Msg#: 3932819 posted 2:50 am on Jun 14, 2009 (gmt 0)
I've not (ab)used a table to do layout in years. In fact I guess I've forgotten most of the attributes tables can have.
I'm quite glad not to have to look at nested tables anymore. I never looked back once I learned CSS.
I don't think there are in fact many problems with cross browser stuff, there's just the legacy IE versions that are riddled with bugs that never got fixed, and a bunch of "features" (read:broken by design). The simplest way to deal with IE and CSS is to utterly ignore IE till the *very* last, don't even take a glance at how it looks. Then at the very end add conditional comments to make it look acceptable. I typically don't even try to understand why legacy IE does the wrong thing, just make it look right, whatever means is good enough. This is faster and less frustrating in my experience. (e.g. double margin bug: instead of figuring out where to add what to not trigger the bug, I've just halved the margins in the conditional comment of one site. Done.)
It still adds to the workload, but till the users smarten up, we're stuck with the IE legacy for now.
Msg#: 3932819 posted 2:52 pm on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)
It really depends on how you define "website." CSS provides so much power, no designer would do without it for a flagship public site.
That said, I've seen plenty of web applications with no CSS or very badly implemented CSS. The usual attitude is "it looks good enough in IE6, we don't need to spend resources on making it look pretty." In particular lots of reporting software, older shopping carts, and a forest of custom internal applications have little or no native CSS support.