Have we finally got to the point where we assume CSS2, and hope for CSS3?
(Not looking for discussion, if the answer is "yes, you idiot", go for it...)
views:
133answers:
6
+3
A:
What is your target audience and what is your cost for supporting (or not supporting) certain clients?
pst
2010-10-10 23:30:16
It's a non-profit. So it's a bit harder to define "cost", and there are other constraints on web design that we have to work under...though I'm not very familiar with them.
Steve Bennett
2010-10-11 23:13:38
+7
A:
You should always take into consideration users who
- A. use screen readers and text-only browsers
- B. are on mobile devices
- C. are not human (i.e. search engine spiders)
By having a good separation of content and style, you should be able to address each of these with ease. As far as users who have CSS disabled, in this day and age, I don't think a designer should concern themselves over it too much. It's certainly not worth spending a significant amount of time and resources on.
Tyler
2010-10-10 23:31:59
I agree, but would like to add that, aside from Firefox's Web Developer Toolbar, Googles Developer tools (Inspect Element) and Firebug, I personally do not know of a way to manually disable or change a page. If we did take these into account then we would have to take into account users who delete all the elements of the page using Inspect Element - and how would we do that?
ClarkeyBoy
2010-10-11 00:28:31
Hmm. Interesting...I just did a pass over our site, converting from a table-based layout with lots of inline styles, to a div-based layout with an external .css file.Comparing the two without CSS (well, deleting the link to the external .css file), the table-based one renders more faithfully (of course), but the new one is still perfectly usable. About the only real issue is side navigation bars appear before the main content. Something to consider I guess.So, conclusion: users without CSS should see an ugly, but usable, site.
Steve Bennett
2010-10-11 07:39:34
+1
A:
You, and your business, will probably survive if you require CSS. But you'll probably do better if you DON'T require it.
By catering for non-CSS cases, you'll write better markup, with better-structured content. You'll mitigate cross-browser problems, and develop a more robust API. Search engines will be able to parse and 'understand' your content that much better.
Allowing for 'no CSS' is much more about the philosophies relating to web standards and good coding practises than it is actually about the common final rendering.
Bobby Jack
2010-10-10 23:34:49
How would catering to non-CSS make better markup? I think we are talking about the design here. So, should the layout work without CSS? That's basically back to putting layout in the markup and with the content, which I think will lead to worse code.
tster
2010-10-10 23:49:23
I'm with @tster. I think CSS is God's way of saying, "You are free to do clean markup now, my son." (N.B. ... or daughter)
Robusto
2010-10-11 00:03:33
@tster: I agree that there's a line. But, generally speaking, if you disable CSS and the document is a big old mess using the default user agent styles, that probably indicates an issue with the markup. For example, it's perfectly possible to litter your markup with DIV elements, and style them so everything looks great with CSS enabled. Without CSS, though, it will look a bit of a mess, and that's what I'm referring to when I suggest it can be an indication of poor markup.
Bobby Jack
2010-10-11 08:53:37
+2
A:
In addition to the fine points made by pst and ttreat31, I'll add that using semantic markup will generally let your document be readable with CSS disabled (i.e. using the browser's default CSS).
There may be a few quirks (forms come to mind), but generally I find with my own pages, they are plenty readable.
alex
2010-10-10 23:36:09
A:
I don't take any effort to help users who disable CSS or javascript. If I worked on a site which counted on attracting new customers and had lots of first time hits, then I would probably try and give non-javascript users a scaled down set of features. But I would never bother with users who disable CSS. I think that is probably a very small minority.
tster
2010-10-10 23:52:28
+1
A:
I often surf in the terminal using links or lynx when my computer is overloaded and I just can't have Firefox, Java, and some Flash applications taking half of my RAM. Text-only browsers don't have advanced CSS or Javascript support.
Many server administrators might do similar thing as most servers are headless, and some administrator might be too lazy to open their other laptop just for a quick browse. People using screenreaders usually have similar view as text-only browser, except it's now read aurally instead of text-only.
When using text browsers, I wouldn't expect any fancies colors or tables, usually I just need to have some quick information. So, IMO, you should at least make all the page's essential information available as plain HTML.
Lie Ryan
2010-10-11 00:05:51