Css Or Not?

[Deverill]

As I was sitting here thinking about things I was asking myself, "Self, do you think many people are rewriting their sites to take advantage of the new technologies or is it just too much work for the average Joe to go through?"

 

Who better to ask than my family!?!?

 

For me, I'm moving to strict CSS but am cheating in places. Most of my sites are close though.

Edited November 30, 2005 by TCH-Jim

[TCH-Bruce]

Depends on the job at hand. Mostly CSS - relaxed but still use tables for difficult layouts.

[marie b.]

I use strict CSS on my blog. I can't imagine using anything else.

 

It took me about an hour to work out what does where when I first switched from HTML to CSS, and now it comes naturally.

[jayson]

I am redoing my site to reflect CSS

 

why code 10 or more pages, when you can code just one

[stevevan]

CSS for me too. It's not really a matter of taking advantage of emerging technology. Rather it's trying to keep my skills current JUST IN CASE!

[abinidi]

Funny. Just yesterday I was thinking this very thing, and I did a google search on something like CSS vs Tables.

 

Here is an interseting article that I read refuting the trend to switch to use css-strict.

 

(I don't agree with everything said in the following article, however it was an interesting read, and presented a different perspective, so use it for what its worth to you... )

 

h*tp://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspx

[abinidi]

.... and another link which is slightly less biased, and in which css wins:

 

ht*p://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css

[carbonize]

There will always be need for some HTML formatting given the huge differences between the way different browsers handle the box model. Not to mention IE's poor CSS support.

[owatagal]

Strict CSS--as in, I even hate having to use non-semantic DIV tags and avoid them as much as possible. I design more quickly, redesign more quickly, can tell what's going on in a page more easily, have better accessibility, better search engine rankings, quicker download time for visitors, and, believe it or not, fewer complaints about browser issues.

 

The box model problem is a non-issue for me 95% of the time. And the other 5%... I'd rather deal with it than look at a page of nested tables. All the other benefits of CSS are more than worth an evening or two spent cursing IE.

[Deverill]

I agree, Carbonize, that there is a need for things like tables, but it should be to do tables, not layout.

 

There will always be an argument about tables vs css too. Someone, somewhere will not want to spend the time to learn CSS (or perhaps doesn't have the time to spend) and will get mad instead of getting educated and will spew how evil it is.

 

In my case, I love CSS because when my Pastor comes to me and says "Jim, let's put some fall colors on the website." it's only 4 lines I need to change instead of 40 files.

Edited December 1, 2005 by TCH-Jim

[surefire]

My two cents

 

If you learn a few css techniques that get you around the box model without hacks then CSS positioning becomes a breeze. The work you put into learning how to use CSS is well worth it. You'll struggle at first, but then one day it'll click and you'll be off and running.

 

Now I can't imagine creating a layout with tables. For me, it's just easier going the css route.