next »

[nutballs]

i personally have given up.

the amount of time required to "get it right" is not worth it to me. I use table formatting for the most part now, just because I dont have time to deal with it. being that most of the stuff I work on is not front end-pretty, but more admin type stuff, i dont generally care about SEO aspects of it (barring that one particular project I work on... but that aint pretty either... lol)

from an seo point generally you can make a page with less code, but using CSS, so thats good. but not always the case. sometimes the CSS method makes it bigger and dumber. the big advantage is being able to float the content up to the top of the source, which used to be an issue, but i really doubt it anymore.

I like the idea of keeping the formatting out of the content, but only if it actually works. the fact that on one of my sites i have 4 hacks in my CSS to get it to work in "most" browsers, is just plain retarded.

[perkiset]

 

[dink]

.... it seems pretty tough to correctly script-out what your graphical intentions are... and if you have pixel-by-pixel intentions it can get pretty weird.

Absolutely tough.  The closer to pixel perfect you try to get, the more difficult it becomes.  Like most things----you have to quit somewhere.  I try to get it 'close enough' and get on with it.

Is this the part where I pull my hair and run screaming? 

Yep.

...what is YOUR opinion on reliably padding an image/cell/div/text?

My opinion on reliably crafting a fully cross-browser complicated webpage?  I don't fool with it anymore.  Too much time (that could be productively used elsewhere), too much frustration (which Google gives me plenty of), and not very much in the pay-off.

So, to sum it up....not enough bang for the buck.

[/quote]
 Do you have experience with avoiding multi-browser hell?
[/quote]

Yes.  I have created a few (more than two, less than five) full css layout sites that displayed correctly in all modern browsers. 

The last one was approx 1,500 dynamic pages, about 35 static pages, and a full-blown image gallery on the backend (don't remember the number of pages there...a bunch).  It took the best part of 270 hours of coding and testing to get it right.

I think I lost about 15 pounds and gained nothing substantial.  High blood pressure and an increase in gastric acids are not what you want to live on.

In summary, it ain't worth it.  Unless you are targeting the webmaster group, code you pages for the largest group(s) of modern browsers.  In todays world that means IE6 and Firefox.

Make your pages look good in those two, and tell the others you're sorry they don't display right on theirs.

 

D

<edit>
If you absolutely, positively, gotta have pixel perfect layouts for different cantankerous browsers, code up a special style sheet for the offenders.  Detect the offending browser and deliver it a style sheet.
</edit>

[perkiset]

<edit>
If you absolutely, positively, gotta have pixel perfect layouts for different cantankerous browsers, code up a special style sheet for the offenders.  Detect the offending browser and deliver it a style sheet.
</edit>

OR... use CSS sparingly and use hard table layouts more. I get very precise page layouts on all my sites simply because I DONT rely on CSS for it... that was my real point earlier - and it sounds as though your example sites are the perfect reason why... that sounds simply horrible.

My personal technique is to create a header/footer framework that is absolutely precise to the way I want it... using whatever tools will get the job done. Then all content chungs are small snippet pages that are incorporated into the heard/footer framework at page-pull time. So after I fight throught the basics, I never worry about the structure again, regardless of the content on the page. I went this way a looooong time ago when I printed a bunch of sites that, at that time, were flawless on every browser I could find... Amazon, Borders, Hickory Farm, Victoria's Secret... and the HTML was all a smooth blend of both techniques. Still works today, pretty nicely.

But I hate it... 

/p

[thedarkness]

The argument for;

http:// chunkysoup.net/basic/quickcss/

Cheers,
td

[perkiset]

@the article -

I agree with the notion that to go forward you must be willing to unlearn a certain amount of HTML and be willing to rethink your sites based on how CSS might format them. CSS is hugely powerful and a great tool. But it is still flawed because of inconsistent implementation. His assertion, "Don't give in to time - don't do it the old way just because it's easier" is both true and false. A quixotic battle with browser failings may look bold and heroic to some - but to me, if I can get it done more quickly and with 100% compatibility then I'm into that. My personal argument is to people that don't *look* at the new options, continually reevaluating whether the tool is ready to jump into prime time, and THEN taking the leap. Personally I've changed about 25-35% of my HTML code to be CSS based. The parts that work perfectly regardless of browser. The other parts? A blend of HTML that I KNOW does not work exactly the same and parts that probably could be made to work, but I am not yet ready to invest the time into all that it will take to figure it out. And hope that it does.

I also find a real falacy in the notion of rethinking your graphical layout so that it fits the tool.

When I design something, if the tool defines the way that I must put it together, then the tool needs to be grown, trashed or re-evaluated. CSS is promoted as the HTML formatting replacement - you just need to conceed certain things. That's what bugs me - if I can make it work with a couple lines of table code, but it takes an arm and a leg to make it 100% reliable in CSS, what's the point? This is not an indictment of CSS - it's just that it's more akin to Javascript during the Netscape Navigator days.

Just my
/p

[nutballs]

ugh. i cant stand this either:

I also find a real falacy in the notion of rethinking your graphical layout so that it fits the tool.

so your gonna hand me a hammer and a screwdriver and then ask me what Im gonna build? thats just ridiculous. I always know what I am going to build (for the most part, im an agile programmer, not pragmatic), and if I need to build a rocketship, and you hand me a hammer and screwdriver and say "get it done monkey", Im gonna use that hammer to firmly drive that screwdriver into your brainstem.

personally, i use CSS, but i only use it for STYLING, you know cascading STYLE sheet. I almost always use table layouts now, but put all my styling and formating in CSS, but leaving the layout to the tables. yes I know, tables are meant for data, not layout. yea, sure. divs are containers, not layout elements either.

The article's final premise, of "Don't Give In To Time"... fuck you. time is money and sanity.
more time = less sanity. more time = less profit (assuming project based pricing).

[perkiset]

Get at it Nutballs!

 

[thedarkness]

and you hand me a hammer and screwdriver and say "get it done monkey", Im gonna use that hammer to firmly drive that screwdriver into your brainstem.

Even if I said "Please get it done monkey"?

Cheers,
td

[dirtdog1960to]

Here is part of what you need DD:
css:

Code:

#leftnav {
 float:left;
 background:#FFFFFF; //change as req'd
 width:145px; //change as req'd
 text-align:left;  // or center or right
 margin:0;
 padding: 0 0 0 6px;  //change as req'd
 }

.ads {
 border:solid #000000;  //change as req'd
 border-width:1px 1px 1px 1px;  //change as req'd
 text-align:left;  //change as req'd
 }

html:

Code:

<div id="leftnav">
<div class="ads">
<adsense_code1 ></adsense_code1>
</div>
<p>&nbsp</p>  //simpler than rigging up a spacer.gif
<div class="ads">
<adsense_code2 ></adsense_code2>
</div>
<p>&nbsp</p>  //simpler than rigging up a spacer.gif
</div>

Looks effective. I tinkered with this border-width:1px 1px 1px 1px; and that gave me "picture frame" effect I wanted.

text and body background are a hideous pinkish purple.  the business like gray takes the eye right to the text ads of small banners. mwu hah hah

[dink]

Glad you like it.  Hope it works well for you.

[m0nkeymafia]

Tables - dont use em unless your actually making a table of information
Whoever said stuff about google reading the page a certain way is almost right.
It reads the first content first, and prioritises that, which if u use tables means your content is usually a lot lower than if you use css. [Edit: Because tables usually require more code to work, and also are displayed sequentially]

What I normally do is [in source] have content first, then nav, then any rhs bars, and use css to position, which will give u better SEO benefits.

With regards to boxes and padding etc IE has its box model wrong and adds things up weirdly.
I cant remember exactly but i think
FF does this:
total size of box = width + padding
ie:
total size = width [padding isnt included]

so all you do is this
#mybox { IE style and everything else here }
html > body #mybox { FF specific stuff }

the > is a child selector thingy which IE cannot read, so only FF renders it, its a pretty neat way of doing things and generally means, as a rule of thumb, shit browsers render the dodgey box model, and clever ones render it properly.

If your struggling getting things right feel free to pm me and ill fix it

[thedarkness]

I'm realy starting to like this guy!

Cheers,
td

[m0nkeymafia]

I'm realy starting to like this guy!

Cheers,
td

You just think im sekzy

[thedarkness]

I'm realy starting to like this guy!

Cheers,
td

You just think im sekzy

Wkat are you wearing now?