CSS Help needed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bluestrobe

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2004
2,033
1
0
As of now the head (head code), header (top), content (middle), and footer(bottom) are all seperate files inserted into the main page via php tags. The head, header, and footer are the same for every page on my web site. Looks like I'll have to redesign from the ground up to use css.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Actually, every company I've done work for has not wanted support less then IE6. For a few reasons, they want their site to look like it was designed in modern day and not the 90's, and they are worried about clients blaming security problems on their site when its the browser that has the holes. If your client is using IE5, they have spyware.

LOL. How a site looks has nothing to do with how it was coded.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with how a site looks. It has everything to do with the security of the browser in question. IE5 is insecure, clients using it are going to have problems keeping their info secure. Clients choose to support secure SUPPORTED browsers (like IE7 and firefox) to insure their client data stays secure. Much like they choose to use ssl.
 

mulletgut

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
254
0
0
It's not that amazing how fast this thread turned into a tables vs css debate. Everyone thinks the way they do things is easiest or most reliable or whatever.
The thing is this, css is fast being accepted as a far better method of page layout than bulky tables, spacer gifs and depreciated code.
Don't forget, it's the WWW Consortium making the recommendations.

I can understand the "that's the way I have always done it and it works fine for me" brigade, as learning a new language takes time and effort, and if what you have now works, why change????........ Well that 1971 VW will get you down to the shops and back too, but people much prefer to get there faster and in something that looks better and is more with current times, don't they?
Why even bother worrying about people using yesterdays browsers (which are free to upgrade!!!), easier to put a link on your site to a decent browser download.

Originally posted by: bluestrobe
As of now the head (head code), header (top), content (middle), and footer(bottom) are all seperate files inserted into the main page via php tags. The head, header, and footer are the same for every page on my web site. Looks like I'll have to redesign from the ground up to use css.
No you won't, but you could more easily control the appearance of all those php includes, including the content of every page by creating a style sheet and adding a href to it in your header include.

I have built sites using tables as a basis for the layout, and I have also built sites using css and php (which I am still learning), and I can guarantee anyone who wished to invest a little time to learn css will reap that time back times 10.

Want to see how easy it is?
Learn CSS for free at W3Schools
You can also learn html, xhtml, tcp/ip, browser scripting etc etc.

Want to see what is possible with a simple css based design?
Zen Garden

Oh and for the OP, as mentioned above, nested tables is the answer you seek.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: jjones
The other stuff that doesn't make sense is css hack for the older IE5 compatibility; not really necessary these days.

Right. If you're designing sights for your WoW clan. If you're designing a site that has any commercial value, you'd be a fool not to make it compatible with IE5 and below that if possible. You never know when your next potential customer or client is going to be using an old browser. I've seen this personally, and especially older guys with money tend to like to keep their old computer and old browsers because they "work fine for them" or "haven't given them any problems" or whatever......hell I'm not going to argue.
Well, with a less than 3% usage of IE5, and declining each month, I'm not worrying about it, but you're welcome to if you like.

 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
It's not that amazing how fast this thread turned into a tables vs css debate. Everyone thinks the way they do things is easiest or most reliable or whatever.
It's not a debate, nor is it about personal preference.

Anyone who uses tables for anything other than tabular data is using them incorrectly. It's a plain and simple truth. Just because they "work" for what you're trying to do doesn't mean they're right, and can't be considered "acceptable" because that's how you want to use them.

CSS is the future, and if it's not in your present and you want to be a serious web designer, I suggest you learn. It's easy to get a grasp on, easy to integrate, and so much more flexible than tables.
 

bluestrobe

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2004
2,033
1
0
Originally posted by: Alone


Anyone who uses tables for anything other than tabular data is using them incorrectly.

I find it funny that 3 HTML coding books I have/had recommended you use tables for layout purposes. It was also suggested to me to use tables for layout by a couple of web designers I used to know when I started this site. Man, they are all wrong, what was I thinking!:Q


Also, if I wanted to, what is the best book for CSS? I want to study up on it but don't always have access to a computer.
 

mulletgut

Senior member
Sep 3, 2002
254
0
0
Originally posted by: Alone
It's not that amazing how fast this thread turned into a tables vs css debate. Everyone thinks the way they do things is easiest or most reliable or whatever.
It's not a debate, nor is it about personal preference.


Oh really? You're not reading the same thread as me then.............
Anyone who uses tables for anything other than tabular data is using them incorrectly. It's a plain and simple truth. Just because they "work" for what you're trying to do doesn't mean they're right, and can't be considered "acceptable" because that's how you want to use them.
Well hello Mr inflexibility!
Web design was long taught using table layout, web development programs such as Dreamweaver still include that method in its WYSIWYG interface. Just because YOU said it's wrong doesn't make it so.

I agree CSS is the future (as I said in my earlier post), I also agree it is easy to learn and far more functional than tables, which is why am learning it, (and I'm not even in the computer industry, I'm a baggy arsed professional fireman who likes web design) but panning table use completely is intolerant and tunnel visioned.

Alone? I can see why. Your way or the Highway?


 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
I have to agree, tables are still part of html and as such, are very acceptable for design use. I prefer CSS myself but that's just my preference. Sites will always be functional without any CSS whatsoever because HTML 4 allows for that. That doesn't mean everything you can do now will always be available though, as many things have been deprecated, and one day they might disappear from newer browser versions, but it's extremely unlikely that tables will ever disappear, at least until something replaces HTML.

As for a good CSS book, I highly recommend CSS Mastery.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Lets not even get into the best reasons to use CSS, such as printing support, alternative browser support (like pda and cell phone), support for the blind, etc. All things you can't do with tables. I know my info will get across no matter what you use to view my site. It might not look like I intend, but its easy to read without css in a logical order, and with css it looks perdy.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
Originally posted by: mulletgut
Well hello Mr inflexibility!
Web design was long taught using table layout, web development programs such as Dreamweaver still include that method in its WYSIWYG interface. Just because YOU said it's wrong doesn't make it so.
It was also long taught that witches were to be burned at the stake. Does that mean I can accuse someone and do the same in modern times? No, because we know, or should know better. Dreamweaver probably still uses tables in the WYSIWYG for a simple reason: it's easier. CSS takes a good bit of effort to get working, and isn't as easy for the user to modify it using the WYSIWYG editor. Plus, it will be a while before they put the time in to re-code certain modules and implementations in the Dreamweaver source, so I imagine we'll be seeing it some day.

Originally posted by: mulletgut
I agree CSS is the future (as I said in my earlier post), I also agree it is easy to learn and far more functional than tables, which is why am learning it, (and I'm not even in the computer industry, I'm a baggy arsed professional fireman who likes web design) but panning table use completely is intolerant and tunnel visioned.
I'm not saying don't use it. As I said earlier, it might work for you, but that doesn't mean it's right. I could use knives to tack notes on a board; it works, but that doesn't mean knives are supposed to be used that way.

Originally posted by: mulletgut
Alone? I can see why. Your way or the Highway?
Just trying to get the point across that, fundamentally, tables are improperly used in many cases.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: mulletgut
Well hello Mr inflexibility!
Web design was long taught using table layout, web development programs such as Dreamweaver still include that method in its WYSIWYG interface. Just because YOU said it's wrong doesn't make it so.
It was also long taught that witches were to be burned at the stake. Does that mean I can accuse someone and do the same in modern times?

There was a time when tables were the only way to do any kind of complex layout, so it's not surprising that people who have been around longer than CSS still stick with their old, easy way of doing things.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: mulletgut
Well hello Mr inflexibility!
Web design was long taught using table layout, web development programs such as Dreamweaver still include that method in its WYSIWYG interface. Just because YOU said it's wrong doesn't make it so.
It was also long taught that witches were to be burned at the stake. Does that mean I can accuse someone and do the same in modern times?

There was a time when tables were the only way to do any kind of complex layout, so it's not surprising that people who have been around longer than CSS still stick with their old, easy way of doing things.

That's exactly it. Only recently did CSS become popular and a standard to many.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: mulletgut
Well hello Mr inflexibility!
Web design was long taught using table layout, web development programs such as Dreamweaver still include that method in its WYSIWYG interface. Just because YOU said it's wrong doesn't make it so.
It was also long taught that witches were to be burned at the stake. Does that mean I can accuse someone and do the same in modern times?

There was a time when tables were the only way to do any kind of complex layout, so it's not surprising that people who have been around longer than CSS still stick with their old, easy way of doing things.

That's exactly it. Only recently did CSS become popular and a standard to many.

I see the choice of CSS or tables for positioning as the least of my concerns as a developer. Tables are faster and give you the most compatibility across browsers. I'm not sure what else you could ask for in a language. Yes CSS has absolute power, but that's like using a chainsaw to slice bread. You just don't need all the power to get the job done and in most cases it will end up costing you more time.

I sarted learning CSS and have continued picking it up little by little because certain functions of it come in handy. But I chose to stick with tables for my work and devote my time to server side scripting and design and database engineering and scripting.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Tables are faster and give you the most compatibility across browsers.

The only reason CSS isn't completely crossbrowser compatible is because IE went unchallenged for so long. IE seems to be the only browser having trouble rendering correct CSS.
 

bluestrobe

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2004
2,033
1
0
I can see why people stick with the old. From my research so far, it would take me almost a week to code what a table does in 20 minutes for my needs.

So can you load more than 2 CSS files into one page? My current menus are CSS and I would like to keep their basic design. Or do I have to add the menu code into the new css layout?
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I can see why people stick with the old. From my research so far, it would take me almost a week to code what a table does in 20 minutes for my needs.

So can you load more than 2 CSS files into one page? My current menus are CSS and I would like to keep their basic design. Or do I have to add the menu code into the new css layout?

You can have as many stylesheets as you want. You can add your new CSS code into the old menu stylesheet.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Tables are faster and give you the most compatibility across browsers.

The only reason CSS isn't completely crossbrowser compatible is because IE went unchallenged for so long. IE seems to be the only browser having trouble rendering correct CSS.

It doesn't matter why, it just matters that it is. I also love how predictibly tables react to window and resolution resizing.

I've got one site that is mandatory for about 1,500 people to access weekly and that group will constantly be growing and changing. It involves part of their work. If one person can't effectively utilize the site it's going to be a complaint by a client and will need to be fixed.....no questions. Its the same reason I don't use a shred of javascript on my pages....never have and it's never been missed. The scope of what I can accomplish as a solitary developer is enormous because I get to devote all my time to the backend development and design rather than futzing around trying to use CSS because it's the new cool language and I want to be a part of the l33t club.

I understand the excitement about adapting to a new technology. If you can afford to be a technology snob and shun people who don't comply with your view of standards, then, go for it....give them a nasty page that forbids them from entering your site until they do as you command. I really wish there was a better way. CSS is too bloated and tables could be better especially for very granular formatting. But until somethign comes along and/or tables are no longer supported, I'm going to not concern myself with anything other than the real meat and potatoes of web development which is design and function.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
CSS is only bloated if you decide to use everything it has to offer. I personally hate repeating code, and using tables does just that. So much extra code it's incredible.

As for tables adapting to resolution/resizing, well...if you use percentages in your CSS, it should do the same.
 

bluestrobe

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2004
2,033
1
0
Originally posted by: Alone
Originally posted by: bluestrobe
I can see why people stick with the old. From my research so far, it would take me almost a week to code what a table does in 20 minutes for my needs.

So can you load more than 2 CSS files into one page? My current menus are CSS and I would like to keep their basic design. Or do I have to add the menu code into the new css layout?

You can have as many stylesheets as you want. You can add your new CSS code into the old menu stylesheet.

Got ya. I'll probably play with it a little tomorrow.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Everyone keeps saying "Tables are faster", or "I'm not jumping on this new tech", yet CSS is not new tech, I've been using it for all my design from IE6 till current. Its been years I've not used a table. I can make CSS websites faster then most people can make a site with a table.

Tables are not faster, once you learn CSS it will be a lot faster. Not to mention the code will be easier to read, smaller, take up less bandwith, easier to change, portable to cell phones, print media, etc.

There are no negatives to using CSS except for learning it. Its not even hard to use if you are even halfway competent at web design.

So here is a new question for you people? How long did it take you to stop using frames? Do you even use xhtml? Are you still using font tags and center tags and bold tags?
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Right click on this page and choose "view source". You are going to see tables being used for the majority of positioning. Yet here you all are blissfully contributing and entertaining yourselves on these forums. Has it detracted form your experience? Not enough to keep you from posting thousands of times.

That is by no means an endorsement of tables over CSS. I think the arguments speak for themselves. I just thought it would be funny to see what the site we're arguing this on uses. It does, however, fly in the face of this implication of yours that tables aren't standard and aren't effective.
 

Alone

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2006
7,490
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Right click on this page and choose "view source". You are going to see tables being used for the majority of positioning. Yet here you all are blissfully contributing and entertaining yourselves on these forums. Has it detracted form your experience? Not enough to keep you from posting thousands of times.

That is by no means an endorsement of tables over CSS. I think the arguments speak for themselves. I just thought it would be funny to see what the site we're arguing this on uses. It does, however, fly in the face of this implication of yours that tables aren't standard and aren't effective.

FuseTalk was privately developed in 1999, and they haven't updated. The only point you're making is that it was good enough before. Well, this isn't 1999 anymore. Sure, it might still work, but I'm sure if they were to recode the software for whatever reason, they'd choose CSS over flat-out tables.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
I wonder what the bandwith costs of the site would be if they switched to CSS. According to http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2003/06/espn-interview ESPN.com saved 730 terabytes a year by switching from tables to CSS. Not to mention the other benefits mentioned above.

According to this link http://alistapart.com/articles/slashdot/

Slashdot.com saved 9KB per request with a cached css file (this means ever page after the initial page load) and 2KB per request on non-cached pages. At 50 million pages in a month slashdot saved 14 GB bandwidth a day. Of course this article is written before slashdot switched to CSS. But they are now CSS and reaping its benefits. Of course the best part is you can use slashdot on any browser, even ones that can't render tables properly like my cell phone. Just go to the site and turn off css.

Of couse bandwith savings do not mean you will save money, sometimes it makes you money.

My final statement regarding the bandwidth (and hence money) savings did not quite pan out as expected. Bandwidth consumption has certainly decreased with the declining page weight but not by the proportion we were expecting. What actually happened was that people starting using the site more. It seems the faster pages (both in terms of bandwidth and rendering) resulted in more page views as people panned, zoomed and searched significantly more than they did before. So not only did the switch to CSS layout save Multimap money, it made Multimap money (page views = banner ad impressions) and quantitatively improved people?s experience (more page views per visit).
Real life savings through Web standards, by Richard Rutter, Clagnut, July 30, 2004 - source http://brainstormsandraves.com/archives/2004/07/30/money/

Here are some tibits on wired switch to css.

The shiny details of the new Wired News design are only visible in standards-compliant browsers (Netscape versions 6.0 and higher, and IE 5.0 and higher). But because CSS can be hidden from older, non-compliant browsers, our content can still be read by every available commercial browser, even the first versions of Netscape and IE.

Our statistics show that as many as 86 percent of our regular audience uses supported browsers, but the other 14 percent will see a much simpler website with a stripped-down design that still provides the full content.

Finally, XHTML can be easily translated for a variety of Web devices such as PDAs and mobile phones. And with CSS, it can render differently in multiple devices according to their inherent capabilities.

Cascading stylesheets have been implemented on all pages for design uniformity, and to make it easy for designers to update and tweak the look and feel. Making one change in the CSS can propagate a design change instantly throughout thousands of pages. Redesigns could theoretically take place in minutes, rather than weeks or months, and smaller design tweaks can be made without having to restructure any HTML markup.

"This new design is more accessible, faster to download, more flexible and much easier on the Web server itself," Meyer said. "Anyone interested in the future of the Web need look no further than this."

source - http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/10/55675

Even AOL.com is a pure css layout. If AOL the suck of the suck can do it, everyone can. Their userbase consists of the biggest slackers and computer inept humans on earth. Yet CSS doesn't hurt their business.

My favorite part about CSS is one I almost forgot. It allows me to control what sites I visit look like. I can make my own design for sites that I frequent. Maybe it's not useful to you, but for handicap people this could be useful, and for more tech oriented people like me, it is a benefit that goes well with greasemonkey.

Anyways, the more I convince people to use css, the more they come back to me with thank you. Usually they have a little learning curve and need my help for a week or so. But eventually they are using dreamweaver like normal making full CSS pages. I have one friend who now churns out awesome designs in half the time he used to take. He does a lot of web work (all of it I think) for Conn-Selmer (http://www.conn-selmer.com/) a major player in the music industry. My favorite site they have is http://www.ludwig-drums.com/ He even uses a table on it, for a actual table and not for layout.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |