Comments on: Re: “Why CSS should not be used for layout”

By: Moa

Moa — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:20:16 +0000

CSS is good for certain types of layout (eg. web pages, like duh) but is terrible for traditional types of layout (eg. dynamic application type interfaces). That is why web applications (even the most sophisticated Google ones) still fall so far short of any complex application out there.

After wrestling with CSS to try and get my moderately complex GWT working right (the Java is easy, the CSS is horrid) I abandoned it and went to a WebStart application where I could use all the power of Swing’s layout managers (once you spend the hour required to master GridBagLayout you realise how poor CSS is in comparison). Sure I could get the CSS to work correctly and possibly layout correctly but the tool/debugging support (Firebug) is second rate compared to rich-client equivalents. IMHO CSS is ok if all you’re doing is simple stuff (which is why it’s defenders see no problems) but it (and it’s tool environment) just isn’t good enough to push webapps to the next level.

By: philip

philip — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:36:22 +0000

CSS is not just hard. It is also inconsistent. Using it just because it is the *right* thing to do makes about as much sense as using a razor to trim eye lashes – that is, it is possible, but why try it when there are far easier ways of getting stuff done. This religious zeal for CSS makes no sense.

By: zalun

zalun — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:07:31 +0000

CSS is not hard. Believe me. Just read few old articles from A List Apart and everything comes clear. I love separating the content and design. It is simple. Certainly there are things I’d like to have (like dd selector), but usually Javascript comes quite handy.

Don’t get me wrong – I came through the table design (I started in ’96) I still use it for HTML emails. The moment you realise the power of CSS is when you start to use a changeable content. There are things which are simply impossible without using 3 or more nested tables – that looks horrible. In CSS it is just another logical DOM Element (like ul or div).

Try to read your table designed page in Fangs – you may feel like a blind person – table information is an important part content, div is layout.

Give it a try – build something simple, avoid hacks, test in Firefox with Firebug, check in IE/Safari evry half an hour. If it is something new it’ll not be simple from the beginning.

Shouw some courage people

By: Taylor Gautier

Taylor Gautier — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:22:47 +0000

You don’t get it. It shouldn’t be hard. That’s what is wrong with CSS for layout.

By: Jack Lawson

Jack Lawson — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:07:40 +0000

@florin
Indeed it appears to have become a personal issue. I’ll reiterate the point that if you know how to use CSS, it’s not hard. It doesn’t take up time. It doesn’t cost too much if you know how to utilize the tools you’re given. To somebody who doesn’t understand how to use the technology, tables make sense.

However, I believe that just because something’s hard, you shouldn’t give up on it. An accessible, liquid design, to me, is more important than churning out a design using tables. I learned this lesson the hard way recently; I decided to take a shortcut on a design I had been working on. Then, after it was all done, the designer made several changes to how the content boxes fit into each page. And, now I was back at square one. However, had I used CSS and done it the right way, it may have taken 50% longer, but that means I would have also saved time, not having to do it twice; it’s much easier to change CSS, once it’s finished.

If you never have to maintain the design.. sure, use tables. But that’s hardly the case, and it’s a slippery slope.

And I am obsessed about “the shadows on my page design”, because what I deliver to my client should be the best I can possibly do, and nothing less. I refuse to offer anything other than my best.