CSS vs. hard coding / supernatural
Aug. 29th, 2006 03:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oiranCSS vs. hard code: Despite all my complaining, I am finding the whole Joomla mess very interesting, if frustrating. I wanted to do a site redesign for my fanfic because, well, I just like to do a redesign every now and then, and I wanted to delve into content management systems a bit because they've become fairly ubiquitous. Additionally, the Mr. and I will eventually get more serious about our tiny hosting company, so it would be nice if we had turnkey CMS packages ready to go for potential clients, which means that we have to make them, which means I have to make them because the Mr. has other things to do. Like work.
If for no other reason than marketing, I am having to think more seriously about CSS. I understand and appreciate the flexibility inherent in a CSS-based site, but I am also well aware of the limitations - browser incompatibilities, in particular. I have found several wonderful tutorial sites that will show me how to do incredibly complex things with CSS, but I can't help noticing that a large percentage of these tasks could be achieved fairly easily with hard-coded HTML and...TABLES. I love tables, and the bookendy logic that nested tables require is just my kind of thing (picky and precise, yet cluttered at the same time). However, instead of doing what makes sense to me, i.e., tables and hard-coding, I have decided to start from scratch to re-make my new site template (I used code from a free template as my example for the current version) so that I can perhaps learn something practical instead of theoretical about the superiority (or so one would be led to believe) of CSS coding.
Regardless of my intent to use CSS for the site, I am still unconvinced that CSS is inherently superior. I am not a real web designer or graphic designer or anything designer, and I have never been to any seminars about CSS, taken any classes about CSS, or read anything about CSS that wasn't either a tutorial or air-puffed propaganda. From my non-pro perspective, CSS is clearly a design ideal, and a very seductive one, at that, but it seems debatable whether it actually represents a functional improvement over well-considered hard coding. What I like about hard coding is that I can depend upon it: it looks like it's supposed to in every browser without work-arounds, and is thus quick and easy. Since I know my understanding of the subject is limited, I would appreciate it if anyone knows of a link to a good explanation of WHY CSS is superior to hard-coded HTML from a end-user/viewer/functional standpoint.
The above is also posted to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
oiran, so my apologies if you're seeing it twice.
Supernatural: Watching and enjoying, much to my surprise. I don't know why I'm surprised, actually, since just about everyone I know likes it. It's certainly a much better show than Smallville was at the beginning. Actually, it's not that Smallville was inherently bad when it started airing (that came later), but much of the casting seemed to have been done based on headshots alone. On Supernatural, both leads can act. This certainly carries some dramatic weight when contrasted to a situation where only one lead can act and the other can...stand pretty. And blush.
I never found Jensen Ackles all that attractive in his guest turn on SV, but he's extremely engaging here, as well as more physically appealing, though neither he nor Jared are likely to appear in my more feverish dreams. I'm enjoying their chemistry - they really do sound like brothers with all the bickering and fondness - but I'm not seeing the slashiness that drives the fandom. I am getting totally spooked when I watch (usually in the dark, so the dark video is easier to see on my computer screen), even when I am also noting annoyances like blood that dries red, a not-subliminal-enough crying baby amping up the tension on the soundtrack, or the car that switches from 2-door to 4-door to suit the occasion (thanks to K for pointing that out!). Still, I'll probably be atstone_princess and ethrosdemon's house watching when the new season starts, fully prepared to squee and flap my hands with giddiness.
If for no other reason than marketing, I am having to think more seriously about CSS. I understand and appreciate the flexibility inherent in a CSS-based site, but I am also well aware of the limitations - browser incompatibilities, in particular. I have found several wonderful tutorial sites that will show me how to do incredibly complex things with CSS, but I can't help noticing that a large percentage of these tasks could be achieved fairly easily with hard-coded HTML and...TABLES. I love tables, and the bookendy logic that nested tables require is just my kind of thing (picky and precise, yet cluttered at the same time). However, instead of doing what makes sense to me, i.e., tables and hard-coding, I have decided to start from scratch to re-make my new site template (I used code from a free template as my example for the current version) so that I can perhaps learn something practical instead of theoretical about the superiority (or so one would be led to believe) of CSS coding.
Regardless of my intent to use CSS for the site, I am still unconvinced that CSS is inherently superior. I am not a real web designer or graphic designer or anything designer, and I have never been to any seminars about CSS, taken any classes about CSS, or read anything about CSS that wasn't either a tutorial or air-puffed propaganda. From my non-pro perspective, CSS is clearly a design ideal, and a very seductive one, at that, but it seems debatable whether it actually represents a functional improvement over well-considered hard coding. What I like about hard coding is that I can depend upon it: it looks like it's supposed to in every browser without work-arounds, and is thus quick and easy. Since I know my understanding of the subject is limited, I would appreciate it if anyone knows of a link to a good explanation of WHY CSS is superior to hard-coded HTML from a end-user/viewer/functional standpoint.
The above is also posted to
oiran, so my apologies if you're seeing it twice.Supernatural: Watching and enjoying, much to my surprise. I don't know why I'm surprised, actually, since just about everyone I know likes it. It's certainly a much better show than Smallville was at the beginning. Actually, it's not that Smallville was inherently bad when it started airing (that came later), but much of the casting seemed to have been done based on headshots alone. On Supernatural, both leads can act. This certainly carries some dramatic weight when contrasted to a situation where only one lead can act and the other can...stand pretty. And blush.
I never found Jensen Ackles all that attractive in his guest turn on SV, but he's extremely engaging here, as well as more physically appealing, though neither he nor Jared are likely to appear in my more feverish dreams. I'm enjoying their chemistry - they really do sound like brothers with all the bickering and fondness - but I'm not seeing the slashiness that drives the fandom. I am getting totally spooked when I watch (usually in the dark, so the dark video is easier to see on my computer screen), even when I am also noting annoyances like blood that dries red, a not-subliminal-enough crying baby amping up the tension on the soundtrack, or the car that switches from 2-door to 4-door to suit the occasion (thanks to K for pointing that out!). Still, I'll probably be at
stone_princess and ethrosdemon's house watching when the new season starts, fully prepared to squee and flap my hands with giddiness.
