Posted by 1001 Webs on 11/06/07 20:35

On Nov 6, 8:50 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-11-05, Ed Jensen 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.
>
> The tiny font problem has nothing to do with CSS; it is the fault
> of the developer who specified ridiculously small fonts. The
> problem predates CSS, when it was common to see <font size=-1> (or
> even -2) to use smaller fonts.
>
> Small fonts are just as often used with table layouts as with CSS.
>
> > Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
> > problems (for the most part).
>
> So can CSS layouts.
>
> > 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.
>
> That is a fault of the developer, not of CSS.
>
> > Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
> > developers writing bad CSS or something.
>
> That certainly IS the problem.
>
> > 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.
>
> It is not hard to do the right thing with CSS. It is, perhaps, too
> easy to do the wrong thing.
That's the problem as I see it too.
For example. there are too many options just to assign font-size.
Why, in the name of God don't they stick to percentages or whatever?
, but c'mmon this is just absurd
Or a conspiracy ...
BTW, right now I am rewriting my style sheet with font-size: small;
etc., but I'm not that sure it will render well I I

have copied it from w3.org's front page:
http://www.w3.org

I can't go wrong that way, right?

[Back to original message]