CSS (mis)information

[SuzyUK]

So I've been awol a bit(lot) recently, and it's hard to keep up let alone learn, so I went looking for new information sites, .i.e. not my usual list of bookmarks

short summary of my days observations

Good:

• loads of new, fresh looking CSS sites, design-wise
  
• plenty of sites passing the "Standards [webmasterworld.com]" Message Baton
  
• lots of talk about accessibility and its crossover with SEO

Bad:

• what's this fashion to have dark background with low contrast text? (although one site had a link which allowed me to "turn the lights on")
  
• why are they still talking about tables v CSS ;)
  
• I was saddened that there is so much misinformation out there :( wrong history, wrong hacks,
  
• where have the stalwarts gone?

what/who do you believe as you travel: yourself, the old favourites, the best looking site...

[Quadrille]

[quote]why are they still talking about tables v CSS?[quote]

Because browsers still make a pigs ear out of so many css sites. Even the simplest of designs.

Sad. But true.

[4css]

Hi Suzy

what's this fashion to have dark background with low contrast text?

If I come across a site that is not easy to read, such as the one you mention above, I totally walk away from it.

Some of the css informational sites have even went into a dark background with difficult to read text.

When I need information I go by the "guru's sites" that I know are reliable.

IF there are links on their sites I usually go to them. I search google a lot for things to refresh my memory (also awol for a while on this end, and feel I am so far behind where I need to be)

WebmasterWorld's site, PIE, anything with Eric Meyers, BigJohn, Charles Whyke-Smith, Russ Weakly, amd a few others. Of course your site is a good one as well.

I have 2 mail lists that I belong to. So sometimes there is some great information on those lists that I go and look through.

I guess when it comes down to it, it is always best to search and make sure that you have the correct information.

[bruhaha]

what's this fashion to have dark background with low contrast text?

I quite agree. Not so bad if it's just a page or two and they use white bolded font, though even there it's taxing on the eyes (and the font has to be larger to work close to as well as dark on light), but when there's a lot of pages and lots of text involved. . . NOT.

why are they still talking about tables v CSS?

Another reason - even when newer browsers can handle it, many users have are very slow about upgrading their old browsers (often waiting until they buy a new machine that forces it on them).

[SuzyUK]

I guess when it comes down to it, it is always best to search and make sure that you have the correct information.

with that I agree, usually do that too, I was simply surprised that the thing I was searching for updated confirmation on didn't actually have the correct information anywhere.. well it did in bits and pieces across forums/blogs - but I had to at least know that what I was reading was not quite right in the first place.. every full article written on the subject (and I only looked at ones in the last 3 months) were misinformed (or simply missing something) with their advice.

Sadly the "gurus" advice is not always up to date now, which is why I asked where they've all gone, otherwise that would be the first stop

I will leave a site that I can't read too, I understand it's nice to be fashionable if that's what your followers like, and especially if you've a design site.. you need to show off your design skills - but if you're writing informative articles (like explaining techniques), then surely they should be clearly legible.. if I absolutely *have* to read something I'll click and drag to highlight to see if it's worth overruling the stylesheet.. but I've never done needed to do that yet, and next time I'll just hit the back button!

I really did appreciate the site that took the time to provide a stylesheet switcher, I actually stayed and read a couple more articles...

>>versus
can't we at least take out the versus yet.. and encourage the notion that CSS is not a replacement for tables, it works with them, folks are still very much at liberty to choose their actual layout framework as neither are perfect, but using one doesn't make the other a no-go area?

[penders]

what's this fashion to have dark background with low contrast text?

The website of a very well known opticians (UK) has a default design based on lightish grey text on a white background and white text on a lightish grey background - eh?! There is at least an option to switch to a higher contrast version - which is also in this subtle shade - why is this not the default? The high contrast version, however, has no effect on the flash - which also favours the subtle.

I was saddened that there is so much misinformation out there... ...Sadly the "gurus" advice is not always up to date now...

I'm surprised at how many articles out there do not have the decency to at least include the date the article was written?! Many times have I thought I've found the information I was after, only to realise half way down the page... "Hang on, this is years old!". It may have been OK then, but this is the now!

[swa66]

Agree, often you find stuff that at first looks is what you need, till you see hacks, and try it with something "modern" like IE7 and it goes off in the woods.
Basically if I see a hack I walk, it's just not worth my time to investigate what the hack does, for what browser(s) it works, and what other browsers need. If I can't find it after all, I might be back, but I strongly prefer standards stuff/conditional comments to make it work for IE.

[4css]

Suzy stated:
Sadly the "gurus" advice is not always up to date now, which is why I asked where they've all gone, otherwise that would be the first stop

Maybe it is time for some "new guru's" to advance and show their stuff ;)

[Xapti]

I guess one problem is because it's online compatible with windows, but it seems no one ever ever ever wants to use CSS system colors, which I thought were a cool feature, too bad they don't work well on all operating systems. (I'm not sure what the effects are, but I don't think they are good)

[g1smd]

I always like to point out that CSS has two parts (at least that is how I see it). You have basic styling (colour, typeface, etc) and you have positioning. Browsers are good at the former, and not always so good at the latter. That's changing, with newer browsers, but I like to get people on board for the first bit, and let them worry about positioning later. The biggest saving on code bloat is in getting rid of font and br tags. That's my first (styling) concern in upgrading a website. I sometimes use tables for positioning and sometimes CSS. It just depends on what is easier at the time.

[Stu_Foster]

Because browsers still make a pigs ear out of so many css sites. Even the simplest of designs.

I would be inclined to blame the designers for that problem. :)

[edited by: SuzyUK at 5:05 pm (utc) on July 12, 2008]
[edit reason] fixed the quote tag [/edit]

[poppyrich]

Being a guru doesn't pay enough in the long run.

In every field, change slows, there isn't a whole lot new to say and you have to find another gig that may leave little time for guruing.

Gurus burn out.

Guru's grow up and get married and have families. (Someone mentioned CSS guru Eric Meyer - he just had a second child. Blog on hold, can't blame the guy.)

[Quadrille]

I would be inclined to blame the designers for that problem.

And that may be another reason why non-designers are slow to come aboard; too much blame, and not enough problem solving ;)

[Stu_Foster]

Bad workmen blame their tools ;)

[buckworks]

Nonetheless, it's not always the worker's excuse, some tools truly are blameworthy in some aspects.