CSS Validation and Standards; Does it matter?

With the moving away from tables and on to DIV's, it seems that the biggest gripe for going into CSS based designs was that design was limited. Of course this was all proven wrong by CSS Zen Garden and sites like CSS Vault.

However, I just ran into this article here and I'm wondering about it's validity. It states that DIV and SPAN tags are being done away with by the W3C.

Does it really matter? And what do we do about sites like TPS that still use tables. Does CSS limit creativity. It's just been frustrating to learn, and maybe that's why I'm ranting a bit, but what you do you all think?

Cheers!

I don't think CSS limits creativity at all. It's much more flexible than a bunch of tables, it's just that most people are more comfortable with table hacks and know how to work around the problems, so it feels like it's easier/better.

As for validation, I'm not real picky about it and rarely validate my pages. I know how to write stuff that validates, and it usually does for the most part, so unless there is some weird bug on the page, I don't validate.

Interesting...

I find my frustration in the fact that I cannot design an interesting site in CSS and have it work cross browser. There are 50 hacks that you have to incorporate to get this to work in this browser AND that browser... then you have to use a hack to fix the hack. Next thing it's 3:20 a.m., you're out of Mountain Dew, strung out, and give up and code the tables.

There really aren't that many hacks. I never use them. You just have to work around it and structure the page a little differently to avoid having to use hacks.

Next thing it's 3:20 a.m., you're out of Mountain Dew, strung out, and give up and code the tables.

Hahahahahaha!! I know that feeling man.

Deker I agree with you man, creativity isn't lacking or design which is why I listed the Garden and the Vault in my initial post. But do you think that article is legit, will DIV's be done away with, and if so, will that limit design or will we just have to be more creative?

One more thing. You never use hacks? Or do you just not care how the site looks in IE? Man, you gotta share your secrets. But overall, I like learning CSS and XTHML, but things seem to moving so fast that while I'm learning basic CSS you got the beginnings of CSS 3 moving along. Arrghh!

I didn't read the article but I doubt DIVs will disappear any time soon.

Limitations breed creativity. Don't worry about the whole internet just being plaintext any time soon. 10 years ago, if someone told you to design an attractive web site but to fit it into a series of boxes like a spreadsheet, you'd think they were crazy and that it would look horrible. But that's what everyone worked with and got used to, and there are some pretty web sites out there, despite the fact that they are arranged in a spreadsheet.

No I don't really use hacks. Most of the IE problems come from the incorrect box model. So just set all the margins and padding to zero. And never define padding on a box. Like if you have a colored box, with text inside, instead of setting padding on the box to create whitespace, set a margin on the text inside the box. It looks the same, but you don't have to worry about box model hacks.

It's much more flexible than a bunch of tables

Show me a CSS-based site with at least SOME wow-factor. I'm talking beyond the standard "every CSS site looks the same" site.

Regarding validation....it's a waste of time. Unless your client HAS TO HAVE the site validated, because their marketing guy said that he read somewhere that it should, then it is not worth my time to do it. My stylesheets validate, and I don't even care about that. If the site looks the same in IE and Firefox, I'm happy, and the client is happy. If I tell a client "Hey, I can make a web site that validates!", they are going to care less. Honestly, show me a strong reason for validation, and I'll show you a homeless person with a job. Every site I've done in the last two years was built on nested tables within more nested tables. Sure, sometimes I have to figure out why something won't line up in IE, but will in Firefox, or vice-versa, but it will work. Why build a house out of new lumber, when old lumber works just fine, and once you put the sheetrock up, you can't tell anyways. And the advantage is, is that old wood doesn't rot any faster than new wood, and it is just as strong. So what if it's not as pretty underneath the sheetrock...nobody sees it.

I always use DIVs within my table cells to pad certain things, or for bullet point icons, but that is about it.

No I don't really use hacks. Most of the IE problems come from the incorrect box model. So just set all the margins and padding to zero. And never define padding on a box. Like if you have a colored box, with text inside, instead of setting padding on the box to create whitespace, set a margin on the text inside the box. It looks the same, but you don't have to worry about box model hacks.

So Dek, that's how you do it. Ya see, you learn somethin' new everyday. I didn't think of it that way although I've looked at the box model over and over. Thanks for the info.

Slim: You mean to tell me you don't like to put those cute little tags at the bottom of your site that say "CSS Valid" with a link to the W3C? (Just kidding man).

But you did ask to show you some sites with some "wow-factor". I'm not sure what wows you, but I found three sites that don't look so much like your typical CSS sites.

Mediawave: Mostly flash, but with CSS
Otters Hockey Team: The only table I found was for the data under the column stating: "Upcoming Schedule"
Dot Flowers: Which doesn't look to typical to me

So whattaya think about these sites. Do they have any "wow" to them? But I do know what you mean about most of the CSS sites having the same look. That was Rodder's rant in the other thread entitled "Blogged Out" or something like that.

I'm not too big on validation myself, and I feel like I'm getting slowed down trying to plug in to so much information that keeps changing. So like malibu, I give up on the code and hit the sack.

We shall see what comes up next....

Cheers!

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Show me a CSS-based site with at least SOME wow-factor. I'm talking beyond the standard "every CSS site looks the same" site.[/QUOTE]

Whether a site is laid out using tables or css, doesn't give it wow-factor.

Just as I can point out numerous sites that all, one way or the other, look the same and use css exclusivly, I can point out the same number that look the same and use tables exclusivly or some hybrid of css and tables.

wow-factor has and always will come from the creative mind who is doing the designing. It's based on look and feel and functionality, not what happens behind the scenese where the majority of browsers don't really care how they did it, they just like the look.

As for validation. I used to care. When I was doing technical writing for BellSouth, most of the information I had to put out on the knowledge base I would write up, then paste into a template that I knew was valid. I'd change the markup here and there to make sure the right things were bolded or in lists. Eventually, it became pointless because the knowledge base went away.

At the time, the only reason everything was strictly css was so I could change look and feel by changing one or two files. It also made the code much easier for me to read. It's easy to get lost in nested table after nested table.

Thanks zerimar, those are perfect examples. Those are the first three sites that I have seen that use CSS for layout, with some actual originality. I shouldn't mention blog-sites, because I think they need to be simple, not complex, and not necessarily over-flashy.


Bad examples of pure CSS layouts:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
http://www.csszengarden.com/ (Yes, this one)
http://realworldstyle.com/ (Wow, it's valid...)
http://www.captured.nu/


More good examples:
http://espn.go.com/
http://www.message.uk.com/ (And it's valid)
http://www.onetruefit.com/

Whether a site is laid out using tables or css, doesn't give it wow-factor.

I understand...you have to read my drawn-out analogy. What I guess I was attempting to say is that I haven't seen one. Everyone shouting from the hills about CSS layout is showing me sites like the first four I posted above. You shouldn't sell a new car by saying "Our new 'Bolton ZX4' looks just like the 'Winger 454'.