jDyno
Premium
join:2001-02-20
Washington, DC
clubs: | Dvorak embarrasses himself on CSS instead of Macs this time
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1987181,00.asp |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Speakeasy
| Well, it's not the mess that he claims but he does have valid points. How come IE and Mozilla work with padding/margins differently? Doesn't the standard specify how that should be dealt with? If not, why not!
But I disagree with it being a mess. I'm not an expert at this stuff but know CSS pretty well and there are very few tweaks I need to make to get a layout working in IE just like it does Mozilla...
So it definitely sounds like a rant from someone who doesn't know what they're doing (and needed another subject for his syndicated column) but he does have some good points...
Though I laughed at, "If your Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your screen." He must have a pretty crappy connection!
KM
--
War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| my blackberry regularly spits out a ton of stylesheet as text instead of a nicely rendered page (for some sites). Yes it is probably bugs with the blackberry proxy server and style sheet interpretation, but it is very annoying, and has been like this for over a year. |
|
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
July 19th, @07:22PM
| reply to jDyno
Dvorak is making himself look like an idiot. Now, don't get me wrong--developing cross browser compatible sites can be frustrating. I'm not dogging Dvorak for ranting about browser differences. But to take his platform and mis-represent this technology has knocked him down a few more notches as far as I am concerned.
First, you don't get mad at the technology. You might get mad at the vendors who are not implementing it properly, but not the technology.
Second, for the most part, there really aren't that many difference between the browsers. And it isn't only in CSS where you find differences. It's in (x)HTML, CSS, JS and so on. But again, this is due to the vendors interpreting things differently, or simply going against the grain hoping their version will get more popular and cause their software to gain ground (cough, MS, cough).
Third, differences that do exist are correctable if you understand the technology. For example, to quote KoolMoe  :
said by KoolMoe :
How come IE and Mozilla work with padding/margins differently? Doesn't the standard specify how that should be dealt with? If not, why not!
IE and the other guys have different 'box models' from each other when IE is in 'quirks' mode. Take IE out of quirks mode and things get much better. How do you get IE out of quirks mode? Ensure your DOCTYPE is valid and is the absolute first bit of text (no white space ahead of it either) in your served page. Answering the question as to why there are differences when IE does things its own way, see the above paragraph about vendors who go against the grain.
Next, quoting Dvorak:
said by Dvorak :
The first problem is the idea of "cascading." It means what it says: falling—as in falling apart. You set a parameter for a style element, and that setting falls to the next element unless you provide it with a different element definition. This sounds like a great idea until you try to deconstruct the sheet. You need a road map. One element cascades from here, another from there. One wrong change and all hell breaks loose.
Let me paraphrase him: "I don't know CSS so when it breaks I don't know what to do. This is the fault of CSS." 
Finaly, finishing that quote, this comment is absurd:
said by Dvorak :
If your Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your screen.
Ummm, sure. And if your connection drops some HTML, same thing. Oh yeah, and some JS--yeah, that breaks if you drop bits to. Welcome to the Internet. If your crappy connection drops data, the stuff you did get acts weird. Reload for Heaven's sake!
Edit: for clarification
--
"There's a war going on insdie me--the good fightin' against the evil. But I thank God for redemption."
--Johnny Cash
|
|
hober
Now with real cheese
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-27
Asheville, NC | reply to jDyno
Dvorak rhymes with "Border Hack". |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to JAAulde
said by JAAulde :this comment is absurd: said by Dvorak :
If your Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data, you get a mess on your screen.
Ummm, sure. And if your connection drops some HTML, same thing. Oh yeah, and some JS--yeah, that breaks if you drop bits to. Welcome to the Internet. If your crappy connection drops data, the stuff you did get acts weird. Reload for Heaven's sake! Edit: for clarification Yea, I was kinda weirded out reading that. It's just like saying the RAR format is flawed because a glitch with my internet connection or browser corrupted the file and therefore I can't extract it. |
|
jDyno
Premium
join:2001-02-20
Washington, DC
clubs:
| reply to justin
said by justin :my blackberry regularly spits out a ton of stylesheet as text instead of a nicely rendered page (for some sites). Yes it is probably bugs with the blackberry proxy server and style sheet interpretation, but it is very annoying, and has been like this for over a year. Yeah, this has nothing to do with CSS itself. If this gets on your nerves, complain about network stability and Blackberry technology, not CSS. In fact, sites using CSS for layout - under normal conditions - render excellently on Blackberry. Since they separate the content from the presentation. So, on Blackberries, you just get the text, no annoying layout or non-content images. (If it's done right.)
Same with the IE/Mozilla box models difference. This isn't a problem with CSS, it's a problem with browser makers. The spec is very clear on what the box model should be. Apparently, the browser makers weren't.
--
Squidoo Duo!? |
|
jDyno
Premium
join:2001-02-20
Washington, DC
clubs:
| reply to jDyno
Learned response by person smarter than me.
»westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_highe···css.html
--
Squidoo Duo!? |
|
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| An excellent response.
--
"There's a war going on insdie me--the good fightin' against the evil. But I thank God for redemption."
--Johnny Cash
|
|
Mospaw
What time is it again?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-08
Las Vegas, NV
 ·Cox HSI
·Embarq
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, & Pr..
edit:
July 20th, @01:38PM
| reply to jDyno
Those who know, do. Those who don't, are Dvorak.
I think I've finally figured out his recipe: Take a few blanket statements that are so vague anyone can find "truth" in them. Mix in a quick compliment to take away the sour (and any appearance of partiality). Sprinkle on a liberal dose of half-truths and combine with blustering ignorance. Make sure all theories are half-baked. Publish. Repeat.
Dvorak is a journalist, not a web designer. The technologies aren't bad. He simply doesn't know them. I'd love to see him write an article about rebuilding a car engine. "What's with all the grease? These engines all need lubrication. You'd figure after 100-plus years of development, the internal combustion engine would be friction-free by now." And so on.
I am a web designer and have been for about a decade now. (I've actually been a journalist, but that's a different rant.) Sure anyone can learn some basic Photoshop and a little HTML and throw together a web site. Many even look good. But to really pull it off elegantly, whether with pure CSS and standards-compliant or tables, font tags, and blank gifs, requires a deep understanding of the underlying standards. HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. It also requires understanding that transcends the technologies themselves, such as user interface design, accessibility, usability, and just being able to get that message out. If you have only partial knowledge or fail to understand the why of things, you're going to fall short. If your knowledge of the technologies is lacking, you might miss out on salient points that would help you.
It's clear that Dvorak isn't approaching this with a designer's mind so much as he probably wants his designs to coalesce in front of him automatically, delivered by some machine god that already knows what he wants. Too bad such a thing doesn't exist.
Yet, he has valid complaints under all the ignorance. Working around browser inconsistencies is a bit of a pain, but do any amount of web design and you quickly learn what these problems are and, more importantly, how to avoid them. Most important, however, is that as a web designer, it's your job to do know these workarounds and employ them. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be necessary, but name a profession where all things are ideal. If you don't the tools that are available or how web sites are designed and built you can quit the business, learn how to deal with it or make your own browser.
Better yet, Dvorak, hire a real web designer who know what he's doing and save the bitching for how Microsoft Vista will stink. Or rule. Or how Apple is finally (after 20+ years of waiting) going out of business. Or not.
Maybe we should be happy that Dvorak got a new theme about which to espouse his tremendous ignorance. Really, stick with something you're qualified to do. Something along the lines of "Would you like fries with that?" Dvorak exists to blather on about things he knows little about, get some attention and move onto the next target of his ignorance. The part about "cascading" really proves that out.
CSS is hardly perfect, but it's a damn good tool, and (for me, a professional) works better than any alternatives. It's not easy, but it's not meant to be. Until it becomes easy enough that anyone can do it by thought alone, I'll still stick with effective. |
|
deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
99999 | reply to JAAulde
Those responses dont change the fact that CSS sites are a pain in the ass for users. Try selecting text on half the sites that heavily rely on css and you will end up selecting half the page, or nothing at all. CSS is a pox on the web. |
|
Mospaw
What time is it again?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-08
Las Vegas, NV
·Cox HSI
·Embarq
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, & Pr..
| Got any links to back that "selection" problem up? I have seen it happen, but in what, 0.5% of sites out there. I keep hearing this is some sort of epidemic, but nobody ever posts proof, or even a single link. Text selection is almost like the "big foot' of CSS problems. Lots of people have anecdotal evidence, but nobody ever produces anything believable.
CSS might be a pox on the web, but it makes the web look a lot nicer. And it's easier to assemble than tables. |
|
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
July 20th, @01:50PM
| reply to deepblackmag
said by deepblackmag :Those responses dont change the fact that CSS sites are a pain in the ass for users. Try selecting text on half the sites that heavily rely on css and you will end up selecting half the page, or nothing at all. CSS is a pox on the web. Can't say that any CSS site (coded by me or anyone else) has given me any real fit. But I am pretty good at positioning the mouse where I need it...
But even if that were an issue--that text selecting problem, does that one little glitch cause the whole technology to be problematic or cause a whole site to be un-usable (or a pain in the ass as you put it)? Of course not. Show me a bug free technology...
Furthermore, if there really is a text selecting issue (which as I said I have not seen), it isn't the fault of the technology. It is the fault of the vendor who is mis-implementing the technology. Do you really think the individuals who wrote the CSS standard said, "I know, let's add in a messed up version of text selection!" Get real.
--
"There's a war going on insdie me--the good fightin' against the evil. But I thank God for redemption."
--Johnny Cash
|
|
hober
Now with real cheese
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-27
Asheville, NC
| reply to deepblackmag
pox (pŏks)
n.
1. A disease such as chickenpox or smallpox, characterized by purulent skin eruptions that may leave pockmarks.
2. Syphilis.
3. Archaic. Misfortune and calamity.
I fail to see how CSS can be associated with any of the possible definitions for 'pox'.
Every single argument I have ever heard against the use of CSS is always, without fail, based on a lack of understanding of the technology. People who refuse to learn it, who lash out against it, who say it is too buggy, who say it is terrible, etc etc etc, all have one thing in common: they do not know how to use it.
Not once have I ever seen anyone learn to use CSS to an intermediate degree abandon it, write it off, or continue to blather about how terrible it is.
--
geek on web |
|
deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
99999
| reply to JAAulde
The vendors each follow the same specification and all come to different conclusions. These are the same exact coders that are capable of following http, ftp, and dozens of other protocol specifications, so why the discrepancies here? Why so many of them in one place? The standard is clearly flawed, and should be scrapped in favor of a new standard properly outlined with CONTRETE EXAMPLES provided (YES that means you bums at the w3c need to start CODING what your preaching) instead of just arguing about policy. |
|
deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
99999
| reply to hober
There is no point arguing with CSS fanboys that are unwilling to see the negative side of their favorite toy to avoid doing work. Thats right, you use it because its fewer keystrokes and less thinking. If you want a page that behaves as people have come to expect over the years, use tables. If you want random behavior and differing appearances use CSS. How hard is that to understand. Im done posting for today, webdevs give me a headache. |
|
JAAulde
yum yum yum yum yum
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-09
Hagerstown, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by deepblackmag :There is no point arguing with CSS fanboys that are unwilling to see the negative side of their favorite toy to avoid doing work. Thats right, you use it because its fewer keystrokes and less thinking. If you want a page that behaves as people have come to expect over the years, use tables. If you want random behavior and differing appearances use CSS. How hard is that to understand. Im done posting for today, webdevs give me a headache. The pages I code all look the same in all browsers.
I am webdev, see me code.
--
"There's a war going on insdie me--the good fightin' against the evil. But I thank God for redemption."
--Johnny Cash
|
|
Mospaw
What time is it again?
Premium,Mod
join:2001-01-08
Las Vegas, NV
·Cox HSI
·Embarq
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All things Macintosh
Automotive
Rants, Raves, & Pr..
| reply to deepblackmag
I sense just a bit of anger here. Bums? Why so vitriolic?
FTP is a relatively simple protocol. You can read and understand it in a day or two. The same with HTTP and likely "dozens of other protocols". There is no "fudge factor". They are protocols for allowing machines to speak to each other in narrowly defined circumstances.
CSS is an entirely different animal. By its very nature, it's more complex. It covers a vast array of possible formats, designs, tastes and even, no pun intended, styles. Comparing FTP to CSS (standardized or not) is like comparing a door handle to a jet engine.
I'm not saying that the CSS standard is perfect. Written into it is room for interpretation. And as you have so elegantly pointed out, different vendors interpret things differently. I still don't see how this is a problem with the technology. I call it flexibility.
Rather than attacking things on a wholesale level due to a few minor deficiencies, your energies would be better spent actually trying to improve that's wrong or coming up with a better solution.
So, since CSS is so bad, so worthless, so utterly beyond repair, what's better for the same task? Or what are you doing to improve it? |
|
hober
Now with real cheese
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-27
Asheville, NC
| reply to deepblackmag
said by deepblackmag :There is no point arguing with CSS fanboys that are unwilling to see the negative side of their favorite toy to avoid doing work. Thats right, you use it because its fewer keystrokes and less thinking. If you want a page that behaves as people have come to expect over the years, use tables. If you want random behavior and differing appearances use CSS. How hard is that to understand. Im done posting for today, webdevs give me a headache. This sums up well my point from above. A deeper knowledge (heck, a basic knowledge) of CSS would reveal that it is very easy to create entire sites that have no 'random behavior' or 'differing appearances'.
Seen MSN lately? How about Yahoo? Nary a layout table in site!
--
geek on web |
|
rjackson
Premium,Mod
join:2002-04-02
Ringgold, GA
clubs:
Host:
General Questions
SMC Networks
Automotive
VOIP Tech Chat
ViaTalk
| reply to deepblackmag
said by deepblackmag :Those responses dont change the fact that CSS sites are a pain in the ass for users. Try selecting text on half the sites that heavily rely on css and you will end up selecting half the page, or nothing at all. CSS is a pox on the web. I think I asked you in the other CSS thread for some examples of this, because I personally haven't encountered a site you couldn't select text on that was caused by a CSS layout. You didn't respond there, and I suspect you won't here either.
»Re: CSS vs. Table design - do you agree or disagree?
Discussing the pros and cons of a technology is one thing. Making blanket statements about something without backing it up with facts is just empty rhetoric. This is your chance to put up or shut up. |
|
