Sent by Jim Ray on 15 December 2003 23:11
Brian V Bonini said:
> At least it's a start. And truthfully as much of a CSS junkie as I like
> to be when it comes down to outright production time it is still quicker
> to whip sites out using tables if for no other reason then not having to
> deal with ALL the discrepancies between browsers, version, OS's, etc...
> It really adds a lot of time to the process. Reminds me of HTML 10 years
> ago.
>
I gotta say, I largely disagree. MSNBC's site isn't a "start" any more
than using an HTML 3.2 doctype is a "start" simply because they declare a
doctype. The use of CSS on the MSNBC site, both now and on the old site,
is largely window dressing, an attempt to skirt around a few design
issues, and an attempt to uniformly format their copy. These are things we
were using CSS for back in 1997 and they in now way take advantage of the
power of CSS.
A start, as I stated before, would have been an earnest attempt to mark up
the site symantically, even if it meant still using some tables. A start
would have been formatting at least one component of the site (say, the
left nav bar) with CSS.
I realize that jumping in feet first to pure CSS/XHTML design is going to
be very, very difficult for huge media players, but the MSNBC redesign
clearly shows that they have no interest whatsoever in even dipping a toe
in the water.
--
[EMAIL-REMOVED] .. quietconfusion.com
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/