[rant]
I’m going out on an edge here to say this, knowing a few people will bite my head off for even suggesting this. But I must ask: Why does CSS have to suck? At what point did the CSS WG come up with that decision? Ok, now let me explain where this is coming from:
I’m a strong believer in web standards. They are a great idea, and using CSS is right, and I do support that. What I don’t support is what CSS actually is like.
CSS has been around for some time, but why wasn’t there CSS Columns for example since the beginning? A very basic part of most page designs. CSS is extremely awkward when it comes to layout. Text manipulation is easy. It’s layout that’s painful. Then of course add in browser support.
I think this may be a tiny little reason why web standards aren’t prevalent on the net as of yet. Because CSS has a steep learning curve.
I’m going to really take a chance when I say this: But perhaps CSS3 should rework it from the ground up? Focus on layout and actually make things easier?
Look how easy I can design a site with tables. I can position fairly well, align stuff, etc. etc. Now try with CSS.
I’m working on a project right now that I’m trying to adhere to web standards. But what’s my problem? I’m spending way to much time on layout, and not enough time on the backend. That’s really not good. If anything, designing should become easier.
Most corporate websites are designed by designers, not web developers. Web Developers get handed a page, and integrate it into the CMS. Now how many designers do you think are ever going to sit down and do CSS? Their mind is in design, not code.
Again, I agree CSS is a great theory, keep design and content separate. But the CSS implementation just plain sucks. And until it improves, I can’t see penetration being very high.
Especially after languages like HTML being so easy, you’d think they’d have the perfect complement with CSS.
CSS layout is just wrong. It’s awkward, tough, and not friendly.
[/rant]
4 replies on “Why Does CSS have to suck”
Until I read this, I thought I was the only one who thought that! Granted, I love how the names in CSS actually make since. instead of “bgcolor”, its “background-color” or even just “background”. Still, most of CSS2 just doesn’t work for real-life non-blog websites. Let’s just hope CSS3 turns out to be just as good as we’re told it will be.
It is 2007 and CSS still sucks. Table layout was so much easier…
Okay, so I am trying to redesign our webpage to make it more easy to navigate (with more front end links) so I found a CSS template that looked like it fit the bill. So I start to modify it…wait a minute…nothing logical is working. I change the page’s link colors and they show up still the wrong color online, so I go to the CSS file…change it there….still they show up the wrong color??? WHAT??? Who is controlling this page, the CSS file or the page itself, and if they cannot agree…THEN what happens? I also cannot get the flash gallery to center and scale in the ‘content area’. Instead it pushes around the menus and lowers them. WHAT the heck? I am spending more time digging through the 500 line CSS file trying to find the correct mark-up than actually doing the webpages themselves.
CSS?? Needs to be more easily accessable…I don’t know, perhaps a 3D ortho view of the layer stacking so you could get to your content that is buried??
– Mark
It’s sad when WordStar and WordPerfect had easier layout functionality than CSS. CSS is a bear to handle. It’s the bane of my existence. I hate it so much!