CSS Controlled Layouts

[IncrediBILL]

Connie, I think the reason I'm OK with my hidden link, and you may be as well, is that I tell the SE's not to crawl it in robots.txt meaning it has no SEO value.

Disallow: /stupidbots.html

As far as sloppy code goes, I think that's the least of anyone's problems as my site is a total hodge-podge crapfest and I'm the first to admit it. The thing has evolved over 10 years from HTML 2 into the half-breed CSS, javascript and tables dung heap it is today. I have a nice new layout I paid for almost a year ago but I'm afraid to use it for fear Google will dump me, and 800K visitors a month will go poof.

However, there's no real excuse for a new site to be built with garbage, none really, especially if it's funded with so-called professionals building the site.

[WebSavvy]

Bill, you can change the design of the site without worries of being dumped. It's when you restructure the site (e.g., move files/folders, rename URLs, etc.) that there's a good chance of creating issues for your site.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by WebSavvy
you can change the design of the site without worries of being dumped.

That's not really the case when switching from tables to pure CSS as the content would be completely restructured per page and I've heard some horror stories of people losing a lot in traffic, which is what I mean by 'dumped'.

The only way to know if Google weights some of my pages well because of what's being read in the specific order it currently exists is to make the change and by the time I know the answer it make be too late.

Of course I could always restore the old pages, but then again it's weeks to get back where it was before.

Who knows, I may take the upgrade plunge given enough beer on the right night...

[WebSavvy]

Bill, that's not accurate though. Your pages would still have the same content regardless of the "order" it appears in the page or source code. Google weights it on the content alone, not its position within the page.

Actually, I can tell you from experience having gone from a tables layout to pure CSS, that the search engines seem to favor sites without as much markup.

Since making the switch, I'm getting found for a lot more terms than I used to, and some of them are really good real estate and music related terms. The bots are also crawling a lot more (I mean they crawled a lot before as it was but now it's almost doubled and I have less pages now than before).

Moving to a CSS based design is a lot easier to manage than a bunch of tables and it'll make the pages load faster too.

[IncrediBILL]

I've heard arguments for both sides as some people made the switch and their SE ranking went up, others went down.

Considering I'm already on top, I have nowhere to go BUT down if something goes wrong.

How can tables be harder to maintain if you've used the same layout for 5 years?

Seems pretty easy to me! :D

[Dave Hawley]

and 800K visitors a month will go poof.800K a month turning homosexual, that would be great for our over populated Planet :D

[WebSavvy]

LOL. I had table layouts for 7 years on the directory. What I meant is, if you're using CSS you can easily change a layout (structure & design) by simply changing a few rules in CSS.

With tables, it involves having to recode it. Example, if we have 2 columns and the one on the left is set to 80% and the one on the right is set to 20% and we want to swap them, all that's needed is to change the CSS for each and set the left column CSS rules to 20% and the right column CSS rules to 80%

No need to recode anything. That's what I meant by it's easier to maintain than tables.

[IncrediBILL]

Recode everything?

You sound like one of them bit-twiddling HTML source nerds.

WYSIWYG!!!!

Ok, this thread has been 'jacked. Start a new one and I'll debate it 'till the cows come home.

[WebSavvy]

I don't use WYSIWYG editors. I code everything by hand, one line at a time.

I like my XHTML 1.1 to be valid, as well as vaild CSS, and valid RSS. Plus, meeting WAI-AAA for everything as well.

You can't get that in WYSIWYG editors.

[IncrediBILL]

OK, the cows haven't come home yet so here goes...

Hand coding pages is for nerds plain and simple, and being an Alpha Nerd, I know what I'm talking about! :D

For instance, I started hand coding Z-80 assembler in 1978 because I didn't have the tools, then I got an assembler and over time C, C++, Java, Javascipt, BASIC, PHP, PERL and more things than I can remember at the moment. Likewise, my first HTML page in '96 was done by hand because nothing better existed. Then along came FrontPage, DreamWeaver, etc. and I've never looked back. Writing HTML by hand to me would be about as fruitless as coding a letter to print on my LaserJet in PostScript.

The point is that dreaded WYSIWYG code bloat everyone whines about is more or less irrelevant and it's typically only a couple of hundred bytes, not even enough in bandwidth concerns to worry about even with my 800K+ visitors a month.

Don't get me wrong that I won't touch HTML to do some fancy Javascript work, but I'm all about being productive and tinkering with tags all day is about as far from being productive as I can imagine unless you just can't get the job done without looking under the HTML hood.

Heck, look at blogs, CMS like Mambo, etc. and you focus on the content, not the layout or the HTML.

Not to mention the fact that doing a complex layout can be mocked up in just a hour or so using WYSIWYG vs. people hissing and spitting at raw CSS for days.

Guess it's all about your comfort level, but I'm still convinced after doing it for years that cranking out templates and content in WYSIWYG beats the hand edit HTML method hands down in terms of sheer speed and productivity.

Now the problem is those tools don't offer a pure WYSIWYG CSS solution that I'm aware of at the moment so I'm kind of stuck between being infinitely productive or becoming a bit-twiddling nerd mired down in the details of CSS to do the migration.

Can I do it?

Of course, I'm well versed in CSS, not an issue.

Do I want to devote all the time to twiddling bits without my power WYSIWYG tools?

Nope, I can make more money doing other things and leaving it AS-IS.

Furthermore, do I care if my competitors point their crooked little fingers at my site and shriek "IT'S NOT 4.01 TRANSITIONAL COMPLIANT!"

Hell no, I don't care.

You want to know why?

Because those competitors don't get a fraction of my traffic or revenues so right up until the day that it impacts my revenue and/or the WYSIWYG tools catch up to full blown CSS, I'll probably stick with CSS and tables just to keep humming along efficiently and raking in money hand over fist.

The CSS purists can have their links to the W3C compliance page while I have my links directly to my bank. :)

Back to the where I started this conversation, go ask someone writing code in Java if they'd prefer hand coding software in 80x86 assembler and then clamp your hands over your ears as the yelling commences.

Last but not least, if the browsers stopped supporting and displaying non-4.01 transitional compliant code most of the 'net would no longer display which is why I'm not worried in the slightest .... today :D

[WebSavvy]

Well, that's fine ... for you. But, for myself, I wanted mine to be valid. I think it's important to make a site as accessible as possible to the widest audience possible especially when it's an information site.

That said, people using assistive technology would be able to access my site a little more easier than they would be able to access a site like yours. Not that that's bad, or anything, I'm just saying it all depends on what your priorities are.

I wanted an accessible website, and now I have one.

[IncrediBILL]

I'm sure I'm accessible enough but considering my site is about visual arts at some basic level how much accessibility really matters?

Not trying to be crass and unsensitive but the jpeg's on the screen, which is what my site is ultimately all about, is a bit of a moot point if you can't see them in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I've been filtering in CSS slowly the last couple of years so I'm almost poised to make the transition with that minor exception that adding new features to the site suddenly becomes major obstacles that I can normally tackle today before lunch.

It's hard to enjoy a burger and a couple of pints at noon knowing full well you have to go back and twiddle bits the rest of the day if you know what I mean.

[WebSavvy]

In a case like that, Bill, it wouldn't make any difference if the site was accessible simply because it's a "visual" site. That's like having a sound byte site and saying it could be accessible to the deaf. It can't. :)

Information sites like general web directories, or instructional websites (tutorials), online libraries, etc., those are the kinds of sites that should be accessible to people with disabilities.

Once you get a design up, and have everything in place, there really isn't a whole lot to do to it after that.

The only reason I'm still working on mine is, I'm changing the layout completely, and adding some new features. I'm visually challenged myself, so doing code takes me a while, and it's probably why I prefer to use a non-WYSIWYG editor.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by WebSavvy I'm visually challenged myself, so doing code takes me a while, and it's probably why I prefer to use a non-WYSIWYG editor.


I was a golden boy in the photography community until my eye sight went to hell in a hand basket so I can understand your pain, your reasons, for accessibility, but I'm still pandering to the 800K+ masses per month as my pain isn't their pain and it's still about my bottom line.

If you want to commiserate more maybe it should be off-forum as I suspect this isn't something that should be shouted out in public.

[musketeer]

bill im a totaly xhtml, css man myself i mean i save my self lots of web development time by not using tables.

your ether with css or your not. i mean ive taken a table based page with 300+ lines of code down to 49 line of code with no visual diffrence exempt the new version was only 3k in size where as the old was 12k.

i feel happy about the fact i can change and aspect of my website with changing a line on one file...

:cheers: websavey the css voice controls for screen readers dose rock :)... im with you its less frustrating surfing a xhtml/css site

EDIT: websavey on your site the nav with css off still displays the images... ive got that problem to so if i find a soultion i will be sure to let you know

[IncrediBILL]

I understand how happy being CSS compliant must make you, but I'm not and have no empirical evidence that not using tables will make my existence anything less than miserable.

[musketeer]

shame really i would love to go on in more detail on the various benefits design and seo wise but as the saying goes..

if it's not broke leave it alone.....

if your happy with what your doing keep doing it

[IncrediBILL]

muskateer is a genius.

Give him/her/it any left-over mensa awards laying about.

[musketeer]

un called for..... atacking someone just trying to help... what a bitter man you are.....

[g1smd]

>> The point is that dreaded WYSIWYG code bloat everyone whines about is more or less irrelevant <<

I have reduced some WYSIWYG documents by 90% when they have previous produced bloated pages. A semantic (headings, paragraphs, lists, forms) document only 10% of the original size? Done it many times.

Those newly re-designed pages shot up in rankings within weeks.

[Quadrille]

But that's not true of all wysiwyg; Frontpage was famous for super-bloat; programs like dreamweaver, when set up well and used with a modicum of experience, produce very little bloat.

I'll bet you introduced CSS at the same time you reduced the code ;)

[SEFL]

Originally posted by musketeer
un called for..... atacking someone just trying to help... what a bitter man you are.....

This is just a word of warning, since I know you're new here: you have absolutely no idea who you're dealing with if you're going to attempt to get into it with Bill.

Bill has been there, done that, and could chew you up and spit you out if he really wanted to. Right now, he's toying with you. If you're going to keep calling him names...well...you don't wanna go there. There's a graveyard full of the thousands who came before you, and there's still space for the thousands who will come after you. Don't piss Bill off. Debate him if you want, but don't piss him off.

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject:

1) It's not just the code bloat that needs to be considered when you're worrying about a tableless layout vs. a tableless layout...it's the load time. Tables need to render twice (once for the layout of the table and once for the content), whereas divs and other elements need to render once. With faster machines, this is less and less of a factor, but it's still noticeable...I notice it in tabled layouts on a dual-core Pentium 3 gHz with 1 GB RAM.

2) Modifying a tableless layout is much easier than modifying a tabled layout. Try finding an error in a tabular layout, and you're going through tables nested in tables nested in tables nested in tables. You might have those same 3-4 nestings in a div-based layout, but they're a lot easier to spot.

3) Positioning works better with a tableless layout than it does with a tabled layout.

4) You can shuffle code order in a tableless layout. Tabled layout...no can do.

5) If coded correctly, hand-coded HTML can be easier to work with and take less time than WYSIWYG-created HTML.

6) Dr*amw*av*r (as well as all other Macromediadobe products) are swear words. I'll never forgive Macromedia for ruining HomeSite, the single greatest HTML editor ever.

That's about all I got to say about that.

[g1smd]

Yes, external CSS to replace the hundreds of repetitions of font face, font size, font color, br, and so on.







Offtopic: Looked like praise from Bill, not an attack.

[musketeer]

muskateer is a genius.

Give him/her/it any left-over mensa awards laying about.

1) i dont tollrate rudness from ANYONE i really dont care who they are

2) im not new here and i know how this place is... blunt and to the point.

3) if bill was offended im sure he would sort it out himself

Originally posted by SEFL
This is just a word of warning, since I know you're new here: you have absolutely no idea who you're dealing with if you're going to attempt to get into it with Bill.

Bill has been there, done that, and could chew you up and spit you out if he really wanted to. Right now, he's toying with you. If you're going to keep calling him names...well...you don't wanna go there. There's a graveyard full of the thousands who came before you, and there's still space for the thousands who will come after you. Don't piss Bill off. Debate him if you want, but don't piss him off.



dont get me wrong im not here to cause arguments.. quite the oposite really 8) but then again empty threats from 3rd party's dos'nt paint a very nice picture for the guy... im sure bill is really cool person... you make him seem like a ogre.

as far as im concerned though its end of subject and back to the topic

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by musketeer
un called for..... atacking someone just trying to help... what a bitter man you are.....

I wasn't attacking you, I was agreeing with you, although today I can see how it sounded sarcastic.

If you don't want the award, I'll take it back.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by musketeer
1) i dont tollrate rudness from ANYONE i really dont care who they are

2) im not new here and i know how this place is... blunt and to the point.

3) if bill was offended im sure he would sort it out himself



Yikes, sorry!

Thought at the time I was being overly amusing but not intending to be rude. Just goes to show you how text messages loses the intent of the post.

[musketeer]

sorry bill i totally toke that the wrong way
:rolleyes: even the g/f said i toke it the wrong way.. my bad :)

thanks for clearing it up though bill feeling all award like lol :smart: .

:cheers: bill


Originally posted by IncrediBILL
I wasn't attacking you, I was agreeing with you, although today I can see how it sounded sarcastic.

If you don't want the award, I'll take it back.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by SEFL
This is just a word of warning..,

Now stop that. You've posted something similar a couple of times making me sound like some big evil ogre and that's not the case at all. I'm a big teddy bear and you know it, ok, maybe more like a grizzly bear ;)

Several points about tables...

I agree with most of your points and know just a bit about table rendering as I've actually written code to render HTML pages back in the day so I'm slightly familiar with the process. Some browsers render them faster than others, but you're right in that it can take a little time if there is a lot of nesting going on.

The trick to quickly rendering tables is to supply as much cell and image size information as possible and not leave them unknown to be figured out on the fly. The more absolute size information the table knows upon page load the faster it displays.

Also, don't do so much nesting and it's less of a problem. For instance I'm not doing anything as nutty as the pages NetObjects Fusion used to generate which is crazy amounts of nested tables.

5) If coded correctly, hand-coded HTML can be easier to work with and take less time than WYSIWYG-created HTML.

Um, if you have a good WYSIWYG tool you should NEVER have to work in the HTML in the first place so it's a circular argument and a moot point.

Kind of like arguing that hand coding in RTF file format, if done properly, forgoes the need for MS Word but I'm pretty sure your average Joe would never attempt to write a 200 page book in RTF or HTML for that matter.

I can see why some people prefer coding in HTML directly because the WYSIWYG tools haven't quite caught up to full CSS capabilities yet. However, I'd be really shocked when the tools catch up and everyone is STILL coding pages by hand as those folks will probably be left in the dust.

FWIW, my site being primarily dynamic means I get my hands into way more HTML than I'd like as the tools for blending HTML and code of any type in any tool is completely archaic. However, I still build the framework of the pages using WYSIWYG and just cut and paste what I need into PHP or whatever code I'm using.

When this debate is finished we can segue into some other useful topics such as MAC vs PC, BlueRay vs HD DVD and of course my personal favorite Beta vs VHS.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by g1smd
I have reduced some WYSIWYG documents by 90% when they have previous produced bloated pages. A semantic (headings, paragraphs, lists, forms) document only 10% of the original size? Done it many times.

Now I'll agree that some of my old pages upgraded from HTML 2 that had embedded FONTs all over the place shrank a bunch when I replaced them with CSS styles.

Just don't see where I'd get that much savings with what's left to upgrade as that was the big leap IMO.

Originally posted by g1smd
Those newly re-designed pages shot up in rankings within weeks.

Like I said before, I'm already on top for many terms so where could I go but down?

Problem with my site being dynamic is thousands of pages are all being rendered by the same code. Maybe I can figure out how to upgrade a small subsection of my site that isn't quite on top and see if it makes a difference.

Got me thinking now... Hmmm...

[g1smd]

If you have static pages, then editing the whole site may mean making hundreds of changes on thousands of pages.

If you have a dynamic site, then you only have a small number of templates to edit. That makes the job a whole lot easier; but it also makes it very easy to screw up the whole site with one silly coding error.



I'm sure you already do, but make sure you run the site through the W3C HTML validator to make sure that you catch any silly coding errors before going live with any changes.

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by IncrediBILL
If you want to commiserate more maybe it should be off-forum as I suspect this isn't something that should be shouted out in public.
I'm not following this? Being legally blind isn't something I need to be ashamed of and it isn't something I should have to try and hide.

If anything, it gives hope to others just like me who believe that their handicap will hold them back from having a meaningful and productive life.

During the first 4+ years I was a member here, I did keep it to myself. However, I just finally figured why should I have to hide the fact that I'm visually challenged? It's not something anyone should have to hide or be ashamed of.

[ihelpyou]

LOL Deb.

Everyone seems to be reading Bill wrong today. What's up with that Bill?

Are only just a few of us able to read your posts the way you intended them to be read? LOLOL

Deb; Bill is just stating a fact we all know is true when helping forum members in public. We ALL know things that we simply do not EVER tell others,.... no matter what we are talking about. Some things I will ONLY communicate through the phone or email and to a real client. It's just the facts. Our knowledge is worth lots and why people hire other people. I hire a plumber because of what he knows. I hire a doctor because of what he knows as well. I NEVER pay that person for their time. Almost not ever. I pay that person for "what he knows". Of course time is money, but what you know is worth MUCH more than time.

Some things you just don't write in public is all. :)

[WebSavvy]

LOL. OK, blame it on the screen reader then. ;)

Damn thing misunderstands things all the time! PUH!

Sorry if I took what you said the wrong way, Bill. No harm meant.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by WebSavvy
I'm not following this? Being legally blind isn't something I need to be ashamed of and it isn't something I should have to try and hide.

I should never post after 10pm...

That's not what I meant to commiserate about, but it was late and I was sobriety impaired, and now I'm not sure exactly what I meant at the moment but it was probably more about the accessibly design specifics or my lacking thereof, opposed to the CSS thread in general.

I know a few legally blind people, one of them is a photographer even, and my mom's on the short list herself if the cornea transplant doesn't work, but I've never had either of them complain about my site because it wasn't in CSS and they both use it.

[WebSavvy]

LOL, Bill. It's OK. :)

Hope things turn out well for your Mom. I went through surgery on both eyes at the same time back a few months ago. It's helped some, vision is a little better than it was prior to the surgery.

Now I can see a little better than 2 feet away, but beyond that is still a blur of color without shape or edges.

I've been this way my entire life though. They figured out when I was 3 that I was almost blind. Father tried playing ball with me and I couldn't see it until it was hitting me in the face. The Eye Dr. said I was lucky to even be able to see leaves on trees, and that I'd be totally blind by my teen years.

My parents took me to quite a few different Doctors trying to find some way to prevent total blindness. One Dr. suggested using an (at that time) experimental practice of wearing a black eye patch over the strongest eye to force the weaker eye to become stronger.

I did that for several years and it probably did help to some degree. I have Degenerative Progressive Myopia. It's one of the leading causes of Blindness in the USA.

[IncrediBILL]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Everyone seems to be reading Bill wrong today. What's up with that Bill?

Guess I came out swinging with big opinions and had already rubbed everyone the wrong way.

[Blue]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
...I NEVER pay that person for their time. Almost not ever. I pay that person for "what he knows". Of course time is money, but what you know is worth MUCH more than time. As well as their knowledge, we pay them for their experience (though the two don't always go hand-in-hand). If they are highly knowledgable AND highly experienced, they will take LESS time, which is good if you are paying them hourly. :cheers:

[ihelpyou]

That's true as well, but is also the reason I don't charge for "time" per hour.

Taking less time does not mean it's good and taking more time does not mean it's good. I just want things done "right" so how much time it takes does not really matter. If I rush my programmers just because a client wants to rush things, the project gets messed up and then takes even longer time. :)

[WebSavvy]

Originally posted by musketeer
EDIT: websavey on your site the nav with css off still displays the images... ive got that problem to so if i find a soultion i will be sure to let you know
There aren't any images in my navigation. I use unordered lists to display my navigation and then use CSS to display each <li> inline.

[Dave Hawley]

Those newly re-designed pages shot up in rankings within weeks.I've heard of pages shooting up in ranks when the background color changes.

[ihelpyou]

I've had pages shoot up in ranks with the implementation of this meta tag:

<meta name="shoot" content="up in ranks please">


adding the "please" to the end seems to be the ticket....

[Dave Hawley]

:uplaugh: