Looking for CSS templates that work in ALL browsers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently it's impossible to make a css/table-less layout that's compatible across all browser/platform combinations. IE for Win and Mac is the worst. Safari, Netscape, and Opera work perfectly on both platforms, but IE just sucks! I'm sick of wasting time trying to make things work in various environments so if anybody can point me to a site that has a variety of css layouts that work in IE and the better browsers, then please share it. I don't need fancy - just a variety of css layouts to choose from.
Too early for most (advanced) table-less designs
After HOURS of trying to make things compatible I've given up. I use CSS for style etc, and for a lot of positionstuff, but when it comes to the grand-design, I usually stick with tables. I don't remember who said it here, but table-based designs are SOOO much easier to get right the first time on all browsers worth concidering versus CSS-based layouts, it's just not worth it. To get CSS-based designs working you usually have to do SO MANY hacks that I'm thinking the table-based layout is cleaner anyway - atleast from a developers point-of-view.
Like, when you start to cheat with nesting, floating, placement etc to make it more compatible - you are starting to destroy the samantics you were striving for to begin with.
Also, it's easy to make the site look good in lynx and similar browseres without resorting to a total ban of tables. Boho, so the 7 line-navigation came first (or last). You are still using headers, paragraphs, divs.. You got that XHTML validation no matter how many tables you use (yes, I know they SHOULD be used for tabulator data and similar things).
That said, if things would work like xhtml1.1/css2.1(3) declares (out-of-the box, NO hacks), I would throw tables out without hesitation.
Some people also point out how it's so much smaller - in 95% of the time I think this is a non-issue. If your estimates show you can save thousands a month/year on converting, it's starting to make sense. So you start working on the re-design (or design). If you calculate 150$ an hour, you can see how things are starting to get expensive pretty fast, so this should only apply to HIGH-load sites. If the extra load is either neglectable or very low, it's really not a valid argument since (for my sites atleast) the textsize is inferior to the images and other multimedia data. And how much are we talking about here anyway? A few more <td>'s and <tr>'s? Remeber it's not either that or this, I'm compromising - using CSS all the way except for crucial positioning stuff.
I see how this can be fun for hobbyist-developers, developers who really don't care about other browsers than Opera, or similar reservations, but in a commercial-sence (where you have to support both win/mac/linux/unix and all major browsers on each os) it's insane for me atleast.
There are several posts on the web about this for both sides, here's one on my side http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/archives/000016.html
CSS-only based designs CLEARLY aren't working like they should - if they where, you wouldn't be asking this question, I wouldn't be writing my answer, and the web wouldn't be crammed with tableless templates and tutorials.
If the browser-people could just interpret the recommendations right the first time..
*brings up the heat-shield* =)
Edit: Actually, with all the sites I've strived for this over time, it should read "After DAYS" or perhaps even WEEKS =)