TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I took a quick sampling of a handful of corporate (consumer) index pages to see whether they were using divs, tables, or both in their coding. Results follow:
IBM: strictly divs, no tables noted on front page
Apple: a combination of divs and tables, divs used for main layout
Chevrolet: strictly divs
Ford: a combination of divs and tables, divs used for main layout
CBS: strictly divs
NBC: strictly divs
ABC: a combination of divs and tables, divs used for main layout
CNN: strictly divs
Mind you, these results are by no means conclusive, as they represent only a tiny fraction of the millions of web sites on the 'net. Also, one thing overlooked during this discussion is the possibility that some of these sites use the initial http request to determine the platform, make and model of a web user's browser. In such cases, this info can then be used to serve code tailored to that specific browser, if needed, which might mean a web browser user might not be able to see all the source code that went into creating a "cross-browser compatible" site, e.g., where I see "divs" in the source code, Jane might see "tables." Though I suspect such it's not the case I outlined above (using divs vs. tables, etc.), such a coding approach could throw off the results I came up with. But in a parallel vein, such an approach can allow for the proper functioning of "embedded" objects and applications in a variety of browsers.
As for Lauren's question having "different standards for "simple" and "commercial"?" web sites, my response would be "that depends." I think we've all some time or another been faced with or heard about the less-than-outstanding attitude some have about the skills needed to write technical documentation. And we know how we feel about that. The same probably ought to be applied to web content, its creation and deployment. While a "simple" site might thoroughly please its creator, a commercial client would probably be expecting something else, something that suits their requirements to a tee, something accessible by all their clients and potential clients, in-turn. In that sense, I'd have to answer Lauren's additional question "do the standards follow the tools and expertise available?" with "not in the case of commercial web sites."
In Elizabeth's case though, I suspect that her friends that just got married are more than ecstatic with the results of her work. And Elizabeth is probably pretty darned happy too... after all, that's what friends are for, isn't it?
Btw, Elizabeth, you did a great job for a first time out with CSS. I actually downloaded the code for your page and fixed most of the issues talked about here already. If you'd like it and if you still need the help, please do ask.
jan cohen
www.theshininglamp.com (currently being completely restructured behind the scenes)
Lauren <lt34 -at- csus -dot- edu> wrote: > Behalf Of Gordon McLean
> "CSS beats it for certain other types of layout." How about,
> beats for it
> ALL OTHER. The table model is for tables. Currently, CSS is
> THE layout model
> you should be using.
Here we have a discussion about laying out a web site by a person who hasn't done web design in awhile. The website is an announcement of wedding scheduled for September and the presentation is "boxy," like a
tables-designed web site. I suggested tables because I apparently know a lot less about web design, having been out of it for 7 years, than
Elizabeth. Elizabeth is using CSS to layout her site, but it displays
differently between IE and FireFox. Maybe, somebody can look at her site and make suggestions for her site that would work to make the web site perform the same way in each browser. I'd really like to know myself what would work.
I would prefer tables because they have a shorter learning curve and a
little more backwards compatibility. Also, when I was on dial-up, up until
a month and half ago, CSS laid out web sites got all hokey-screwy regardless of my web browser. Changing resolutions so the font was big enough to see also jacks up CSS-controlled web sites. Tables are easier for me, because I can easily find and change content. I'm sure that if I spent anytime learning to layout a web site with CSS, then I might prefer it if the site would load properly, even on dial-up and with different resolutions.
Newspapers (I think they still have papers), television stations, and other
media outlets seem to favor CSS-controlled web sites. Individuals not
trying to make a career statement seem to stay with simpler designs. Savvy individuals, small companies, and designers of other smaller web sites seem to have a potpourri of design "standards." What is best for the particular case will depend on the expertise and tools available to the particular designer. I realize that great tools can make a great web site, but what can an individual do to make a non-commercial web site look great without having to make a giant investment in expertise or tools? Do we have different standards for "simple" and "commercial"? Do the standards follow the tools and expertise available? I think that they do.
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
