Div's
- Started
- Last post
- 17 Responses
- PixelDrama
I've seen too many web developers in the past year or so start converting their sites into all DIVS.... Washington Mutual's site just converted as well.... Divs are making Tables Obsolete, and they play with CSS quite nicley... anyone else into web design? and if so, planning on doing this? Im considering it.
- MX_OnD0
Divs and CSS only.
unless it's tabular data, which is what tables were always for.
- kelpie0
I like to mix and match personaly, don't really care for standards.
*covers self with forcefield ;)
- PixelDrama0
it wasnt until just recently that ive seen major companies start doing this.... (ie). Novel, and a bunch others... i think im going to look further into it.
- Nairn0
What Mx said.
All our sites use DIVs and CSS, only using tables where I'm too lazy to bother with intracacies.
'proper' web designers should ONLY be using DIVs and such these days - if you write your code properly, it should degrade into basic text in non-CSS browsers.. which is what it should do anyway, for usability reasons.
- Nairn0
this is what I mean..
- silencer0
Divs4LifeĀ®
- kelpie0
there is nothinf more satisfying than seeing a site render as straight text properly.
Divtastic - it's the way forward.
- heavyt0
absolutely. Benn doin it for a while and lovin it. it makes updating pages soooo much easier. with tables, you always have to consider colspans and aligns and such. So, if 1 call needs to get wider, it might make another one get wider too, and then you have to hack that cell, etc.
TR1
- DonDigital0
I just like the positive messaging W3C gives you when you validate. ;-)
"This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!"
"Congratulations!"
I ♥
- shaft0
I hate this css-only craze but it becomes the industry standard.
It's not so bad an idea in general, I just wish it was more design-oriented. Some stuff is really fucked up, like absence of centering in a simple way.
I think that microsoft box model was a lot better.
There still are layouts that are pure hell to redo in present day CSS. Hopefully it will change with time.
I kind of believe that nobody truly cares about "text degrading", the real css role is to get rid of flash, just as firefoxes was to conquer IE.
- JazX0
I use them for many sites
- sparker0
"I kind of believe that nobody truly cares about "text degrading", the real css role is to get rid of flash, just as firefoxes was to conquer IE"
that's untrue. and kind of a hobbiest point of view.
degrading gracefully for older browser and screen readers is important for many reasons.
and, to users it is a key feature. for example...
being able to a) see a site in a text browser or old unsupported one is great for grandma who won't/can't upgrade. and b) for disabled surfers to use screen readers and software that makes sites accessible.
it has very little to do with the killing of flash. it has to do with content distribution on a mass scale.
why is it so hard for designers to understand? there are more people than the less than 1% of "designers" on the web.
let go of ego and out-dated, incorrect and albeit amateur techniques.
- shaft0
What's next? Why don't we press filmmakers to write dialogs in a way that is descriptive enough for the movies to be understood by the blind? I'm not against improved accessibility, just want to show how absurd it may get.
Most of the web is about selling and advertising. Will we force tv ads creators to make their ads accessible too?
A lot of visual expression cannot be converted into xml.I probably wouldn't be saying this if css had been at least well consulted with designers. It was planned by nerds who didn't care about design nor knew real life layout needs.
Having said all that, what pushed me to learning css was a website I did in tables. I looked at the code and realized I'd been doing the same thing for a few recent years and this got so freakin' boring :)
- grafholic0
i use combination.
put tables within divs which is defined by css.
- shaft0
..and I am sick of this "tables weren't meant for layout" babble.
A.G. Bell's hearing aid wasn't meant to become telephone either, same with a lot of other inventions :)
- mrdobolina0
all this talk about hobbyists, amateurs and what 'real designers' do is wack and elitist. although I use divs for the most part. sometimes time doesn't allow for me to be able to do things entirely in css. but amazingly, my checks still seem to get deposited in the bank, go figure.
- spiralstarez0
I think I post something like this in every CSS thread, but here we go again...
ASIDE from what is already said here, there are obvious benefits of CSS that cannot be argued against by the hater.
a) performance - a complete css site is much faster in loading. In a table based site all the data in a cell must download before any of it displays. In a CSS site this is not the case.
b) filesize - if you look at some of the historical switches to CSS by major sites, they were able to save thousands in bandwidth costs (ESPN)
c) simplicity - I can develop clean, commented code as a designer, and pass it off to a developer who doesn't have to wade through piles of TD and TR tags to find stuff