Wed designers / programmers / authors - read this!

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Asher
That's why CSS is a royal pain in the ass still.

Ah well,as long as Opera does a better job than IE I can live with it

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Hueij

Quote:

Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files. http://www.csszengarden.com/

Hmm... Some of those CSS files don't render right in Opera

They render fine in my version of Opera. The only one that's problematic is the one that is designed to horizontally scan, and the problem there is Opera, not CSS. If Opera had a horizontal scroll bar, it would work.

There is only one issue in which Opera doesn't render CSS properly, and it's a minor one which escapes me.

[St Leo]

With automated code generating programs these days, CSS is not necessarily that much easier to alter than non-CSS.

WYSIWYG editors suck, have always sucked, and will always suck.

There is only one issue in which Opera doesn't render CSS properly, and it's a minor one which escapes me.

Opera doesn't interpret the \a escape string correctly in the content property on my site.

Of course, MSIE doesn't recognize the existence of content or the universality of :hover, so Opera's in a comfortable lead over IE anyways...

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
WYSIWYG editors suck, have always sucked, and will always suck.

Depends what you want to do.

You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

WYSIWYG editors have their place, not everybody likes playing with CSS crap by hand. Most don't, actually, only the masochistic I'm-a-glorified-scripting-code-monkey web developers are elitist and hold CSS in such high regard.

Everyone else just couldn't care less.

[St Leo]

You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

Yet I am not the one saying that CSS is Java and tables are Assembly.

[Asher]

Most tables will and do render faster than CSS.

It's only when the tables become ungodly complicated where CSS is more efficient, and if your website has that complicated of tables it's a very poor website design to begin with.

CSS is a more "proper" and "natural" way to make webpages, much like Java is to programming, but HTML is more raw and verbose.

HTML code is longer and generally faster, CSS code is shorter and generally slower.

Not that it's noticable on today's computers, but the comparison is accurate.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
Not that it's noticable on today's computers, but the comparison is accurate.

I think saying that visual design of webpages is the high-level language and that handcoded CSS is the low-level language is more apt.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
You remind me of Steve Gibson, who says all "high level" languages like C, C++, and Java suck, always sucked, and will always suck.

As a CS major, you should realise the difference between WYSIWYG editors and high level languages (and why the quotes around "high level?").

What a silly analogy.

Originally posted by Asher
WYSIWYG editors have their place, not everybody likes playing with CSS crap by hand.

Your bias is showing here. Quick, cover it up!

Originally posted by Asher
Most don't, actually, only the masochistic I'm-a-glorified-scripting-code-monkey web developers are elitist and hold CSS in such high regard.

Is it easier to modify one CSS file by hand, or hundreds of files with a WYSIWYG editor?

Originally posted by Asher
Everyone else just couldn't care less.

Certainly, that's why there are hackers who write tight, elegant, and fast code and there are your run-of-the-mill programmers who think that Windows is a work of art.

It is just as certain that quality does count in the long run, as it so amply shown by Japanese cars kicking the crap out of US cars sometime in the late '70s to '80s in the last century.

BTW, what made you the spokesman of "everyone else?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Most tables will and do render faster than CSS.

Evidence? Cite?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As a CS major, you should realise the difference between WYSIWYG editors and high level languages (and why the quotes around "high level?").

There is a difference, and hence why it's an analogy, UR.

I don't see why it's a silly analogy: high-level languages sacrifice efficiency for convenience, so do WYSIWYG editors.

"high level" is in quotes because, in modern terms, C (and C++) is not considered a high-level language, but a mid-level one. Java and C# are considered high-level languages.

Java and C# abtract farther than C and C++ do.

Your bias is showing here. Quick, cover it up!

My bias? What the hell do I care? I'm not a web developer, I don't give a crap what people use. Whenever I do do webpages, it's in HTML and not CSS because CSS is pointless for most websites. Stupid eyecandy. Like the CSS example site someone linked to...I found it poorly designed and fairly hard to read. Color schemes with high contrast and font sizes bigger than size 8 is good.

Sites today abuse CSS & flash way too much, it makes me angry.

Is it easier to modify one CSS file by hand, or hundreds of files with a WYSIWYG editor?

Have you used a modern WYSIWYG editor?
You'd go into a nice purty dialog box and change settings.
You seem to equate WYSIWYG editors to Notepad or something.

Certainly, that's why there are hackers who write tight, elegant, and fast code and there are your run-of-the-mill programmers who think that Windows is a work of art.

And then there's the below-average programmers who spend their day developing open source software because they're not good enough to be hired at Microsoft or other proprietary development houses.

BTW, what made you the spokesman of "everyone else?"

Hey, do non-CSS sites outnumber CSS sites?

Yeah, thought so.

Evidence? Cite?

Whoa Nelly, you're the one that first asserted CSS was faster, and I'm the one to provide evidence?

[Asher]

And UR, I eagerly await your reply to the DirectX issue: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=94467

You know, where you display stunning ignorance about fundamental components of Windows again, then try to silently let the thread drop and hope people don't notice.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Asher
And then there's the below-average programmers who spend their day developing open source software because they're not good enough to be hired at Microsoft or other proprietary development houses.

YHBT[0].


[0] You have been trolled.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
HTML code is longer and generally faster, CSS code is shorter and generally slower.

The difference in rendering time is negligable. The difference in download time is not. Only half the households in the US have broadband, so every bit of filesize you can squeeze makes a difference.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Hey, do non-CSS sites outnumber CSS sites?

Since decent support has only been around for a few years, that's not surprising. It's like saying, most cars ever made lacked air bags, so people most not have wanted them.

[MattH]

Threadjack Alert!
How do I define the surround color/width for images inside tags using css?

[MattH]

That should read {a} tags.

[chequita guevara]

http://www.cookwood.com/html/extras/cssref.html

Just guessing off the top of my head

border-color: #ffff00; border-width: thin

If you want it to apply only to images within <a> I would create a class.

[St Leo]

How about

a img {
border-color: #ffff00; border-width: thin
}

This only applies to img tags within an anchor. Any accompanying text is not enclosed.

a > img {
border-color: #ffff00; border-width: thin
}
This only applies to img children of anchors that are not surrounded by other tags. In other words, you can't bold the image or whatever.

[MattH]

First one works like a charm, St. Leo . Thanks!

Now for another newbie question. I have two css-generated boxes I'd like to put inside a third, larger box. I can't figure out what syntax to use. What position or float value is supposed to be used? Everything I've tried has ended up with one box beneath the other.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
There is a difference, and hence why it's an analogy, UR.

I don't see why it's a silly analogy: high-level languages sacrifice efficiency for convenience, so do WYSIWYG editors.

No, no, no. High level languages exchange effectiveness for efficiency for starters. Then the differences just pile up.

Now, if you argue that a RAD environment exchanges efficiency for covenience, I may agree with that.

You can tell the differences between RAD's and high level languages, can't you?

Originally posted by Asher
Java and C# abtract farther than C and C++ do.

C# abstracts further than C++? That's like saying a paramecium is more advanced than an amoeba.

Originally posted by Asher
My bias? What the hell do I care? I'm not a web developer, I don't give a crap what people use.

So you admitted that you were here trolling?

Originally posted by Asher
Sites today abuse CSS & flash way too much, it makes me angry.

That's not the point.

Originally posted by Asher
Have you used a modern WYSIWYG editor?

Like, Dreamweaver?

Originally posted by Asher
You'd go into a nice purty dialog box and change settings.

You seem to equate WYSIWYG editors to Notepad or something.

No WYSIWYG editor is going to magically propagate your changes to one webpage to the entire website.

Sure, there are some automations, but they aren't magical (or at least technologically advanced enough).

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Asher
And then there's the below-average programmers who spend their day developing open source software because they're not good enough to be hired at Microsoft or other proprietary development houses. [/qoute]

Try to be more original next time, okay?

Originally posted by Asher
Hey, do non-CSS sites outnumber CSS sites?

Yeah, thought so.

Good argument

Originally posted by Asher
Whoa Nelly, you're the one that first asserted CSS was faster, and I'm the one to provide evidence?

Lets see.

You have been asserting that "tables render faster than CSS."

So, where's the evidence?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No, no, no. High level languages exchange effectiveness for efficiency for starters. Then the differences just pile up.

Now, if you argue that a RAD environment exchanges efficiency for covenience, I may agree with that.

You can tell the differences between RAD's and high level languages, can't you?

Look, UR, there's no need to be pigheaded about this. I'm not just saying it as my opinion, it's how the languages are taught now. Computers have changed a bit since you've been in school, the advent of C# and Java in particular have redefined highlevel languages and moved the "old" highlevels down to midlevel.

C# abstracts further than C++? That's like saying a paramecium is more advanced than an amoeba.

C++ lets you directly interact with hardware, C# is not. That's a HUGE difference.

C# runs in a virtual machine environment, C++ runs right in the environment. C# has GC, C++ does not, etc.

C# and Java are undeniably far higher level than C++ is.

That's not the point.

How is it not the point? I discourage use of CSS and Flash because people go overboard with them like it's a new toy.

Like, Dreamweaver?

No WYSIWYG editor is going to magically propagate your changes to one webpage to the entire website.

Sure, there are some automations, but they aren't magical (or at least technologically advanced enough).

This is patently untrue, because Dreamweaver, which you're obviously aware of, DOES propagate changes throughout your website when and if you want to change global settings.

You have been asserting that "tables render faster than CSS."

So, where's the evidence?

I was saying that because you were asserting CSS render faster than tables.

And tables run faster anecdotally on my P100.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MattH
Now for another newbie question. I have two css-generated boxes I'd like to put inside a third, larger box. I can't figure out what syntax to use. What position or float value is supposed to be used? Everything I've tried has ended up with one box beneath the other.

What sort of boxes? Do they use absolute, relative, or no positioning? How do you want the smaller boxes to be inside the bigger box?

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Asher
Like the CSS example site someone linked to...I found it poorly designed and fairly hard to read. Color schemes with high contrast and font sizes bigger than size 8 is good.

You don't mean the CSS Zen Garden link chegitz gave, do you? (great link, btw )

Because if you do, you must have missed the entire point of the website. Did you actually try any of the other designs? Yes... see those links on the right side of the screen, you can click on them and then the design of the website changes, with only the CSS being replaced.
That's the beauty of it, if you want high contrast and big fonts, or a better layout, you can do so in no time by repositioning and redesigning the elements using just CSS.

[Q Classic]

i have to say, css is the way to go: as has been mentioned before, it's a lot easier to manage websites' layouts using css.

not to mention that dreamweaver by default uses css in its pages.

is it better than tables? i'll have to say yes. it's trickier to think about the layout, but that's just me--i was coding pages in html tables before css came out, so that's what i learned and had gotten used to, but after picking up the strength of css...

adding in the font declarations, and the spacing, size, width, bold, underline, new paragraph, all those formatting delcarations the basic html code add up. it's the difference between a 32kb web page with a 56kb graphic image and a 5kb page with a 2kb css formatting page and a 56kb image loading on a 38.2k connection.

smaller is better, more elegant, and leaner, especially when it comes to coding. even if for all intents and purposes, html/css isn't a computer language, but rather a formatting language.

[MattH]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What sort of boxes? Do they use absolute, relative, or no positioning? How do you want the smaller boxes to be inside the bigger box?

Once again, I fail at explaining .

None of the boxes use positioning. I've mapped out what the basic layout looks like, and what I want to add. It's here.

[Mercator]

So you have everything already, except that left box?

And you add that left box something like this?

<div>
    <!-- the containing box -->

    <div id="D">Box D</div>
    <div id="new">the new box, including sub-boxes here</div>
</div> 

Some possibilities:
- use "float: right" on box D,
- place the new div above box D and float it to the left,
- use relative positioning to offset box D to the right, and then use absolute positioning to place the new box on the left. If the height of box D is fixed, use relative positioning to place the new box.

[MattH]

I'm going to try that.
My solution was not very nice. I positioned the new box AND box d as absolute and then fixed the width of the containing box so it just extended beneath them.

[Wraith]

Hasn't anyone else noticed the title of this thread? I mean, okay, y'all are talking about web design, but how many of you are married?

Wraith
"****, I did not drop you on your head when I brought you into this world - don’t give me cause to regret that."
-- Hayward ("Twin Peaks")

[Mercator]

D'oh!

Hadn't even noticed that.
I guess that means I'm out.

[devilmunchkin]

so far, i don't see how ccs is THAT much better than doing html tags. maybe it's just me.