BUT. . .

way too much trouble for most of us "weekend" designers.

M

<<M>> wrote:

> "The guy I plonked" wrote
>> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
>> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>>
>> 1) They all use HTML tables.

You can look at WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, and they all use cheap foreign
child labor. Should I emulate that?

>> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
>> browsers.

Wrong.

>> You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
>> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues.

You can see folks worldwide struggling for peace. Should they resort to
violence instead, as it's so much easier and more predictable?

> I must say I agree.

NOOOOOOO!!!

> I've been trying to learn about CSS for layouts and
> frankly it's a pain.

Get off the ledge!

> Tables are dead easy, intuitive, and are much easier to
> debug, if there are problems. I've been visiting some award-winning sites
> lately and all of them use tables.

What kind of sites give the awards? Wouldn't Mussolini give Hitler an
award?

> I've visited a few of the pages of the CSS purists in this group. For the
> most part they tend to be very simple -- a reflection of the
> difficulties of
> designing complex sites that work for all browsers, I suspect.

Humph.

> There are
> some notable exceptions. I admire Toby Inksters' site.
> www.csszengarden.com
> also features some breath-taking examples of CSS-only layouts as well.

There's so much hope!

> BUT. . .
>
> way too much trouble for most of us "weekend" designers.

Well, tell you what. I conduct a community orchestra. Most of my musicians
are "weekend warriors" too. Little formal training. Less time to practice.

So, we put on a concert. You want to hear it? Will you come again?

See, quality wins in the end. You can go ahead and argue that tables give
you more quality, but it's simply not true. And especially if you're a
weekend warrior (and if you are, it's not the weekend, what are you
doing?!?), CSS makes it so much quicker to fix things - once you get it.

And that's the problem. CSS is hard to "get". If you quit, you're
relegated to a lifetime of slaving through bloated HTML files heavier than
your Aunt Mary. Once you "get it", the speed you can work at is amazing.

Don't write off CSS so soon. You show so much promise...

SpaceGirl wrote:

> You're mostly right.

*whimper*

> It takes a LOT of work to get CSS to run on all browsers, and frankly
> right now it's NOT worth the hassle. It simply doesn't work as well, and
> you end up spending forever fixing niggling browser-specific bugs. What
> has happened is we have a balance of technologies; where you know your
> audience you can perhaps lean one way or the other but there is no
> strict set of rules that actually work.

But with CSS you're on the front of a brave new way to do things. You're a
pioneer!

We need the type of person who says that graphic design is nice, but
better technology and implementation is better. Tat's me. Maybe someday
we'll convince you.

In 5 years, I'll be a whiz at this CSS thing. How's about you? If CSS is a
dodo by then, Miranda, I'll owe you a beer.

"Henry" <> wrote in message
news:419942ca$...
> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>
> 1) They all use HTML tables.
>
> 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
> like Netscape 3.0.

No. Funny, I've just signed off from my Yahoo mail and thought how bad the
page looks (using Opera).


> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
> browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
> HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
> ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
> Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
> cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.
>
> It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
> links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
> up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

Totally disagree. While there *are* certain things that are not supported
(by IE) which may mean the odd thing will have a workaround until all
browsers are CSS standards compliant, but... this is the odd occurrence I
would say. We are in the process of rewriting a CGI webapp to J2EE and
taking the opportunity to redo the HTML output from the JSP to remove all
the tables and brush up the CSS (had an early attempt 5yrs ago). What we're
seeing is much smaller, concise, easily maintainable, much simpler pages.
With (thanks to CSS) much more control (positioning... colours....); we can
do stuff to our <form>s using the CSS - in all our pages - without touching
the pages.

It is bleedin' obvious how much better the pages are without all the table
markup (nested crap) all over the place. I say this from recent experience.
So what's winding you up so much over this? Why would you rather have all
this extra markup all over the place making it harder to maintain, bigger
pages etc etc etc. Yes, you need to ensure the pages look fine on all or
most browsers and thats been done here, part of the job. Take the time to
learn (and learn from some of the people here) and, it is a helluva lot
better. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet over this from recent
posts, not sure why (found it hard to learn CSS? It is a curve, but once you
do...).

> 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
> 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
> 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.

> 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.

Yes... works fine thanks.


> Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
> Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
> simple,

The pages ARE much simpler now I've removed all the td tr *******s all over
the place, thanks.


functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
> internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.

Surely they 'beat their competitors' through the functionality (hate that
word! *grin*) offered by the applications themselves (incl cost etc), not
whether they have better markup?

Give it a go...
Cheers
Rob
Melbourne

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Henry <> writing
in news:419942ca$:

> You can look at the market leading websites like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay,
> Google, etc. What they all have in common..
>
> 1) They all use HTML tables.

Actually, that's not true. Wired - http://www.wired.com is all CSS. There
are many other, I just can't think of them right now, oh wait, here's a
list - http://www.meryl.net/css/cat_big_sites.php .

>
> 2) They all look fine in all browsers.. down to even non-CSS browsers
> like Netscape 3.0.

No, actually, they don't. Most of them use a fixed font that I can't see,
and everything is jumbled up in one corner of the window because they've
designed for "800 x 600", optimized for IE.

>
> CSS produces inconsistent results across different platforms and
> browsers. You can just look at CSS forums around the internet, and
> you'll see experienced coders struggling with cross-browser issues. With
> HTML tables, it's easy to make webpages that will look good in virtually
> ANY browser. You never know what someone might be using.. Opera on Mac,
> Safari, a PDA on GPRS, proprietary web terminal at an airport/internet
> cafe, old versions of IE or Netscape, whatever.

If the author wrote the markup correctly, it will degrade nicely. That's
one of the good things about separating content from presenation. If the
presentation fails, the content is still there. This is not the case,
however, with badly nested tables that have errors. Some browsers,
Netscape for one, just won't render anything at all.

>
> It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
> links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
> up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.

You are absolutely right - don't use CSS to remove underline on links.

>
> 1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
> 1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
> 2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
> 2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
>

It takes a long time to rewrite large sites, especially if the site is
dynamic and many people work various parts. These sites, too, will learn
that it's much easier to change a stylesheet than it is do redo nested
table bloat.

> Looking at the successful, market leading websites - like Amazon, Yahoo,
> Ebay, Google - they all have followed a similar strategy of keeping it
> simple, functional, and making sure their websites look ok to 99.999% of
> internet users. And with that strategy, they beat their competitors.
> After all, Boo.com had an exciting, "cutting edge" website, but we all
> know what happened to them.

Amazon, Ebay and Google have valid reasons for using tables. The data that
they deliver is suited for that type of markup. No one said get rid of
tables completely, just use them for their intended purpose.

>
> Looking at real world results - not idealistic theory - and you'll see
> HTML tables are the clear winner. If you care about winning, then you
> should focus on having a simple, functional, HTML table-based website
> that looks good to 99.999% of internet users.. the strategy used by the
> billion dollar market leaders like Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Google. If you
> don't care about winning, but want a beautiful cutting edge site, then
> build something like CSSzengarden.

Have you ever had to debug a website that's generated server side, in
nested tables? With lovely markup like this:
<td background-color="#FFFFFF" width="100"><font size="2" color="#000000">
<b></b></font></td><td><table width="20"><tr><td><font color="#000000"><hr>
<span style="font-size:8px">&nbsp;</span></font></td></tr><table></td>

Beleive me, when you have to debug hundreds of pages like this, you'll soon
yearn for the simplicity of CSS. Not to mention that SE bots seem to be
happier with presentationless markup - they couldn't give a rat's ass if
the word is bold or not.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share

"Neal" <> wrote in message
news...
> <<M>> wrote:
>
> You can look at WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, and they all use cheap foreign
> child labor. Should I emulate that?

> You can see folks worldwide struggling for peace. Should they resort to
> violence instead, as it's so much easier and more predictable?

> What kind of sites give the awards? Wouldn't Mussolini give Hitler an
> award?

> Well, tell you what. I conduct a community orchestra. Most of my musicians
> are "weekend warriors" too. Little formal training. Less time to practice.
> So, we put on a concert. You want to hear it? Will you come again?

To all of the above. . . ????

> CSS makes it so much quicker to fix things - once you get it.
> And that's the problem. CSS is hard to "get". If you quit, you're
> relegated to a lifetime of slaving through bloated HTML files heavier than
> your Aunt Mary.

I'm not convinced of that. Content tends to change incrementally if at all
for most sites. It's a nice gimmick to be able to give visitors a
"different" look for a site by pressing on a button, but that can be
replicated with "sub-sites." To a visitor, it's transparent and they would
never know the difference. You can talk about bloated code but the fact is
for most sites, time to download and view is near instantaneous, CSS or
HTML. When I surf, I've never encountered a site slow to load purely because
of HTML "bloat." My machine is 5 years old, my OS is older. A page is
usually slow to load because it's graphics intensive, or it's downloading
some plugin content, not because it's contending with nested tables.

Furthermore, through the careful use of search and replace functions of most
text editors (Notetab Pro et al), it's possible to rip through a directory
of HTML files in seconds to swiftly modify common elements -- the supposed
advantage of CSS. Combine with the judicious use of templates and I suspect
a good HTML webmaster could modify his site as swiftly as someone using CSS.

And why should CSS be hard to "get?" Generally, if something is hard to get,
it tends to be ignored or discarded by the general population in favour of
convenience.

For now, I'm convinced that CSS layout is for "hobbyists" only. If you're a
fan, go for it by all means. Me, I'm sticking with my tables. . .

M

Adrienne wrote:


> If the author wrote the markup correctly, it will degrade nicely. That's
> one of the good things about separating content from presenation. If the
> presentation fails, the content is still there. This is not the case,
> however, with badly nested tables that have errors. Some browsers,
> Netscape for one, just won't render anything at all.
>

Same goes for a table layout.

>>It's ok to use CSS for minor effects like removing underlines from some
>>links, or the occassional hover effect. But your website shouldn't "blow
>>up" if CSS fails for the visitor. You shouldn't RELY on CSS.
>
>
> You are absolutely right - don't use CSS to remove underline on links.

Blanket statement. Just not true.

>>1997: "Push technology will make browsers obsolete". Nope.
>>1999: "All websites will be designed in Flash". Nope.
>>2000: "WAP/WML is the future". Nope.
>>2004: "Pure-CSS, tableless designs will replace HTML tables". Nope.
>>
>
> Amazon, Ebay and Google have valid reasons for using tables. The data that
> they deliver is suited for that type of markup. No one said get rid of
> tables completely, just use them for their intended purpose.

Which can be layout if you want.

> Have you ever had to debug a website that's generated server side, in
> nested tables? With lovely markup like this:
> <td background-color="#FFFFFF" width="100"><font size="2" color="#000000">
> <b></b></font></td><td><table width="20"><tr><td><font color="#000000"><hr>
> <span style="font-size:8px">&nbsp;</span></font></td></tr><table></td>
>
> Beleive me, when you have to debug hundreds of pages like this, you'll soon
> yearn for the simplicity of CSS. Not to mention that SE bots seem to be
> happier with presentationless markup - they couldn't give a rat's ass if
> the word is bold or not.
>

Perhaps that's why you have a balance between the two? I dont think
anyone is advocating not using CSS. Just not using 100% CSS.

As for redoing "nested table bloat", this is where it comes down to
experience. *if* you built your site right, then even a site consisting
of nested tables can be completely changed by modifying just one or two
files. One of our sites uses a few nested tables... these tables are put
together via a header, footer and menu SSI. If I wanted to change the
look and feel of the entire site I have 4 files to modify and all 400
pages in the site will be changed. The look and feel and divs within the
tables are controlled by CSS. The flexible layout itself is controlled
by a series of small tables. There are no browser problems, no little
CSS hacks to get floats to work on IE etc etc. It's a really simple
technical design, but the front end looks very high-tech.

It's HOW you use the technology. CSS is great, but it has some limits
which can cause a lot of problems. 100% CSS sites are a LOT harder to
produce, and actually sometimes harder to maintain because of the
delicate nature of browsers. But pretty much all browsers happily render
tables.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

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