ISP websites and their influence they have

theonetheonly said:
Agreed.
Have been very impressed with Web Africa. Simple, elegant use of HTML.
Click to expand...

Elegant use of HTML?

Hi, WA - who is your webdeveloper? I have a message for them, namely "W3C standards exist for a reason. It's called CSS, not tables."
 
Karnaugh said:
Elegant use of HTML?

Hi, WA - who is your webdeveloper? I have a message for them, namely "W3C standards exist for a reason. It's called CSS, not tables."
Click to expand...

It is actually called...

I HAVE NEVER HEARD SO MUCH B!TCHING LIKE A LITTLE GIRL COME FROM ONE PERSON IN MY LIFE!!!

Do you ever have anything possitive to say, here is a cup cake... now pipe down!
 
Lol@u James!!!!!
I made a change to my site, would like you to see it, I'll pm u...
 
Wow, not even sure how to respond to something like that.

I'll go visit the local high school later and get some ideas.

Elegant use of HTML is http://www.csszengarden.com/. If you don't know what "elegant use of HTML" is or have never touched a propper website then expect to be flamed down for commening that a page full of tables being used for layout is "elegant use of HTML" because it will make any web developer worth a cent regurgitate.
 
Why dont u point us to some of your sites so we can see some examples of "elegant use of html" Karnaugh?
 
The point is not that they used tables which I understand is not web standard, the point is you only ever point out critisim.

Elegance, like beuty, is in the eye of the beholder.
 
It looks good ok. To people who don't have a clue about css and html (ie the target market in this case) it looks good!!
Point made (pray be)
 
@ Karnaugh

While you are at it, maybe you should send you advise to www.news24.com, www.5fm.co.za and tell them every time you look at their sites you want to regugitate because they dared to be so ignorant as to use tables in layout. CSS2 and XML may be web standard but they are along way, especially in RSA to being standard
 
Last edited:
Call me old-school, call me a n00b but I still like using tables to display tabular data in tabular form. CSS is nice, and has many powerful applications, but to call CSS standard on anything but paper would be a mistake. Fact of the matter is that you cannot always be guaranteed that the way a page renders in one browser using CSS is how it will render in another. A case in point is a comparison between IE's (broken) box model and Mozilla's (better) box model. Sure, you can say "don't support IE!" but when 87-odd% of the web's users are using IE that becomes a bit of an unreasonable request. So then you have to code your CSS for two specific browsers, but then what about Opera (which renders certain table-related CSS tags differently to IE and Mozilla), and so on and so forth.
 
CSS is cool, we will get there. But thats a lot of work redesigning. WA site is an evolution.

Look at slashdot, its been broken for so many years and only now compliant.
CSS does not justify the business case at this stage. We have deadlines and things way more important to worry about at the moment. trust me ;p
 
well said guys

ur site looks bloody good, is all that matters. It's attractive and has a nice corporate, professional look and feel to it, thats what makes your clients feel at home when they visit there.

*ok so where's my free gigs* hehe
 
Last edited:
warichard said:
Call me old-school, call me a n00b but I still like using tables to display tabular data in tabular form. CSS is nice, and has many powerful applications, but to call CSS standard on anything but paper would be a mistake. Fact of the matter is that you cannot always be guaranteed that the way a page renders in one browser using CSS is how it will render in another. A case in point is a comparison between IE's (broken) box model and Mozilla's (better) box model. Sure, you can say "don't support IE!" but when 87-odd% of the web's users are using IE that becomes a bit of an unreasonable request. So then you have to code your CSS for two specific browsers, but then what about Opera (which renders certain table-related CSS tags differently to IE and Mozilla), and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

First - yeah, the site looks good - did a much better job than any of the ISP's I will say, as sad as that is - and even Mambo uses tables - euw.

The real fact of the matter is, you can be guranteed that a page in CSS should render the same in another browser - mine does, and it wan't hard. What you can't be guaranteed of is that tables will. IE's broken box model is a bit silly - however, that is their own fault (read: Not CSS's fault) and its not necesiarly hard to work around that.

Well, table-related CSS tags are not a problem if you don't use Tables for layout is it ;)

And for the record - I happen to host a site that is only 30% IE users so this excuse is fast becoming falacy. "Most people use IE" is not an excuse to build sites aimed at IE (Like good old MTN who's crummy site is half broken in anything other than IE, sad sad sad and I hope they lose business for it).

Also, W3C is the standard, it's not supposed to be some sort of guide line that people shrug off and say "Oh well, I'll do my own thing because I dont care about compliance". I'm very embarased on the odd occasion that my site fails XHTML 1.0 Strict compliance - because it is the way to go, and apathy is not progress.

Call me utopian or whatever, but I think ISP's should be working with the standards, to improve the quality of the internet and set an example, not oppose them.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not entirely convinced regarding the ability to guarantee that CSS in one browser is going to appear the same as CSS in another. There are certain workarounds or browser-specific changes that can be done, but those aren't exactly what one would consider "best practice". Ideally you should code it one way and that's it, it displays the same in all browsers. But this isn't the case.

IE's box model is a pain, but it *must* be taken into account, whether you like it or not, until they fix it you're going to have to do at least some minor branching of CSS to support IE and other browsers so they display identically.

Well, sure, your user base might only be 30% IE, but I know we have a couple more than that. The reality is that "globally" IE is the majority browser, and must be treated as such (I wish this wasn't the case though, because MS loves to do page rendering their own way).

Anyway, as Matt said, we will get there, but there are definitely more pressing matters :)
 
The reality is that "globally" IE is the majority browser, and must be treated as such (I wish this wasn't the case though, because MS loves to do page rendering their own way).
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as you accept the catch 22 in that by saying that, you're simply entrenching their ability to be incompliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X