Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dummy question - why divs over tables?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Maybe that's what tomED was getting at ? He didn't use the word "reasons" - he used the word "excuses".


  • Options
    #33
    tomED
    Registered Users Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭tomED


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Maybe that's what tomED was getting at ? He didn't use the word "reasons" - he used the word "excuses".

    Thanks Liam - yes I did mean excuses! :) however....
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Everyone should be designing with the future in mind. Backwards compatability for broken browsers (e.g. IE) should be a foot note and catered for with unobtrusive enhancements using UJS, etc.

    .... I don't agree with this. And my reasons are based around accessibility.

    Accessibility is about access for all.

    Which is why my personal preference would be to build sites that usable in all browsers not just modern "working" ones as the mighty ken puts it.

    I personally feel backwards compatibility is as important if not more, than being standards compliant.

    Sending people with activity limitations to another "door" by using altervative pages is also against the whole principle of Accessibility. So by claiming your site is accessible because it's coded to the latest standards but has a "foot note" for people with older browsers is just a complete farce.


  • Options
    #34
    The Mighty Ken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭The Mighty Ken


    tomED wrote: »
    Thanks Liam - yes I did mean excuses! :) however....



    .... I don't agree with this. And my reasons are based around accessibility.

    Accessibility is about access for all.

    Which is why my personal preference would be to build sites that usable in all browsers not just modern "working" ones as the mighty ken puts it.

    I personally feel backwards compatibility is as important if not more, than being standards compliant.

    Sending people with activity limitations to another "door" by using altervative pages is also against the whole principle of Accessibility. So by claiming your site is accessible because it's coded to the latest standards but has a "foot note" for people with older browsers is just a complete farce.

    Well it's a catch 22 situation really. You're supporting technologies that are hindering accessibility for the sake of accessibility.

    My sites will always be accessibile to those with special requirements and those who need it most. Stubborn IT departments who refuse to support anything other than outdated browsers like IE6 don't get the same special treatment unfortunately. I'm a firm believer in moving forward.


  • Options
    #35
    tomED
    Registered Users Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭tomED


    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Well it's a catch 22 situation really. You're supporting technologies that are hindering accessibility for the sake of accessibility.

    Yes - accessibility should be more important than the latest coding standards.
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    My sites will always be accessibile to those with special requirements and those who need it most. Stubborn IT departments who refuse to support anything other than outdated browsers like IE6 don't get the same special treatment unfortunately. I'm a firm believer in moving forward.

    Firstly, you are completely missing the point with your "stubborn IT departments" comment. The web isn't only used by people who have IT departments.

    Plus you are forgetting the fact that it might not be possible for someone to update their browser.

    So how you can say your sites are accessible is beyond me. Let me guess, they've passed WCAG 1.0? This is generally what your typical webmaster means when he/she says their website is accessible.

    Well it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, WCAG are only guidelines, they don't make your website accessible whether it has a triple A rating or not.

    Your response is a prime example of many webmasters - in fact, it can be likened to the old "sure no-one uses mozilla anyway" argument in the past.

    Oh and - it's not catch 22. You can build an accessible site that will work in all browsers and pass the WCAG guidelines, only problem is it will have to be HTML as opposed to xHTML.


  • Options
    #36
    The Mighty Ken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭The Mighty Ken


    tomED wrote: »
    Yes - accessibility should be more important than the latest coding standards.

    Actually they should go hand in hand. That was the point I was trying to make.
    tomED wrote: »
    Firstly, you are completely missing the point with your "stubborn IT departments" comment. The web isn't only used by people who have IT departments.

    I think you're completely missing my point but not to worry. The vast majority of people who will still be using outdated browsers (such as IE6) in the near future will be larger corporates and government depts who refuse to update their browsers for security reasons. I won't be catering for their broken technologies.

    Having said this, every site I build is accessible to the nth degree. I generally use unobtrusive fall-backs for older browsers but I refuse to use hacks and intrusive workarounds for non-compliant browsers. For the record, all of my (standards-compliant) sites will display cross-browser, including text-based browsers such as Lynx as well as screen readers and other assistive technologies.

    In my last job I got calls from people still using IE4 and quite a few still using IE5. Do you still support these browsers, tomED? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line?
    tomED wrote: »
    Plus you are forgetting the fact that it might not be possible for someone to update their browser.

    Like who? Aside from the examples I gave above, who refuse to upgrade their browsers.
    tomED wrote: »
    So how you can say your sites are accessible is beyond me. Let me guess, they've passed WCAG 1.0? This is generally what your typical webmaster means when he/she says their website is accessible.

    No need to attack my integrity. FWIW, I've been building fully accessible sites for a very long time and I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to defend myself...
    tomED wrote: »
    Well it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, WCAG are only guidelines, they don't make your website accessible whether it has a triple A rating or not.

    I never said anything about WCAG. You're having a masturbatory conversation with yourself. All hot air.
    tomED wrote: »
    Your response is a prime example of many webmasters - in fact, it can be likened to the old "sure no-one uses mozilla anyway" argument in the past.

    No it's not. It's a prime example of many of the leading webmasters on the planet who are advocating standards and best practice in the delivery of world class Web design. Folk such as Zeldman, Clear Left... Andy Clarke is a particular advocate of accellerating the push in standards. I suppose everyone's wrong except you though, eh?
    tomED wrote: »
    Oh and - it's not catch 22. You can build an accessible site that will work in all browsers and pass the WCAG guidelines, only problem is it will have to be HTML as opposed to xHTML.

    Eh.... WHAT?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    tomED
    Registered Users Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭tomED


    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Actually they should go hand in hand. That was the point I was trying to make.

    I agree they should go hand in hand. But if someone can't view/use a site because it's all over the place in an browser, the site is not accessible.

    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    I think you're completely missing my point but not to worry. The vast majority of people who will still be using outdated browsers (such as IE6) in the near future will be larger corporates and government depts who refuse to update their browsers for security reasons.

    What a ridiculous and naive statement. The last people to upgrade are those who can't afford to buy a new computer or don't have a high speed internet connection where they can download the browser for free.
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    I won't be catering for their broken technologies.

    Another ridiculous and naive statement. Shows that you really don't care about accessibility.
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Having said this, every site I build is accessible to the nth degree. I generally use unobtrusive fall-backs for older browsers but I refuse to use hacks and intrusive workarounds for non-compliant browsers. For the record, all of my (standards-compliant) sites will display cross-browser, including text-based browsers such as Lynx as well as screen readers and other assistive technologies.

    In my last job I got calls from people still using IE4 and quite a few still using IE5. Do you still support these browsers, tomED? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line?.

    I'm still guessing you are confusing accessibility guidelines with accessibility. Two different things... entirely.

    I give our clients information on the pros and cons on both options and let them decide. The trend lately has been to be standards compliant, but for a long time it was the complete opposite.

    I personally would aim to make my sites work in IE4 yes. Our main site still has visits from people using IE2.0 - god love them....

    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Like who? Aside from the examples I gave above, who refuse to upgrade their browsers.

    As per my example above.
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    No need to attack my integrity. FWIW, I've been building fully accessible sites for a very long time and I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to defend myself....

    I never attacked you or your integrity. No-one can say they have built proper accessible sites unless they've actually worked with people with activity limitations. Plus, know what they actual meani of accessibility is.


    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    I never said anything about WCAG. You're having a masturbatory conversation with yourself. All hot air....

    A little immature, but none the less... You are not striking me as someone who knows what they are talking about when they will only support "work browsers" as you call it.
    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    No it's not. It's a prime example of many of the leading webmasters on the planet who are advocating standards and best practice in the delivery of world class Web design. Folk such as Zeldman, Clear Left... Andy Clarke is a particular advocate of accellerating the push in standards. I suppose everyone's wrong except you though, eh?

    Again you completely missed the point. If you read back you will see I'm all for standards compliant websites, but not at the cost of accessibility.

    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Eh.... WHAT?
    Do i really need to repeat myself?


  • Options
    #38
    The Mighty Ken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭The Mighty Ken


    You can build an accessible site that will work in all browsers and pass the WCAG guidelines, only problem is it will have to be HTML as opposed to xHTML.

    Listen, I won't get dragged into an argument with you. You'll just bring me down to your level of ignorance and then beat me with experience. Besides, we're miles off topic...


  • Options
    #39
    tomED
    Registered Users Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭tomED


    The Mighty Ken wrote: »
    Listen, I won't get dragged into an argument with you. You'll just bring me down to your level of ignorance and then beat me with experience. Besides, we're miles off topic...

    Argument?? Ingorance??? LOL...

    I think you need to look closer to home, I'm not the one beng ignorant and I'm certainly not arguing. You don't want to see the fact that your websites are only accessible in the guidelines set out by W3C and not by the true definitions of accessibility.

    I agree though we are off topic - maybe this is for another day. Or maybe, you can PM with your problem on my statement and we can continue the discussion??


  • Options
    #40
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,253 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Wow, the last time I saw this much handbags was when my wife made me go shopping with her in New York.


  • Options
    #41
    tomED
    Registered Users Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭tomED


    eoin_s wrote: »
    Wow, the last time I saw this much handbags was when my wife made me go shopping with her in New York.

    hahahahaha


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Seanie M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭Seanie M


    eoin_s wrote: »
    This book helped me a little though, if only to recognise when certain tags should be used.

    41M7WWYKSRL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

    Arrived yesterday, thanks for the tip. I began reading it last night. I must say, even to a beginner in (css) design, it is worth getting. It is helping me out as an intermediate just fine. Thanks for the input Eoin.

    As to the other posts, all much appreciated. I like the debate ensuing in the last few posts too. Some good arguments, some of which I agree with, and some which make me raise more questions.

    For instance, out of hair splitting, per capita of those that surf the web, what would be the number of those accessing the web with disabilities? Tables et all work fine, but just not as sharply for accessible browsing like those that div's allow. Kind of reminds me of the whole (old) debate about IE being the most widely used browser and most sites catering for it specifically, neglecting Netscape and the then-growing-in-popularity Firefox. Some competitors still make sites with only IE in mind in this day and age. Now THAT is not playing ball, whatever about accessibility...

    Seanie.


  • Options
    #43
    Eoin
    Registered Users Posts: 21,253 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Seanie M wrote: »
    Arrived yesterday, thanks for the tip. I began reading it last night. I must say, even to a beginner in (css) design, it is worth getting. It is helping me out as an intermediate just fine. Thanks for the input Eoin.

    No probs - hope you find it useful. I like it because it explains why certain tags should be used as they make more sense for the data you are displaying, rather than the totalitarian approach that a lot of the standards storm-troopers take.


  • Options
    #44
    harlemangel
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭harlemangel


    Hey Seanie_M
    Bet you didnt think a simple question like yours would cause World War III?!
    Handbags indeed!
    H


  • Options
    #45
    Seanie M
    Registered Users Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭Seanie M


    harlemangel wrote: »
    Hey Seanie_M
    Bet you didnt think a simple question like yours would cause World War III?!
    Handbags indeed!
    H

    Nope, I sure didn't, but you gotta love the whole freedom of speech ammendment here! ;)


Advertisement