 |
|
dejon
|
|
I believe it depends on the page, and the author.
Intricately nested tables forces the browser to evaluate numerous levels of widths and alignments. Using too many styles, especially nested subclasses, can have the same effect. Both slow down rendering.
In my own experience, with well implemented CSS, there is usually a small performance improvement (assuming the original non-CSS version was well crafted). I say "well implemented" because I have seen stylesheets that were crazy, bloated, and just as inefficient as bad table layouts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by  Smiley
Which one yields a smaller file size? |
With CSS, attributes can be specified once and then reused.
Instead of:
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
font face="blah, blah, blah, blah" size="blah" blah="blah"
You have:
.blah {
font-family: blah; font-size:blah;text-decoration:underline;
}
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
span class="blah"
CSS is much, much easier to update and saves enormous amounts of bandwidth on even moderately elaborate sites.
You can also then do neat stuff like:
.blah:first-letter {
font-size:42pt;
}
.blah:hover { // only works in good browsers
letter-spacing:1px;
background:#44E;
}
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mercator
|
 |
Sorekara no Nanimo
Jan 1970
time: 06:30
|
|
Exactly... A well-designed CSS/XHTML website has all the style aspects in the style sheet, which means changing the look of your site is easy.
Plus, to the best of my knowledge, Microsoft is a member of the W3C. That should mean they encourage web standards, and you can assume it means that whenever their next version of IE will come out (along with Longhorn in 2005, presumably), it will fully support CSS2 and XHTML1 and probably have at least rudimentary support for XHTML2 by then.
Apart from that, CSS also allows many more things that weren't possible before, at least not without scripting.
When the CSS fails, the page still holds together, when the table fails, the page falls apart.
And rendering speed is a non-issue.
Considering all other major browsers are striving for standards compliance, that pulls away the only foot you have left to stand on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
devilmunchkin
|
|
first circle of the inferno
Jul 2001
time: 05:30
|
|
i use simple tables to surround a sub-title
check out zybex.com
then go to classes and events and then the link at the bottom. that is the one page i've done so far. (the rest of the mess isn't mine!)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MattH
The tables. |
Up 'till now, most large websites have been loathe to switch over entirely to a new technology which will inevitabely leave some viewers out. The idea is that even 1% of the viewers have money to spend, but we punish 99% with bloated and kludgy pages for the sake of the 1% who are too timid to upgrade their browsers. Anyway, XHTML/CSS pages can be viewed in old browsers, it just won't look good.
Now that ESPN has done it (just a few months ago), designers can point to it when arguing with management. It's smaller file size, it loads faster, it's supported by 99% of browsers and is forward compatable. On top of that, by changing the CSS only, you can effect a redesign without having to recode hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of pages. One CSS file and whatever new images you need and pow! It will make redesigning super easy.
Go here and click on the different examples of design. It's all one XHTML page, using different CSS files.
http://www.csszengarden.com/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
sony, microsoft, new york times, wall street journal |
So they still do things the old way. So what? Five months ago, ESPN used tables instead of CSS. They changed, so will the others once their managers realize the benefits far outweigh the one time costs of switching over.
The fact is, the vast majority still use table based layout. Why, because it's what they know. Just like the majority of company still use Windows 98 or Win2K when WinXP is superior. When they have managers like you and Ashur, who don't understand the massive superiority of CSS layout, it's difficult to convince them to make the switch, but i's happening. ESPN is just the first step, but it's a big one.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-08-2003 11:16
.
But now that all the browsers support CSS-1 completely, and CSS-2 mostly, there's no reason not to use them.
|