|
|
Posted by TC on 06/19/06 19:12
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Briefly, 'cuz this stinks of troll.
Geez, check my bio & see if I look like a troll.
Further comments below.
> 1) Lighter code. *If* done properly HTML markup with attached CSS
> stylesheets can significantly reduce the amount of actually code because
> you do not have to infuse all the markup with presentational markup and
> attributes that are repeated over and over for each table cell.
>
> 2) Flexibility. If you wish to change the styling or even presentational
> layouts say move the navigation from the left to the top or right or
> whatever. If in a table cell the whole page must be changed to move the
> cell content whereas if the navigation was in the list it cam be
> floated, put inline or block simply by change the ONE stylesheet. The
> former may require calling every page on the site.
>
> 3) Accessibility. With stylesheets and tableless designs your can have
> alternated stylesheets for different browsers, and viewer. Example, I
> use a flyout CSS menu. Some folks with disabilities may have
> difficulties in working the menu, your can offer a alternate sheet the
> make the menu a static indented list that is easier to traverse. Or have
> a very pretty site with backgrounds and stylish insets and sidebars you
> could have the simpler alternate stylesheet the simplifies the layout,
> upset the font-size and increases the contrast for low-vision access.
>
> 3a) I use on a practical note, a print stylesheet that does things like
> remove decorative elements, and navbars, underlines on links(makes no
> sense for a printed documents), fancy formatting and restricted margins.
> Damn I hate website that have stupid table layouts that make 2 pages
> of information balloon to 8 because of the content is squished in a
> narrow column and other useful room is wasted on navbar cell and advert
> banners...
>
> 4) Maintainability. With a different mindset with separation of markup
> and stylesheet many times may only need to change one or the other. If
> you use the cascade in CSS, and not table layout with umpteen divs spans
> classes and use broader classes and use selectors you can achieve very
> fine granularity in your styling without having to burden your markup
> with "container-itis" or "class-itis". Nothing can be worse then
> reworking a website with nesting table layouts, rowspans, colspans,
> image slices, etc...
I note & agree with all your points above. There are obvously
signifcant advantages in using CSS effectively. In particular, (3) and
(3a) were not mentioned in the cited thread. I'll need to do (3a)
myself, because my current site does not print properly.
*But*, my question was in reference to this specific example table:
http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm
My question was, what would be a specific, real-world benefit of
changing *that table* to DIV's + CSS?
Personally, I just can't see it.
> 1) Lighter code
does not apply unless you say that you could replcate that layout using
DIVs + CSS with less lines of code than the table. I'm quite prepared
to be convinced - but is that possble?
> 2) Flexibility
does not really apply. The table looks exactly how I want it to. I do
not envisage having to change it. I *do* envisage changing my overall
page design, and for that reason, I plan to change the page-layout from
tables, to CSS. But when I do that, the example table will just appear
at some new point on the page; it won't need any changes itself.
> 3) Accessibility
> 3a) I use on a practical note, a print stylesheet
are not relevant to my example.
> 4) Maintainability
again, I don't see that the DIVs + CSS solution would be any simpler to
maintain, than the table.
Which of those advantages do you argue would apply to my specific
example?
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|