Proposed Web site redesign (beta)

[Bill Cavalieri]

On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 12:12, Jason Clinton wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
> > What is it about tables that causes browsing in PDAs and cell phones to
> > fail?  Why would this cause more trouble for blind users?
> 
> Not fail. Presented as a useless stream of text and fields with no 
> context or headings giving meaning or structure to the document.

And thats different from css how?  If the client can't render it can't
render.

> 
> > ...but I don't want absolute positioning.  Here's my abbreviated RFC:
> 
> I'll do a Mozilla compatible mock-up this weekend. It should only take 
> me about an hour or two to have the box model you want completed. The 
> trick is to use 'min-width: ' on your page body. Again, IE 
> not-with-standing.

Thats an hour or 2 too long.  Quick table and your done.

> 
> > Check out http://www.plone.org/.  First, read the content.  You'll find
> > that they're all about the semantic web, standards compliance, and
> > accessibility.  Now, look at the source.  They're using tables.
> 
> Yes, this supports your argument. However, their pages do not pass Bobby 
> and while they might have been able to hide the semantic meaning with 
> 'display: hidden;' from visual browsers, I think that this is asking for 
> trouble. The other benefit to CSS is that it acts as a template 
> seperating style from content -- they've lost that benefit by resorting 
> to tables. CSS -- once it's been designed -- can really save you time on 
> your maintenance.

You can make pages Bobby compliant with tables, as tables and Bobby were
around before css layout was even capable widespread.   Just like how
you can make css not Bobby compliant.

> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug