|
|
 |
|
| |
|
| |
 CSS
is just another tool, you just have to
spend time learning it and you can then
appreciate it.
- Well,
it's one thing to learn this new tool
CSS-P and
It's another thing to use this new
tool, CSS, to make your breakfast,
fix your
car, and say that it's really better than using <table> tags
and you should replace every single one of those <table> tags with <div> and
CSS-P.
What about learning new math tools? High school math teaches synthetic
division. But is this used in the real world?
Furthermore, in reference to learning new tools, there is a lot
of stuff you can learn in college by famous professors, yet, does every
single lesson help in real life? No.
So the argument on "learning a new tool" is just CSS
extremism and elitism.
Lastly, this site uses CSS style sheets. but does it go overboard and fanatical
like these CSS elitist do. .No.
NOTE:
Full CSS Site tend to be very "BOXY" look'n and sharp
edges ....translation: "No
rounded corners". This is because it get tedious to place
the rounded corners and match them up to the outer box Just look at the
sites, www.espn.com news.com, wired.com...all
the same clash box-like style. Don't get me wrong, they look good. But
you can see the box-like look. as they only like to use one box. stuff
with rounded corners are more easily done with tables as the middle stuff
is just a background color to save image bandwidth.
There are some sites
that challenge this BOXY Look'n point that's made here, but even they
say that their so called simple solution has disadvantages in that it can
only be used with a solid color background. Just look at their article,
it sounds like an experiment, try-after-try, workaround-after-workaround
for the browser incompatibilities.
Here are some more attempts:
Creating
Custom Corners and Borders Part I
Creating
Custom Corners and Borders Part II
(pay close attention to the Discussion of these articles:
like this one )
Full CSS Sites are mainly a Web Designer's Personal Site (or Blog Site) and
typically
have a layout so basic that even a novice web designer could have easily design it.
Ever notice that the ones that
preach CSS-P are tiny websites that are blogs or some web designers web site? These sites typically have a simple horizontal navigation up top with a nice wide graphic and big buttons. And then maybe a side left navigation and ONE BIG section in the middle. Simple, which is good, but not enough to justify using CSS-P over tables especially when it so basic to begin with. The graphics and colors are good, but layout wise, no reason to justify the extra time to use CSS-P.
It also seems that blog web sites do the most talking yet have very little layout design complexity to begin with and not to mention actual "customers". (probably cause they spend more time blogging than actually working with real customers) Hence, these sites don't even use CSS-P and don't even realize the many hacks required when you run a real commercial site for some company that's doesn't design web pages for a living.
The 3-Column Layout, the HOLY GRAIL of CSS
Google for "3 column layout, the holy grail:" and see what you get.
Well, you get site after site of how you can ATTAIN this HOLY GRAIL. That's right. While using tables for 3 columns layouts is as easy as pulling the paper cup out the dispenser at the convenience store, using CSS-P would very similar to searching for the HOLY GRAIL. That's right, CSS-P elitists and zealots are still trying to find the Holy Grail!!
|
|
|
|
