In with the new out with the old!

[Invert]

I know I have not posted here in a long while since I have been busy but I do read this forum frequently. I just wanted to make a poll to see how many people move ahead in the web development circle and how many still cling to their old ways.

I have a friend that only used tables for website design, I helped convert him to use CSS.
How many people here still use tables for design? How many people here used SMIL before?

[Mitosis]

I mostly use tables and then style them with CSS. Haven't really done everything in CSS before. I guess I'm just comfortable with how I do it.

[po0f]

Xhtml for content, css for layout and pretty stuff.

[dxoigmn]

Xhtml for content, css for layout and pretty stuff.

same.  I like to separate document (XHTML) from style (CSS).  Makes it easier for people using a cell-phone or even the blind, not that it's my target audience.  Additionally, it's easier to change layouts as you just modify a css file and you're done.

[quasi-modo]

xhtml is not more accessible than html, infact the opposite is true. The reason is xhtml is still new and our browsers are not handleing it all the same way. Basically xhtml can never be more accessible then html, it can be as accessible, but never more. I am using a mix of both html and xhtml, but I think that for the time being it is probably best to use 4.01 strict.

I have a friend that only used tables for website design, I helped convert him to use CSS.
How many people here still use tables for design?

Tons of people saddly. Most major websites still run tables because it is a pain to change things, but even the places that use css tend to not have valid code. www.macromedia.com and www.lycos.co.uk and www.espn.com are examples of corporate sites using css but their markup is still crap. One step at a time I guess

Xhtml for content, css for layout and pretty stuff.

same. I like to separate document (XHTML) from style (CSS). Makes it easier for people using a cell-phone or even the blind, not that it's my target audience. Additionally, it's easier to change layouts as you just modify a css file and you're done.

The advantages of css include but are not limited to:
Lower bandwidth, if you use the same css file for every page of your site that code only has to be downloaded one time.

better code organization, you code will be much cleaner

accessibility, as you said when a browser cannot handle css the css will not be displayed (remember to use <!-- around it so that older browsers do not print out the css).

I also use css and keep my structural markup separate from my presentational markup.

[Grok]

I don't like, and don't adhere, to making exceptions in my code for older, non-compliant browsers, such as the <!-- -> around certain elements.  If my doctype says I am XHTML 1.0, and you cannot properly parse it, then don't do it.  That older browsers (and who uses IE 3.2 anyway?) are poorly written is not my problem.  The user calls me I tell them on the support desk that they need to access the page from a newer browser device, and will give them options and download locations.

[quasi-modo]

I don't like, and don't adhere, to making exceptions in my code for older, non-compliant browsers, such as the <!-- -> around certain elements.  If my doctype says I am XHTML 1.0, and you cannot properly parse it, then don't do it.  That older browsers (and who uses IE 3.2 anyway?) are poorly written is not my problem.  The user calls me I tell them on the support desk that they need to access the page from a newer browser device, and will give them options and download locations.

It is not always that simple. I should have included nongraphical browsers in the mix too with that post. There are audio braille browsers that mihgt read your code incorrectly and your search engine spiders could read it incorrectly (but them seeing some css really isn't a big deal). The idea is just going a little bit out of your way will make your website work on all platforms, no one gets excluded.

[Invert]

I'm actually working on a new site right now and I am using XHTML with CSS2 I don't care if your old browser can't handle that but I am including support for none graphical browsers. I use my cell phone sometimes to go to websites to get news and it's nice to be able to do that.

[quasi-modo]

I don't care if your old browser can't handle that but I am including support for none graphical browsers

You should care about all browsers. I test sites on the following:
IE6, IE5.5, IE5, IE4, GECKO (NS and MOZ), Opera, Lynx. Now I am not really concerned so much with how it looks on some of those, but I am concerned with it working. I just want to make sure that someone on any given platform can get to my content. I am not going to hack the heck out of my layout for one minor client because a few images are misaligned.

[dxoigmn]

xhtml is not more accessible than html, infact the opposite is true. The reason is xhtml is still new and our browsers are not handleing it all the same way. Basically xhtml can never be more accessible then html, it can be as accessible, but never more. I am using a mix of both html and xhtml, but I think that for the time being it is probably best to use 4.01 strict.

They're more accessible than most HTML 4.01 pages.  When you start mixing design with data then it becomes harder for a browser to present the page to someone who is blind or someone using a cellphone.  Using XHTML + CSS allows you to specify certain stylesheets for different medias (i.e. cell phones/pdas, printing, screen, etc.). 

[Invert]

You should care about all browsers. I test sites on the following:
IE6, IE5.5, IE5, IE4, GECKO (NS and MOZ), Opera, Lynx. Now I am not really concerned so much with how it looks on some of those, but I am concerned with it working. I just want to make sure that someone on any given platform can get to my content. I am not going to hack the heck out of my layout for one minor client because a few images are misaligned.

Um... no! I don't want to care and I will not care about people using older browsers. I don't want those people to go to my website anyway. Caring about browsers that don't comply with standards promotes companies to not care about standards. They will just say "Its ok, let the web developer stress to make our browser work." That's how Microsoft used to think, look at how many people use the illegal scroll bar elements, because IE supports it. Wrong answer!

[quasi-modo]

xhtml is not more accessible than html, infact the opposite is true. The reason is xhtml is still new and our browsers are not handleing it all the same way. Basically xhtml can never be more accessible then html, it can be as accessible, but never more. I am using a mix of both html and xhtml, but I think that for the time being it is probably best to use 4.01 strict.

They're more accessible than most HTML 4.01 pages.  When you start mixing design with data then it becomes harder for a browser to present the page to someone who is blind or someone using a cellphone.  Using XHTML + CSS allows you to specify certain stylesheets for different medias (i.e. cell phones/pdas, printing, screen, etc.). 

XHTML by it's self is not more accessible then html 4.01. If you use html 4.01 with css it is as accessible as you can get. Xhtml can be as accessible, but never any more accessible.

[quasi-modo]

You should care about all browsers. I test sites on the following:
IE6, IE5.5, IE5, IE4, GECKO (NS and MOZ), Opera, Lynx. Now I am not really concerned so much with how it looks on some of those, but I am concerned with it working. I just want to make sure that someone on any given platform can get to my content. I am not going to hack the heck out of my layout for one minor client because a few images are misaligned.

Um... no! I don't want to care and I will not care about people using older browsers. I don't want those people to go to my website anyway. Caring about browsers that don't comply with standards promotes companies to not care about standards. They will just say "Its ok, let the web developer stress to make our browser work." That's how Microsoft used to think, look at how many people use the illegal scroll bar elements, because IE supports it. Wrong answer!

Your website should work on all platforms, period. Consider this: There are plenty of browsers that were around before we even had css. I am not saying your site has to look the same for them, but you should make the content accessible for them. If you follow the WCAG it will. The whole idea behind making a webstie is so that people can get to your content, it is not good to exclude anyone.

Microsoft's scroll bars are proprietary and most developers do not care about it at all, you are not forced to use their scroll bars, it just adds some extra flashy newb style to your site if you do use them.

[dxoigmn]

xhtml is not more accessible than html, infact the opposite is true. The reason is xhtml is still new and our browsers are not handleing it all the same way. Basically xhtml can never be more accessible then html, it can be as accessible, but never more. I am using a mix of both html and xhtml, but I think that for the time being it is probably best to use 4.01 strict.

They're more accessible than most HTML 4.01 pages.  When you start mixing design with data then it becomes harder for a browser to present the page to someone who is blind or someone using a cellphone.  Using XHTML + CSS allows you to specify certain stylesheets for different medias (i.e. cell phones/pdas, printing, screen, etc.). 

XHTML by it's self is not more accessible then html 4.01. If you use html 4.01 with css it is as accessible as you can get. Xhtml can be as accessible, but never any more accessible.

You don't understand my point, maybe because I'm not explaining well enough.  What I'm trying to say is HTML 4.01 encourages the mixing of document and style whereas XHTML + CSS encourages you to keep them separate.  Because HTML 4.01 encourages this mixing, it becomes difficult to present to people using cell phones and those who are blind because those applications must parse through the crap and sort out the good stuff.

[quasi-modo]

xhtml is not more accessible than html, infact the opposite is true. The reason is xhtml is still new and our browsers are not handleing it all the same way. Basically xhtml can never be more accessible then html, it can be as accessible, but never more. I am using a mix of both html and xhtml, but I think that for the time being it is probably best to use 4.01 strict.

They're more accessible than most HTML 4.01 pages.  When you start mixing design with data then it becomes harder for a browser to present the page to someone who is blind or someone using a cellphone.  Using XHTML + CSS allows you to specify certain stylesheets for different medias (i.e. cell phones/pdas, printing, screen, etc.). 

XHTML by it's self is not more accessible then html 4.01. If you use html 4.01 with css it is as accessible as you can get. Xhtml can be as accessible, but never any more accessible.

You don't understand my point, maybe because I'm not explaining well enough.  What I'm trying to say is HTML 4.01 encourages the mixing of document and style whereas XHTML + CSS encourages you to keep them separate.  Because HTML 4.01 encourages this mixing, it becomes difficult to present to people using cell phones and those who are blind because those applications must parse through the crap and sort out the good stuff.

HTML does not force you to mix style with structure though. My point is browser support of xhtml is not all that wonderful. It is as accessible as html at best, but can never be better.