4 ms·

I can see the advantages and disadvantages. I spent several years trying to force myself to use CSS for layout, because I thought that the abstract benefits of

by Travis 16y ago

I can see the advantages and disadvantages. I spent several years trying to force myself to use CSS for layout, because I thought that the abstract benefits of CSS were worth it. Abstract = "easier redesign" or "more accessible" type stuff. Things that had never affected me, yet. And I spent so much time, so much frustration, trying to cram myself into the CSS semantic world. Then I realized, for my startup, that I needed to just BUILD things. I see CSS as providing generally abstract benefits, with very concrete disadvantages. In short, CSS zealots sound to me a lot like this: "Well, if you could understand what you were doing, it would work right." That entire attitude puts me off. Also, I believe it's a false dichotomy to say "no tables", or "only css". I put hacks in my code when it is beneficial for my situation. Tables are one of those hacks that I keep in my toolbox, right next to the duct tape. Frankly, I find it obnoxious that you said, "People who do use tables should educate themselves - or pass the work onto a front-end developer." No. I understand my situation, my context, and my application. I made the decision to use tables, because it was more expedient, and I was insulated from the negative consequences. For you to imply that I'm doing something wrong on my code, well, that's just flat out obnoxious.

lwhi 16y ago
"Frankly, I find it obnoxious that you said, "People who do use tables should educate themselves - or pass the work onto a front-end developer."" I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I didn't mean to offend you, or hit a raw nerve - but sometimes a change does require education. I can't see how declaring "it's not me it's you (CSS)" can be part of a reasonable solution. CSS isn't that difficult - and I'm really tired of hearing (mainly back-end) developers berate something that I (and tens of thousands of other developers) use everyday successfully. I find it obnoxious that so many people who don't understand how to use CSS successfully (and have chosen to use tables as a result) argue so fervently that their decision is the only logical choice ("I don't need to learn it, it sucks"). It's a case of the tail wagging the dog. If you understand how to use CSS successfully and still decide to use tables, then fair enough - but in most cases I don't think there are many good reasons for doing so. -- "I see CSS as providing generally abstract benefits, with very concrete disadvantages." I'd (sincerely) be interested in finding out what these disadvantages are?
- Travis 16y ago
  Sure, a change does require education. Where we differ is that I do not agree that pure CSS layouts are always the "best" solution. The "best" solution takes programmer familiarity, style, languages, business case, time lines, budgets, etc., as inputs. And I'm tired of people telling me how I ought to program. It's generally well intentioned folks who have an idealistic theory (it's easier to modify! scrapers can access it more easily! it allows disabled people easier access!) pushed into a half-ass solution. Yes, I find the CSS2 standard half-assed. For me, it boils down to what I can produce. I have much more flexibility (I can only get CSS to work "right" with certain types of layouts; tables, I can do anything) and am more productive with table based layouts. Perhaps I'll run into a situation where a light bulb clicks on, and I go "Ohhhh, it would've sure been nice if I'd used CSS for layouts here!" But, up until now, I have only ever had the experience of "Fuck, I sure wish I had put this into a table rather than a CSS layout." I've read several of the highly recommended CSS type books (Meyer, a list apart, etc.) I've tried to apply the lessons. I've spent more effort trying to figure out CSS than any single other technology I use. Maybe going to a class would help, or having 1-1 tutoring / peer sessions, but that's not in the cards for the future. So instead, I just pathetically create sites that I love (and are successful, for me) with less frustration, faster, using table layouts. YMMV.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    One of the best reasons I can think of - is that it's good to be able to divide tasks. If you code using tables - you can't easily hand your front-end work over to a front-end developer, because they won't be able to build an interface without modifying your code. It might be difficult for your business to scale as a result - but as you state, YMMV. I'll be quiet now :) If you ever do find yourself stuck with a CSS problem, feel free to drop me an email.

by Travis 16y ago

lwhi 16y ago

"Frankly, I find it obnoxious that you said, "People who do use tables should educate themselves - or pass the work onto a front-end developer."" I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I didn't mean to offend you, or hit a raw nerve - but sometimes a change does require education. I can't see how declaring "it's not me it's you (CSS)" can be part of a reasonable solution. CSS isn't that difficult - and I'm really tired of hearing (mainly back-end) developers berate something that I (and tens of thousands of other developers) use everyday successfully. I find it obnoxious that so many people who don't understand how to use CSS successfully (and have chosen to use tables as a result) argue so fervently that their decision is the only logical choice ("I don't need to learn it, it sucks"). It's a case of the tail wagging the dog. If you understand how to use CSS successfully and still decide to use tables, then fair enough - but in most cases I don't think there are many good reasons for doing so. -- "I see CSS as providing generally abstract benefits, with very concrete disadvantages." I'd (sincerely) be interested in finding out what these disadvantages are?

Travis 16y ago
Sure, a change does require education. Where we differ is that I do not agree that pure CSS layouts are always the "best" solution. The "best" solution takes programmer familiarity, style, languages, business case, time lines, budgets, etc., as inputs. And I'm tired of people telling me how I ought to program. It's generally well intentioned folks who have an idealistic theory (it's easier to modify! scrapers can access it more easily! it allows disabled people easier access!) pushed into a half-ass solution. Yes, I find the CSS2 standard half-assed. For me, it boils down to what I can produce. I have much more flexibility (I can only get CSS to work "right" with certain types of layouts; tables, I can do anything) and am more productive with table based layouts. Perhaps I'll run into a situation where a light bulb clicks on, and I go "Ohhhh, it would've sure been nice if I'd used CSS for layouts here!" But, up until now, I have only ever had the experience of "Fuck, I sure wish I had put this into a table rather than a CSS layout." I've read several of the highly recommended CSS type books (Meyer, a list apart, etc.) I've tried to apply the lessons. I've spent more effort trying to figure out CSS than any single other technology I use. Maybe going to a class would help, or having 1-1 tutoring / peer sessions, but that's not in the cards for the future. So instead, I just pathetically create sites that I love (and are successful, for me) with less frustration, faster, using table layouts. YMMV.
- lwhi 16y ago
  One of the best reasons I can think of - is that it's good to be able to divide tasks. If you code using tables - you can't easily hand your front-end work over to a front-end developer, because they won't be able to build an interface without modifying your code. It might be difficult for your business to scale as a result - but as you state, YMMV. I'll be quiet now :) If you ever do find yourself stuck with a CSS problem, feel free to drop me an email.