Tell me again how thinking CSS is different than thinking "the other"

A call to aid in the instantiation of a CSS epiphany. (Definitions within)

[Webwork]

[google.com...]

[google.com...]

When I see web pages I see "layouts", I see "tables and cells".

To constant CSSers: What do you see - now - that you didn't see preCSS?

What do you think - now, at design time - that you didn't think preCSS?

What was once there - once present - in your mind in (preCSS) design time - that is now a shadow, a memory?

[nanotopia]

I see possibilities. Before, I saw a layout and design that was stuck. Now, similar to XML and XSL, I see multiple layouts and design for the same page. If the CSS and HTML are written well, different CSSs can be applied to the same page, and you can have completely different looking pages.

In my mind, the only thing that hasn't really changed is the content. But with well formed CSS and HTML, the possibilities are endless.

[4css]

Tell me again how thinking CSS is different than thinking "the other"

First, you have your bandwidth savings. Then, when you need to change a design down the road, presentation wise that is, its all in one file.

CSS is fun ;)

When I see web pages I see "layouts", I see "tables and cells".

Now look up some thing regarding css, and look at their page design via view source. Or just go to the zen garden and browse through their pages. Wow, that is an awsome site that would get anyone psyched for css.

[rjohara]

I'm not a designer, and I never used tables to begin with, so take these comments for what they're worth. But I'd say that's the right background to come to the problem with, because what you should see first when you come to a webpage is *structured content* -- that's the whole foundation of HTML (and its predecessor, SGML). Forget all about layout and style; think structured content. When you visit the CSS Zen Garden, the first thing you should see is the underlying HTML [csszengarden.com]. Only after you have studied and understood the structured content should you allow yourself look at how people have been able to create a mapping from that structured content (element by element) to the "three-dimensional" (so to speak) layouts. It's like the difference between seeing an equation and a graph of what the equation represents: an ordinary person looks at an equation and just sees the letters and numbers; a mathematician sees how the equation can be represented by a complex curve, surface, or multi-dimensional object.

[stever]

>>What was once there - once present - in your mind in (preCSS) design time - that is now a shadow, a memory?

I see content flow rather than structure (I must be getting poetic today). Almost like moving pieces around in water rather than building a house.

Even with the terms: float!

Think east, not west.

[rocknbil]

Before -

Tangled mixing of content and markup.

Now -

Separation of content and markup.

None of this, of course, matters much to the average viewer, who doesn't have a clue as to what's behind the door labeled "view source."

[MatthewHSE]

CSS thinking is different than tables simply by getting your mind off the markup and presentation and onto the content. If I want a big and unusually-shaped header graphic, I can slap it into the page as a single image file rather than needing to slice and dice it up and come up with a mangled mass of table cells to put every slice into. I can markup a page the way I would a print outline, then style it later for the layout. All of this means I get to focus on the content while it's time to develop the content, and focus on the layout when it's time to develop the layout.

It's all about separation. One job at a time . . . etc.

Also, I tend to think of a CSS layout as more "relaxing" than tables. Tables are a rigid grid; CSS is a bunch of boxes rattling around loose in a container that you get to rearrange however you want, at any time.