|
Posted by Michael Laplante on 05/08/06 19:10
"Barbara de Zoete" <trashbin@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s87yk8i5l8uz2z@zoete_b...
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 22:19:27 +0200, Michael Laplante
> Are you just trolling?
Oh no, they're on to me! :)
> BTW, having read some of your other posts in this thread: why do you take
> such a stand against proper markup and CSS for looks and layout
!! I didn't. Did you read all my comments with an objective eye?
> How come you're pro tables and against tableless design?
I don't think I said that either. I've made arguments pro and con for both,
if you read all my posts. In fact, I never meant for this to be a tables
versus CSS thing at all -- somebody else kinda ran with that. If you read my
original post, my comment re: tables versus simple CSS was in another
context, i.e. sophistication of presentation versus content.
Some people here seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to certain sites or
comments and I wondered why. ZenGarden -- which I think terrifically
showcases the power of CSS -- is sneered at here. I thought that was an odd
reaction for this group. Here, you have this medium that can be rich with
all sorts of audiovisual content, but some of the regulars here fall back on
the belief that only textual content is everything so design to the lowest
common denominator for accessibility.
So I started to ask myself questions: If designing for accessibility, what
purpose does layout of any sort -- whatever your layout tool of choice
tables or CSS -- serve? Is "end user rules and / or accessibility rules" a
valid concept in all settings? Is it different in a business setting
compared to a non-business setting? Is it perhaps because as technicians
some people aren't confident enough in their design aesthetic and that
influences their arguments? Is accessibility really more important than
other issues such as speed of output (where time = $ and there isn't time to
do a lot of debugging) or website visitor volume?
For me personally, as someone trying to learn more sophisticated CSS, it
also helps me to know what people's biases are in this ng. I know who I can
ignore due to philosophical differences, who I can trust for practical
versus theoretical advice, who simply fancies themselves a prima donna, etc.
I've made a little money in website design and would like to make more. To
that end, my foot is firmly in the practical camp.
> it turns out you've alrady made up your mind.
About what? Tables versus CSS? In that area, I cheerfully admit I'm lazy and
take the path of least resistence. . . whichever that path may be. But you
won't see me arguing the merits of one over the other on a consistent basis.
> BTW2: had you taken this discussion to alt.www.webmaster,
Didn't know about them. I'll check 'em out. . .
M
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|