|
|
Posted by Jaxtraw on 05/08/06 01:29
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Michael Laplante wrote:
>
>> if they are daring -- a background graphic somewhere. Essentially,
>> these sites are replicating what simple tables do except that tables
>> handle the strain of resized windows and / or fonts better.
>
> If you think that, then you've only been looking at sites where the
> author does not know how to use CSS properly.
>
> http://wired.com/ -- no tables .. well, maybe one
Interesting that the wired site clips in a browser less than 800px across-
at least it does in mine (Opera 8 and Firefox). Likewise, I was amused to
note earlier that the supposed acme of CSS, the css zen garden
http://www.csszengarden.com/
similarly fails in a less than 800px browser window, thus failing at one of
the supposed big triumphs of CSS over tables- "tables are a fixed width and
fail on smaller screens whereas CSS is fluid and degrades gracefully".
Reducing the width of the window on Zen Garden's main page, which one would
think they'd want to be a showcase, causes the menu to disappear and then
the japanesey graphic slides across and obliterates first the tagline and
then the first line of text. Others of their examples don't even work
properly with text resizing in Firefox- the old classic of CSS positioning
causing overprinting.
The lesson seems to be that every attempt to make CSS do interesting layout
is fraught with problems, even by people who "know how to use CSS properly"-
CSS layout is, quite frankly, a complete failure. It singularly fails to be
better than tables.
Ian
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|