|
|
|
|
|
by H4ZB7
1198 days ago
|
|
nope, it's definitely just for vanity. it will be hard to explain that on a forum dedicated to people whose work revolves around upholding this myth, though. html not being readable without css is a bug or bad positioning. i would never design a document format that requires something as complex as css to be readable. anyway i find sites that use just plain default html readable. one big mistake people make is to let their browser take up a full widescreen monitor on such pages. the fact that the browser tries to be the OS discourages them from resizing it (windows+left on windows or gnome or the equivalent on windows is enough). its mostly the tables (iirc) that look like crap, even though they didn't have to |
|
Don't pretend that CSS is hard.
Yes, of course crazy CSS mastery to make vanity artworks on the web is hard, and yes doing stupid things with z-layer ordering and absolute vs relative positioning is the classic "family guy trying to work the blinds" gif, but decent CSS that makes information easier to read for a wide variety of people (including ESL, visually impaired, etc.) is barely any effort, and pretending we're all worse off because of CSS and that having a document format that lets you style your content with is a terrible idea is just willfully stupid.
(on that note: oh look, something that every single DTP product ever made supports, guess those are all terrible too, and I suppose that sarcastic joke about us all just using .txt files should get repeated here)