SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    407
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with the dotted lines, constant use of the georgia font in blogs (movable type?) etc.

    But, I've really got into the idea of standards compliant utopian styles right now, just put a blog design to the root of my site, still testing (click site in profile to see it).

  2. #27
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by billiousness
    iTec: I'll go get that screen capture in a sec. I have yet to download the screen capture software.
    Printscreen doesn't work for you. It is what I use for screen capture. Press Print Screen and then paste into what every graphics program you want to use.
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  3. #28
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wayne Luke
    ------------


  4. #29
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Miami Fl
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Re: Some links for anyone who still thinks CSS layout = boring

    Originally posted by Bill Posters
    .. that movement ((stereo-)typically anticeptic coding facists and 'accessibility/usability' advocates).
    It is designers like yourself that make the web largely inaccessable to persons such as my mother who happen to be Legally blind. She is still able to make out text if presented in a consistant manner that can be resized by the browser. She shouldn't need to deal with an over use of images, flash or whatever the latest gimmick you'll use to achieve your "visual" perfection. Content is king.

    Layout/Design fanatics are cancer.
    -= Eric

  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Re: Re: Some links for anyone who still thinks CSS layout = boring

    Originally posted by Mathias

    It is designers like yourself that make the web largely inaccessable to persons such as my mother who happen to be Legally blind. She is still able to make out text if presented in a consistant manner that can be resized by the browser. She shouldn't need to deal with an over use of images, flash or whatever the latest gimmick you'll use to achieve your "visual" perfection. Content is king.
    Content may be king, but how asthetically pleasing something is also counts. Certain types of sites should be accesible to everyone, however for others pleasing their target audience is by far the most important thing and if that means lots of images or flash then they are correct, catering for the lowest common denominator is not always the right thing to do. Designers that are fanatics about accesibility and standaards are just as bad as those who are obsessed with flash etc.

    Anyway back to the thread, you can spot a css standards site a mile off, they lack imagination, style, originality and mostly look like a variation of each other.

  6. #31
    Grumpy Mole Man Skunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    2,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Saab in CSS: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~cs1spw/saab/

    Looks fine in Mozilla / Opera / IE6. It's almost certainly broken in IE5 due to IE5's broken box model - there's an easy fix for this but I don't have access to IE5 at the moment so I haven't bothered trying to fix it for the moment. The HTML is a fraction of the size of the HTML used on the real site, and the document is logically structured so it should make perfect sense in a text browser / screen reader. It took me just under an hour to do so I'm not too keen to do all of the other ones as well

    The recreation isn't 100% pixel perfect but that's down to me being lazy - with a bit of tweaking I'm sure it could be made to look exactly the same.

    I kept the font-size specified in pixels as that is how it is specified on the real site, but normally I would use some form of relative font sizing to allow IE users to resize the text.

    To be fair, that was one of the easier ones on the list, but most of them are perfectly possible (mainly thanks to them all being fixed width designs, which makes recreating them in CSS quite a bit easier).
    Last edited by Skunk; Nov 3, 2002 at 13:48.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Zealot redeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As someone who is now becoming worried that if I don't learn css to position everything I will be out of a job.. why are these css layout sites all similar?

    If it is possible to put any element anywhere on a page using divs and absolute/percentage positioning.. what is the problem?..

    Can any site created using tables be recreated using css?

  8. #33
    Grumpy Mole Man Skunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    2,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by redeyes
    [B]As someone who is now becoming worried that if I don't learn css to position everything I will be out of a job.. why are these css layout sites all similar?
    Partly because the ones I listed are almost all weblogs, which always have a similar layout. Also remember that using CSS for layout is a relatively new technique - people are still learning their way around the new technology. There are a few things that can only be achieved with tables (mostly to do with horizontal alignment) but there are also a great deal of thig s that can only be achieved with CSS (images that overlap each other for example).


    If it is possible to put any element anywhere on a page using divs and absolute/percentage positioning.. what is the problem?..
    While it is possible to place a div anywhere on a page using absolute positioning, in practise this can be a bad idea. The reason for htis is that it is often impossible to know the height of a div in advance - the height will change depending on the amount of text in the div. It is therefore difficult to place another div below the div with text in using absolute positioning as you may end up inadvertently obscuring the text. This is only a problem with absolute positioning - other forms of positioning do not suffer from the same disadvantage. It all boils down to knowing CSS well enough to know which positioning technique to use when.

    Can any site created using tables be recreated using css?
    Almost. Like I said, there are a few things that tables can do and CSS can't, but in general most table layouts can be replicated in CSS (as I hope I demonstrated with the Saab site). Remember though that there are plenty of CSS layouts that would be absolutely impossible with tables - CSS is a far more powerful medium (not to mention the huge advantages gained from separating document structure from presentation).

    If you are a professional web designer / developer, you owe it to yourself to learn CSS. Even if you don't end up building pure CSS layouts you will find it far, far easier to achieve many layout effects that you are used to creating with nested tables. The "transitional" aproach (where a simple table structure is enhanced with CSS for padding, backgrounds borders etc) is a perfectly valid way of building web sites and will greatly reduce the markup size of your pages.

    Incidentally, www.wpdfd.com has been running an excellent series on CSS aimed squarely at designers recently - I've linked to the three most interesting entries in my blog:

    http://simon.incutio.com/archive/200...llespieDoesCSS

    Hope that helps,

    Simon

  9. #34
    SitePoint Zealot redeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the concise reply.. it helped a lot!

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,858
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by platinum
    okay, I quite like http://www.mattjacob.org/ as far as css goes

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard Bill Posters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Re: Re: Some links for anyone who still thinks CSS layout = boring

    Originally posted by Mathias


    It is designers like yourself that make the web largely inaccessable to persons such as my mother who happen to be Legally blind. She is still able to make out text if presented in a consistant manner that can be resized by the browser. She shouldn't need to deal with an over use of images, flash or whatever the latest gimmick you'll use to achieve your "visual" perfection. Content is king.

    Layout/Design fanatics are cancer.
    Sorry, but that is utter, misdirected rubbish.
    At the very least, it's a misrepresentation of my point.

    Where did I advocate dependency on images?
    Where did I advocate making font-sizes unresizable?
    Most importantly, where did I say that I'd be designing websites intended to appeal to your mother or a legally blind person?
    And where did I state that using such accessibility/usability un-friendly techniques was advisable in all/such cases?

    Design should be the deciding factor in how a page *looks* by default.
    What should also be done is that the design and the code of a page/site should be produced so that the design and the content that it presents degrades gracefully and remains accessible on lesser/alternative/personalised scenarios.

    You'd do well to learn that in the vast majority of cases (read: for the vast majority of a potential audience) the visual appearance of a product is as much a part of the 'content' as the written content that you proclaim to be 'king'.
    If the rationale behind design, branding and the other 'black arts' escapes you, then either find out about it or leave the commentary to those who know what they are talking about.

    As I have said on many, many occasions here; it is *all* a matter of appropriateness to the intended audience (however vague or 'exclusive' as that may be).
    Horses for courses, as they say.

    By precluding and prejudging design (and likening its advocates
    to a cancer) you are demonstrating the same degree of ignorance that you foolishly presume is being practiced by designers.)

    I understand that you may have a bad impression of design based on the statements and opinions of *some* designers. Don't presume to believe that we all think the same way.
    If you are going to judge *me* then first I suggest that you make the effort to search and browse my past posts. That should give you a more accurate impression about *my* ideas about design emphasis and appropriateness.
    It will at least offer you enough evidence about my opinion on the subject to give you a more informed comments about me than you have so far.

    If you aren't unable to make an informed statement about me and other like-minded designers, then you would do better to keep your close-minded, misinformed, (un)professional bigotries to yourself.
    I'd suggest that you save your comments for a time when you understand design in general and me in particular a great deal better than you currently do.

    --

    Excuse the tangential rant, but being referred to as a cancer seems to have pissed me off just a tad.
    I would've prefered to have condensed this reponse into just two words, such was the mood it put me in.
    I don't think it would have made it past the SPF 'staff' though.
    New Plastic Arts: Visual Communication | DesignateOnline

    Mate went to NY and all he got me was this lousy signature

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard samsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts
    5,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good job on the Saab page, skunk, that looks pretty good and has very simple source even including the CSS linked page.

    Also nice to hear support for the transitional method. I often feel like it has to be all tables or all CSS... really, there are still advantages to using each, and why not capitalize on the advantages of each? In the future, we'll look back at tables and laugh (or maybe describe NN4 to grandkids in rickety voices) but for now transitioning seems like a good middle ground.
    Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,858
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by samsm
    but for now transitioning seems like a good middle ground.
    Not to mention that I had to in order to get my borders to repeat vertically, should one column be longer than the other (which happens quite often, BTW).

    Plus, IE6 has this weird rendering bug which makes it next to impossible to select text from DIVs that have been "floated." Or maybe it's just me. Nah, couldn't be.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Cairns, Australia
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Wired!

    http://www.wired.com

    entirely XHTML / CSS - not a <table> in sight.

    I like the CSS mouseover technique on their sections navigation bar. Very bandwidth-friendly.

    Here is their article re: the new design.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by samsm
    Also nice to hear support for the transitional method. I often feel like it has to be all tables or all CSS...
    you might like to read the last post here"Table Layouts, Revisited".

    p.s: Matt its not just you.. see link above.

  16. #41
    The Madness Out of Time Arkham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by platinum
    1) They try to use no graphics at all (thats what makes things interesting!)
    More like they avoid over-using graphics, a problem that's always plagued the internet. Maybe for you it's only the graphics that make things interesting, but for a most people it's the content. Graphic and visually artistic sites (hey, structure is art too) are obviously a different matter, but they too can benefit from CSS.

    This myth that all CSS sites are all blogs is ridiculous. Yeah, there's a good percentage, but it's just a trend while CSS gains popularity. It's an irrelevant anyway, because the benefits of CSS can apply to any site. It seems like CSS is another topic that graphic-heads and other designers love to bang heads on. I think they just spur each other on in their conflict.


    2) They insist on using the same fonts for everything and it doesn't suit it IMO.
    That's because using too many fonts is bad. At least for 'boring' content sites.
    Last edited by Arkham; Nov 4, 2002 at 09:31.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Wired!

    Originally posted by tsilihin
    http://www.wired.com

    entirely XHTML / CSS - not a <table> in sight.

    I like the CSS mouseover technique on their sections navigation bar. Very bandwidth-friendly.

    Here is their article re: the new design.
    Wow! Variable width, easy font switch damn good. I don't actually like the design that much, but the style shows that anything can be done. Has anyone seen it in IE 4/5x ??
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard johnn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    1,181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by tsilihin
    http://www.wired.com

    entirely XHTML / CSS - not a <table> in sight.
    One table's still there but it's ok for stock list.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by johnn
    One table's still there but it's ok for stock list.
    The stock list is tabular data, its supposed to be in a table

  20. #45
    SitePoint Enthusiast webinista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Stankonia
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by platinum
    But, still it seems there are too many trends used in css sites that makes them unorigional and boring.

    1) They try to use no graphics at all (thats what makes things interesting!)
    That's not the fault of CSS, but the fault of the web coder (who is typically not a designer). But honestly, none of those sites are much worse than the plethora of HTML 4.0 sites out there -- and they load faster too.

    I personally think Zeldman.com does a good job of mixing graphic design and CSS (well, the old version. I think the new site is ghastly).

    2) They insist on using the same fonts for everything and it doesn't suit it IMO.
    No, but there are only so many fonts commonly installed on most machines. Again: no worse than HTML 4.0.

    3) Solid colours and randomely dashed lines *can* be over used.
    And graphics can be overused too. For example, why use a graphic when text would have done the job just as well, and would have increased the site's usability and accessibility?

    5) As someone mentioned CSS should be used to fine tune and make life easier with HTML and images, not replace it.
    Not exactly. HTML is structural. CSS is decorative. That's how the languages are designed. CSS is not for "fine-tuning"; it's for formatting and layout.

    There are a ton of usability and accessibility benefits to using CSS, and that's really the point. By using XHTML and CSS -- rather than trying to force things into position with spacer.gifs, you can achieve faster download times, and greater accessibility.



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
  •