vNES FAQ(virtualnes.com)
virtualnes.com
vNES FAQ
http://www.virtualnes.com/help/faq/web_tables.html
10 comments
The author pooh-poohs CSS, and pooh-poohs bulky sites, but the table-heavy pages on the site have many repeated, wasteful inline styling tags. Some trivial, cross-compatible CSS would streamline the site further (admittedly, down from almost never more than 40kB HTML, but streamlining is streamlining).
That said, I was jonesing for Zelda seriously less than 10 minutes ago, so he can do whatever he wants for so long as he makes getting my fix possible.
That said, I was jonesing for Zelda seriously less than 10 minutes ago, so he can do whatever he wants for so long as he makes getting my fix possible.
I've felt that way many times. I use CSS but I don't like it. Tables are quick and dirty and sometimes quick and dirty is all that matters. Would you rather have this guy working on his website all day or making an NES emulator?
I believe the fellow that made this site (news.y) had something to say about CSS and Tables and which one wins in the RAD department.
I believe the fellow that made this site (news.y) had something to say about CSS and Tables and which one wins in the RAD department.
CSS is almost always quicker, easier and more powerful than equivalent presentational markup.
The problem with tables is that Internet Explores does not support the "dislay:table" property, which is the CSS equivalent to table layout. So if you want a certain kind of grid-like layout and you want to support Internet Explorer, you have to choose: 1) either emulate the layout using CSS constructs which were not designed for this purpose. 2) use tables
However this is not a shortcoming of CSS, it is a shortcoming of Internet Explorer. display:table has been part of the CSS standard for 10 years.
I wrote an article http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html to describe the specific context where it makes sense to use tables rather than CSS. In all other cases, CSS is better.
The problem with tables is that Internet Explores does not support the "dislay:table" property, which is the CSS equivalent to table layout. So if you want a certain kind of grid-like layout and you want to support Internet Explorer, you have to choose: 1) either emulate the layout using CSS constructs which were not designed for this purpose. 2) use tables
However this is not a shortcoming of CSS, it is a shortcoming of Internet Explorer. display:table has been part of the CSS standard for 10 years.
I wrote an article http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html to describe the specific context where it makes sense to use tables rather than CSS. In all other cases, CSS is better.
If by "best" you mean "most pointless" and if by "FAQ" you mean "uninformed rant".
There's no real substance, it adds nothing to the debate, uses unjustified hyperbole ("CSS is flawed"), doesn't show the added flexibility of CSS, overstates cross-browser CSS incompatably horribly and abuses half-truths to twist the argument (unless magically you think my low-resolution phone is going to love your table-based layout). CSS scales in big sites, reduces load times and lets you do many, many clever things you couldn't do in raw HTML and makes life easier, especially when combined with a CMS.
And that site is ugly and it's not because of tables. The site would look better without any graphics of styling at all. Hating Photoshop is not a good reason for having a site that's horrendously ugly.
But I do agree content is king. Just as well that he has something worthwhile that makes people look past the godawfully bad site.
There's no real substance, it adds nothing to the debate, uses unjustified hyperbole ("CSS is flawed"), doesn't show the added flexibility of CSS, overstates cross-browser CSS incompatably horribly and abuses half-truths to twist the argument (unless magically you think my low-resolution phone is going to love your table-based layout). CSS scales in big sites, reduces load times and lets you do many, many clever things you couldn't do in raw HTML and makes life easier, especially when combined with a CMS.
And that site is ugly and it's not because of tables. The site would look better without any graphics of styling at all. Hating Photoshop is not a good reason for having a site that's horrendously ugly.
But I do agree content is king. Just as well that he has something worthwhile that makes people look past the godawfully bad site.
Yes, by best I meant "Most Ridiculous". I thought it was hysterical, and took nothing from the site whatsoever except for a laugh. Jokes!
You wanna know what I use to make the graphics on this website? Microsoft Paint. Seriously. All of the graphics on this website were either made in Microsoft Paint
no wonder it looks like so 1980s
no wonder it looks like so 1980s
The kid wasn't even around in the '80s:
http://www.thatsanderskid.com/about.html
Now that makes me feel old...
http://www.thatsanderskid.com/about.html
Now that makes me feel old...
no offense but, ms paint or something similar was in the 80s though..
people with talent should use something that can help them show it off and spend less time
people with talent should use something that can help them show it off and spend less time
And get off my damn lawn!
His site's layout is so trivial that it could be implemented in 4 divs, and they would render cross browser no problem, not to mention, easily styled so that the menu and content are inlined vertically when rendering on a small 80px phone screen.
Also, there is no indication whatsoever as to what is a link, this is just plain bad usability.