Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/05/07 20:08

On Nov 5, 5:43 pm, Ed Jensen <ejen...@visi.com> wrote:
> In alt.html Red E. Kilowatt <redkilowattREM...@aww-faq.org> wrote:
>
> > Simple for you, maybe. I find CSS incomprehensible for anything beyond
> > specifying fonts and backgrounds, like trying to position boxes within
> > an overall layout.
>
> > And honestly, I don't want to learn, because as far as I'm concerned
> > tables work fine. Granted, improving the text to mark-up ratio on my
> > sites would probably help their search engine ranking slightly, but I'd
> > rather send my time figuring out new ways to make money.
>
> Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
> viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:
>
> I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
> reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
> days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.
>
> Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
> problems (for the most part).
>
> CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
> increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
> sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
> Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
> into some kind of void.
So it's not just me and my user preferences...

> Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
> developers writing bad CSS or something.
They also blame it on users not configuring their browsers properly.

> But the fact of the matter
> is, if a tool makes it hard to do things right, then the tool should
> probably be considered fundamentally broken.
>
> As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
> of layout.
HTML 1 - CSS 0

just kidding, but there's a good point

[Back to original message]