CSS sucks for layout

[jsmunroe]

Web developers. I swear. I'm sick of your one-size-fits-all, "interface functionality doesn't matter as long as it's pretty" methodologies. I avoid web interfaces like the plague. You cannot control layout. The browser puts crap pretty much where ever the heck it wants it to go. Its not dependable, its not functional, but hey, at least its pretty. I'm trying to create an administrative console for my web application. Unfortunately it has to be done in HTML/CSS. Here is what I need:

1) A fixed height (60 pixels) title bar across the top of the page. Call it "divTitle."

2) A navigational side bar that starts just below just below the title bar and goes to the bottom of the page. It has a minimum width but otherwise makes room for its content because *gasp* it contains a tree control. Call it "divNavigation."

3) A content section that starts just below the title bar and just left of the side bar (no matter what size it is). Call it "divContent."

4) It must work in all browser flavors.

If web can't do this simple thing, then I don't care what you say, web CANNOT do layout.

[drhowarddrfine]

Web developers. I swear. I'm sick of your one-size-fits-all, "interface functionality doesn't matter as long as it's pretty" methodologies.

Haven't a clue what you mean by that.

I avoid web interfaces like the plague. You cannot control layout.

Please only speak for yourself.

The browser puts crap pretty much where ever the heck it wants it to go. Its not dependable, its not functional, but hey, at least its pretty.

Are you talking about our browsers?

I'm trying to create an administrative console for my web application. Unfortunately it has to be done in HTML/CSS. Here is what I need:

This forum is not for abuse, not writing code for you. That's a different forum. But if you show us what you have, we can steer you toward the light.

If web can't do this simple thing, then I don't care what you say, web CANNOT do layout.

Yes, nothing on the web works. It's all an illusion.

[JamieHowarth0]

I'm with the Doppeldoctor on this one, I'm an ASP.NET developer and *gasp* I use CSS layouts. They work, they're accessible and fulfil Section 508, WAI guidelines and *gasp* UK Disability Discrimination Act law from 2004 onwards.

CSS layouts, arguably, are more difficult to create, but that is because a new level of understanding about how each browser interprets CSS rules (IE6, IE7 and the standards-compliant ones - Firefox, Safari, Opera etc.). It's called browser rendering and border-box model and does require some in-depth research, as CSS can be used to exert some serious presentational power over HTML markup - much more so than tables can or could ever do.

I suggest that if you seriously want some help without offending a lot of people who use this extremely powerful method to produce high-quality, accessible, functional websites, then go to www.w3schools.com/css and read up on their tutorials.
Or, if you don't have the time to do it yourself, search for "CSS layouts" on Google and buy a pretty template from one of millions of companies to do the job for you for $10 one-off (I am rubbish at design so this is a good technique for me to get quick mockups).
Or check out this site - www.glish.com/css/ - it gives you the CSS to do a basic two- or three-column layout with header and footer, just like you want, so you can write your own markup and say to your manager "look boss, no tables!".

Not that I don't appreciate that sometimes speed over quality is necessary - my boss has insisted that for speed, my latest creation be done with tables (shudder), and the client isn't too fussed, but CSS layouts are preferable from a semantic perspective.
The idea of CSS layouts is to ensure that ANY device can read what is being rendered even if CSS isn't supported. Ultimately, someone should be able to read the raw markup and make sense of the document. That's semantics and that's about writing good HTML and using CSS to format it, otherwise your markup gets peppered with unnecessary presentational code, which then confuses search engines and your (albeit small) population of blind people who use screen readers to browse the WWW.

Please don't flame again, it's not necessary. We all have to do things in life we don't like, there's no need to take it out on the users of this board.

medicineworker

[oler1s]

but CSS layouts are preferable from a semantic perspective.

They are also preferable from a speed perspective. Tables don't get rendered until the entire table is loaded. So if you have a table layout...wait, wait, wait for the user.

Plus it's worse on bandwidth. The browser won't request the same CSS file multiple times. Smaller HTML files mean less bandwidth used up and faster loading for the client.

CSS is currently not so great for layouts. But it's usable. Let's hope CSS3 makes things a lot better.

[drhowarddrfine]

He said, "CSS is currently not so great for layouts." Start with the links on the right side of that page and work your way down. Identical content. All CSS layouts.

[JamieHowarth0]

He said, "CSS is currently not so great for layouts." Start with the links on the right side of that page and work your way down. Identical content. All CSS layouts.

That site drew me out of the darkness and into the light with CSS layouts.

[David Laakso]

That site drew me out of the darkness and into the light with CSS layouts.

Good! Now to remember not forget there's a lot more to to Web design with CSS than pushing "eye-candy," or creating print media magazine ads that are hosted on the Web.
<wink>

[tharden3]

"CSS is currently not so great for layouts."

hehe, cool .