Forum Moderators: open
It's a shame that there isn't a decent page creator application out there that people can use to have their websites generated for them.
This is where I totally agree with you. HTML, and more even XHTML are not languages which should by coded by hand in a text editor. People have never coded printing languages like PCL5 or HP-GL2 in an editor. They used properly designed printer drivers for that to bypass the problems of creating correct and clean code.
Yet with webpages, the output of many pages is still created by hand, or by hand coded PHP and ASP pages and errors are common. Therefore browsers and search engines have to accept almost any combination of elements, otherwise only very few sites would be left visible on the net. The attempts of code generators that are present generate such poor code that hardly anyone use them.
If there was a good code generation layer between the design level and output level, this whole discussion would not have been existing and we all would be happy producers of valid XHTML code without table layouts.
Robert, don't think that I don't agree with you, but we are living in the world where you can get a domainname for 8 dollar per year and webhosting for free or 3 dollar per month, and this attracts more webdesigners than just the professional ones.
The majority of my pages are table-based, though I am using some css and div for newer material. I am not completely happy with the results, but I'm not completely disappointed either. For now I will use the tools available, learning as I go, but content is always king. If it can't be displayed with appeal it won't be read and that, after all, is why we do this!
Well if today, April 2006, div-css was working well in every browser without so many hacks
You don't need hacks. Yes, hacks are out there to be used, but for the most part, you don't need them. Hacks were brought about - mainly - because people were designing their sites in IE browsers, then checking the design later on in a standards-compliant browser. So people thought that, because IE was the most prevalent browser out there, that they needed to "fix" everything else to conform to IE. The problem is, IE is the one that's broken.
If you design your site in a standards-compatible browser like Opera, Firefox, Safari and the like, you will find your design fits in every brwoser *except* IE. Then, all you need is aconditional comment with a few lines of code to fix IE. Viola, you're done.
I've found that since I've started designing sites in this manner, I've had to use *maybe* one or two hacks - usually for IE 5 for Mac. On *very* rare ocassions, for Opera. (Actually,I think I've used a hack for Opera once in the last three years - to fix a minor pixelated issue).
Hacks are bad, and you should avoid them as much as possible.
when the text size on the monitor is changed, it will skew everything on the page. ... there is a way to control this with CSS, but I haven't figured it out yet.
Use ems, not pixels. You should only worry about the text resizing up or down two sizes from the default font size. If you default your font size to something like 80%, then the rest in em's after that (this works even with div widths and heights) then your layout will only skew around three + - which is usually a lot bigger than the majority of the public uses. Still, with creative sizing, you can still make the layout stay in place up to four + resizes.
HTML, and more even XHTML are not languages which should by coded by hand in a text editor
Why? I used to use an editor, and found that most editors out there put in their own stuff, which throws my work out of whack. I find using nothing more than Notepad gives me full control, and if there's an issue, I know exactly where to find it without wading through a bunch of code that I didn't put in there (and didn't want ther ein the first place).
the output of many pages is still created by hand, or by hand coded PHP and ASP pages and errors are common
Yes, but if there's a PHP error, you know it. Same with ASP. Easily fixed with Notepad. And if people would actually take the time to validate their pages and CSS, then there wouldn't be this problem - but most people don't, and wonder why things are weird.
In my situation the number of people making printouts of pages is much higher than the number of people using screen-readers
Shouldn't matter - you can create a printable page of your website just as easily in CSS by creating a print stylesheet.
When it looks good at their own computer in IE6 with 1024x768 screensize, the website is finished.
This is bad for a "professional designer" to do. I know I check all of my sites on Windows XP, Windows 98 and Windows 2000 platforms, as well as Mac OSX (I check mostly in XP, with IE6, IE5.5, IE 5.0, Opera 8, Netscape 7, Mozilla Firefox; and in OSX Firefox, IE5.2 and Safari 2.0) To check only in one browser at one resolution is insane, and completely unprofessional.
If someone can explain how to vertically-centre a line of text in a <div>
True, CSS2 doesn't really allow for this very well - but it is quite possible. There's actually a thread I was involved in not too long ago where a woman needed this exact thing, and I provided the code for her. granted, it's a little more difficult in CSS - but CSS3 is supposed to have this ability when it comes out.
but that's because people think it doesn't require much skill to develop a website. I wish that view would change.
Right on. My favorite thing to hear from a client is "Can you do this and this and this? It should only take youa few minutes." ("This and this and this" usually involve database work that wasn't contracted for, and heavy-duty scripting. My favorite was the one that wanted PHP functions on a Windows II server - that didn't have PHP on it. But, you know, it should only take a few minutes, right? LOL)
Personally, I believe the reason for using CSS *is* important. It helps progress web standards - and I think that's something *everyone* wants. We all want a basic standard by which browser creators will abide by, so when we *do* create code, it is cross-browser compatible. Needs for hacks (blegh) and conditional comments will eventually be left behind, becuase the browser creators *will* have that standard to go on, and everyone's life will be made easier.
That, IMO, is the big picture. But as long as people fight it incessantly, wanting to "revert back to 1999", then the advancement of web standards will keep being pushed and pushed further into the future. I think if you want to use table-based layout, prepare for them not to function properly. Maybe not in the near future, but I can see it happening. The roles will be reversed one day - people will *need* to be using CSS based layouts. The best way, I think, is to take the time ot learn it. We are a people of "I want it now!" and many out there just piece together bits and pieces of other's code, trying to make it work, and not understanding the concepts behind it. If you took the time to *learn* it, then you would be pleasantly surprised at how easy CSS is, and how much easier it makes things. yes, there are things now that are a little more difficult (like the vertical alignment) but still possib; - and CSS is still being worked on and improved upon - as all technology is. If we learn it, and find things we want to work that don't, and voice it, then when we are given it it'll be that much easier to utilize.
I'm not saying table-based layouts are bad - not completely. CSS is just *better*. It's an *improvement*. Things are more accessible and more SEO friendly. Why someone wouldn't want to take advantage of that, I wouldn't know.
::Stepping off soapbox now - didn't mean to blab so much!::
[edited by: encyclo at 1:39 pm (utc) on April 7, 2006]
[edit reason] fix layout bug [/edit]
What do mean by this? Please don't be vague.
design your site in a standards-compatible browser ... you will find your design fits in every brwoser *except* IE
...
[edit reason] fix layout bug [/edit]
HTML, and more even XHTML are not languages which should by coded by hand in a text editor
Why? I used to use an editor, and found that most editors out there put in their own stuff, which throws my work out of whack. I find using nothing more than Notepad gives me full control, and if there's an issue, I know exactly where to find it without wading through a bunch of code that I didn't put in there (and didn't want ther ein the first place).
Horrrrah my man, Totally agree on your comments, especially the notepad one. I use wordpad myself, lol, as it gives me more undo's if I make a mistake. But I totally get your point on knowing exactly where to find a problem, after all, we wrote the code..
[This is my first post, so forgive me if I didn't structurally quote Lammert in the right way. (How do you get that cool box around the quote from a previous post?)]
I'd LOVE to see a good code generation layer!
Anyway, I use a text-based/web site editor called skEdit on my G3 iBook. When I had a PC, I used EditPad Pro - on KDE, I used Quanta Plus- all text editors. I've given up finding a good WYSIWYG editor that I can transition my site into.
My site uses tables throughout; that's what I learned in tech school. I'm not a programmer, nor a professional, just a volunteer for my organization. I'm probably going to have to subscribe to BrowserCam to get preview pictures of my site using IE5/6.
How do you get that cool box around the quote from a previous post?
In the "Compose Reply Message" screen, click on "Style Codes", then use them. (There are also extra style codes not listed that can be used.)
>> I think if you want to use table-based layout, prepare for them not to function properly. Maybe not in the near future, but I can see it happening.What do mean by this? Please don't be vague.
Meaning that CSS is just the beginning. It's all advancing, and tables really should be used for tabular data. That is their purpose. The only reason they were being used for layouts was because, in the beginning, there wasn't much else you could do for layout and design, and removing style from content. People got used to it. They got used to it, and are still doing it, even though better things are waiting to be learned and implemented right now.
As my mother says, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
What I'm saying is, eventually, I could see the issues between "CSS layouts" and "table based layouts" switching roles - someday we'll be so far advanced in it that tables will be completely deprecated and will not function properly in all browsers - while things done in CSS will be.
It's just a matter of time before things get so far advanced that staying behind just will no longer be an option.
95, 80, 75% of web authors are not going to become that advanced. They shouldn't have to, just to create web documents.
What company is going to create a browser that will not display layout tables well? Or provide error-correction or tag-soup correction? Or punish authors for not using alt=something" on images? Who would want to use this browser?
What company is going to create a browser that will not display layout tables well? Or provide error-correction or tag-soup correction? Or punish authors for not using alt=something" on images? Who would want to use this browser?
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying this is going to happen in the near future. I'd be surprised if it happens before I turn 80.
But to answer your question, if such a browser were eventually created, why would you *not* want to use it? If such a browser were created - it would be based on web standards that have begun their conception NOW. No need for "tag soup" correction, because by that time, there would be no "tag soup" to worry about.
(As for not using "alt" something - it's not a punsihment for not using it - it's *helpful* to use it. The point of that is so that people with images turned off, or people with disabilities, can "see" what you're trying to do on the site. That's just good accessible content, that's all.)
The point I was trying to make is that we are *all* trying to work towards a common goal with using CSS and Standards - we're trying to create a standard by which *everyone* can use, *all* browsers will be based upon it, and the need for hacks and errors would be eliminated by default. "Weirdness" between different browsers and platforms would be eliminated. Everything would be standardized - and if we begin seeing that vision *now*, then we can properly work towards it instead of hanging on to the past, simply because it's "easier".
So yes, someday, I could see the need for a table-based layout being completely obsolete, because the goal of web standards has finally been met. I can't imagine anyone not wanting that.
So yes, someday, I could see the need for a table-based layout being completely obsolete, because the goal of web standards has finally been met. I can't imagine anyone not wanting that.
jessejump wrote previously:
95, 80, 75% of web authors are not going to become that advanced. They shouldn't have to, just to create web documents.
I, too, want to see a unified standard way to write web pages, and not have to think about IE weirdness (mainly 'cause I don't have the money nor space to support a PC just to check my web site).
But, I'd also like to see better WYSIWYG code generation tools, too. By "better", I mean clean, standards-compliant code that generates styles and puts those styles into a separate style sheet. The code for a certain page would reference the external style sheet, instead of inserting the long style code (for instance:
<P style:font-family:arial,sans-serif;>Whomever designed this tool should include some automated way for the user to define common styles to apply and also of discovering common patterns to condense into styles, in order to decrease page size and increase efficiency. By examining such good code, a learner could see better ways to design.
I've got a vertical CSS menu (list-based) on my web site, but I still don't know exactly how it works. All I know is that it does, and I got it to work. It would be nice to have a tool that would allow me to analyze and learn that code, kind of like Excel has an auditing mode, whereby you can track cell dependencies with arrows on the spreadsheet.
I think that tools like this would help me move my site to a full CSS implementation.
Steve @--->----
It would be nice to have a tool that would allow me to analyze and learn that code...
Just a thought on this - apparently you're using a Mac. Do you have Firefox on your Mac? If you do, you can download the "web designer toolbar" for it (I think that's what it's called!). Any page you open within the browser, you can click a button in that toolbar, and the CSS shows up - editable - on the side of your screen. You can then play with the CSS and see the immediate effects on the website. You can't save the changes, but you can see what happens to what thing when you mess with stuff - and when you close it out, the site is reverted back to the way it was. It's pretty cool - I don't know how I ever got along without it!
These will let you see which css is related to which part of the page you're viewing.
I wouldn't use that browser because it would not display 95% of the world's web sites. Definitely not all the old early gems in the wayback archive. There is always going to be tag soup; the web is a democratic anarchy - anyone with 50 cents can and will publish web pages and i'm glad they do and have published them.
I agree with the person saying that if "tables" were instead named "layout", you would probably not say "it's for tabular data".
If these systems view sites that use tables for layout, they can get in a muddle. It's just cleaner to use div and span, and clean out all that horrid table nesting and 1px transparent gifs, and your site will download quicker.
Everyone should read this article (and the comments):
[andybudd.com...]I agree with the person saying that if "tables" were instead named "layout", you would probably not say "it's for tabular data".
If a "table" element was called "layout" instead, I wouldn't use it for tabular data, as it would be semantically incorrect. I'm interested in semantics, and I don't see everything as a table cell.
The focus these days is on semantics. Using table for every part of layout is semantically incorrect.
I also don't think that was the point of Andy's article, and I remember reading it a couple of years ago (the article says 2004).
The ease at which we are able to do something is subjective. A lot of people I know these days who never had to code a table based layout can code a css layout much quicker.
