CSS Layout vs. cost

[Unknown User]

I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think it's
the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about the
raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.

What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a layout
in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change on all pages
(I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and feel).

Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on the long
run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic issue here), and
the global look & feel depends on 1 file.

What do you think?

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Discover Opera: http://members.surfeu.fi/jerkku/
http://www.auriance.com - http://www.auriance.net

[Jim Moe]

Unknown User wrote:

I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think
it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about
the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.
What costs?
What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
layout in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change on
all pages (I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and feel).

Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on the
long run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic issue
here), and the global look & feel depends on 1 file.

The two previous statements contradict each other. And how is look and
feel different from layout?

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Mark Carroll]

In article <gb********************@giganews.com>,
Jim Moe <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
(snip)

The two previous statements contradict each other. And how is look and
feel different from layout?

Maybe he's thinking that things like fonts and colours are look and
feel, whereas layout is just about the relative positioning of things.
That's my guess, anyway.

-- Mark

[Unknown User]

On 24 Jan 2005 18:44:46 +0000 (GMT), Mark Carroll
<ma***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

In article <gb********************@giganews.com>,
Jim Moe <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
(snip)

The two previous statements contradict each other. And how is look and
feel different from layout?

Maybe he's thinking that things like fonts and colours are look and
feel, whereas layout is just about the relative positioning of things.
That's my guess, anyway.

-- Mark

Yes, it's what I mean.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Discover Opera: http://members.surfeu.fi/jerkku/
http://www.auriance.com - http://www.auriance.net

[logic_earth]

In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better because you
have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp) also it is far more
accessible.

[Brian]

logic_earth wrote:

In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better
Not really, for reasons discussed many times previously. XHTML is a poor
choice, not least because MSIE cannot do anything useful with it when it
is served as such.
because you have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp)

HTML is a better choice right now, and is hardly in danger of being
obsolete.

--
Brian

[saz]

In article <11**********************@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
Th****@gd-studio.com says...

In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better because you
have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp) also it is far more
accessible.

I strongly disagree. IE struggles with XHTML, and like it or not, 90%
of the viewers still use IE - including your clients.

I have not made the switch, and will not in the foreseeable future.
Stick with HTML and CSS.

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On 24 Jan 2005 11:21:47 -0800, "logic_earth" <Th****@gd-studio.com>
wrote:

In the long run using xhtml + css (pure) is much better...
I tend to agree if you are willing to lose the X thingy.
because you have backwards & forward compatiblity(sp)
The "bullshit generator" could not have said that better :-)

<http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html>
also it is far more accessible.

As compared to what?

--
Rex

[Neal]

Unknown User <[e-mail]> wrote:

I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I
think it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite
concerned about the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the
industry.

What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
layout in CSS, and I don't see benefits when I have to do a change
on all pages (I'm talking about the layout here, not the look and
feel).

Creating table-based layout + CSS look & feel makes more sense on
the long run, I think, because it is quicker (there is an economic
issue here), and the global look & feel depends on 1 file.

What do you think?

I think the added cost of a table layout prepared by someone who has
not bothered to learn table layout completely is an awful expense.

Or, replace CSS for table.

[Chris Leipold]

Hi,
Unknown User wrote:

I've been using CSS layout (Tableless) for some time now, and I think
it's the best way to create a page, but I've been quite concerned about
the raising cost vs. fierce competition in the industry.

What I can see is that I take roughly a lot more time to create a
layout in CSS, [...]
What do you think?

I think: If you used CSS-based-layouts as long as you used
table-based-layouts, you would be much faster with CSS, especially on
complex pages.
If you have to redesign a page based on tabular layout, you do it from 0
again. (Cost=you're fucked).
If you have to redesign a css-based page you're very quick.

It's a very common prejudice that tabular-layout is quicker. To repeat,
this emerged from the fact that most webdesigners started with
tab.layout and are more experienced in tab.layout.

Chris

--
You pay peanuts, you feed monkeys.

[logic_earth]

i would like to recommend a book. But just so you know i am not saying
anything is better or that you should switch just my 2 cents.

I found this book to be very infomative:
http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...901115-6896031

[Unknown User]

On 25 Jan 2005 16:39:37 -0800, logic_earth <Th****@gd-studio.com> wrote:

I found this book to be very infomative:
http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...901115-6896031

LOL! I just reviewed this book that I was quite disappointed about. Here's
my review that is on the exact link you put (Amazon):

"Dan Cederholm's book had 2x more information and examples and was 2x
thinner.
J. Zeldman's book is a basic introduction to CSS, but is quite good for
XHTML, Accessibility, and standards in general. This book is general
purpose. It's a lot of blablabla and jokes too, and sometimes distracts
the reader from what she should stay focused on. It shouldn't be your 1st
book or you might get lost at times. The few examples are interesting.
Zeldman should release a 2nd edition without all the talking about his own
life and sarcastic stories, but with all examples from A List Apart. It
would be very interesting. Ok, buy it if you already read the masterpieces
of webdesign like Dan Cederholm and Eric Meyer :)"

I won't recomment it.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Discover Opera: http://members.surfeu.fi/jerkku/
http://www.auriance.com - http://www.auriance.net