Posted on - April 24, 2004 [at] 1:22 pm by Brad
Tagged in - sitenews
Not into albums?
Email Signup
Get the latest Brad Sucks updates:
Blog
I’ve been working on a very slight redesign and thorough rewrite of this website. I pretty much want to kick whoever invented CSS in the nuts.
Comments are closed on this post.
17 Comments on this post
Jer on CSS
April 24, 2004 at 4:50 pm
I usually go through a love/hate phase in CSS endeavors. Working in Safari/Firebird I’ll get a perfectly logical layout going that I’m very happy with, maybe using some groovy tip from the Zeldmans and the Meyers.
Then bring it up in IE and realize the work/pain has only just begun.
I’d love to kick microsoft in their gold plated nuts…
Kaptin on CSS
April 24, 2004 at 4:50 pm
CSS isn’t so bad, what sucks is that no browser follows all the standards or renders it the same.
b on CSS
April 24, 2004 at 5:39 pm
Agreed. Who ever is inventing standards for the web needs a good going over. And why is there no error checking for CSS? It’s like painting blindfolded.
Jer on CSS
April 24, 2004 at 5:42 pm
If you haven’t tried it the EditCSS plugin for firefox is really helpful for both experimentation and troubleshooting:
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#editcss
The webdeveloper plugin is also fun:
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#webdeveloper
M.e. on CSS
April 25, 2004 at 10:38 am
Mankind, I hear that! I’m finally buckling down and learning it myself. I just got over the hump the other day. It’s MUCH better and easier now.
Check out Joe Gillespie’s site: http://www.wpdfd.com/
He’s in the middle of an article called CSS from the ground up. It helped me quite a bit.
The site is looking good, by the way.
ted on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 1:03 am
CSS is pretty good, just don’t ever design for IE. It’s a pain in the ass and is very, very broken when it comes to rendering anything properly.
Gecko (Netscape 6+, Firefox/Firebird, Mozilla) is the best to design for, since it follows standards the best, and a decent amount of people use it.
KHTML (Safari, Konqueror) is pretty good too. A few glitches here and there, but no massive CSS tweaking like what you need to do with IE.
I havn’t tried Opera, but it can’t be all that bad if people like it enough to pay for it.
ted on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 1:09 am
By the way, the W3C invented CSS:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
It’s headed by the guy that invented the web, they pretty much make and update all the web standards, like HTML.
If you think it’s a pain in the ass just designing the site, try following their standards. The HTML validator is a pain in the ass, never before have I gotten an entire site to work with it. Those who do get a shiny button.
Brad on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 6:20 am
I always knew I’d have to eventually kick the guy who invented the internet in the nuts. (sadly goes off to complete his mission)
evil_d on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 5:34 pm
A web designer achieves enlightenment when he stops trying to control how a page looks on other people’s computers.
My perception of CSS and its implementation in various browsers differs from those expressed above. I’ve twice typed it and deleted it, and I think I’ll keep it deleted in the interest of avoiding an argument. The important things are: (1) every browser differs in its implementation of CSS and HTML, and (2) on that magical day when browser market share is dominated by fully compliant browsers, they will *still* all differ in how they handle CSS and HTML, because the standards say they can. This brings me back to my first paragraph.
jb on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 6:15 pm
Seems to me like that philosophy goes against human instincts. The state of HTML got where it is because people want control. Now we’re gonna go back to taking the look of their pages out of people’s hands?
This will result in more and more use of Flash and Shockwave to design sites, I think, because business won’t risk revenue on things they can’t control.
Businesses are already moving away from regular HTML, as broadband gains market share, because a) they can control every aspect of the page for every user no matter what browser and b) the functionality can be much more robust and client-like. DHTML just isn’t cutting it for a lot of what companies want to do.
evil_d on CSS
April 26, 2004 at 7:51 pm
We’re already back to taking the look of pages out of designers’ hands. Most modern browsers let you override a site’s style sheet with one of your own devising.
Recommended reading: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/
Users are at your site because they want something. Give them what they want, and make it easy for them to find it. That’s good web design. Worry about your site’s appearance after you’re done with the first two things. And even then, don’t worry too hard about it.
scottandrew on CSS
April 27, 2004 at 2:51 pm
> CSS is pretty good, just don’t ever design for IE.
> It’s a pain in the ass and is very, very broken when
> it comes to rendering anything properly.
There’s a fix for that: IE7
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/intro/
It’s a JavaScript patch that compensates for IE6’s lack of advanced CSS support. Very cool.
> DHTML just isn’t cutting it for a lot of what
> companies want to do.
I’ve never understood this argument. What do companies want to do that DHTML cannot accomplish?
Chris on CSS
April 29, 2004 at 12:41 pm
CSS works just fine. It is very ugly when you are used to using tables and such for layouts, but once the basic layout is achieved, it is much easier than to format each cell’s font, size, color, etc….
Dreamweaver MX 2004 does a pretty admirable job at keeping CSS in line…at least I have found it works quite well for me.
Macromedia has some good articles on their site, on how to implement CSS gradually rather than a complete redesign.
russ on CSS
May 3, 2004 at 10:31 pm
http://validator.w3.org is initially scary, but it’s actually your friend. Many web page problems aren’t due to broken browers but broken html (everything from misnested and unclosed elements to subtler stuff like nonstandard browser-specific attributes etc. and forgetting to specify charset, which often screws up foreign characters) which different browsers have different ways of attempting to recover from. I found that spending a little bit of time learning about standard validating html was worth it; every new page these days I create validates as xhtml 1.0 strict, and it’s easy to achieve that.
Freddie on CSS
August 8, 2004 at 4:51 pm
First, if everyones site was valid then there would be no problem, at all. IE is used by over 70% of people, so design for it. I have never had any problem with IE and CSS as long as it is done right. If more than 50% of people use something then it is a standard, it is a sad but correct fact, you have to design for the majority, if IE does not support something then 10min later it is out of W3C’s DTD. IE was the first with xls/xml support and was supporting css/java years before netscape did…
Ivan on CSS
July 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It is now 2008, IE8 is on the horizon, Firefox 3 now passes the Acid 2 test, and Opera and Safari are the “kings” at CSS.
And, yes… CSS still sucks. It’s still a pain in the ass to design anything good, and they all STILL look different.
CSS needs to DIE. Bring back the tables!!!
Eingeschränkte on CSS
January 6, 2010 at 9:31 am
Now, its 2010 and Ivans statement from 2008 still is valid. Confirmed: CSS must die. It is an inadequate concept for visual tasks. Visually, the relationship between elements is important. But in CSS, the elements are like Robinson Crusoes, and you need to define their characteristics instead of their relations to other elements.