RE: Firefox vs IE - help

Subject: RE: Firefox vs IE - help
From: "Lauren" <lt34 -at- csus -dot- edu>
To: "'Gordon McLean'" <Gordon -dot- McLean -at- GrahamTechnology -dot- com>, "'Chris Borokowski'" <athloi -at- yahoo -dot- com>, "'TECHWR-L'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:43:53 -0700

> Behalf Of Gordon McLean

> "CSS beats it for certain other types of layout." How about,
> beats for it
> ALL OTHER. The table model is for tables. Currently, CSS is
> THE layout model
> you should be using.

Here we have a discussion about laying out a web site by a person who hasn't
done web design in awhile. The website is an announcement of wedding
scheduled for September and the presentation is "boxy," like a
tables-designed web site. I suggested tables because I apparently know a
lot less about web design, having been out of it for 7 years, than
Elizabeth. Elizabeth is using CSS to layout her site, but it displays
differently between IE and FireFox. Maybe, somebody can look at her site
and make suggestions for her site that would work to make the web site
perform the same way in each browser. I'd really like to know myself what
would work.

I would prefer tables because they have a shorter learning curve and a
little more backwards compatibility. Also, when I was on dial-up, up until
a month and half ago, CSS laid out web sites got all hokey-screwy regardless
of my web browser. Changing resolutions so the font was big enough to see
also jacks up CSS-controlled web sites. Tables are easier for me, because I
can easily find and change content. I'm sure that if I spent anytime
learning to layout a web site with CSS, then I might prefer it if the site
would load properly, even on dial-up and with different resolutions.

Newspapers (I think they still have papers), television stations, and other
media outlets seem to favor CSS-controlled web sites. Individuals not
trying to make a career statement seem to stay with simpler designs. Savvy
individuals, small companies, and designers of other smaller web sites seem
to have a potpourri of design "standards." What is best for the particular
case will depend on the expertise and tools available to the particular
designer. I realize that great tools can make a great web site, but what
can an individual do to make a non-commercial web site look great without
having to make a giant investment in expertise or tools? Do we have
different standards for "simple" and "commercial"? Do the standards follow
the tools and expertise available? I think that they do.



Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.

True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity!

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


RE: Firefox vs IE - help: From: Gordon McLean

Previous by Author: RE: Responses to multiple posts
Next by Author: RE: double byte character set, single byte character set, Latin alphabet
Previous by Thread: RE: Firefox vs IE - help
Next by Thread: Re: Firefox vs IE - help

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads