a blog by Ben Fallaize
Header image

Back when I first started hand coding websites, it was all about tables.  Designs were cut up into squares and laid out in rows and columns.  This was ten years ago, oh how I miss those days…

While most of the world has moved on to CSS based sites, I just can’t be doing with it.  Don’t get me wrong, I have tried to embrace some things in CSS, navigation for instance, and divs for e-commerce sites have made my life a huge amount easier, but I just don’t see what all the fuss is about.

Today, a colleague was having issues with a 2 column layout.  To get 2 columns to stretch to fit the content, remain the same length, and have a footer that stays underneath them requires at least 4 divs, and 3-4 lines of CSS for each one.  A table requires 6 lines.  It does the job without any hacks, and remains the same in all browsers.

This brings me on to my second issue with CSS.  Almost every CSS site I have ever seen has some degree of hack to make the site look correct in all browsers.  Is this because browser makers are being lazy, or is it that CSS based design has opened the door to slapdash ‘designers’?  Either way, why make life difficult?  If a website needs columns, why not use the method made for it?

I use a combination of the two.  I normally use a container div, with a table inside that to split it into safe, predictable columns.  Then I style my TD’s and sometimes have divs within my tables.  People from the tables camp and people from the CSS camp probably look at my code and cry, but it works.  I don’t get issues that I have to fix with a hack.  Sure, you have to think about Internet Explorer, I mean you can’t even put a body tag on a page without IE8 screwing it up, but I don’t have to deal with items being a couple of pixels out of place.

Why mess with convention?

Posted by admin in Apple | Rants and Rambles - (Comments Off)

A rant of a different kind tonight…

Did you know, the first computer mouse was invented in 1964?  Sure, it wasn’t anything like what we use today, but the basic concept was there.  For some time now, mice have had 1 or 2 buttons.  Later on came the scroll wheel.  Now, with optical technology, wireless, and the addition of a few more buttons, the mouse is a technical marvel compared to the old ball mice of the 90′s.

Where is this going you might ask?

I used a classic mac in secondary school.  One of the all-in-ones with the square mouse with one button.  This worked fine.  Why then, have Apple felt the need to mess with the design of the mouse since then?  The hockey puck, that rotates in your hand, meaning you get tangled up with the cable, and can’t press the button.  Then there was the mouse where the entire shell pressed down.  More recently came the “Mighty mouse”.  Every single one of these had a stupid wheel, which while nice to use, eventually stopped working.  It also had a one piece shell, but had two clickable regions.  I always had trouble with the right mouse button clicking when I didn’t want it to.  Now, the Magic mouse has arrived.  No wheel on this one, but it has multi touch capabilities.  You have to sit through a tutorial on how to use the most basic peripheral that’s been around since the 80′s…

A colleague recently compared me buying a Logitech mouse for my mac to “putting a K&N filter on a Ferrari”.  I replied with, “a Ferrari wouldn’t need a K&N because the standard filter works perfectly well”.  Said colleague has since purchased a Logitech mouse for his MacBook Pro…

Unfortunately Apple seems to have a style over function attitude in this respect.  A mouse has 2 buttons and a scrolly wheel.  Apple, pay Logitech to make you a nice white mouse, your users will thank you for it!