- sensibilium
- » sensiblog
- » It is frustrating actually
It is frustrating actually
Web design, it's a funny old game.
I'm not sure how many of you have heard that the latest web standards documents have been released. I've not read the document myself, as the document explaining how to understand the standards document is longer than the standards document itself.
It's all rather confusing too, the table tag being used as a method to hold together a site layout was a hack to begin with due to the lack of presentational ability of HTML, and for the first time in history we are getting away from tables, the standards agency say, no it's okay, you can use tables for layout, just declare as a 'layout' type table in the CSS.
Isn't this going backwards, tables are for tabulated data, that's what it means, td, th (table/tabulated header), etc. This is pandering to the corporate suits who have some ancient sites and they don't want to have to upgrade them to make them accessible to people who can't read tiny text or are blind. They don't care! Bastards.
I hear it all the time, "Well how many blind people will visit the site?" Like it matters! They fail to realise those of us who are short of sight, we struggle with the little words, it's called age. I want to scroll my mouse while holding down CTRL and increase the font-size. I heartily laugh when sites "designed for IE" (because we're brainless and still living in the late 90's) when my lovely Firefox breaks their sites into pretty spacer blocks and horizontal scrollbars! Oh such glee!
I need to get out more. Bye!
I'm not sure how many of you have heard that the latest web standards documents have been released. I've not read the document myself, as the document explaining how to understand the standards document is longer than the standards document itself.
It's all rather confusing too, the table tag being used as a method to hold together a site layout was a hack to begin with due to the lack of presentational ability of HTML, and for the first time in history we are getting away from tables, the standards agency say, no it's okay, you can use tables for layout, just declare as a 'layout' type table in the CSS.
Isn't this going backwards, tables are for tabulated data, that's what it means, td, th (table/tabulated header), etc. This is pandering to the corporate suits who have some ancient sites and they don't want to have to upgrade them to make them accessible to people who can't read tiny text or are blind. They don't care! Bastards.
I hear it all the time, "Well how many blind people will visit the site?" Like it matters! They fail to realise those of us who are short of sight, we struggle with the little words, it's called age. I want to scroll my mouse while holding down CTRL and increase the font-size. I heartily laugh when sites "designed for IE" (because we're brainless and still living in the late 90's) when my lovely Firefox breaks their sites into pretty spacer blocks and horizontal scrollbars! Oh such glee!
I need to get out more. Bye!
- This post has 18 comments, the last was posted by legion on Mon 21 Aug 2006 at 10:36pm GMT
Comments
Did you read this also? - http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2
Also - http://www.zeldman.com/2006/07/17/an-angry-fix/
I had read the Alistapart article, it harks back to the To Hell With Bad Browsers article which I feel helped to kickstart the move to CSS.
Sounds like Zeldman has pretty much the same to say as me, but in more succint terms.
Sounds like Zeldman has pretty much the same to say as me, but in more succint terms.
THIS WEBSITE SUCKS ARSE!!!!!!!!!
I Agree somewhat.
You know this bloog is begging for few td tags.
no tabulated data here sir!
what about a tr?
No table rows either! Wheee!
To illuminknight, you may say that but only yesterday you were asking me what a "blog" was, so your observation is hardly a professional one. :p
To illuminknight, you may say that but only yesterday you were asking me what a "blog" was, so your observation is hardly a professional one. :p
ahdkaw you TWAT!!!
CSS is the way forward!!!
This rumbles on and on -
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/08/14/angry-indeed/
http://www.molly.com/2006/08/14/angry-not-zeldman-meyer-and-fair-concerns-about-the-w3c/
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2006/08/14/angry-indeed/
http://www.molly.com/2006/08/14/angry-not-zeldman-meyer-and-fair-concerns-about-the-w3c/
Ahd, we're going to have to do something about this password. It's staring to make me break out in spots & greasy hair.
Where's the truth in all this progression crap. A tale harping on about tables.
Lets look at a few basic Q's. Are HTML constructs so basic to the core of HTML that they are essentially the seed of HTML going to disappear - ever? No. Even if there is some confusion over how they should be rendered.
One might picture the hideous old websites that flagrantly displayed their tables in all their hideous glory. There are however many old sites that need not be updated with all manner of fancy new technology. They’re here, and they serve a function. Imagine the impact of a web standards idea that said, ok we’re going to drop tables, also imagine the Gecko engine follows this ideal. Millions of sites and their information would cease to function.
Not until such a time comes when a completely new movement in the delivery of information comes along, with an entirely new model that may require a different approach than using a browser on a computer to view information. Therefore: while ever there will be browsers there will be tables.
CSS is cool. However retiring core elements of HTML isn't to be taken as lightly as retiring fekking beanie-babies.
If for a second you care to agree with my viewpoint, should W3C be applauded for being somewhat conservative in instances such as this?
Personally I think the web standards have come a long way over the last few years. My job as relates to standards has certainly become easier.
Fortunately HTML is itself extensible enough to allow all you progress junkies to drool over implementing the latest new toys while keeping its core.
Now go have tea & biscuits. I’m over talking crap.
Where's the truth in all this progression crap. A tale harping on about tables.
Lets look at a few basic Q's. Are HTML constructs so basic to the core of HTML that they are essentially the seed of HTML going to disappear - ever? No. Even if there is some confusion over how they should be rendered.
One might picture the hideous old websites that flagrantly displayed their tables in all their hideous glory. There are however many old sites that need not be updated with all manner of fancy new technology. They’re here, and they serve a function. Imagine the impact of a web standards idea that said, ok we’re going to drop tables, also imagine the Gecko engine follows this ideal. Millions of sites and their information would cease to function.
Not until such a time comes when a completely new movement in the delivery of information comes along, with an entirely new model that may require a different approach than using a browser on a computer to view information. Therefore: while ever there will be browsers there will be tables.
CSS is cool. However retiring core elements of HTML isn't to be taken as lightly as retiring fekking beanie-babies.
If for a second you care to agree with my viewpoint, should W3C be applauded for being somewhat conservative in instances such as this?
Personally I think the web standards have come a long way over the last few years. My job as relates to standards has certainly become easier.
Fortunately HTML is itself extensible enough to allow all you progress junkies to drool over implementing the latest new toys while keeping its core.
Now go have tea & biscuits. I’m over talking crap.
Well, no one's suggesting dropping tables from the spec or changing how tables work. Even if they did the browser makers wouldn't drop support for the reasons you mention. They go to great lengths already to support outdated or inexpertly coded sites with most/all browsers having a "quirks mode" for those.
Regarding tables all that's being asked is that they are used for the purpose they were created for.
I'm sure you probably know all this so I'm likely posting it pointlessly. Still here continues :D
HTML while presentational whether people like it or not. Is not just that it has semantic meaning. So if you use a element of it for something it's not meant for this confuses certain peoples/machines and so makes the page less accessable.
As you say those old pages won't go away and no one expects them too in any forseeable time frame.
Thes tables thing is not the problem that has folk like Zeldman concerned though. Some of the links I posted should shed light.
Regarding tables all that's being asked is that they are used for the purpose they were created for.
I'm sure you probably know all this so I'm likely posting it pointlessly. Still here continues :D
HTML while presentational whether people like it or not. Is not just that it has semantic meaning. So if you use a element of it for something it's not meant for this confuses certain peoples/machines and so makes the page less accessable.
As you say those old pages won't go away and no one expects them too in any forseeable time frame.
Thes tables thing is not the problem that has folk like Zeldman concerned though. Some of the links I posted should shed light.
AT.
I agree with most of what you say. Let me ask a blunt question: Explicity and truly in the most absolute terms of logic is it bad practice to use tables as a method of presenting information other than tabulated data today? By this I mean provide a yes or a no answer with your criteria.
Let me stress that I agree there is some benefit to using layers and CSS. Equally there is benefit in the simplicity of tables and their modern renderings in popular browsers with respect to the layout of a simple page.
I agree with most of what you say. Let me ask a blunt question: Explicity and truly in the most absolute terms of logic is it bad practice to use tables as a method of presenting information other than tabulated data today? By this I mean provide a yes or a no answer with your criteria.
Let me stress that I agree there is some benefit to using layers and CSS. Equally there is benefit in the simplicity of tables and their modern renderings in popular browsers with respect to the layout of a simple page.
Yes, with the proviso that there's always likely to be exceptions to anything. I'm not an absolutist in anything much.
And of course there areas where there's controversy over what should be considered tabular data.
Why? Well if you believe as I do that standardised methodology provides the basis for more accessibility. The basis for easier development.
Imagine if all browsers (The vast majority do.) adhered minus minor quirks to the same standards.
Cross browser testing then becomes a mere formality rather than a huge trap laden mess.
If you believe that then you should if at all possible promote it in the way you work.
For a "simple" page there's almost nothing that should be done without tables that can't be done and usually easier without them. It's when things get very complex you might argue tables are easier.
In fact now that I've been mainly working without them for a long period i find then very difficult to use in the complex ways they get used for complex page layouts.
Yes there are examples where it's not cost effective. In time if nothing else to stick to standards. This is less and less true though.
Things are far from perfect that's for sure but just because they are not does not mean we should stop pushing towards a goal.
I should say, I'm not one of these rabid stadardistas who go about pointing out to people their validation errors and such like. Berating others for things I've done or still do on occasion. People that have no reason to know any different perhaps. I mean anyone can pick up and play with HTML and that's a good thing.
To each their own but if like now we're talking about the issue I'll certainly push in the direction of standards. Try to promote it without pushing it down anyones throat.
This is partly why all these articles I linked to are being made. People have been advocating things they quite passionately believe in. Moving them from once almost unworkable solutions to those that are being largely adopted by developers now. Then when the WC3 seems to disregard, even undermine, many years of hard toil by the peoples that they probably should be taking more notice of. The peoples that have to work with their specs day in day out.
Well you know. Ramble bamble blah blah.
Oook!
And of course there areas where there's controversy over what should be considered tabular data.
Why? Well if you believe as I do that standardised methodology provides the basis for more accessibility. The basis for easier development.
Imagine if all browsers (The vast majority do.) adhered minus minor quirks to the same standards.
Cross browser testing then becomes a mere formality rather than a huge trap laden mess.
If you believe that then you should if at all possible promote it in the way you work.
For a "simple" page there's almost nothing that should be done without tables that can't be done and usually easier without them. It's when things get very complex you might argue tables are easier.
In fact now that I've been mainly working without them for a long period i find then very difficult to use in the complex ways they get used for complex page layouts.
Yes there are examples where it's not cost effective. In time if nothing else to stick to standards. This is less and less true though.
Things are far from perfect that's for sure but just because they are not does not mean we should stop pushing towards a goal.
I should say, I'm not one of these rabid stadardistas who go about pointing out to people their validation errors and such like. Berating others for things I've done or still do on occasion. People that have no reason to know any different perhaps. I mean anyone can pick up and play with HTML and that's a good thing.
To each their own but if like now we're talking about the issue I'll certainly push in the direction of standards. Try to promote it without pushing it down anyones throat.
This is partly why all these articles I linked to are being made. People have been advocating things they quite passionately believe in. Moving them from once almost unworkable solutions to those that are being largely adopted by developers now. Then when the WC3 seems to disregard, even undermine, many years of hard toil by the peoples that they probably should be taking more notice of. The peoples that have to work with their specs day in day out.
Well you know. Ramble bamble blah blah.
Oook!
It is often that case that sometimes sticking to standards, such as XHTML 1.0 Strict where such things as onClick and onLoad are not valid, which means that when using Javascript you are forced into placing the link into the HREF of a link, meaning that for those without Javascript enabled the link simply won't work and there is hence no provision for them (whereas in HTML4 you can put the link in the link and the Javascript in the onClick).
Most browser-related issues are however nothing to do with the standards themselves, but the broken implementation of those standards in the programs.
For example, there is no reason why IE should have messed the box model up, they should have looked into the issue of disappearing floats, the incorrect placement of the background in fieldsets, all of these are fixable, and should have been fixed a long time ago.
Only now is IE being fixed for these flaws now that they have come to the realisation that 'we' control web content, not 'them'.
But lets think about this logically. When the original CSS and HTML came about, nobody took them seriously, hence neither did the software developers, I mean just think back to NS4.7, Christ, that was bad, in fact I'm kinda glad that IE did smash them as it really was a BAAAAD browser.
But to use tables for the sake of using tables nowadays (ie Layout) is asking for trouble, accessibility is KING, people want to be able to increase the font-size, they want to be able to print out the page without getting the non-content as well, some people even like to switch of styles entirely. If you site breaks in those situations then it's not accessible.
For anyone building a new commericial website, I would always recommend the CSS route, not simply be of being a standardista, but also because it makes it much easier to redesign later on in it's life.
Most browser-related issues are however nothing to do with the standards themselves, but the broken implementation of those standards in the programs.
For example, there is no reason why IE should have messed the box model up, they should have looked into the issue of disappearing floats, the incorrect placement of the background in fieldsets, all of these are fixable, and should have been fixed a long time ago.
Only now is IE being fixed for these flaws now that they have come to the realisation that 'we' control web content, not 'them'.
But lets think about this logically. When the original CSS and HTML came about, nobody took them seriously, hence neither did the software developers, I mean just think back to NS4.7, Christ, that was bad, in fact I'm kinda glad that IE did smash them as it really was a BAAAAD browser.
But to use tables for the sake of using tables nowadays (ie Layout) is asking for trouble, accessibility is KING, people want to be able to increase the font-size, they want to be able to print out the page without getting the non-content as well, some people even like to switch of styles entirely. If you site breaks in those situations then it's not accessible.
For anyone building a new commericial website, I would always recommend the CSS route, not simply be of being a standardista, but also because it makes it much easier to redesign later on in it's life.
For a commercial website it is just plain bad business sense to create a website that looks shite to even one potential customer, when there are plenty of designers out there who can design a site that is totally accessible AND pretty. Of course it requires someone in charge to have the faintest idea and/or to listen to people who do have the faintest idea. Something which is quite rare.
Don't quite know why designers make so much fuss about it though. It's not the end of the world if someones website looks shit in AlternativeBrowser5.4. Sure standards would be nice, but so would a lot of things. Designers make a lot of money from knowing how to make sites look good in all the different browsers. If standards were a reaLITY, Macromedia would be able to produce software that could knock up a site in seconds and be used by any idiot with no real design sense. Then where would we be? Out of work thats where.
So personally, I say let 'em fuck around with standards and then your average bod will remain confused and pay over the odds for someone who can figure all the nonsense out.
The world is a messy place and always will be. Let it be and get on with it.
Don't quite know why designers make so much fuss about it though. It's not the end of the world if someones website looks shit in AlternativeBrowser5.4. Sure standards would be nice, but so would a lot of things. Designers make a lot of money from knowing how to make sites look good in all the different browsers. If standards were a reaLITY, Macromedia would be able to produce software that could knock up a site in seconds and be used by any idiot with no real design sense. Then where would we be? Out of work thats where.
So personally, I say let 'em fuck around with standards and then your average bod will remain confused and pay over the odds for someone who can figure all the nonsense out.
The world is a messy place and always will be. Let it be and get on with it.
