SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 78
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    -casts vote for role="markupabuse"- =D

    This is one of those odd threads where nobody is really wrong, just everyone is looking at it from a slightly different angle. I can see everyone's points (more or less), but I think my position is most in line with Stomme.

    My problem with tables (and grids in general) for layout is you must force your layout to fit the grid. This happens in one of four ways:
    - you change your design to suit a grid
    - you increase the number of divisions in your grid
    - you allow things to break out of the grid
    - you have different grids within grids (i.e., nested tables)

    The first one would be the best solution out of the three (in my opinion) because you actually get to use a grid as intended. However, getting everything to fit a grid (not just the containers) can be tricky, and often, a bit stifling.

    The second one can be pretty decent if you're only going from like 4 break to 8 breaks. However, most designs would require the grid to be broken in to 100 pieces... which can quickly get overwhelming.

    The third pretty much defeats the point of using a grid and can become difficult to maintain.

    The fourth one also quickly gets very complex and difficult to maintain.

    (This comes from both HTML experience as well as dealing with things like Java and GridBags.)

    There are very few layouts that are really that difficult to create with floats and/or absolutely positioned elements. There are some, but often those are so complex that it would probably be good to redesign (for usability sake). It's far from perfect, but I think instead of this push to go back to tables/grids, we should just work on improving what we already have.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Once again, the W3C throws a burning flare into a fireworks facility. They prove their worth each and everyday. *facepalm*

    To conclude, end the W3C, and let the ACTUAL browser makers take over the joint.

  3. #28
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    Once again, the W3C throws a burning flare into a fireworks facility. They prove their worth each and everyday. *facepalm*

    To conclude, end the W3C, and let the ACTUAL browser makers take over the joint.
    Uhm, given who the directing board of the W3C consists of... they already have...

    Which of course is why we are seeing what happened the last time the browser makers had this much influence, the disaster known as HTML 3.2 -- which is what all the newer specs seem out to create.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Uhm, given who the directing board of the W3C consists of... they already have...

    Which of course is why we are seeing what happened the last time the browser makers had this much influence, the disaster known as HTML 3.2 -- which is what all the newer specs seem out to create.

    I'll explain this again. Here's what you do:

    Bypass the W3C Altogether as a standards committee.

    Have the Browser corps get together and create a Core or a foundation which will share the EXACT same features across all browser. Then,

    if the browser Corp want's to add "special" features, it can, by creating competition to see who can offer the better technology, and force the other browsers to up-their-game.

    So, in the end, all browser will support HTML5 CSS3 XHTML5 completely! So, their is no second-guessing which browser supports which tag or selector!

    Done! I will make our jobs a hell of a lot easier if they went with this idea.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    I'll explain this again. Here's what you do:

    Bypass the W3C Altogether as a standards committee.

    Have the Browser corps get together and create a Core or a foundation which will share the EXACT same features across all browser. Then,

    if the browser Corp want's to add "special" features, it can, by creating competition to see who can offer the better technology, and force the other browsers to up-their-game.

    So, in the end, all browser will support HTML5 CSS3 XHTML5 completely! So, their is no second-guessing which browser supports which tag or selector!

    Done! I will make our jobs a hell of a lot easier if they went with this idea.
    ...and web innovation ends right there, noone creates anything new for the languages or web because they are not allowed to, and a breakout groups forms to design a new browser in order to innovate, and you end up exactly where you were anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    Have the Browser corps get together and create a Core or a foundation
    This already exists. It's called the W3C.

  6. #31
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    ^I'd argue the WHATWG is more vendor-run than W3C. Even if it does have a benevolent dictator.

    So, in the end, all browser will support HTML5 CSS3 XHTML5 completely!
    This would get enforced how? Black-clad jack-booted Web Standards Evangelical Movement fundamentalist thugs breaking into browser vendors' homes in the night-time? We already have standards that are over a decade old that CURRENT browsers STILL don't support (and not because they disagreed or anything).

    if the browser Corp want's to add "special" features, it can, by creating competition to see who can offer the better technology, and force the other browsers to up-their-game.
    We have that.
    -moz, -webkit, -ms, -o, -khtml.

    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    Well yeah, if "hello" is a paragraph than using a paragraph tag would be appropriate. However, if "hello" has of a collection within a data grid than a table would be much more proper than hacking one except when dealing with rare edge cases.
    Ah yeah. I too would much rather a data table for table data than a bunch of weird nested divs everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by rguy84
    wouldn't you say having an explicit presentationTable branch would be nice.
    Nah. Unless the rest of us could wander the web and add the presentation stuff ourselves... cause again, people who use layout tables don't follow standards anyways. It would just be us talking to ourselves I think. Which is what I think this role="markupabuse" is doing as well (except possibly in some special edge cases, who knows).

  7. #32
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What our favorite stupid dutch kitty said -- what you are asking for is what already exists.

    LAST people who should be in charge are the browser makers -- they've all been going their own directions for fifteen years, it's only made things WORSE!

    I like the benevolent dictator routine, you need someone at the top to say, yes, no, hell yes, and **** off to things... Right now you have design by committee -- a plan for disaster if there ever was one.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Guru Jason__C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Racoon City
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not dictatorship, but a bi-product of Globalization. We need order and stucture of the Web itself, besides that is what is already happening right now. Regardless if you like it our not. Finally, most of you guys sound like anti-Big-Corp people, so I am done with standards posts...

  9. #34
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It's not dictatorship, but a bi-product of Globalization.
    By "benevolent dictator" I was specifically referring to Hixie as he is in charge of the WHATWG, ultimately.

  10. #35
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    It's not dictatorship, but a bi-product of Globalization.
    Neither of us is saying it is; we're saying it NEEDS ONE.

    Lemme guess, another case of Englisc, mōdor wyrter! Gedōn ēow cweţan hit!?!

    So far every one of your responses seems to make it look like you think SP and I's posts are saying the exact opposite of what they mean.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USPaperchaser View Post
    It's not dictatorship, but a bi-product of Globalization. We need order and stucture of the Web itself, besides that is what is already happening right now. Regardless if you like it our not. Finally, most of you guys sound like anti-Big-Corp people, so I am done with standards posts...
    If you look at the CSS forum, a good number of the posts are "I can get this to look great in all browsers except IE, HeLp!!!" You are advocating we should allow the companies to come together to make standards. If you look at about any of the W3C docs the authors will have Microsoft, IBM, etc after their name. They only meet under the W3C so the W3C can moderate...
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  12. #37
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rguy84 View Post
    You are advocating we should allow the companies to come together to make standards. If you look at about any of the W3C docs the authors will have Microsoft, IBM, etc after their name. They only meet under the W3C so the W3C can moderate...
    Because they NEED someone to moderate, and frankly the W3C is too toothless to do it. Someone to say "no mozilla, -moz was and remains a bad idea"... someone to say "no microsoft, you can't go off on your own tangent", someone to say "hey M$, Apple and Mozilla, can we just treat form elements as inline-block now?"

    The specifications are too vague and the W3C lacking the authority to get anything done... Yeah, let's have the companies in charge, because that has a history of working out well as two companies working off the same specification can't even agree how a form element recieves (or even should recieve) styling.

    Sadly, browser makers are the LAST people that should be in charge, it's basically what we have now -- and look how well that's working.

  13. #38
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miami, FL, USA
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rguy84 View Post
    The role="presentation" might work, that is if the end user has the most up to date software, which we shouldn't assume. I discussed the reason why we can't in another thread the other day.
    I think we can assume that disabled users will stay apprised of what tools they need to browse the web more effectively.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Because they NEED someone to moderate, and frankly the W3C is too toothless to do it. Someone to say "no mozilla, -moz was and remains a bad idea"... someone to say "no microsoft, you can't go off on your own tangent", someone to say "hey M$, Apple and Mozilla, can we just treat form elements as inline-block now?"
    That would be nice - we'll keep dreaming of that day...

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    The specifications are too vague and the W3C lacking the authority to get anything done... Yeah, let's have the companies in charge, because that has a history of working out well as two companies working off the same specification can't even agree how a form element recieves (or even should recieve) styling.
    :thumbup:

    Quote Originally Posted by transio View Post
    I think we can assume that disabled users will stay apprised of what tools they need to browse the web more effectively.
    Sorry this is a bad assumption, there are not many screen readers out there, the third screen reader survey lists 6. They all work closely to the same, just different hotkeys, some handle things better. If you just need a screen enlargement program, I can think of 3, but only 2 are legit... so the code needs to be better.
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  15. #40
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I think we can assume that disabled users will stay apprised of what tools they need to browse the web more effectively.
    I disagree. That stuff's expensive (there are free alternatives of some of it, which not everyone can use). People aren't exactly rolling in money when they're disabled, especially if they are "on disability".

    A refreshable Braille device costs as much as a small car!!

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    People aren't exactly rolling in money when they're disabled, especially if they are "on disability".
    if non-working they can get up to $600-$700/month I believe... And up to $800 total if working + disability check in the US
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  17. #42
    SitePoint Addict dnordstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    337
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If it will offer any kind of advantages in any situation, why not? I don't believe in rules and going strictly "by the book". I wouldn't choose it and use it in every situation (if I would use it at all), nor do I do that with any CMS or framework—always choose what suits the purpose. It's nice to have alternatives, isn't it? Trying to always keep an open mind.
    Daniel Nordstrom. of. Nintera(ctive)
    -- Featured post: Part 2. Writing NI.JS JavaScript
    ----- Follow me on Twitter. Got project? Contact me.
    -------- SitePoint: Community GuidelinesBe A Great Member

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,029
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    One of the biggest reasons for not using tables for a layout is you can't easily "break out" of them if you wanted.
    Precisely the reason I don't used them for layout. Alos Paul O'B had a point about nested tables and newbies abusing them because it's easy to do.

    I don't really care about W3's opinions or discussions amongst themselves... It really makes no difference to me but I do worry that new developers will get in the game and produce large swaths of spaghetti table code where it isn't necessary.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  19. #44
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    A refreshable Braille device costs as much as a small car!!
    Which is why I know some people who've tried to make them out of old print heads from dot matrix printers.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Which is why I know some people who've tried to make them out of old print heads from dot matrix printers.
    While I haven't examined the innards of dot matrix printers, I believe they would need to be modded quite a bit.
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeh... the print head of a dot matrix is a line of 8 (i think) pins. Each character in braille is a 2x3 matrix... not going to be very easy!

  22. #47
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Yeh... the print head of a dot matrix is a line of 8 (i think) pins. Each character in braille is a 2x3 matrix... not going to be very easy!
    Slightly off. Standard Braille is a 2x3 matrix, however refreshable braille displays are usually 2x4, why? Unicode.
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  23. #48
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Yeh... the print head of a dot matrix is a line of 8 (i think) pins. Each character in braille is a 2x3 matrix... not going to be very easy!
    A number of 24 pin printers (which were pretty common towards the end) have 3 offset rows of 6. use two pins at a time and just don't use the center row...

  24. #49
    SitePoint Zealot Michel Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Versailles (France)
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    TABLE or CSS for layout must be chosen by AUTHOR, NOT by W3C

    TABLE or CSS for layout must be chosen by AUTHOR, NOT by W3C

    All W3C has to do is to make both solutions as efficient as possible, which implies unambiguous (hence unified), easy (hence simple and clear), and reliable (hence carefully thought, designed, implemented, before any enforcement). To which I add a few little suggestions below.

    Versailles, Tue 22 Mar 2011 19:08:15 +0100, edited 19:12:00
    Last edited by Michel Merlin; Mar 22, 2011 at 12:12. Reason: restoring tite and linking it

  25. #50
    SitePoint Zealot Michel Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Versailles (France)
    Posts
    169
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    TABLE-based layouts are as elastic as CSS-based

    TABLE-based layouts are as elastic as CSS-based

    A 1st problem is that most available editors, because unable to handle TABLE intermediate elements (THEAD, TFOOT, TR, COL, COLGROUP, etc) and selections, and short of more synthetic views and tools, are forced to put a lot of FONT, WIDTH, etc, tags on low-level elements (TD, DIV, SPAN, etc) across the document.

    As a result, a 2nd problem is that many people assume that a TABLE layout MUST be peppered with plenty WIDTH, HEIGHT, BACKGROUND, PADDING (and FONT etc) tags; e.g. ChangeProposals/NoLayoutTable states:
    Device independence
    It is relatively easy to make pages written with CSS-based layouts work well on devices with differing screen widths, such as mobile phones, automatically. In general, table-based layouts are much harder to do this on, as they tend to use precise dimensions, and often break in odd ways if things are resized unexpectedly.
    This is full false. There is no reason at all to put a lot of WIDTH in TABLEs, oppositely, you can put less of them than in CSS-based layouts. Details to follow.

    Versailles, Tue 22 Mar 2011 19:16:00 +0100, edited 19:17:50
    Last edited by Michel Merlin; Mar 22, 2011 at 12:17. Reason: restoring and linking the title


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •