CSS makes you learn more
- I think the real issue is that you have to learn more about html and css to make a site work in all browsers.. hence when using tables you can be much more lazy and you don't have to use your head to much.. So for every lazy designer/developer out there: STOP using CSS.
- —Guest Sorin Gitlan
It's not the be all end all
- CSS is not the final solution to layout online. •CSS can be used to style basic text attributes but browsers aren’t consistent in how they use this technology. Even though there is a “standard” and some browsers partially adhere to the standard to truly be a useful standard you need two things: Predictability and Consistency. CSS has neither. •Why on earth do we think that cascading is a useful feature? By contrast non-cascading style sheets would be equally powerful and more predictable. The cascading makes it harder to interpret the page for both the designer as well as the web-browser. In fact the complexities in cascading is one of the reasons why so many browsers screw up the standard. • If you can’t get consistency across browsers then you can’t rely on CSS to accurately and properly design your site. If you can’t get the site to look exactly the way you want on every single browser then how can you claim that CSS is a good design tool or even a success?
- —Guest Sleestak
- I've been using tables for years (and I know CSS just as well). Tables with the use of tidy, are easy, faster, and supported BY ALL BROWSERS. Until CSS positioning and layout has been standardized across all browsers, I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT AS "Better than tables"
- —Guest Swiftouch
Never!!!! You won't take me!
- Reasons NOT to convert: 1.) Many old browsers still don't display this kind of CSS markup, which is a real pain if you have potential visitors with older computers. Try explaining the problems to your clients, who wouldn't know the difference if you had just used tables. 2.) In response to a couple of the items here: pages nowadays take mere moments to load anyway, so who cares about that split second. How often do you have people wanting to change the layout? Is it really that hard anyway, considering that most pages are created with include files nowadays? 3.) It's not broke. Don't fix it. I love CSS when I need it. But I started to run away from you must be proper XHTML people when you started telling me to use instead of . It's bold for crying out loud!
- —Guest daprezjer
not the be-all end-all
- I agree that css offers us a wealth of advantages, but it's funny that it is thought of so highly. You can develop a page much faster in tables and avoid fighting cross-browser issues. I have found that every site I have built using CSS has had it's own set of problems that require a bit of hunting to resolve cascading issues. Never had that problem with tables. Never had an issue with tabled pages printing properly either. I agree that CSS allows you to do some really nice stuff, but let's remember that it was not created with the intention of using it for layout. There is no TRUE coding method strictly designed for layout and CSS stll has a long way to go. I think people who think of CSS as the ultimate solution need to stop drinking the kool-aid.
- —Guest dzineguy44
Cost benefit analysis
- For most things, I love CSS. But for layout - it's often more trouble than it's worth. In a cost benefit analysis, I simply can't afford to spend the time getting CSS "just right" so everything works properly across the browser spectrum. For all stylings, I use CSS. For layout, I use tables. This is a heterodox belief I know - but I'm unashamed to state it out loud. Tim
- I love the flexibility of css... but sorting out the browser compatibility issues makes me crazy. (Note to world -- please stop using IE6.)
Previous76-82 of 82