Interaction design • webdevelopment • web art • photography : forum : whatever : 'CSS rant'

CSS rant Jeroen, 041004 02:10

How do you feel about this article? I agree, in case of comple layouts :)

Because traditional layout using HTML Tables is so much simpler than CSS positioning, the two cannot be considered equivalent. Each has their place. For that reason, I dont think one can be safely eliminated for the sake of consistency (as can be done with the font tag).

The rush to replace table layout with CSS positioning is based on:

The incorrect assumption that CSS was designed to decouple presentation logic from content
The dirty feeling people seem to get when they create layout using html tags originally intended for tabular data presentation.
Had the table tag been called layout, there might not be an issue.
Re: CSS rant Milo, 041004 10:40
He states two situations where CSS positioning is advantageous:

* The site is static, and a consistent layout (which may change) is required throughout the site, or
* The layout is complicated enough that it cant be done without CSS positioning.

I'd like to add:
* The layout is so simple that using tables for layout would be more complex than using CSS;
* You don't want to create another template to make a site work on mobile devices.
* You want a site that scores well in Google.
Re: CSS rant Mathieu 'P01' HENRI, 041004 13:58
The author stuck on the strict assumption that HTML should contain content and only content. He forgot that the contents ( and the presentation layer ) have to follow/comply to a structure defined in the Information Architecture stage of the project.

The example he gave :
<div style=color:red;>Error Message</div>
 Though he said that this "Error Message" would appear on a single page, what tells him the site won't evolve and provide more error messages. Thus he'd rather use the following code from the very beginning:
<div class="error_message">Error Message</div>

I disagree when he says that CSS are not advantageous for dynamic websites. What should make them less advantageous ? CSS positionning is not harder than reading tables into tables into tables ... And the HTML markup is cleaner when skinned with CSS.

Is it necessary to recall that websites like and many others switched to CSS+(X)HTML. The interviews with Mike Davidson of ESPN ( available at ), and with Douglas Bowman of Wired News ( available at ) vanish the claims of Bryan and Kimberly Young about the capability and advantageous of CSS to handle dynamic websites.

And of course, CSS+(X)HTML have the advantageous to provide portability and accessibility and no cost compared to table based layouts.

Finally, let me cite an extract of the specification of HTML4.01 ( source: )

"Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables."
Re: CSS rant Mathieu \'P01\…, 041004 14:40
"and no cost" = "at no (additional) cost"
but everybody had understood :p
Re: CSS rant 'P01' HENRI, 041004 18:35
Hum, let's add that the WWF UK store ( ), and now the DISNEY UK store ( ) are now both valid XHTML1.0, CSS2.0, WAI-A and section 508.

Milov: your script goes crazy with the addslashces U__U
Re: CSS rant dacloo, 060129 20:25
I agree, but with complex lay-outs that need to be "strechable", DIVS won't cut it. Sometimes there's no option but using tables in tables to get a decent lay-out working on all major browsers. The question is wheter a web designer should (and can) spend much more hours to put everything in CSS/DIVs for the same amount of money from the client.
Re: CSS rant Mathieu 'p01' HENRI, 060131 00:35
I might sound like an aiatolla but:


Adding a few work around for that pile of crap of IE shouldn't take more than 10% of your CSS+XHTML time.

And your clients would/should thank you for the light, accessible ( to anyone on any device ), maintenable and SEO website you delivered ... unless they prefer to pay several man hours afterwards whenever they want to add/alter one block of content.
Pages: 1