Angarak Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The reasons for ditching table based layouts for CSS based ones are numerous: :: Increased Accessibility for users of assistive devices :: Reduce tag soup - pages will generally have smaller files size and load quicker :: More 'search engine friendly' pages In case there is anyone here who doesnt know, the UK Disability Discrimination Act does cover websites. Whilst web developers still pander to users of old browsers, the web will never move forward (well it will, but at a slower pace). Coding websites to HTML/XHTML strict DTD (not that lazy transitional crap) will reduce rendering issues amongst standards compliant browsers. Yes there are numerous CSS bugs, more so in IE, but there are ways of getting around them with browser detection and custom stylesheets. Yes its more work, but thats why people pay professional web designers ...and not little 12yr old johnny a couple doors down the road with MS Frontpage. down off soap box> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 The reasons for ditching table based layouts for CSS based ones are numerous: :: Increased Accessibility for users of assistive devices :: Reduce tag soup - pages will generally have smaller files size and load quicker :: More 'search engine friendly' pages In case there is anyone here who doesnt know, the UK Disability Discrimination Act does cover websites. Whilst web developers still pander to users of old browsers, the web will never move forward (well it will, but at a slower pace). Coding websites to HTML/XHTML strict DTD (not that lazy transitional crap) will reduce rendering issues amongst standards compliant browsers. Yes there are numerous CSS bugs, more so in IE, but there are ways of getting around them with browser detection and custom stylesheets. Yes its more work, but thats why people pay professional web designers ...and not little 12yr old johnny a couple doors down the road with MS Frontpage. down off soap box> Well first its impossible for all sites to be non discriminatory against the disabled,totaly impossible - for example,and heres 1 example how would or could Youtube.com work for those that are blind ? i would love to know ? Also whilst technicaly you are right about the web moving forward you still discriminate against those in poor countries - you assume everyone can afford vista or xp service pack 2 ? in reality half the world is still using windows 98 and a lot still on dial up modem. Yes tables might be an older way of creating websites but for a lot its better,and after all if it works - dont fix it - I heard the other day that unleaded petrol is old school, the way forward is bio-fuel,pop it in yer supra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angarak Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 ... Basically, the footer will not stay stuck to the bottom, although I do not want it to have a fixed position. ... Thanks! Friendly, just to clarify, you want the copyright below the navigation and content - but its not necessary for the copyright info to sit constantly at the bottom of the visible content on screen (like a floating copyright)? If so it can be done with a slightly different approach. Well first its impossible for all sites to be non discriminatory against the disabled,totaly impossible - for example,and heres 1 example how would or could Youtube.com work for those that are blind ? i would love to know ? ... Darren, firstly I hope you didnt take my post above as being personally directed at you as it wasnt, Im merely stating the case for using CSS over tables for controlling layout. Taking your proposed scenario for a blind person on youtube where vision is the obstacle. Your absolutely right - there is no 100% way to ensure that all websites are fully accessible to users with assistive devices. However, there is nothing to say websites cant be made to be as accessible as reasonably possible. A possible solution to the youtube website would be to offer a text/audio based solution that is descriptive of the videos content. Ofcourse on a public video site, the onus of providing the audio description is on the uploader so not really workable. However if it were a company website, there is nothing stopping the company providing an alternative text/audio description of a video. I've had a similar question put forward about a website that sells pieces of art online - "what would a blind person be doing looking at an art site?" ...well they could be looking to buy a piece of art for someone as a gift, and could base their purchase on the descriptive text associated with the piece of art - I think we can both agree - probably not a common thing - but not impossible if accomodated for. Also whilst technicaly you are right about the web moving forward you still discriminate against those in poor countries - you assume everyone can afford vista or xp service pack 2 ? in reality half the world is still using windows 98 and a lot still on dial up modem. There is a lot of assuming on the internet Your right that poorer countries arent as 'advanced' as the likes of the UK so your 'older browser' point is correct - assuming the website in question is intended to have a global audience. If however the website is aimed solely at the UK, then I guess we can spoil ourselves by assuming people will have a more recent browser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angarak Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.