Harry Roberts a.k.a. CSS Wizardry tweeted a certain tutorial by CSS Aid (page is dead now), which was enclosed with four little words (“Good lord, wrong much?”) that echoed such alarming levels of horror and shock (considering he tweets about poor examples of HTML/CSS code everyday), that I had to check it out.
First, the tutorial was entitled “Tables Without Tables”. If that doesn’t trigger warning bells in your head, then consider the opening paragraph:
It’s the year 2009, CSS rendering has vastly improved from when it was released, so there is no reason for any website to use tables as layouts. Although you can ditch the table tag when it comes to layouts, you may someday need to use it for what it was made for…or do you? I am going to show you an easy way to make a table with a simple unordered list.
No. Just no. Yes, <table>-based layouts are considered wrong because HTML is supposed to properly represent data. Lists should be lists. Tables should be tables. Layouts that look like tables (grids) can be done in CSS. That’s semantics, the core principle of web standards.
But avoiding the use of <table>s at all costs is no better. Perhaps it’s even worse, since it demonstrates not only ignorance but false expertise, feigning arrogance over an HTML element that has been shuddered at because of its misuse and abuse.
The page has gone down in between the time that I read the tweet and wrote this post. Fortunately the forum thread that seems to be the source of the link is still up, and shows us the author’s reasoning for writing the tutorial. Take post #7:
Because I hate the <table> tag
Is this the extreme dark side of web standards, where we’ve been conditioned to hate <table>s so much that we can’t even think to use them for what they were meant for anymore? A sad, sad turn for us all.
By post #15 he’s already backed down and promises not to use the experiment for real-life cases, but this summarizes things nicely:
It’s a pointless experiment though. It’d be like experimenting making a house out of tampons. Doable but just plain wrong.
It’s bad enough that we have to deal with preaching proper web standards, dropping crusty old browsers from, and adding newfangled technologies to our web design arsenal. Let’s not get sidetracked by punishing HTML elements by twising them into things they weren’t meant to be.
Make love, not war.
Round one: logo vs. title inside <h1>
I like that The h1 Debate was created to tackle a very specific issue in HTML that affects standardistas and search marketers alike. It asks the question what should go inside an <h1> tag, a logo or page name?, then you cast a vote by tweeting.
I expect lot more discussion than that, though; a poll is not enough. How about answering this question: should the <h1> tag appear exactly once on a webpage? For the record, Molly Holzschlag disagrees:
@fineartdavid it is SEO folks who IMO started the “only 1 h1″. I see cases of multiple h1 use such as in projection media: h1=slide header 1
That’s comforting for me to hear, but it might not be for you. But don’t take it as gospel—unless you consider Molly as god! If you’re an SEO guy and have some other god, then by all means.
Round two: generic vs. semantic CSS classes
If you squint long enough, you'll see a dog. And a rabbit.
The h1 Debate reminds me of a recent post at Devlounge that condemns generic CSS classes. Sure, separation of content and presentation is supposed to make webpages more efficient and future-proof, but if you avoid using unsemantic names like “left”, “right”, “center” and end up with convoluted markup, are you really writing sensible HTML? You have a choice between being purist and being practical. As Simon Collinson says:
Leaving the h1 debate now. I do it my way for reasons I believe are common sense. The day there is one way to build websites I will quit.
Which one are you?
Round three: CSS vs. tables (again?)
This is exactly what iamelgringo is talking about.
And for the nth time this millennium, it’s CSS vs. tables all over again. Apparently the case against tables is not strong enough…
CSS is really cool. It is useful for a lot of things. The basic idea of separating content from presentation is sound. But when it comes to layout, the design of CSS is fundamentally flawed. Use tables instead.
…or maybe too strong:
So I don’t ever want to read how web designers who don’t use pure CSS in their layouts are lazy, stupid, don’t care about their craft, backwards or don’t bathe properly. Never again. People who post such things online are heretofore to be known as CSS Trolls and are to be banished from the internets for all time. Begone yea vile fiends!
I completely agree with Simon in that there is not one way to build websites. That’s the beauty of it. Now I won’t go so far as say that we should all go back to tables. I’m somewhat disappointed it’s still an issue but I understand where these people are coming from. Ron Garret is giving up, but iamelgringo is not, and is only pointing out that (1) the biggest websites out there still use tables and (2) the purists (“trolls”) give CSS a bad rap.
Now I won’t be swayed by the source code on Google.com as I don’t think it matters. Does it matter to you?
The winners? It’s your call
What are your priorities? Web standards? SEO? Efficiency? A clear conscience? Sanity? You don’t have to be a purist or a pragmatist all the time, and shifting gears on each project doesn’t mean a sellout either. List those down and rank them based on your needs and your client’s. Then code accordingly.
A recent interview at Daily Blog Tips showcased the thoughts of Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood on RSS. It was an interesting viewpoint, and one that got me thinking.
RSS is a technology; it should be completely invisible to the average user. When it isn’t, you get stuff like Oprah redefining RSS as “Ready for Some Stories”. We should no sooner have RSS icons than we have HTTP icons.
The question I come to is: How necessary is it to display an RSS icon on a website? I’ve never really thought about it in depth before. After all, so many blogs and websites do it. It seems natural. And with the pros leaning that direction, what other example do we have to follow?
Practically the source of classy, relevant web tips and practice on the web, A List Apart features a link to their RSS feed in their main menu.
Easily the #1 model for thousands of bloggers, ProBlogger has a link to subscribe to their content displayed prominently above the fold.
The Feed Reader (no, the human kind)
At first glance, it seems there are two type of readers when it comes to RSS:
- Those who use it, and therefore don’t really need the icons and
- Those who don’t use RSS and don’t really care that there’s an icon on the page.
Granted, there are gray areas on the spectrum. There are those who use feeds but need to be reminded of their availability (though I don’t know why), as well as those who don’t use feeds but will after enough visual training.
Honestly, the whole issue makes me think of those Valid CSS and Valid XHTML buttons that I used to see every once and a while. I always think those are silly and unnecessary. Now I’m beginning to see feed icons in the same light.
Standard Technology and Non-standard Visuals
I recognize that an RSS icon standard does exist, to an extent, but there is still a lot of creative liberty taken across the web. As Atwood alludes to in his quote above, at some point this showing off of different versions of the icon becomes just that—showboating. How necessary is it?
Everyone does it—heck, I do it—so I can’t really talk. But at one point that was the case with table elements. So what excuses do we really have? And, more importantly, how long before this fad fades out, just like the rest have?
*/
