BBC NEWS PAGES
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- johnnnnyh0
No moth, you are wrong. There are things which divs can't do that currently tables do easily. Not many things but there are a couple. CSS is great - no doubting that. But it is not without its own limitations. The problem is that it would be great to make a new site and not use tables (and that is what I do) nevertheless it is often 80% pain and 20% compromise in (some) areas where a table would quite frankly, do the job better.
Tables are flawed - I agree, but so is pure CSS, since it cannot produce some basic, and desirable layouts which a table can (very) easily. Much of my time has been spent finding new ways to emulate the table layout - but this is the point - it's not a task that feels worthwhile when there is an easier way already out there.
- Mojo0
wtf is css
- ********0
Basically johnnnnyh, regardless of what you're saying, all I'm hearing is that you don't have a competent grasp of the technologies you're using. If you did - you wouldn't be saying this, and you wouldn't be compromising your designs.
I never compromise my designs. Ever.
- johnnnnyh0
moth, perhaps you should re-read what I've said. I have a very competent grasp of the technology, my point is that a table is own a compromise because someone else is saying it is. Actually, and since you know css you must agree, CSS will make you compromise designs as well. In fact, and this is where you might argue, much of design is about a compromise to a degree.
By the way, I don't think you should say someone hasn't a competent grasp of something when you have very little evidence to base this on.
- rafalski0
Moth, we've been here before a few times, haven't we? :)
Obviously, semantic xhtml/css gives you a dramatic improvement in terms of code structure, modularity, separation of content from design and whatnot, but it is no secret that it is flawed in its design and virtually all the flaws could've been easily avoided right there on the drawing board rather than in further revisions. I attribute some of the fuckups to xhtml consultants being coders, not designers - lets just say they were nerdy types. That's why some of very intuitive properties like "vertical-align" are not available inside box elements, except for TD's(!!!). Why not? I could never find a good answer. Same way, self-stretching equal-height layout columns (or rows) are a goner. Why? Leaving the option to add "vertical-align" to any element by specifying "display:table-cell" only proves tables were in fact useful for non-tabular stuff. But stupidly, "display:table-cell" must be wrapped in a redundant element with a "display:table" set to work. Why? Nobody knows.
Then some CSS is messed up simply because of anti-M$ political correctnes. That's why the shitty box-model we have now won over the more intuitive and functional one found in IE5.I'm not saying "give me the tables back" by any means, the non-semantic markup died for a reason. Only that they never were properly replaced with a matching set of tools. We wouldn't have this endless discussion, had CSS not been fucked up like that.
This is imo why people still haven't abandoned tables in 2008.The article I'm quoting in the post above points out that "browser issues" we've been struggling with for a few years largely come from CSS being lousely defined, not just designed, it's an angle I couldn't disagree with.
- ********0
You said I was wrong - and I know I'm not. If you think my previous comments were "wrong" - then you don't have a competent grasp of the technologies you're using or arguing about!
If this were a forum for brain surgeons - your comments are tantamount to recommending a spoon for performing brain surgery. I don't like telling people they are wrong, but you just are.
Tables are for tabular data. End of.
- ********0
Would you tell a builder to build a house with a plastic hammer?
- jamble0
I'm pretty sure the dickhead who did some rennovations on our house used a plastic hammer while we weren't looking.
- johnnnnyh0
Tables are for tabular data - I agree.
rafalski - states the rest which amounts to you being wrong in that you said "There's no excuse for marking up new builds in tables." There is an excuse - a very compelling one.
You also wrong in that you continue to say that I don't have a competent grasp of the technologies I'm using or arguing about - which I do.
If this was a forum for brain surgeons I very much doubt you'd be contributing on it.
I would tell a builder to build a house with a plastic hammer if he was using a glass one and there was only a plastic one left (over) in the toolkit.
- ********0
It seems that at the point that building websites went beyond a few hours dicking around in your bedroom, to actually requiring an understanding of the technology, a bit of programming skills, and some actual, real technical know-how, the bedroom coders have come up with ever imaginative ways to talk themselves into the job without actually learning anything about or putting in 1 bit of effort.
Suddenly your short-cuts are unacceptable.
Suddenly building a good website needs time and skill, and you know what? You can't be fucking bothered. That's the rub.
- johnnnnyh0
Oh moth, you are so terribly wrong (again).
Never been a bedroom coder - been in the creative industry for many years so I've no need to do this as a hobby. My orginal post was about the BBC who, I don't think are bedroom coders either - perhaps you have thoughts on this as well, though?
My point was about the craft, and the time needed to produce the same effect. Perhaps you're not in business or you don't make real money out of design. But for those of us that do, there is a need to look at and question practices that are at times counter productive to producing the end result.
I agree building a good website needs time and skill - and again, I would argue that there are some methods of mark-up which, as rafakski said, aren't a matching set of tools.
Since you're swearing in your responses now, I'm guessing this discussion is drawing to a close.
- ********0
If you are coding your HTML and CSS right, there is nothing counter-productive about it! In fact - it's the total opposite!
I can't believe you can possibly try and convince me of your integrity, whilst defending out-dated, ineffective, and down right shoddy techniques. I have no choice but to assume you don't know your craft!
- ********0
And yes it's my job.
I make "real" money out of this and have done so for 8 years.- Well i've been doing this commercially for over 14 years so sorry I beat you!johnnnnyh
- johnnnnyh0
assume makes an ass out of you and me - been waiting to say that phrase for a long time!
I'm not trying to convince you, I was asking the question of how the BBC have done it and "got away with it". There is a difference. Honestly, I know what you're saying and in a perfect world I'd agree, but the reality of for example, a three column flexible layout in CSS is impossible to achieve with the same "robustness" (for want of a better word) as doing it with a table. No, I don't build with tables - even for 3 cols, but I am aware that a table would be an easier solution and that the only thing saying it isn't is some nameless entity saying it should not be done like that.
So, as a general point I do think you're correct in your aspirations - and I share them, but like anything in life, the perfect world is not always in sync with business/real life. I suspect that is why the BBC have used tables.
Finally, I don't want tables vs CSS to become the new Mac vs PC. Life's too short for that I think.
- ********0
the BBC haven't done it and "got away with it".
These news page are old pages - I expect they have to fudge it for a CMS that is probably older than you and me.Their site is vast. You don't just recode it overnight.
The homepage is fine though. Nothing wrong there.
- johnnnnyh0
the news pages have been partly recoded - they have a new left-hand navigation - which is where we started on this thread . . . but I agree most likely part of an overal bigger CMs and a wider ranging project.
the CMS is very unlikely to be older than me though and I'd be very worried if it was!
- rafalski0
The good outcome of Web Standards is that because of both their design and browser implementation flaws the learning curve has changed.
Times when anyone could make a website are gone, we became experts and can charge the money we do. We have no right to complain actually.What was good about tables - and still draws people to them is that they provided grid, a solid yet flexible one. While obviously this can be recreated tablelessly, it's clear that CSS/XHTML was invented by people who treated content like flowing tata aligning itself as it went rather than grid-structured. This is why tableless methods still feel less natural to many designers.
Tables weren't meant for layout structuring, but they were good for it, even if underlying code was a mess.
They weren't the first example in the history of an invention that succeeded in something different from what it was meant or good for.
Take Coca-Cola: it failed as a medicine, was saved by and prospered thanks to rebadging it to a soft drink and what it's really good at is cleaning toilet residue.
