manstraw

If you like, I’ll code something up later. I’ve just popped in on my lunch. I had not intended to participate in this thread any longer, but I’ll treat your request as separate from that.

There is more than one way to approach this particular request. I’ll be happy to code an example that conforms to the css standard. One issue that I’m not inclined to address is the goofy box model of IE6. I stated previously that I use a javascript program to rewrite the dom, and that’s about as far as I’m willing to go to accomodate ie6 these days.

lhk – OK, you refuse to provide links to any one of your assertions. I don’t understand why frankly.

I tend to negate your ‘fact’ about filesizes when comparing table based design versus css designs because my experience is exactly opposite of what you state. I’ve cleaned up plenty of table based designs and have reduced file sizes in *every* case.

I personally know two people who use pda type devices (one is a pda, one is a cell phone) to surf the net. I happen to live in a small town on the Canadian prairies, it’s not just a big city thing. When I ask them why they do this, they don’t have a particularly good answer except to say they want to. There are some sites (that happen to be pda friendly) that they like to frequently check in on. They also frequently check their email with their pda device.

I also know someone who uses a screen reader program to read sites he browses. I don’t know too much about the software, except that when navigation links are on the top of the page, it’s apparently quite a drag to listen to the navigation first every single time he goes to a page. Because of this, I use put my links at the bottom of the html, and use css to display them at the top. I’m not about to sacrifice people like this for the sake of some behind the times majority. I don’t decide who I design sites for. They visitors make that determination.

I’m about done with this topic. I haven’t been provided with links to the assertions made. I fall back to my own experiences with css versus tables. My personal observations are that css based sites use less code, load faster/render faster, and can do things table based layout cannot.

Nice chatting with you all!

You might need to call the file that imports the email. Visit this page http://example.com/wordpress/wp-mail.php

You read up on it here http://codex.wordpress.org/Blog_by_Email

Well, I’m not about to value judge someone’s opinion. I’m just interested in examples.

I thought I would add that I just checked my non techie sites. IE is averaging 77% for a high, and dips to around 55% for a low. Firefox takes second, and then there are a sprinkling of other browsers. Safari is showing itself some in my stats, which surprises me, as I don’t have anything that leans to the mac (although I use Macs, but not safari).

And in case anyone is interested, I’ve taken a different approach to complying with IE6’s incorrect implementation of the box model and other non compliance issues. Instead of a css hack, I install http://ie7.sf.net on the site. It rewrites the DOM, fixing display errors in IE6, and bringing it into compliance. I even choose to do this for business sites. Each of my customers have accepted the fact that the page takes slightly longer to display on IE6, and that it requires javascript. I wouldn’t recommend people do it for a business site generally, but I’ve found that virtually everyone has javascript on, and it hasn’t been an issue. Because I feel it’s Microsoft’s fault for taking so long in updating their browser, I am choosing to penalize them with slower render. Firefox and other *modern* browsers enjoy the faster rendering. I now freely use position: fixed and other such css elements that we can’t normally use because of IE6.

links? I would like the links I’ve asked for. Surely you can provide the link to the websitebaker assertion in the very least.

I agree that good content drives good search engine placement. I don’t think css versus tables means squat in that argument. Does painting my car red make it go faster? Good clean code is good clean code, no matter what standards you follow. This thread was started with the question of whether or not css has an advantage in layout versus tables. I interpret that to mean correct display, render speed, and code efficiency. I wonder if we could keep our discussion with those parameters?

I have never found a site that could be layed out using tables that could not also be done with css. I would be interested in seeing an example of a site you can lay out using tables, but that can’t done with css.

Did you not read the part where I said I specialize in designing sites for dialup users? I only do “good simple, lean design”. I am not saying that css makes up for bad design, as in poor site structure and lack of foresight. Those considerations are beside the point. When comparing the specific tasks of layout in css versus tables, and also changing the layout in the future, css wins.

Again, I ask for an example of a site you can lay out with tables that I can’t layout using css.

Can you provide a link to the following assertion:

Be it as it is, I currently compared a Websitebaker-driven site (tabular templates) with a WP-driven site of nearly identical setup. Funnily Netmechanics quite neutrally concluded that the Websitebaker-site was faster and leaner. And that even though the basic design was practically 100% identical. Curious, que no?

On the surface, comparing two different content engines seems biased when evaluating render speed.

I thought I would add a few real world observations.

I spend a lot of time coding sites for dialup users. I live in a rural community. By following modern standards, and pushing all style into a css page, I can make websites that load and display much faster. The files *are* smaller. I converted several of my older sites that used tables into identically displaying version that instead relied on css, and the resulting code was 1/5th the size, and did not rely on ‘tricks’ to get table cells display at the right size.

When I want to change the layout of the site, I only have to change a single .css file. I might be unusual, but I have found it faster to change one .css file, than to change 40 html files. Yeah, I know, I must be weird. 😉 Even with dynamically generated sites using php, it’s much faster to redefine a couple of css values than to move a bunch of code around and rebuild new tables.

In the end, css is also much more powerful and flexible. Radical changes in display can result from changes just a few characters in a css file. For a demonstration of what is possible with css, I generally recommend people visit http://csszengarden.com, where they can view hundreds (ok, 5 more and it’s 200) of completely different websites that each have one thing in common. They all have *identical* html. Not a single change was made to the html data for each of those very cool designs. Some of those designs are *impossible* with tables.

you can use the role manager plugin to turn off a lot of stuff for a particular role or user.