Just upgraded to v3.0.0.

Before I tell my CSS critics, let me explain, that my critics is affecting just the LUNA template set, not the LSQL v3.0.0 release. So the critics affects just the HTML+CSS design, not the application itself. The LSQL v3.0.0 release itself is fine.


Surprisingly the design is very poor.
The reason was, that CSS file was not found for some reason. And the result is such a ....... brrrr. It looks, like a design of a poor free cgi script...
This is a very good example to show, how the missing external CSS is BADLY degrading the design.

I warned GT in time, but it seems, complete CSS usage was more important than correct downgrading :
Gossamer Threads Development Survey
Probably this my fault, as in Gossamer Threads Development Survey I did not explain in details, what I mean under "degrade design correctly". I should have highlight the expected degrading guidelines.
GLinks 3.x HOWTO: Overriding styles in CSS using custom.css
The second time CSS critics, was too late, when first beta was released.


Let me show 2 examples, using the same HTML page, with CSS, and without CSS (missing the external CSS file).

Screen capture of same page, with missing external CSS file (resulting bad looking):




Screen capture of same page, with external CSS file available (resulting good looking):



Just wanted to show the big difference in design, when the attached CSS is missing, and when there is CSS available.
Nice, eh?

LUNA template set should be improved to have better design degrade.

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

I was very pleased to see how the html pages 'degraded' when the css file was not available.

This 'degrading' meant that I did not have to write a separate template set for people with poor sight who depend upon spoken interpretation of the pages.

OK, I did have to make one or two alterations to pass the 'Bobby' AAA test. When finished, I'll see if I can summarise the changes and post them here.

Under "design degrade", I mean that design should be only slightly changed when external CSS is not available.

The example above shows NO design degrade from my sight, as degraded design is completely different, from the original good one. It completely losts its design elements.

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

And that can be done?! Don't know did I understand you or not, but as it seems you're trying to tell that design should look pretty the same with or without CSS.

Than why use CSS at all?!

Sorry. Maybe just don't follow you.

Regards.

UnReal Network

Yes, this can be done, by limiting CSS usage.

One way:
- using CSS in a limited way, when the design is not hardly affected if missing (using HTML tables and a little CSS, only)

Second way:
- not using external CSS, but hardcoding CSS into HTML page code.


I used the first way on my website, to keep the main design elements unchanged, even if the external CSS is missing (for example user saved just the html to HD). It's not perfect, but design degrades well, and my solution is still crossbrowser (mostly by using HTML tables and a little CSS).

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

I have to say, I'm slowly switching camps, since I was able to recreate a complex table with much simpler CSS. It took tweaking, but it worked. 3-column CSS still breaks, if data exceeds dimentions, whereas a table just reformatted itself off the screen, CSS sort of goes wonky.

*BUT* one of the design constructs of CSS, is that your non-css layout should display properly in lynx (a text browser), is not without merit.

Most robots searching the web still see in linear terms, they don't bother trying to deal with the CSS, they may send a "Smart bot" out to check a page if they find certain things they don't like, but for the most part, they still look for basic layout in a top-down manner.

I think I posted some comments on this about a year ago, after finding the slash-dot (?) remodel? I think it was them who did a complete remodel of their site, to make it SEO from the point of the blind robot, and then overlay proper CSS on top of it. They noted quite a few things that changed, and while their project was done on a scale to make a point, most design should use some of those findings.

The GT default page is just about right, actually. You should *never* see it, and if you do, it means that your CSS is missing, and your site is "broken".

The best thing to do is simply fix the css location :)

But, the old-style design *IS* doing what it is supposed to -- looking correct in a text-only browser.

As noted, people who need large-text, and can't deal with graphic-heavy sites, can still access a links site,and find it usable, if not pretty. *THAT*, my friend, is the goal of CSS.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

That's why it is so good for HTML >> spoken word interpretation. All the hurdles to conventional HTML/table layout disappear and the text can be read properly-

the old table layout meant the text readers would go straight across the page ignoring the column structure and the page would no longer make sense.

Well, by my opinion CSS is created to separate presentation from data. We know what is primary use of tables; for displaying tabular data not for styling web sites (although, most users use it for that purpose). Good (valid) CSS site should be tableless if there is no tabular data on it.
This is my opinion for "way one".

For "way two". If you hardcode CSS into HTML page then you don't have much "manoevre space" for easily creating new web design.
I believe inline styles (in HTML) has the highest priority, which means that it will override every style declared in an external style sheet.
So you need to go through every single HTML document and change CSS.

This template (LUNA) is using CSS with external file so for me, it's normal to have bad/poor design if you don't include external CSS file.
Don't see any real problem/bug in this.

Regards.

UnReal Network

Do you really think the non-CSS design is "poor" or bad? Looks fine to me. How would you improve it? It's high-contrast, simple top-down, and not confusing.


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

I don't think deadroot was actually saying he thought it was a bug. It was webmaster33 who's saying it was =)

For my 2 cents... whats wrong with it going wonkey if you don't specify the CSS file? Thats just common sense (if it doesn't load the file, it has no way to know how its meant to look) .. or am I just missing the point?

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

Pugdog,
It's difficult & annoying to fix the CSS, after you saved a webpage to your HD.


Alba,
This behaviour is not "compatible" with my needs. So I don't aggree this.


You are free to use the LUNA the CSS based template set. That's your decision.
I will not use it for sure, as I need correct design degradation. That's my decision.

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...

That was just my point of view.

And you're right, I don't think it's bug ;)

Regards.

UnReal Network

Yes, it is YOUR decision, and that doesn't make GT wrong for doing things the way THEY did them and doesn't make your way right. Accessibily to handicapped users is becoming more and more important. Changing design by changing ONE file is becoming more important. You can choose not to use luna, or any other template for that matter. Part of the power of GT is the flexibility to let us all do things our own way.

Kudos to Gossamer Threads for taking the plunge and moving us forward into the next generation of web design.

I may not be comfortable with css yet, but a new challenge is a new challenge and after visiting csszengarden and seeing what CAN be done with css that CAN'T be done with html, it is time to learn.

I have to say, I was able to switch a site totally to the luna template in one day. I am very pleased with the look as is, I will be learning more and tweaking and using ssi, but in one afternoon I did some cut/paste to templates and some mods to luna.css and I have a fully functioning site, that can be changed without a rebuild by changing ONE file.

I see this as a GOOD thing, NOT a bug.

Hi webmaster33,

I think the discussion is more about CSS inherently rather than the Links or the Luna template set.
I'd also like to say that my main aim is selfish in that I have spent weeks moving from a table type design to a CSS design not for accessibility but for usability and ease of modification.
In this process I have found that CSS in a table for overflowing content is far safer than pure CSS code. The result is, let's say, weird when you drop the CSS file like above.
To be fair though it would be fairly easy to create similar contrasting examples with this forum page simply by dropping all the images in this page.

Even though I find that CSS is great, I'm also am getting pretty tired of hearing people saying that tables are bad design and you should use CSS. CSS is far from perfect for every situation and some people seem to think that valid CSS and XHTML is the holy grail, when HTML and table design works in far more browsers than CSS and HTML at the moment simple because older browsers don't understand CSS or badly.

I also wonder how a great painter would feel if someone said "Oh by the way can you do a text version of your painting". Not that I'm anything close to a great artist but text versions of some sites just defeats the artistic purpose of them. You can't just force everybody down one road otherwise life gets boring

I always felt that CSS was a response to Flash in that it's bringing some cool stuff into the browser arena that doesn't require plug-ins. I've previously seen sites that have their navigation in Flash and didn't even bother doing an HTML version I must say I'm just astonished...

In the same way some CSS2 code is really not viable in that it doesn't degrade properly in older browsers to the extent that content sometimes doesn't even appear on the page ! All CSS code isn't equal at the moment

Anyway as I had already said I feel that GT offering the possibility to use CSS XHTML templates and the old 2.x ones is really cool addition to a great product. Hey when you can choose between the two life's not boring at all

Cheers John
Significant Media

Good reply : I agree with most of it. (In fact, I think I've said most of that before, at one time<G>)



Actually, this point I made above, in a previous message. If you "contain" the css styles (color, fonts, etc) within a table layout, your site won't "break" if content exceeds the area allotted for it. That can happen if a user uses a large font, or a post is full of wider characters (m,o, etc or capitals).

I've been suffering with the css 3-column format, trying to make it work, but the mixed table + css is actually more reliable, and a single containing 3-column table does not really defeat the purpose of CSS. It just makes it behave -- sort of like putting a tiger in a cage.

What you said is very true, and since the HTML/DOCTYPE is "transitional", the discussion about "pure css" is almost moot from the get go. Also -- and it's a *really* big point. Different browsers interpret HTML differently, and that is a mature standard. They've had lots of time to work on it. There is NOT A SINGLE CSS-COMPLIANT browser out there as of now. Every browser has problems, or non-compliance issues. IF the viewers can't adhere or display the standards, why spend so much time to create pages that won't display as expected?? Make the pages work! By the time the browsers catch up, you'll have a new site design anyway <G>


PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.

Well I hope you don't mind me sharing opinions with you then

I read a lot of design and usability blogs and on-line magazines and there seems to be a kind of denigration of table type design in an attempt to put the spotlight on CSS. I think my comments are more of a reaction to that. I know the CSS group are getting criticism about how much hacking and filtering is required to get a complex site working. I suppose that the well do you think tables are better reaction comes across more as a ping-pong match than anything else.

I have mixed feelings about CSS (that I have also already voiced BTW) in that it is not going to disappear and offers great potential. However a large multinational in the antivirus software illustrates how when badly coded (which is not the case with GT) you end up with pages in certain browsers that are hiding key content from a visitor !!! Which is a pretty amazing result especially when you have a CSS evangilist web site pointing out how wonderful it is as an example of big companies moving towards CSS loud and clear...
But at the same time for me it's just a bad example of the code used, not an indication that CSS is flawed.

I'm trying as hard as I can to get nice CSS code working throughout the site. And as I way saying denigration of tables may be the flavour of the month but at the end of the day I'd rather have my web site that appears properly in over 95% of the browsers out there than have a CSS and XHTML badge to wear LOL ;)

John
Significant Media

Yes, I also aggree most of what you wrote.


I have the same opinion.

CSS makes development easier, and seems people wants to save work. HTML table based development is difficulter, and most people doesn't like that.
Most of those who replied to this thread are sticking to CSS, because it makes their life easier. Because sometimes it makes possible to shorten a 7 day work down to 1 day. Not CSS will be the real solution, but a better, improved template system, similar to what I suggested:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/...i?post=279007#279007

Every standard has its place between the the other standards. Also CSS, Flash, and other web solutions. Neither of them is a total solution, and should be used in a limited way. It's not good to have a full Flash site, nor to have full CSS site, nor a full image based site.
We have to find the optimal ratio of these technologies, which may be valid for our site.


Building a page dynamically never was a client-side task (expect Flash, Java, Javascript, but they also has disadvantages).
Dynamic pages was always a server-side task, and LSQL was created exactly for this task.

The bottom line is, that CSS is good, but should be not threated as the overall solution for template themes, just an technology which extends the possibilities of HTML. So the solution to shorten the template & design upgrade time is, to improve the GT template system, to have skeleton based template system.

Like it or not, this is the future. We have reached the limits of the current template system, and need new features to save long and difficult design upgrade tasks. Read my suggestion, and you will see the advantages. Or not

Best regards,
Webmaster33

---

Paid Support from Webmaster33. Expert in Perl programming & Gossamer Threads applications. (click here for prices)
Webmaster33's products (upd.2004.09.26) | Private message | Contact me | Was my post helpful? Donate my help...