Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: I have a problem with this:

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I have a problem with this:

 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010

<sheldonlg> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 5/1/2010 10:48 AM, Jenn wrote:
>
> Wow! I didn't think I would start a "religious" war. Sorry about that.
>
> All I can say is that I think both CSS and tables have uses. To present
> _this_ layout the way they wanted, I spent the better part of a week and
> still had problems. When I went to tables, I did it in two hours --
> with none of the problems. So, for _this_ case, tables were better.
>


yep .. tables usually end up being easier... LOL

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hridj0$3fg$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> "Lewis" wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml
>>>
>>> The only thing that changes between the pages is the css that is
>>> loaded.

>>
>> Well ... Unless I can study each css file and compare them, it's not
>> going to make any sense to me. I don't speak CSS, but I can read it.
>> I can get the same results with regular html, images, and tables.



> You keep missing the point. With a CSS-designed site, you can change the
> complete design of the entire site by making some minor edits to just
> one file. With your tables-for-layout pages, you need to edit nearly
> everything for every single page of the whole site.



I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was built
with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out which style
sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering all the classes and
measurements that people like to put on sites like that. It's a nightmare
to change anything on that site. Now, if I have to change code I wrote
myself, it's commented out and I can go straight to where it's at.. and
often I just use *includes* and change that one file to get the edit done.
MUCH quicker and easier than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were
written by a committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built
soley with style sheets. LOL


> Let's say we each have a 100-page site, and the client wants a new
> "look" for it. Let's say he wants to move from a menu at the top with
> one browser-width column of content below it, to a two-column layout
> with a menu at the left and the content to the right.


> You: edit a hundred pages
> Me: edit one CSS file


nope.. I edit one page that is an *include*.

> Let's say the 100 pages have a footer (copyright, contact us, usual
> stuff). Client decides he wants it aligned to the right instead of
> centered.


again ... edit the footer include.

> Repeat You/Me above. I would just change "text-align: center" to
> "text-align: right" once in the #footer CSS and I'm done. How about you?


yep .. on the *include* file LOL

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010

"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hrij5r$9he$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>> "Lewis"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In message<c053f$4bdc5ae9$6216f11c$(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> freemont<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 16:32:50 +0000, Lewis writ:
>>>
>>>>> <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>

>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=099/099.css>
>>>

>>
>>
>> I looked at it... so what makes that such a great CSS example?

>
> As web page, nothing great, but what is does demonstrate is how radically
> you can change the look and layout only by changing the stylesheet and not
> touching the content. The transformation is not possible if locked within
> a table scaffold where a completed rewrite would be required.
>



I imagine it takes time to edit a style sheet and get it right... the idea
that you only have to edit one file and not mess with the content is sort of
impractical because I've never had a style edit that didn't have something
to do with a content edit too.... so, it's a bit of a moot point for me. As
long as the code works and it is done in the alotted time and on schedule, I
see no need to bow down to the mantra of CSS as the God code for websites.
LOL

All that counts is that the page works and it's what the customer wants. I
say screw the validators! LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
Jenn wrote:

> I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was
> built with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out
> which style sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering
> all the classes and measurements that people like to put on sites
> like that. It's a nightmare to change anything on that site. Now,
> if I have to change code I wrote myself, it's commented out and I can
> go straight to where it's at.. and often I just use *includes* and
> change that one file to get the edit done. MUCH quicker and easier
> than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were written by a
> committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built soley
> with style sheets. LOL


We can only assume that the committee members don't talk to each other.

If you bother to do some research, you will find that sites designed
without the haphazardness you describe are far easier to work on than
ones which includes presentation mixed within the content (including
hard-coded tables).

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hrirpg$du$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was
>> built with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out
>> which style sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering
>> all the classes and measurements that people like to put on sites
>> like that. It's a nightmare to change anything on that site. Now,
>> if I have to change code I wrote myself, it's commented out and I can
>> go straight to where it's at.. and often I just use *includes* and
>> change that one file to get the edit done. MUCH quicker and easier
>> than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were written by a
>> committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built soley
>> with style sheets. LOL

>
> We can only assume that the committee members don't talk to each other.
>
> If you bother to do some research, you will find that sites designed
> without the haphazardness you describe are far easier to work on than
> ones which includes presentation mixed within the content (including
> hard-coded tables).



I haven't ever been so lucky as to edit any website (that I didn't origially
code myself) that wasn't a nightmare going through their code. One site has
at least 6 style sheets that I had to edit because of a website design
update. I spent a couple hours just trying to find the right text to edit
for one column spacing issue I needed to change. Oh.. and editing for it to
look kosher in both IE and FF (various versions) had me almost pulling my
hair out. Our offices had computer that ran various systems and some of
those couldn't run anything but IE6, and that stupid browser HAD to be some
of the managers pcs. At any rate.. all browsers are not created equal, and
imo, neither are style sheets.

FWIW.. I do like using them.. I just hate an entire site (aspx site that has
ascx pgs, and aspx.config pages, too) built with style sheets. It's been a
learning experience for sure... but it hasn't warmed me up to the idea of
using them myself to code a site entirely based on them. Plain old HTML and
tables are much easier. IMHO
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
In article <hrir3r$tk0$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hridj0$3fg$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> "Lewis" wrote:
> >>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>> That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml
> >>>
> >>> The only thing that changes between the pages is the css that is
> >>> loaded.
> >>
> >> Well ... Unless I can study each css file and compare them, it's not
> >> going to make any sense to me. I don't speak CSS, but I can read it.
> >> I can get the same results with regular html, images, and tables.

>
>
> > You keep missing the point. With a CSS-designed site, you can change the
> > complete design of the entire site by making some minor edits to just
> > one file. With your tables-for-layout pages, you need to edit nearly
> > everything for every single page of the whole site.

>
>
> I'm not missing the point. I work on one gigantic website that was built
> with style sheets. It's a literal nightmare trying to find out which style
> sheet the correct class is on .. let alone remembering all the classes and
> measurements that people like to put on sites like that. It's a nightmare
> to change anything on that site. Now, if I have to change code I wrote
> myself, it's commented out and I can go straight to where it's at.. and
> often I just use *includes* and change that one file to get the edit done.
> MUCH quicker and easier than trying to figure out 10 styles sheets that were
> written by a committee and then trying to edit those. I hate sites built
> soley with style sheets. LOL


Why would you imagine the worst possible case of a nightmare
website made by many other people when what what you are being
asked to compare is where other things are equal. Ever tried
working with some nightmare websites made by others with table
layout? You have a gift for misunderstanding. I should know, I
have one too!

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
Jenn wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hrij5r$9he$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> "Lewis"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> In message<c053f$4bdc5ae9$6216f11c$(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> freemont<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 16:32:50 +0000, Lewis writ:
>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=099/099.css>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked at it... so what makes that such a great CSS example?

>>
>> As web page, nothing great, but what is does demonstrate is how radically
>> you can change the look and layout only by changing the stylesheet and not
>> touching the content. The transformation is not possible if locked within
>> a table scaffold where a completed rewrite would be required.
>>

>
>
> I imagine it takes time to edit a style sheet and get it right... the idea
> that you only have to edit one file and not mess with the content is sort of
> impractical because I've never had a style edit that didn't have something
> to do with a content edit too....


It certainly requires skill to do anything well. Proper initial design
approach with your HTML can facilitate the flexibility so the edits can
be limited to just the CSS in the stylesheet.

> so, it's a bit of a moot point for me. As
> long as the code works and it is done in the alotted time and on schedule, I
> see no need to bow down to the mantra of CSS as the God code for websites.


If you have a 6-page site then complete rework in some "WYSIWYG" editors
may be your "best" solution, but if you have to maintain a site with
hundreds of pages, data pulled from a db, etc, having to change dozens
or hundreds of documents instead of a single stylesheet or two then the
choices is clear.

Also not mentioned in the thread is that CSS allows the flexibility to
adapted the formatting to suit the device or client *without* changing
the content, e.g., for small display such as cellphones, or big screens
like projectors, limited graphics or oversize high-contrast text for
visually impaired, narrow screens vs widescreens, ..., whatever all
without touching the HTML. With table-layout HTML-attribute-formatted
sites "parallel" coding for each format may be the only way to offer
anything close. Ugh!

>
> All that counts is that the page works and it's what the customer wants. I
> say screw the validators!


Hmmm, "works: eh? Validation isn't everything, but it certainly reduces
putting out wildfires as a client calls up in a panic, "Our site's order
form doesn't work for customers with X browser!"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
Jenn wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:hridj0$3fg$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Jenn wrote:



>> Let's say the 100 pages have a footer (copyright, contact us, usual
>> stuff). Client decides he wants it aligned to the right instead of
>> centered.

>
> again ... edit the footer include.
>
>> Repeat You/Me above. I would just change "text-align: center" to
>> "text-align: right" once in the #footer CSS and I'm done. How about you?

>
> yep .. on the *include* file LOL
>


Not if (I'll use R1C1 convention here) the bit of footer info is in cell
4,3 and now needs to be in 4,1! Or the site is a nested table
monstrosity with row and column spans and not the new company logo is a
different shape!!!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
Lewis wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> dorayme
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Get "the same result" in tables with regular images and just html,
>> achieving the main aims of the following design - which is to be
>> pretty fluid and to make maximeum use of different screen spaces. The
>> centering is an extra, don't be distracted by this feature and, most
>> important, don't forget to post a URL of your own.

>
>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jcs5r>

>
> I use to have a gallery page that was quite similar to that. Nice,
> innit?
>
>


Not with tables you don't. You you need some complicated JavaScript to
adjust the row/column count as viewport changes...


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010
On 01 May 2010, "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>
> "Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) .net...
>> On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) .net...
>>>> On 30 Apr 2010, "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lewis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> sheldonlg <sheldonlg> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as
>>>>>>> major problems when you narrowed the page and differences
>>>>>>> between IE and Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced
>>>>>>> him to use tables. He wanted to reserve the use of tables to
>>>>>>> only when there is actual table of data being presented and not
>>>>>>> for formatting purposes. Thankfully, he saw that a week of
>>>>>>> effort was not worth it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They
>>>>>> should never be used for formatting.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
>>>>> exactly like I want it to format.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
>>>> "tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest
>>>> meaning of the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate
>>>> means *do* exist for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables
>>>> for.
>>>
>>>
>>> I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website.
>>> That's the way it was done from the time I ever coded my first
>>> website. It's so simple to use them and you can do just about
>>> anything with them.

>>
>> Well, there are many things that can be done simpler with css once
>> you get familiar with it. Tables are awkward sometimes. Despite
>> the babble here, css really has 2 major parts: styling, like color,
>> fonts, and say opacity, and layout such as position
>> (static/absolute/fixed), floats, and "layering": ie. z-index or
>> ordering. I personally don't condemn the table-user but certain
>> methods *are* easier with css (-when you learn it.) However, to be
>> perfectly honest, it does sound like you might be from Oklahoma.
>>

>
>
> Oh.. don't get me wrong.. I do use CSS for styling, and I've used it
> for layering/z-index type stuff too, and even navigation, but I still
> love using the table because it is simple and you don't have to
> remember a hundred classes and you can actually see what you're
> doing. I'm sure CSS has it's believers, but I consider myself to be
> somewhere in the middle and will use whichever method that makes the
> most sense to me for the task I need to get done.


That's logical, and I think I do pretty much the same. It's been
awhile, though, since I've used tables for anything besides that
vertical middling thang but I'm about to come out with a page that has
more of 'em than flies around grandma's ass! It's going to be the
greatest coup since Virgil gave his leg a subconscious! Will report
back soon...

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
have you got any of these i can have spike240 Case Modding 4 09-14-2005 03:48 AM
do i have to have.... =?Utf-8?B?amFrZQ==?= Wireless Networking 1 03-11-2005 06:05 PM
ATTN: I have a problem concerning my C drive after installing office 2003 PLEASE HELP (all attchments have been scanned) (0/6) Twitch Computer Support 21 01-02-2004 08:29 PM
Re: ATTN: I have a problem concerning my C drive after installing office 2003 PLEASE HELP (all attchments have been scanned) (1/6) Trax Computer Support 1 01-01-2004 02:49 AM
Re: I have a problem concerning my C drive after installing office 2003 PLEASE HELP (all attchments have been scanned) (6/6) ICee Computer Support 0 12-31-2003 06:23 PM



Advertisments