choosing style

it's time to move forward

main page

• back to articles
• choosing style
  • the start
  • workhorse code
  • why styles
  • against the flow

the start

In 1995, which was about a hundred years ago on the Web, web designers were admonished to design for non-graphical browsers. These browsers, almost extinct now, do not read graphical elements. They simply read text, and format the text in a simple, colorless way.

About 1999, web designers were admonished to design for Netscape Navigator 3.0. This browser was the window through which the world viewed the web. It was advanced for its time and made itself centrally important through two strategies. One, it was free, and could be used by just about anyone with a standard Windows winsock. Secondly, it employed what were called Netscape extensions. These extensions were HTML tags that were non-standard. In short, no other browser could interpret them. When you saw the logo Best View with Navigator 3.0 the designer was serious.

workhorse code

If you look at the source code of most web sites, you will see that the pages are usually composed of HTML 3.2 code. This is even true for sites that carry tutorials for DHTML and stylesheets! This is the reliable workhorse code that can be interpreted without too much trouble by all browsers, from Mosaic to Navigator 6.0. But why still use a markup language now two revisions out of date?

For some, it's what they know. Either they were trained in HTML 3.2, or have recently learned it on the Web. For some it's a design consideration because older browsers don't support the use of styles found in HTML 4.0 (or XHTML 1.0). Instead, JavaScript is used to punch up the look. Designers use HTML 3.2 to present a webpage that is (in theory) viewable to the widest possible audience.

why styles

However, HTML 3.2 sites are hard to maintain. To make a change, say in page color, to such a site, each page must be updated. With a well-written 4.0 page, one change to the main stylesheet changes every page in the site. Also, to get side-by-side layout in HTML 3.2, one must rely on using tables to format text and pictures. This is considered an "abuse" of tables. Tables were created for tabulating data. They can also significantly slow the loading of a page. And finally, HTML 3.2 coding is bulky. Code on a static 4.0 page is clean and trim since all the information for formatting and positioning is in the stylesheet.

Obviously, writing a page that relies on stylesheets is easier, even with the rendering differences between Navigator and Explorer. However, designers are looking to develop pages that are viewable by the all surfers, and not just those with advanced browsers.

against the flow

But it's now the middle of the year 2000. Windows2000 is selling like hotcakes, and each day since the release of Explorer 3.0 more and more slow Pentiums and 486 machines die, taking with them Navigator 3.0. Each time someone upgrades or buys and entirely new machine, they enter the world of stylesheets.

No one talks of designing for non-graphical browsers, despite the alleged popularity of Linux. No one talks of designing with Mosaic in mind (its final release was about a year ago). In my humble opinion, it's time to move away from designing for stylesheet ignorant browsers, and rely on stylesheets.

Now, there are readers gasping at this, or shaking their heads knowingly, thinking I'm just a fool for saying this. But think about it. Who is the surfer with Navigator 3.0? Are they going to be looking at your hip site? Are they going to be seeking advanced technical matter. Probably not. A search engine or directory might have to worry about such a surfer, but if you have fresh, modern content, you probably don't have to worry about this mystery surfer running Windows 3.1 on a 386.

We have busy lives. Maintaining our sites shouldn't be such a chore. Let's switch over to stylesheets and stop looking backward but instead forward.