? 415 564 1347.
Archives for February 2002
has written a response to my post last night about structure and CSS. I agree with him that CSS support is marginal on the whole, and even though I think it’s a great idea to move towards all-CSS designs, I also agree that it’s probably a little early to do so for big sites. Personal sites – that depends on the individual. The astute reader will notice that I have gone with a hybrid design here, using tables where I could not get CSS to work as I wanted it to. There is some degradation in Netscape 4, but with a corresponding improvement in the display in other browsers, so I consider that a wash.
In related news, I took another look at the structure in my own html files, and I realized that I can go a lot further down that road. I’m going to look into doing that in the next couple of days.
have weighed in on the question of CSS now that the issue has become a “live” one in the weblog world. A representative opinion on one “side” of the thing (if sides here makes sense, which I don’t actually think it does) is that of Matt Bridges in CounterProductive. He wrote, “When a designer uses CSS to mimic what can be done with tables, separating content into different boxes that are placed at specific parts of the screen, they tie that content to that layout. This completely defeats the purpose of separation of style from content.”
It’s a perfectly reasonable statement, and having worked on some CSS layouts I do see the drawbacks alongside the advantages. The problem is, however, that most people seem to have the foundational principles wrong. And their error leads in ugly directions.
CSS is about style. But there’s something much more important than that. Implementing CSS also returns structure to HTML. And that is where the value is – it’s not about separating content from style – that’s what a CMS is for. Rather, it’s to return the third variable – structure – to its rightful place in the mix. So that not only do you have the flexibility to do anything you want with the content (in the CMS), and to redesign that site as you like, but there’s also a fully degradeable version at the heart of the human-readable, “published” version that any device can read, as long as it can interpret HTML in some rudimentary way.
, I guess it wasn’t clear that I was being sarcastic, eh? I think it’s hilarious that the Norman Bethune statue is on a traffic island in a notoriously neglected part of town that’s infested with pigeons, and that the Tim’s sign in the photo screams while Bethune’s name is comparatively a whisper straining to be heard.
? David Gallagher wants to be #1. I already am #1 for my name, so I might as well spread the love.