Stylesheets - CSS Layout vs. cost

Author

CSS Layout vs. cost

Unknown User

2005-01-24, 7:20 am

I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think it's
the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about the
raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.

What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a layout
in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change on all pages
(I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and feel).

Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on the long
run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic issue here), and
the global look & feel depends on 1 file.

What do you think?

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Discover Opera: http://members.surfeu.fi/jerkku/
http://www.auriance.com - http://www.auriance.net

Jim Moe

2005-01-24, 12:29 pm

Unknown User wrote:
> I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think
> it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about
> the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.
>
What costs?

> What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
> layout in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change on
> all pages (I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and feel).
>
> Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on the
> long run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic issue
> here), and the global look & feel depends on 1 file.
>
The two previous statements contradict each other. And how is look and
feel different from layout?

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Mark Carroll

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

In article <gbSdndgeAeBOvmjcRVn-og@giganews.com>,
Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
(snip)
> The two previous statements contradict each other. And how is look and
>feel different from layout?

Maybe he's thinking that things like fonts and colours are look and
feel, whereas layout is just about the relative positioning of things.
That's my guess, anyway.

-- Mark

Unknown User

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

On 24 Jan 2005 18:44:46 +0000 (GMT), Mark Carroll
<markc@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <gbSdndgeAeBOvmjcRVn-og@giganews.com>,
> Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Maybe he's thinking that things like fonts and colours are look and
> feel, whereas layout is just about the relative positioning of things.
> That's my guess, anyway.
>
> -- Mark

Yes, it's what I mean.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Discover Opera: http://members.surfeu.fi/jerkku/
http://www.auriance.com - http://www.auriance.net

logic_earth

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better because you
have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp) also it is far more
accessible.

Brian

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

logic_earth wrote:
> In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better

Not really, for reasons discussed many times previously. XHTML is a poor
choice, not least because MSIE cannot do anything useful with it when it
is served as such.

> because you have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp)

HTML is a better choice right now, and is hardly in danger of being
obsolete.

--
Brian

saz

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

In article <1106594507.208974.253880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Thomas@gd-studio.com says...
> In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better because you
> have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp) also it is far more
> accessible.
>
>

I strongly disagree. IE struggles with XHTML, and like it or not, 90%
of the viewers still use IE - including your clients.

I have not made the switch, and will not in the foreseeable future.
Stick with HTML and CSS.

Jan Roland Eriksson

2005-01-24, 7:21 pm

On 24 Jan 2005 11:21:47 -0800, "logic_earth" <Thomas@gd-studio.com>
wrote:

>In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better...

I tend to agree if you are willing to lose the X thingy.

>because you have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp)

The "bullshit generator" could not have said that better :-)

<http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html>

>also it is far more accessible.

As compared to what?

--
Rex

Neal

2005-01-24, 11:17 pm

Unknown User <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I
> think it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite
> concerned about the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the
> industry.
>
> What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
> layout in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change
> on all pages (I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and
> feel).
>
> Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on
> the long run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic
> issue here), and the global look & feel depends on 1 file.
>
> What do you think?

I think the added cost of a table layout prepared by someone who has
not bothered to learn table layout completely is an awful expense.

Or, replace CSS for table.

Chris Leipold

2005-01-25, 7:23 am

Hi,
Unknown User wrote:
> I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think
> it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about
> the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.
>
> What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
> layout in CSS, [...]
> What do you think?

I think: If you used CSS-based-layouts as long as you used
table-based-layouts, you would be much faster with CSS, especially on
complex pages.
If you have to redesign a page based on tabular layout, you do it from 0
again. (Cost=you're XXXXed).
If you have to redesign a css-based page you're very quick.

It's a very common prejudice that tabular-layout is quicker. To repeat,
this emerged from the fact that most webdesigners started with
tab.layout and are more experienced in tab.layout.

Chris

--
You pay peanuts, you feed monkeys.

logic_earth

2005-01-25, 11:19 pm

i would like to recommend a book. But just so you know i am not saying
anything is better or that you should switch just my 2 cents.

I found this book to be very infomative:
http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...6901115-6896031

rimian

2006-07-17, 8:53 am

I've just spent an hour or so converting someone's tableless css/html back
into tables because they really should have used tables in the first place.

so then i typed "tableless bullshit" into google and this is where i
ended up.