I'm just venting right now, but I'm sure a lot of you have felt like this. Before I wane philosophical, let me just say that separating style from content is very important. It's just that there are things -- not browser related -- that still make working with CSS like being stuck in a level of hell. CSS Hell. Y'all know you've been there at one time or another, there's no use denying it. So when you escape briefly, while your feet are still steaming, why not drop a note here to cool down.

Someone else with the same idea: http://giveupanduseta...

I love CSS! I just redesigned my site to get rid of the table and use a liquid layout. I admit that I hacked together 3 CSS templates to do it, but when you get the hang of it, it's not hard. It's actually easier than using tables in my opinion. However, I'm not really a web designer so there are probably some situations that I am not encountering with my simple websites. Hang in there!

Haha, Mitch. C'mon, is CSS really worse than any other Web language? And you know better than to hotlink images!

Your link to that tables website inspired me to create this in response: http://giveupandusecs...

At least you laughed! Tevan, I applaud you on your initiative.

Hot... linking... um, what... hot... linking... You're right, I was being lazy.

Yes, it's a joke, but there is a grain of truth to it. I don't advocate using tables for layout unless the layout is for a table. (And people should use purely semantic markup, except that browser platforms don't really process semantic markup, they process HTML, an application with its own fixed set of semantics. The core "semantic" is the display behavior for a page on a scrolled medium. I'm ignoring the semantics one could layer on by extending via Javascript, and the piecemeal hacking of semantics by inheritance through the so-old-it-is-new-again approach of microformats.) That ship sailed, I'm happy enough it sailed, and with better browser implementations it isn't coming back to port.

Fortunately, when an approach to accomplishing an effect runs up against a wall it is often a misinterpretation of the cascade, floating rules, or the box-model, rather than strictly an issue of browsers not implementing the model. That's where there is an element of truth to the give-up-and-use-tables site, or at least a good heuristic: don't waste your time when your idea for a CSS effect isn't working out. Rethink and redirect instead. (but really, don't use tables). And vent if necessary, it's healthy.

In the middle of the journey of our life,
I found myself again through a dark wood,
so dark that the straight way was utterly lost.
Alas how hard it is to say what it was like,
this savage and sharp and strong forest,
which even in thought renews my fear!
So bitter was it that death is little moreso;
but in order to speak of the good that I found there,
I'll tell of the other things I saw there.

Canto 1, Dante's Inferno

You mention in a "help needed" forum post that it took several hours to resolve a fairly straightforward problem.
It s not uncommon to run into Web irregularities that suck up time, and CSS is certainly no exception. Many people devise a strategy to give up early and just do what works -- that's the nature of the "give up and use tables" meme. It takes effort to work through difficulties to get to better/best practices, and considerably more time and effort to actually get down to understand the underlying implementation or architectural flaws which initially gave rise to the fault. I shake my fist at the latter, not at people's use of CSS.

I love CSS! I just redesigned my site to get rid of the table and use a liquid layout. I admit that I hacked together 3 CSS templates to do it, but when you get the hang of it, it's not hard. It's actually easier than using tables in my opinion. However, I'm not really a web designer so there are probably some situations that I am not encountering with my simple websites. Hang in there!

Thanks for putting that checklist together Tevan. I love the simplicity of the design and very useful resources. I just tweeted this.

Another good resource if you're just starting out are the online classes at IWA (Intl Webmasters Assoc). I took intro to CSS a few years ago (when it was CSS1) and I highly recommend their courses. I just checked and their current CSS course is CSS2.1 taught by Minz Meyer. He's a great teacher. He co-taught a blogging class I took there 5 years ago. Many of the instructors have been teaching there for years.

Mitch: Good job covering up your hotlinking!

I think we're on the same page. Yes, some people give up doing things properly and satisfice by using tables to create Web pages. But there's no good justification for that. I'm guilty of having used tables for layout in the past out of naïveté and time crunches — weak excuses.

Betty: Thanks for the compliment and tweet! And it's good to know there are good CSS instructors in the area.

I agree that CSS is really the only option for proper web design. I'm new enough to web design that I never had to learn tables to build structure but I recently had to learn for something random...and it is not great at all. To be totally fair, I will stay that floats still get me sometimes but it's easy enough to solve with a background color to guide the way :)

Great discussion. Thanks!

Brie

Hey people, this thread is for vicious but civil venting of vitriol about how CSS might irk you.
I'll start off another thread soon so you can have a CSS love fest.