The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have been asked by a client to build them a new website using a wavy style font which I will have to specially buy for her, a bit like lucida handwriting.
I usually do a: ....etc. Obviously if I build the site using a font which others may not have on there pc or mac it will default to the next one specified in html.
Is there any way to embed a font on a site, maybe place it on the server with the webpages and 'call it' when the page loads ???. I don't tend to use css as I've never really sat down to try, though it does appear that by the time I put the style id tags in I may as well have specified the font in html as above !!!
Any thoughts gratefully received, Dan
> In my opinion these people are just being unrealistic. Tables
> are simpl and layouts work near flawlessly across all major
> browsers. CSS layouts tend to rely on hacks to get round
> differences in browser engines. How is that progress?
I think its maybe 4 years since I started using CSS only for layouts. In that time I've not used a hack once. The only time I've been tempted to use hacks is when trying to achieve things that you cant accomplish with tables anyway. So you'll need a better excuse than that. :)
Dont get me wrong, I'm no CSS zealot. If people want to use tables, good luck to them. Yet I use CSS for entirely practical reasons rather than any noble goals of web standards/progress etc.. Admittedly there is a steep learning curve but when you get over that, its simply faster and easier to use CSS.
Yes I have to reveal that 'Freeola' dare to use the dreaded 'Tables'.
I quote from source code:
Site Map | Freeola Home |
Utterly shocking......... what no css.
Is it really necessary ?????, tables contain content consistently across mac & pc browsers.WYSIWYG.
By the time you have specified all the fonts you want in css by 'div' or 'id' you may as well have done the old: , copy & paste it's still consistant.
Each to their own, I don't consider myself a caveman for using them, IF it's good enough for Freeola it's OK for me.
Dan
Even an old hand like digitrader is having problems.
I think the point I'm tying to make is KEEP IT SIMPLE, no we who use tables are NOT. It just works great and we don't encounter such a simple thing as a scrollbar colour change as a mountain to climb. HTML in in a table or not !!
FIN.
My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
And yes I'm quite aware that Freeola use a table based layout but as I say I wasnt being critical of it.
> My comment was purely directed at the suggestion that using CSS
> for layouts wasnt practical without browser specific hacks.
Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of the different implementation of the box model.
CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
> Have you tried coding quite complicated layouts, with multiple
> columns that build correctly in all modern browsers and support
> older browsers and Mac OS9 browsers? If you can get that to
> display (relatively) consistantly and as quickly as you can
> throw up a few tables then I will be impressed.
Well, I do this for a living. I've done more than a few websites at this point. And it depends what you mean by older browsers. I admit my sites crash in IE 3. :-)
> Even IE6 (let alone older browsers) did frequently required
> hacks to control certain precise elements of a layout because of
> the different implementation of the box model.
Yet if you turn on standards mode IE6 implements the box model correctly.
> CSS is great, but I still feel for simplicity and
> backwards-compatibility, tables are hard to beat.
Simplicity is entirely subjective. You do view source on this page and you might see a logical collection of tables laying out the site. Yet all I see is a unmaintainable mess. :) I'm 100% certain the CSS equivalent would be alot simpler (to me anyway).
Backwards compatibility has always been the major sticking point of course. Yet at this stage its not the compelling argument against CSS layouts it once was. For instance the mobile market is growing forever larger, do we ignore them in favour of backwards compatibility (table layouts arent the preferred solution for mobile devices)? And of course those "difficult" browsers are always dropping out of use and support.
As it now needs a major revamp, I thought I would attempt to do it all using css - what a nightmare! I spent the weekend climbing the steep learning curve of css layouts with the help of some great books by Dan Cederholm - sounded great in theory, and very accessible to disabled users.
With difficulty, got most of my layout working in IE7 (Win), but checked on IE6 at work (OK), and IE5 (mac), newer OSX IE (version?), Firefox and Safari (mac) - ALL mac layouts broke badly (2 column layout). So I'm inclined to agree with the person who recommended tables for consistent cross-platform layout, and css for the rest - until more people consistently use browsers with full support for css2.
I do of course recognise that there will always be bugs! Sad fact of life... ;-)