

vNES FAQ - bporterfield
http://www.virtualnes.com/help/faq/web_tables.html

======
zepolen
He makes a point of "[compressing] (to the highest point possible)" all his
images but doesn't bother to gzip the actual html.

His site's layout is so trivial that it could be implemented in 4 divs, and
they would render cross browser no problem, not to mention, easily styled so
that the menu and content are inlined vertically when rendering on a small
80px phone screen.

Also, there is no indication whatsoever as to what is a link, this is just
plain bad usability.

------
BSeward
The author pooh-poohs CSS, and pooh-poohs bulky sites, but the table-heavy
pages on the site have many repeated, wasteful inline styling tags. Some
trivial, cross-compatible CSS would streamline the site further (admittedly,
down from almost never more than 40kB HTML, but streamlining is streamlining).

That said, I was jonesing for Zelda seriously less than 10 minutes ago, so he
can do whatever he wants for so long as he makes getting my fix possible.

------
pragmatic
I've felt that way many times. I use CSS but I don't like it. Tables are quick
and dirty and sometimes quick and dirty is all that matters. Would you rather
have this guy working on his website all day or making an NES emulator?

I believe the fellow that made this site (news.y) had something to say about
CSS and Tables and which one wins in the RAD department.

~~~
olavk
CSS is almost always quicker, easier and more powerful than equivalent
presentational markup.

The problem with tables is that Internet Explores does not support the
"dislay:table" property, which is the CSS equivalent to table layout. So if
you want a certain kind of grid-like layout _and_ you want to support Internet
Explorer, you have to choose: 1) either emulate the layout using CSS
constructs which were not designed for this purpose. 2) use tables

However this is not a shortcoming of CSS, it is a shortcoming of Internet
Explorer. display:table has been part of the CSS standard for _10 years_.

I wrote an article <http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html> to describe the
specific context where it makes sense to use tables rather than CSS. In all
other cases, CSS is better.

------
halo
If by "best" you mean "most pointless" and if by "FAQ" you mean "uninformed
rant".

There's no real substance, it adds nothing to the debate, uses unjustified
hyperbole ("CSS is flawed"), doesn't show the added flexibility of CSS,
overstates cross-browser CSS incompatably horribly and abuses half-truths to
twist the argument (unless magically you think my low-resolution phone is
going to love your table-based layout). CSS scales in big sites, reduces load
times and lets you do many, many clever things you couldn't do in raw HTML and
makes life easier, especially when combined with a CMS.

And that site is ugly and it's not because of tables. The site would look
better without any graphics of styling at all. Hating Photoshop is not a good
reason for having a site that's horrendously ugly.

But I do agree content is king. Just as well that he has something worthwhile
that makes people look past the godawfully bad site.

~~~
bporterfield
Yes, by best I meant "Most Ridiculous". I thought it was hysterical, and took
nothing from the site whatsoever except for a laugh. Jokes!

------
volida
_You wanna know what I use to make the graphics on this website? Microsoft
Paint. Seriously. All of the graphics on this website were either made in
Microsoft Paint_

no wonder it looks like so 1980s

~~~
riklomas
The kid wasn't even around in the '80s:

<http://www.thatsanderskid.com/about.html>

Now that makes me feel old...

~~~
volida
no offense but, ms paint or something similar was in the 80s though..

people with talent should use something that can help them show it off and
spend less time

------
DanHulton
And get off my damn lawn!

