MAJOR update to the boards

The future of web design lies in packages that can be easily integrated into a website, much in the same way as PHP modules can be added to a website and skinned. People don't build wheels anymore. They build better machines to build wheels.

You are simply forgetting about the human element. By your reasoning Flash should be long dead, but it's not because people simply like multimedia, to the extent that they are willing to wait that little bit longer for the experience. We are not always driven by efficiency.

Bloated code? We're talking bytes here, for the convenience of having a machine do the code for you. You can encapsulate dynamic CSS driven pages within dreamweaver templates. There are good reasons for doing this.

1) You can then use the one template for CSS and HTML based designs
2) You can create a system that allows people with fundamental HTML skills to create web pages- a lot of people on these boards can use dreamweaver and HTML- it would allow them to make a meaningful contribution and lower your workload.
3) You can lock Dreamweaver templates- This means contributers cannot damage the site unintentionally.
4) You can define certain CSS styles within editable regions- controlling the consistency of the design throughout the site.

I am not anti-CSS. However, again I must stress that from a DESIGN point of view tables and CSS together are a far quicker, stable way to implement a complex design. Dynamic content, tables and CSS can all be used to great effect.

Dave

I am not anti-CSS. However, again I must stress that from a DESIGN point of view tables and CSS together are a far quicker, stable way to implement a complex design. Dynamic content, tables and CSS can all be used to great effect.

Yup, use tables and you do indeed get a complex design. That is BAD thing! As far as I'm coincerned a good design gives you maximum results with minimum complexity. All table based layouts become complex and cumbersome, that is not a positive thing but a very negative thing. It's becauase I have this zen like approach to design that I cannot stand the horrible code that comes out of things like DreamWeaver! The code is the medium for web designers and if you don't optimise it you havn't completed the design process. You have something that looks shinney but is messed up at it's core. That to me is an in-compelete design. You might call me a perfectionist for saying that but when you start building complex web applications and you spen just about ALL your time dealing with this stuff at the HTML level you REALLY come to appreciate good code and utterly dispise bad code. It makes you life HELL!

Now, you are right that in the future people with zero web skills will be making most of the web content, where you are wrong is in your assumption that they will be using DreamWeaver etc to do it. The future is in Content Management Systems where publishing to the web becomes as easy as making a post to these boards! Things like TinyCME ( tinymce.moxiecode.com/ ) are the interface that will power these CMSs and they do produce since simple XHTML code which the CMS can then insert into the site and the CSS managed by the web master will then be applied to the XHTML. Total separation of content from presentation! I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is the future. Having a hodegepodege of content and presentation all in one big mess of code is the past, it is the hell that was web design in the 90s. It is not the future!

BB

I have a feeling we could be going around in circles all night here...
I meant a complex graphic design, not complex tables for the hell of it. I only delve into the code when it's necessary. As far as I'm concerned code either works or it doesn't. I've developed many application, but they generally use Flash at the front end.
I practice what I preach, take a look at www.kildareastronomy.com . OK, so there's a few things need fixing and I havent made it w3c comliant, but I've used Dreamweaver templates, CSS and PHP together. It didn't take me long to put together and it's very easy to update. Certain pages are created dynamically and I can change the look of the site very easily.

Again, bottom line- it performs well and looks just fine. The whole design is a compromise between the time it takes to develop, graphical elements, usability and the ability to update the site. When I do it professionally these are the things my clients care about.

The same approach even works fine for OS commerce sites or Mambo CMS based sites.

When you take a puritanical approach, something is going to suffer. I'll change as the technology changes- not put all my eggs in one basket.

I didn't really want to get into a technical debate- we clearly have different approaches and thats just fine. The technology is just a tool. However, the design principles havn't changed much in the last century. Just because someone has a computer aided design program doesn't make them an architect. I'm at it ten years and I'm still learning. My original point still stands- don't limit your vision through the use of one tool- do everything possible to design it from the point of view of the user and work your way backwards. The offer still stands if you want the help. Even if that is a Photoshop/Dreamweaver mockup. My skill set is as follows:

Flash, Dreamweaver, HTML, CSS, limited PHP, Photoshop, Swift 3D, 3D studio max, extensive formal usability knowledge and GUI/system design. If you want to see some of my professional work I'll PM it to you, as I cannot drag my clients into this conversation. They include small, medium and enterprise level companies. And I know you are tempted to discount Flash, but it a severely misused and misunderstood medium.

I'm at your disposal...

Dave

I don't really see where the argument is, or why its even a discussion. To me voyager and dpower are expressing parallel opinions.

I'll attempt to paraphrase

Voyager: CSS + XHTML is the best way to build a website.

This is simply true. All of the world famous web developers out there have been making this point both through evangelism and through practice for several years now. The benefits of properly structured XHTML are numerous, and I am sure you're all capable of googling for them to get the picture.

It is true that you can get shitty designs written in standard compliant XHTML/CSS, but that is true of any language. However, the people recognised as being the best in the world at this all choose XHTML/CSS as their means of developing websites. It doesn't restrict them (as some people said CSS does), their sites don't look shit (as some people said they do).

dpower: css/xml based sites ... don't look great.

That I disagree with, mainly cause it is a crazy generalisation. Its like saying "All redbrick houses don't look great". CSS and XHTML impact on the "look" of a site, they don't restrict the designer in any way shape or form. But ultimately this is a personal opinion of dpower, and as such can't really be debated.


The tables argument really irritates me though. Its such a tired argument in 2005. It is possible to build a great website with tables, that is true. www.ibm.com for example uses the following
a) Standards Compliant XHTML
b) CSS
c) Tables

The only real problem with tables is that they are higher maintenance than XHTML style markup. The one example where I have seen this come to light is when myself and a friend were working on www.minds.nuim.ie That sight is entirely customisable cause every component is contained in a separate div. If tables were used there, any slight alteration to the sight would have had a massive impact on the underlying code. For example, if it was decided to move the login box to be a small feature at the top of the website, then the change would be done entirely in CSS. If a "Sponsored By" logo was to be added, we wouldn't have to re-define our page-table structure to include it. Its just more flexible than using tables for layout

There is nothing wrong with using tables, you can get just as nice a site, and the extra markup won't impact your bandwidth too heavily , but if you decide you want to add another section to your site, you have to break the table up again.

The point about CSS Templates being "more restrictive than DreamWeaver" is worthy of discussion, but irrelevant to this thread. DreamWeaver is a better option than CSS Templates, if the site will be built by someone who has no understanding of the underlying technologies. And of course, making someone choose between a selection of CSS templates is restrictive, in the same way ordering food off a menu is restrictive. Someone else has worked out some nice recipes, and you must select one which works well for you.

But neither of those examples should deter you from the main point, at irishastronomy.org there is a professional web designer willing to build a site using the best technologies available. So DreamWeaver isn't needed, as its not the best tool for the job, tables aren't needed because they aren't as good as XHTML with semantic markup, and CSS templates aren't needed, because someone is willing to create a new one that works for irishastronomy.org.

If there is to be a discussion/debate here, it should be at the picture level, i.e. when voyager shows what sort of design he is thinking of, then people can start saying "Too much blue, you can't see the login box, font size too small, Its no good for a first time visitor" Thats far more useful feedback than "I don't know if using CSS/XHTML is a good idea"

Firstly, welcome to the boards TinkTank, Hopefullly you'll take the time to browse the more astronomy based topics...
Back to business..

This is simply true. All of the world famous web developers out there have been making this point both through evangelism and through practice for several years now.

I hadn't realized web designers had reached celebrity status, maybe we'll see them on an island on TV3 one of these days
However, it's not so black and white. Famous developers? you mean Hillman Curtis, Kurt Noble and Kirupa for instance? All advocate tables and CSS.. Maybe we should look at some large companies... hmm seems all the Coca Cola family websites use tables too. What about the two largest/most prominent web design companies in this country, SilverInk and WebFactory. Doh! Tables/CSS again.. A mix of tools used on all websites.

CSS and XHTML impact on the "look" of a site

Yes, I can torture myself and implement a lot of my designs using pure CSS, or I can achieve it easily with a hybrid. I'm assuming your a programmer. You probably do a rough sketch of the site layout, create the CSS and apply a skin over it. It just doesnt work this way in web design companies- a marketing person sits down with a client to determine how to pitch a project, then sits down with a designer to work out how the site will look. The programmer is given the design- this is where the fun begins. All of a sudden the programmer is telling the designer that parts of his design are impractical or too difficult to implement. The result is generally a mixed bag of technologies. Everything cannot be achieved with CSS alone.

Your assertion that making changes to HTML tables/CSS templates is difficult is incorrect. Technology alone should not determine the specifications- Rigid specifications set so early in the process limit imagination.

Dave

I use notepad and its bloody marvellous.