The Breakdown of Modern Web Design

[»1587200]

...

[»Maverick]

ROFL so true

 

I've yelled so much at Joomla while building a website with it. Still hates it because it doesn't let you make your own CSS, you have to use certain CSS classes to properly format the pages. Downloadable modules/components of Joomla are good though. Erm.. yea...

[Russky]

For me the swearing part would be a lot bigger. Edited September 4, 2007 by Russky

[L.C.]

Well, that's what I call "browser-wars." Pretty much each and every browser out there are trying to set a global standard based on their "opinion" (probably not the right word to use, which is why I put it in quotes). Firefox != IE != Opera != Safari 1= Netscape

 

I'm !@#$%^&*uming for Netscape and Safari, since I've never used them and made comparison.

I've once written a design in as logical and simple code as it could ever get.. and guess what? None of the browsers displayed the code like it was supposed to be.

 

I mean, if you're planning on designing something for one specific browser, it isn't that hard at all. But when it comes to cross-browser compatibility, compatibility with all resolutions (auto stretching in all directions including font), etc (anything in a combination), it becomes a webdesigner's nightmare. It makes me angry and very frustrated when I encounter witty problems that shouldn't even exist...angry at the people who constructed browsers and decided to go their own personal standard. :<

[PoLiX]

SSCentral.com

---------------------------

Design Time: 2days (creatix, could of been less if not issues of time zones and such.)

w3c Compliant: 10mins

CSS Layout: 2.5 weeks, still found bugs in Opera and K-Meleon (sp?). Said !@#$%^&* it... Now Tables

Swearing: Yeah... But who don't do that anyways...

IE: FF worked... fixed in IE, worked in FF fine. Fixed in FF, broke IE, fixed IE, broke FF, fixed both, next issue... man, !@#$%^&* it... Tables it is..

Bill Gates: Why doesn't that !@#$%^&* take control and decide !@#$%^&* on his own again... things use to kind of work than.

java script: Actually, no issues there... luckily.

[Hakaku]

Netscape is the same as Firefox, and thus no longer an independant browser.

 

But yeah, I've spent time arguing at cross-browser comptatibility (moreso with FF), then going onto W3C standards, then breaking everything (in FF)... Unless of course I code through FF, then I'll tend to break everything in IE.

 

But the worst part is finding out that your webhost is blocking a certain script or part of it...

[Samapico]

I have no idea what's the difference between CSS and tables... But why are all designers so 'affraid' of using tables? If they work so easily with all browsers, why waste time with other things?

Just looking for some knowledge here

[rootbear75]

i think you can do a lot more things with CSS than tables

[L.C.]

And tables for the most part are not necessary. Tables are meant to display tabular data, not to be the placeholders for graphical website designs. Say you took the Creatix SSCentral design and made two versions of it: tabled and pure CSS. The one with Pure CSS would be the most efficient and overall the smallest in filesize (long-run atleast). Basically the question your asking is also kind of the same as asking "why use XHTML/CSS/WC compliant pages in the first place?

 

Simply tables aren't appropriate to use for most cases (oh, and aren't they a bit harder or take longer to render too?). XHTML/CSS/WC pages do load faster for me on dialup than do the opposite. It's almost like you're writing a formal paper...

 

Page !@#$%^&*le

 

+Menu Link 1

+Menu Link 2

+Menu Link 3

+Menu Link 4

+Menu Link 5

 

Category !@#$%^&*le

 

Description here. Description here. Description here. Description here. Description here. Description here. Description here. Description here.

 

Copyright and Footer Contents.

 

If you ask me, it's still pretty nice to look at even when images haven't loaded yet. I would rather see one of these pages than one that loads based on progression (like progressive-loading JPGs).

[»CypherJF]

it's simple, Tables should only be used for displaying statistical-type of data, data in a tabular format. CSS is to address a site's appearance which can change based on the method of viewing (projector, printing, typical web browsing, cell phone/mobile device, etc.). People have abused the purpose of tables when they began using it as a way to design your website layout. CSS allows the abstraction of presentation from content.

[PoLiX]

The issue is, noone can seem to keep CSS the same, as HTML and Tables have, and noone can seem to make CSS act the same in their browsers. The issue is mostly IE, but being that still is just as much as ff (54% of our users = FF, 42% = IE last I looked), and the default loaded in computers, it makes it a pain to code webpages that are compliant with all. Even some professional designers will agree it is a total !@#$%^&* to get pages to work in both, and that is where you spend most your coding time.

[Hakaku]

Tables are basically universally cross-browser, down to really old versions. It can be a pain to code though, depending on the complexity of what you want. CSS is more lightweight, as it can be stored in a seperate file, and thus easier to update if you have multiple webpages depending on it. If you're intermixing the two, then you can easily create other effects.

 

i think you can do a lot more things with CSS than tables

But you can't say CSS does more than tables, since Tables alone are just a small part of HTML. So you'd have to compare HTML and CSS as a whole, in which case HTML overrules CSS as being the basis of most web coding and browsers.

[»1587200]

HTML 3.2 ftw. It was the standard before CSS was even introduced, and is compatible with ever browser.

 

I typically write personal pages and whatnot in HTML 3.2, w/a little bit of 4.0, some CSS to stream line the whole thing as far as colors and whatnots, then make it interactive, as well as even more stream lined with php.