Tables or CSS?

[LazyJim]

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

i wouldn't say size 12 pixel is small really, i use 11

omg help!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveyBoy]

Typical CSS fan boy really

[DaveyBoy]

Originally Posted by LazyJim

omg help!!!!!!!!!!

Well to be fair, the text i just read from you is size 12, the text i'm typing is size 12 - th quote above is size 11. Perfectly readable

Sorry but i get sick of ppl a) going on about CSS and b) font size.

You've done both in the space of a minute

[DaveyBoy]

and surely it's a matter of what you think looks good? I thinkt he text on your portfolio site is too big. Opinion that.

[LazyJim]

Some people argue that "Web Standards" are "just recommendations", but remember a lot of thought and consideration went into them, thousands (or more) of man-hours and many interested parties (e.g. Microsoft) contribute and negotiate on the specs.

Don't you think this happens for a reason???

The web is slowly growing up, it's doing very well, it spiraled out of control for a while but I wouldn't want to change the past as long as we learn from our experience and get back on track. Fore-thought is needed but hind-sight should never be overlooked.

We are still in the (long and drawn-out) transitional period, people can still use tables until they get their heads around Web Standards, but the sooner the better. Just look how popular it is, - because there is a reason!

One day table based layouts and other "bad practices" will be more seriously frowned upon.

[LazyJim]

haha! :p

what screen size and res you running?

[LazyJim]

Yeah i thought you might.

[DaveyBoy]

aye and until they are don't be saying it's the 'wrong' way or doing things cos that's just annoying

i just prefer that method, it gets me the results that i want faster. there's advantages to both.

not bothering to argue at half three like, i'm gerrin back to work now!

NEOWWWWW!!!

[DaveyBoy]

Originally Posted by LazyJim

haha! :p

what screen size and res you running?

19" 1280x1024

[DaveyBoy]

Originally Posted by LazyJim

Yeah i thought you might.

Wanna explain that?

[LazyJim]

I meant I guessed if you prefer small fonts all the time you'd think those on my portfolio (lol if you can call it that) are too big.

One day you should have to change, and tbh I think you'll like it eventually too!

But i'm going to sleep now.

P.S. you're doing it the wrong way!

[DaveyBoy]

Originally Posted by LazyJim

But i'm going to sleep now.

P.S. you're doing it the wrong way!

Guess there's room for us both

(not in bed)

NO.

[LazyJim]

I'm not much different actually, 17 inch 1280x1024 (16inch viewable). Do you sit to close to you're monitor? Arms length should be pleanty close enough! blah blah winge blah


I've tried lower res, it sucks, everything looks like it is made of dots and there's not enough space.

When I get a bigger screen, I won't up the res, so thankfully things will start to get visually larger.

[LazyJim]

YES!

/me sleeps

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

Guess there's room for us both

(not in bed)

NO.

[Degenerate]

css all the way. it makes it so much easier doing one bunch of html and just making it work on screen on a PSP as a printed page all through a variety of css files

[Ricoool]

For me I try to go css/xhtml all the way (depends on how much time I have), one of the benefits is that in the design process it is easy to flip stuff around, lets say your design has a top navi bar and a 2 info/navi bar on the right and you want to see how it looks on the left it is easy to do in css with no need to mess around with the xhtml

[jwalsh]

Whether you use tables or css doesn't matter too much to me. I prefer CSS for the following reasons:

1) Websites should be built to be accessible to all. This means, I use CSS to allow for simple screenreading capabilities for blind.

2) Font size should be scalable. If you worked for me, you'd rarely set a font size by pixels. Rather EM. Who can argue with the size of text if it matches their computer preference by default? There are exceptions for certain layout situations (navigation) etc..

IMO building a website for the future in a table-based design involves a great amount of unnecessary markup. Once you understand proper CSS-P, your creations will only gain in creativity. It's much more logical and modular.

Unfortunately building table based designs is holding back the evolution of browsers. Which is exactly why there are the occasional hacks to make CSS look consistent across browsers. The sooner CSS, or something better becomes the standard the sooner we can reach towards true browser compatibility.

The war around browsers should be fought on features, not in the website rendering itself. Unfortunately, this is not a realistic solution :-/

[JuggoPop]

I'd like to see Adobe imageready spit out a css version of a layout I just sliced. They are the ones that got me stuck in tables years ago... and until recently I have had no reason to do otherwise... I enjoy css but don't have the time to sit and teach myself how to make it not look like a blog or basic news site.

I'm one graphic heavy S.O.B... I guess that's my current down fall.

[Johan007]

Originally Posted by JuggoPop

I'd like to see Adobe imageready spit out a css version of a layout I just sliced. They are the ones that got me stuck in tables years ago... and until recently I have had no reason to do otherwise... I enjoy css but don't have the time to sit and teach myself how to make it not look like a blog or basic news site.

I'm one graphic heavy S.O.B... I guess that's my current down fall.

Start small instead of this image:
http://www.v7design.com/images/homephoto.gif

...you could have used CSS to generate the borders for you. I use ImageReady but even I used re-do the table structure in DW.

Some times tables can not be avoided... but it will be old technology and you don’t want to be a dinosaur.