Levels of CSS knowledge
As you might have understood by now I'm very much pro web standards. The current widely accepted standards are: (X)HTML for page structure, CSS for design, and Javascript for behaviour. HTML is pretty well known by now, it has been there since the beginning of the web and there are tutorials everywhere that gets you started. CSS is starting to get a grip, large companies are switching their sites to CSS based layouts and the webdev blogosphere reaches more and more people.
When you promote web standards, like many of us do, you get to talk to a lot of people. If you promote it in a live chat room like #CSS on EFNet it gets even clearer: there are a lot of different levels of CSS knowledge out there. This article is going to list some of those levels along a rating of how this kind of developer will affect the web. Here we go:
Level 0#
"CSS? Isn’t that a multiplayer game?"
These people have probably never made a webpage in their life. If they did it was pure HTML and they barely knew what they were doing. We get some of these people in #CSS, not because they want to start learning but because they think they've come to another channel, often looking for CS:S. No need to worry about these people, they probably won't do many webpages in their lives so they can't do much harm.
Level 1#
"Yeah, I use it to remove underlines on links sometimes"
Different from Level 0, the people in this level do actually know basic HTML. They probably learned it at least five years ago and have made a couple of simple sites. They use very little CSS, only when they need to do simple stuff you can't do with HTML only, like removing underlines and setting line-height (No! don't even think about setting line-height with HTML). While these people could present us with some badly coded sites they rarely have any large and well visited ones. This means that they won't do much harm either.
Level 2#
"No, I don't like divs; tables are much easier to work with"
Instead of just playing with HTML, like those from Level 1, some continued their quest. They mastered HTML tables and started using it to make things look just like they wanted. Somewhere around reaching HTML mastery they stopped looking at new ways of working. They heard about other people using "divs to design their pages" and even took some time one day to try to learn what the fuss was about. After a few hours of not getting it they gave up, went back to the familiar land of tabled layouts, and stayed there. Many do know CSS syntax and sometimes even some background but they believe it's far too hard and ill-supported to use instead of tables.
Watch it! These are dangerous people, some even webmasters of big corporate websites. Since they have been in the business for a while many are leaders for their web departments. These are the people it's most important to reach, and if we do it means a lot for the web. Concentrate on these people all you standards advocates.
Level 3#
"Yes I've heard it's good, but I can't use it because of…"
While people in this group still don't use CSS for positioning they do know some CSS and perhaps heard good things about it. They've tried making simple layouts and some even liked how it felt to work with. Problem here is that something is stopping them. Perhaps they have a Level 2 boss, perhaps their website needs to cater for Netscape 4 users, there might be many different reasons but something is in the way.
These people need to know that while CSS does not work everywhere that isn't the end of the world. Old browsers will still get all your content, just pure content. Instead of them you will reach a new audience: there may be accessibility and usability benefits, newer browsers will get a richer experience and the site might even get easier to add content to (which will lead to more content). Tell this to the people in this group. If you're unlucky they are not be the ones making decisions but in that case their influence on Level 2 Bosses will still be worth it.
Level 4#
"CSS? Oh! Yes, I use divs for all my layouts"
It's not unusual that these people use only divs on their sites. Each part of their page gets a div, often with a carefully crafted id (#toprightredline or even #r5_c7 with r standing for row and c for column), and then they position their divs with absolute positioning by the pixel. The result looks good, hey, it even validates as XHTML 1.1(!) but what they have missed is that most of the benefits of CSS has been lost. These pages are terrible when it comes to a screen reader interpreting it. Same with older non-CSS browsers, they won't get the content… they will get one big block of text. When using bad class names and ids you loose the possibility to change the layout: if that red line needs to be changed to black you'll need to change all your HTML documents too (can be hundreds). Don't fall into the trap of telling them they are stupid or make them google "css", they know they are smart people and they did learn about CSS from google in the first place. Tell them exactly what could be improved on their sites. Tell them what the benefits are. Keep your cool and tell them why.
People of Level 4 produce sites that are rather bad. The damage is reduced though by them often being open to new ideas. After all, not to long ago they did manage to learn and start to use CSS.
Some of the reasons for people thinking this way is because of what WYSIWYG editors are doing. Most such editors produce terrible div-only code but I'm hearing that there are gradual improvements in this field. This is a good thing and hopefully this will help people move from Level 4 to the higher levels.
Level 5#
"I use CSS for design, it's better than tables because of…"
After a lot of reading, talking to people and thinking most people arrive at Level 5. This is where you both can use CSS and know why it's better. Some people in this level have minor problems on the sites they produce but it's nothing serious. When asked they can argue why separating structure and design is a good thing and they have worked with CSS long enough to know the common pitfalls. I'm guessing many of the readers of this article are on this level and I feel I am. But this is not the best we can do…
Level 6#
"What version of CSS? Yes, I do. Did you read my book about…"
For some people knowing how and why isn't enough. These people strive to improve how CSS is used and are publishing great articles on new ways of using it. They constantly go back to the basic needs CSS is filling and attack problems from new angles, often resulting in more great articles. Some have actually read the whole W3C specification on CSS (sic) and they certainly know which parts are supported by which browsers. They function as role models for beginners and do great things for the web with their influence. Many work with the Web Standards Project. If you ever find an error on their site there is a reason for it. Ask them and they'll tell you why.
That's it. I hope this article gave you some inspiration to keep pushing the web to new victories. At which level are you? Do you have examples of people in last level?
Comments
By: Trevor (#1)
By: bnovc (#2)
By: Moe (#3)
By: Gavin (#4)
By: grexican (#5)
By: Veracon (#6)
By: Greg (#7)
By: Thomas Sydorowski (#8)
By: Dustin Diaz (#9)
Btw, did you read my book on...
By: Emil Stenström (#10)
By: Andrew Vit (#11)
This isn’t the fault of CSS2. IE6 is unfortunately still the majority browser, and we still have to support it. Until we can use
min-width
reliably to keep things from collapsing too far, pure CSS layouts will be restricted to two columns or fixed-width. (I‘m a big fan of ems personally, but some clients still want those 3 columns that “fill the screen.” I've done a lot of complex fixed-width work using semantic markup and CSS, but I'm still waiting for a robust flexible CSS layout that can match what could be done using the basic old-school 3-column table.By: Emil Stenström (#12)
I think CSS works just fine to do 3 col layouts with and I don't see the problem with it.
By: Andrew Vit (#13)
A few months ago I had really high hopes for the One True Layout, but after working with it I found it has limitations in this area too. Its author simply brushes off the fact that it can’t mix 2 fixed and 1 liquid columns by saying "I don’t have any use for that kind of layout."
Recently I read Apple’s article on Web Development Best Practices and found that I agree with much of what they say. Yes, the table is an unsemantic wrapper to hold the overall layout, but in many cases I have found this method necessary. I would like to see more opinions on these “best practices.”
By: jose (#14)
By: Emil Stenström (#15)
Thanks for that Apple link, always interesting to see what big corprations are doing.
By: Frida (#16)
By: Adam (#17)
By: draco (#18)
And to me, a
div
only site is way better than atable
full site in all senses. At least they give screen readers an easier job.I could be wrong. lol.
By: Emil Stenström (#19)
By: Ross (#20)
By: Andrew Norris (#21)
By: Chris Charlton (#22)
:)
By: Timothy Gray (#23)
By: Jeff (#24)
'Yes, I will have that done today.'
They use everything available to make things work, can tell you why and why not, and don't worry about whether or not its 'right' by some arbitrary standard. Also, they are too busy to write self-congratulatory posts on a random site about how people who don't use CSS properly write bad code. Congrats on your vacuous story.
By: Emil Stenström (#25)
By: Keith McLaughlin (#26)
(P.S I'm working on a web standards version of my site at present).
By: Dawn (#27)
By: Jeff (#28)
By: nosebleed (#29)
By: Allan (#30)
Standards are arbitrary? It's somewhat sad that you think so; HTML/CSS standards are certainly _not_ arbitrary. They were carefully considered and thought out by very smart people for reasons that aren't bloated by commercial considerations. It's science, not "who can make the worst web site the fastest."
And true professionals always _make_ time to advocate for the correct way of doing things. Just because you think it's all a waste of time, does not mean that you are righteous in posting condescending comments in response to a well written post--vacuous indeed.
This blog is title "Friendly Bit". If you're not going to attempt to be friendly, please try another venue to outlet your frustration :)
By: Priti (#31)
By: Nik Steffen (#32)
By: Artueel blog » Blog Archive » Hoe goed beheers jij CSS? (#33)
By: Ahren Gerber (#34)
I am not yet confident that I could solve any CSS problem that comes my way, I still have trouble figuring out how to separate my css documents (as done in ALA) but I'm also not using fireworks DIV slicing or anything. I do my best to create semantic code, with resonable tagging, avoiding "divitis" as best I can, and I also take SEO into consideration while doing the front end coding for my company. I think that level of complexity perhaps warrants another level of development.
By: Johan De Silva (#35)
By: Shawn (#36)
By: Jeff Clark (#37)
By: Kumar (#38)
Thanks fot the article.
By: MarkL (#39)
Great article. Through my own development, I can relate to each level somewhat. I'm currently at L3 but want desperately to get to L5. I'm trying to learn divs, but for some reason, I keep hitting a wall. I do see the value and want to end my dependency on tables. {Hence, my intro.}
By: Tommy (#40)
I really like css as a tool, but you people who write about it are perhaps as annnoying and self-righteous bunch as I've ever come across.
More importantly, there are lots of people I've met who don't want to learn css largely because of the obnoxious, quasi-messianic bent of its proponents, and the raft of books, blogs and articles with the thinly veiled subtext of "everything YOU do is wrong".
Users who don't know as much as you about something or (gasp) disagree with you are "dangerous"?
You design webpages.
No one starves if you fail. No one's immortal soul is involved.
Get a freakin grip!
By: Emil Stenström (#41)
By: ryanahamilton.com » Blog Archive » What is your level of CSS Knowledge? (#42)
By: Shane (#43)
Yeh, the guys I know work for a 'market-leading' company; they have not only removed underlines from links, but have progressed to font size (using pts of course), font family, font colors and so on. So, it's fonts and colors basically. If they want padding (they don't know they want it, but they do), they'll opt for a spacer.gif.
Sod it - I'm going to demote them to Level 1.
By: michael (#44)
any help is always appreciated.
By: Tim (#45)
I mean, ever tried to hand code a table based layout? 99,9% of all the table based layouts are probably created using a wysiwyg editor. And let's face it : Dreamweaver's design view makes it easy to twist and merge table cells to your liking, but it doesn't make you think about writing semantically appropriate html.
So there :
html level 0 = css level 0
html level 1 = css levels 1 through 3 (wysiwyg editor players)
html level 2 = css level 4
html level 3 = css levels 5 through 6 ("Yes, I can make a doctype decision and I know what
<dl>
stands for").html level 4 = css levels 5 through 6 (anything between "I actually read the W3C specs" and "I actually wrote the w3c specs")
By: www.jammo.net » Friendly Bit » Levels of CSS knowledge (#46)
By: Stefan Asemota Weblog | Web Standards Quiz — Archive (#47)
By: supa (#48)
By: Liam Hesse (#49)
No one starves if you fail. No one’s immortal soul is involved.
No, but hundreds of man-hours are lost. Wasted. Frittered away by having to comb through some horrific malformed table-based monstrosity. It damages productivity, and that is dangerous.
Take my word for it. I am a web developer, and I've had to fix other people's table-based work before. It's not just a figurative headache, I assure you.
By: Matt Williams (#50)
How about some suggestions on how to get to increase your current level?
Website recommendations?
Book recommendations?
By: Dewey Williams (#51)
By: About Web Designing » Blog Archive » Levels of CSS knowledge (#52)
By: Brad Fults (#53)
Thanks.
By: Emil Stenström (#54)
@Dewey Williams: I know exactly what kind of people you are talking about :) I wouls call them graphic artists, not web designers. In fact, building a whole site in flash is very similar, you don't use the features of the web, so how it that web development?
@Brad Fults: Good to hear you like it!
By: Dirk Diggler (#55)
I can't believe anyone would feel snooty or talk down on people that make web pages that aren't all produced from xml/xslt/css/dom/give it a rest, technology is supposed to make your life easier - as a software designer I fail to see why web designers are so masochistic and get pleasure from having to use convoluted hacks to make something "standards compliant", or work with the .0001% of blind people that may look at their site.
By: Emil Stenström (#56)
I promote using HTML and CSS to produce good websites (not any XML/XSLT) instead of just HTML, is that such a big step? You seem to think this standards stuff is hard so let me tell you this: it's not.
By: Dan Black (#57)
By: Midnight Cappuccino » 6 livelli della CSS-aggine (#58)
By: Narga Laboratory » Blog Archive » Levels of CSS knowledge (#59)
By: Stupid Wordpress Tricks » Blog Archive » Levels of CSS Knowledge (#60)
By: Bjorn (#61)
By: Emil Stenström (#62)
By: Imran Nazar (#63)
Re: the comment about table-based sites not being coded by hand, I actually did that one: a table-and-frame monstrosity with JS, all in Notepad. And I was proud of it at the time.
That's the point this article is trying to get across, it seems: everyone who's learning web development goes through these steps, including the best.
By: Graham King (#64)
By: Holy Toledo More Lamers Version 2 (#65)
By: Emil Stenström (#66)
By: mike bliss (#67)
By: Justin (#68)
By: getting back, getting ahead (#69)
By: Emil Stenström (#70)
By: Dan Lee (#71)
By: Vitaly (#72)
I think strong Level-5 is for me, but thanks a lot to those from Level-6 who make it possible for others to know something new. The reason I make post here is to show for beginers: there are planty developers who made it professional with CSS, so JOIN! :)
Thank you,Emil.
Sorry for my English...
By: learner (#73)
just trying to learn now... and so am here... will see after i trying making one site atleast...
By: Ruby (#74)
Best wishes, Ruby
By: Seb (#75)
By: En Español » Niveles de conocimiento CSS (#76)
By: syzygy (#77)
By: jay (#78)
By: Emil Stenström (#79)
@jay: Those that don't want to learn never will, so I don't even try to convince people on the lower levels of why web standards should be used.
By: James A. Arconati (#80)
By: Emil Stenström (#81)
By: dandyna (#82)
By: CSS und HTML Ranking Checklisten (#83)
By: Levels of Accessibility Knowledge – Le «blog personnel» de Joe Clark (#84)
By: Designers who Blog: Design, Illustration, Photography, Web, Advertising, Branding … (#85)
By: Sean Fraser (#86)
By: Simon (#87)
By: Linky na víkend 12 na depi.sk - IT & Life Weblog (#88)
By: Night Dreaming (by Sudar) » What is your Level of web knowledge? (#89)
By: ??Web-Level????? | BiZwiKi.CN - ?? PK ?? (#90)
By: Hecgo.com » ¿Qué tanto sabes de CSS, HTML y JavaScript? (#91)
By: YELLOW BOY FOR ECONOMICS » Levels of Accessibility Knowledge (#92)
By: Jeff (#93)
By: Practical Web Design magazine » Blog Archive » *New podcast* Choosing the right layout (#94)
By: Ramenos Blog » Evaluer votre niveau en HTML et CSS (#95)
By: ephraim hohn (#96)
By: Ricardo (#97)
There's times that I use a table to position two more images on a web page.
I know there some CSS to do that, but old habits are hard to break.
I usually just use CSS on each web page instead of one external CSS page.
Because I want to keep control of each web page.
Thanks for all your information.
It lets us know that there still hope
Semper Fidelis
Ricardo
By: Emil Stenström (#98)
@Ricardo: Keep reading, there's a lot of good blogs out there.
By: Stacy (#99)
By: Emil Stenström (#100)
By: Stacy (#101)
By: Stacy (#102)
By: Stacy (#103)
.item_contents {
display: none;
}
or something similar... It's late and I don't feel like sifting through the css/tags/elements/whatever, but it would be nice to be able to turn off all comments via an alternat style sheet.
By: Gareth Powell (#104)
So I use it to control type sizes and colors and what have you.
Where CSS totally fails - in my opinion - is getting across to people like me that it can be used for far, far more than just type definitions.
I am really not stupid and a relatively fast study but I cannot get to grips with it. My feeling is that perhaps people who DO understand CSS do not understand communication.
And so potential users of the full scope of CSS - and I am one of them - stop half way simply because no one is giving and intelligent, intelligible, interesting, explanation complete with snazzy samples.
Gareth in Sussex where it is warm and wonderful. This week.
By: Emil Stenström (#105)
By: Debbie (#106)
By: Carla Pendergraft (#107)
By: Roman (#108)
:-)
By: Roman (#109)
By: Emil Stenström (#110)
@Roman: Note the paranthesis around the X. I continuosly recommend that you use either HTML or XHTML (doesn't matter which) as long as you use the strict versions. Feel free to look through the sourcecode of this site, I have nothing to hide.
By: ben (#111)
By: Emil Stenström (#112)
By: David Golding (#113)
By: T-dude (#114)
There is another interesting .class of people: The postbubblers. they learned the craft without knowing what IE5 or Netscape 4 was. Many of them use different techniques, tool etc, but don't know or care about standards. However, with their fast learning curve, they probably could make a significant contribution to web standards use. I know I've met a few, but didn,t have the time, knowledge or patience to convince them at the time.
By: Emil Stenström (#115)
By: Evaluate your CSS and HTML Knowledge @ SEO Principle | Search Engine Optimization Blog (#116)
By: Henrik Feldt (#117)
Although I have actually started to write a very long tutorial on how to start with CSS, it just takes too much time. What I would love to do would be to be a web design teacher - and not only html and css, but also c#/ASP.net, n-tier, javascript, graphical design (photoshop/flash/illustrator).
That would be great fun!
By: Emil Stenström (#118)
By: Spanky (#119)
Step up. Be bigger than you are.
By: Emil Stenström (#120)
By: The Lime Blog » Role Playing and Web Design (#121)
By: arconati.net » Blog Archive » links for 2006-06-01 (#122)
By: wigblog » Blog Archive » Levels of knowledge… (#123)
By: Soup (#124)
By: Tombrarian » Levels of CSS Knowledge (#125)
By: Ian (#126)
By: Dutch (#127)
I'm glad reading this at this moment knowing and I hope remembering some traps. Great article, I saw a lot familiar items, I hope I don't make these failures and will keep clean work in my future css.
Dutch (webs nickname)
By: JesterBlue (#128)
A friend emailed me a link to this and laughed at my level 2 stripes. There is fun in working through issues, learning, and solving problems. If we didn't enjoy this aspect of the work, we would probably have a miserable time being sand-rakers in BoraBora golf courses too.
Here's the wrinkle (from my twisted level-2 view) -- I don't get why tables, with CSS bits, are worse than div(ot)s -- it all looks pretty sloppy to me.
Feel free to rub my nose in it 'till I get it -- I'm a big boy.
By: Leon (#129)
I'm from Russia but currently live in NYC doing WebDesign/Development for a firm.
I will be redesigning their website to eventually implement CSS/XHTML (right now its just HTML/PHP).
Thanks again!
By: Emil Stenström (#130)
@Leon: That's fantastic to hear! :) Keep up with the good work.
By: Markus from Frankfurt (#131)
By: Mark (#132)
People profiting from incoming links for their google rankings while not caring for the webmasters that have to check broken links all the time instead of creating new content are the REAL web problem today, not levels of (technical) design purity.
By: Emil Stenström (#133)
Claiming that the above list was all that was needed would be elitist, that's why I don't.
By: links for 2006-07-25 at willkoca (#134)
By: Aaron (#135)
By: Emil Stenström (#136)
By: brian (#137)
hahaha
Tables rock. Using 100% CSS takes way to long to get looking right on all browsers, and is also stupid. There are plenty of other plain HTML tags out there that get the job done very easily, rather than spending the agonizing time trying position everything solely with CSS. What are we doing here? Are we trying to abolish html? Are tables "of the devil"? I say design how you want. If you're comfortable with nothing but CSS and divs, then heck, use it. If tables work for you and it makes you proficient in web design, use them. Not trying to argue with anyone, i just don't see the point and saying one is better than the other... I think some people stop realizing the reason for CSS. Heck, i saw a website that a guy created a table completely out of CSS... The code was insane!! Why bother... Anyway, funny article. I like the way you broke them down, I can recall getting to each of those levels (except for the book one). It's obvious you've "been there". :)
By: Emil Stenström (#138)
By: Stephen Tudor (#139)
However, I can't help but wonder if I would have a similar reaction if I were a bit lower on your hierarchy. I'm not a 6 yet, but I'd definitely like to get there at some point.
I personally know people in each level you describe, and I think I'm now better equipped to help them out where they are. Good perspective.
By: Levels of RSS Knowledge « Sweet! (#140)
By: James Clements (#141)
By: Ivan (#142)
By: Nomar (#143)
By: Fwitz (#144)
While the rating system is flawed, it is important to emphasize the places where graphic design ends and web design begins.
What chaps my ass are the graphic designers who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag in any language, least of all CSS or HTML. Such "web designers" try to place themselves above the "coders," and sometimes I get the same vibe from designers who know CSS as well, that they hide their lack of understanding of programming underneath an assumed arrogance. Whatever. The web won't wait for them either.
I don't care if a designer uses HTML or CSS as long as the thing works. And if I have the misfortune of having to work with someone's super-messy HTML code I'll write a script to clean it up.
However, I don't find your argument so convincing. I my experience, CSS - OTHER people's 1000+ line CSS convolutions - has been at times as more difficult to work with than tables. At least with HTML, it's all there in front of you, and if you know HTML, you know the few browser discrepancies. But with CSS, the separation of content and presentation only magnifies the problem when the CSS is convoluted and poorly designed.
Your Level Six CSS Guru could also be a real pain to work with, and so I think your system is not completely accurate. Just because you "found a job" because of your CSS does not mean that CSS is the cat's meow for every situation.
I still use HTML tables at times, because it's easier for me to know EXACTLY where things will go when a database is spitting out the content through a loop. It's not worth my time or my client's money for me to code in a way that is as of today only marginally advantageous (at least to my clients), unless if I aim to please the CSS pundits, which I don't.
And since I generate most of my resulting output programatically anyway, it's much easier to call a php function that spits out a clear gif dot at my desired dimensions rather than coding a div just for that purpose.
For me, CSS is useful for page layout, but HTML also has its place for its granularity and guaranteed rendering. It is possible to rock out with both.
Thanks for the article.
By: Emil Stenström (#145)
The level system is not a scale of how easy people are to work with, just how good they are at CSS. Don't confuse it with anything else...
Thanks for your comment and perhaps stay a while? I just might convince you in a couple of articles :)
By: Fwitz (#146)
By: RJay (#147)
I've successfully done a couple of pages with more than a basic layout, but really getting my head around it is kicking my ass.
I've purchased a couple of books, which sometimes give conflicting advice which doesn't help. And the pages I've done, don't degrade "gracefully" in old browsers and I'm not sure why.
Anyway, I enjoyed the article, and will continue to try to "get" CSS.
By: John Schwartz (#148)
By: Emil Stenström (#149)
By: Jessi (#150)
By: Swing tanzen verboten! » Levels of knowledge (#151)
By: Tom from Yaway (#152)
By: techblog.tilllate.com » Unsichtbare Tabellen zur Seitengestaltung? (#153)
By: One night in paris (#154)
By: Anders M.J. (#155)
The new features in the CSS3 specification isn't supported by any browser yet so you can't use it yet.
By: fee (#156)
By: IPC (#157)
By: Jason’s Weblog » Levels of Web Designer Knowledge (#158)
By: tom barnfield (#159)
By: Dave Spreefelt (#160)
By: Emil Stenström (#161)
By: Dave Spreefelt (#162)
By: Emil Stenström (#163)
By: tom barnfield (#164)
It's easier to do layout with tables certainly.
No hassles with absolutely positioning elements in relatively positioned ancestors while floating your div to the left in both compliant and non-compliant browsers, blah blah, blah... man, I thought CSS was meant to increase clarity!? ;)
Seriously though I love CSS and having tried both table and css methods I'd have to say CSS is, on the whole, better. If there are people out there who aren't using relative positioning properly it's just poor design, not an issue with CSS.
Table-based designs have been around longer and any idiot can use tables to layout content but that apparent simplicity comes at a cost. Next to modern, well-formed CSS designs they look amateurish and restricted. Css is actually not unreliable or obscure, and once you've made the effort to really learn it everything does become clear and simpler and a whole lot easier to maintain and change.
By: Levels of CSS knowledge (#165)
By: Antony Williams (#166)
Ant :0)
By: Sexta-feira dos Web Standards #10 · project.47 - Portfolio e blog sobre Web Standards (#167)
By: Mukesh Yadav (#168)
By: NicMartel (#169)
By: Emil Stenström (#170)
By: NicMartel (#171)
By: Dmitri Farkov (#172)
By: Emil Stenström (#173)
By: resimler (#174)
By: Siegfried (#175)
I'm a software developer since more than 30 years now. I got hands on computers before the mouse was invented, and so i'm used to use console and extremely simple text editors for all. As i see it, this has some advantages in understanding what's going on.
Web coding is not my profession, it is more a hobby. So i'm not bothered with pressure to blow out half-done sites and have every time to tinker with the features and possibilities of the web. I really do understand people not having the time to produce perfect pages.
The separation of different parts is bare basics in software development and is called modularization. So separating content (and its semantics) from presentation and behaviour for me was quite logical. Although it took some time to actually do this consequently (more or less :) ). I think it's worth every second of learning it. And in fact, if you do it really consequently you do not need more time to produce sites, you need less time. But if you stick to combining all three parts into the html, and then just pro forma pull out the css into a separate file you have a hard time.
So consequently i do not agree with one of the statements found at the w3c. There it says, that the main purpose of class and id attributes is to provide a handle to css (presentation). That could not be true. Those classes and attributes are part of the html and as this part of the semantic. So consequently classes and ids are to be used to add semantics to a content. In cases of div and span this means setting the only semantics this content has, since these 2 do not have own semantics. For other elements class and id attributes are to make the semantics of their content more precise. This adding to semantic has absolutely nothing to do with presentation. These classes _can_ be used as css handles, but their main purpose is pure semantics, nothing else. If you are able to separate that consequently, you actually do not style words, you style semantics. And if you do so, you have a much easier way then afterwards. And, as a nice benefit, you get a much easier maintenance for sites then. The only drawback is that you have to master a long and sometimes painful learning curve. And this is the longer, the more experienced you are with html 3.2.
By: Dmitri Farkov (#176)
By: Emil Stenström (#177)
By: lyndonaus (#178)
I do web sites for non-profit organisations as a volunteer, having developed my interest over the last couple of years in my retirement. I believe that standards should be followed and it is so frustrating when I (and thousands of others)discover that IE does not do as expected.
For the second time to-day I find myself in awe at the ease in which layout problems can be solved so easily, particularly, those relating to IE6 using code from this site.
Thanks again!!!
By: miko (#179)
By: Carla Pendergraft (#180)
And my complaint against CSS is that every time I use some clever new technique (example: opacity), it breaks in Safari or whatever. It wastes my time because of the inconsistent rendering. You know, we used to have font tags peppered all over our pages. In some ways, things haven't improved. I have seen style sheets that were so ridiculously long, I can't imagine anyone could have understood them. We've separate the replacement for our old font tags from the actual content, but sometimes it doesn't look like the greatest improvement to me, if one is in favor of simplicity.
By: Emil Stenström (#181)
Opacity is a CSS3 feature, so it's hardly working anywhere. Floats do work, have worked for a long while, and replace tables nicely.
You can write bad CSS, but you don't have to, do you? If YOU know what's good and bad, there's no reason to repeat what others did.
By: Levels of knowledge : Rebecca Thomas Designs (#182)
By: I livelli di conoscenza dell’HTML » chalda.it (#183)