Are there any draw backs to using a CSS template? I'm new to CSS and just learning the basics...but it seems to me that if a Template has already been created...why do all the work? ~A
If you are new and just learning basics of css then firstly you should have some knowledge about html. If you have not knowledge about css then firstly learn about html and then css. CSS is Cascading Style Sheets. it define that how to display HTML elements. for learn about it you can visit http://www.w3schools.com/css there.
CSS DIVBASE is high rank of google, very help to good google ranking. SEO depend of your Mockup code...thanks.
The majority (in fact every single one I've ever seen) of CSS template systems like Grid or YUI inherently rely on the use of presentational classes, which frankly defeats part of the reasons to use CSS in the first place; separation of presentation from content. HTML is for saying what things ARE, NOT how they are going to appear -- which makes classes like "thirdWidth", "w960" or even "left" as bad as going back to HTML 3.2, saying <div align="left"><font color="#FF0088"> and then slapping a Tranny doctype on it. Done properly it should be possible to do a total reskin of a page with little if any HTML modifications -- using presentational classes means you HAVE to go in to change the layout. In general most of the rules for interpreted languages apply to both CSS and Javascript -- only worse as you have bandwidth as an issue in addition to code size. One of those rules is that frameworks and libraries are almost always a waste of code and amount to nothing more than pointless bloat. YUI, 960 Grid, Elements, Blueprint -- they're all trash that result in giant bloated piles of manure websites; The same goes for Javascript frameworks/libraries like JQuery, Prototype, Mootools -- All tend to be added bloat that falls into one of two categories; Stupid slow animated garbage that shouldn't even be on a website in the first damned place, or See the skin of these very forums ever since they upgraded to vBull 4 that drove me away from visiting this site regularly -- what with the 572k home page wasting 242k of HTML and 293k of Javascript on delivering 40k of plaintext... some 20k of which is content cloaked nonsense for all the pointless wasteful scripting, fixing the behaviors of the LIST and SPAN abuse on obviously tabular data, and the endless other idiocies like IE conditionals for CSS (which should NEVER be necessary on something so simple!), inclusion of YUI and Jquery simultaneously, and dozens of other miserable /FAIL/ at web development that pretty much means whoever is responsible for that code atrocity needs to back the **** away from the keyboard and take up something less dangerous like macramé weaving. You have to look no further than these very forums code for the answer to your question -- It's why I say they've got balls of thunder charging money for vBull 4. Nothing like using 568k of CODE to deliver less than 20k of visible plaintext -- you want a miserable failure proving CSS and Javascript frameworks are absolute rubbish, look no further.
thanks for your response. So you are saying the CSS is inferior to using a Table and some include scripts? ~AC
There is nothing wrong with using CSS -- it's Templates/Frameworks like Grid960 and YUI that are what should be avoided. Semantic markup with separation of content (HTML) from presentation (CSS) is the way to go on building a site. We may be getting mixed up on terminology -- I was assuming you were asking about pre-built CSS code -- basically frameworks. There is nothing wrong with building a template using CSS, the problem I was outlining is when you use a pre-built template; aka framework. CSS frameworks defeat the point of using CSS in the first place as they start you out with giant code, require that you use presentational classes in the markup instead of saying what things ARE, etc, etc... If you were actually asking why use CSS in the first place, then the reasons are semantic markup, better exploitation of caching models since like appearance across pages on a site can be shared, ability to reskin without digging deep into the markup, smaller/simpler HTML making it easier to slice up into a SSI/CGI, less code by virtue of being able to say things ONCE in the CSS instead of fifty times in the markup (though many people miss that one completely slapping the same class on fifty like non-semantic elements in a row), the ability to target multiple different devices (screen, print, handheld, @media queries for width) -- the list goes on and on.
Thanks very much, Yes...i am new to CSS and thanks for DISCERNING my question. So you are saying that ALL PREBUILT CSS templates are called FRAMEWORKS? And a prebuilt "frameworks" model, you defeat the pupose of using CSS?
To an extent that is what I'm saying... though I have to ask did you ACTUALLY mean a template (HTML+CSS) or a CSS template (framework) Your use of CSS before "template" made me immediately think framework, not a full on template with markup. The terminology is both vague and specific at the same time, using just one word before it can change the meaning entirely. Are you talking frameworks/CSS Templates like YUI or Grid 960, or are you talking pre-built templates of HTML and CSS like you'd find on template monster? Either way, it's a bad approach to building a site to start out with an appearance and then try to shoehorn content into it. This is why even a properly written stock template is typically garbage as the person who wrote it usually has no clue what YOUR content is going to be. That is why a custom solution each and every time is best if you are SERIOUS about having a website. Literally pre-built stock site templates (HTML+CSS) rarely have semantic markup, markup that applies properly to the content people plug into it, and are often designed by PSD jockeys who implement a bunch of "gee ain't it neat" nonsense that should have been left on the cutting room floor. It's CSS frameworks (which is what I assumed you meant) that defeat the point of using CSS in the first place as they generally rely on putting presentational classes (like "left", "width960", "smalltext") into the markup. HTML in MODERN code should be for saying what things are, NOT how they are going to appear and in that way CSS Frameworks are a miserable steaming pile of manure that do nothing but bloat out pages and result in garbage outdated markup and site-building methods. But let me explain that I consider even THINKING about the appearance of your page before you've written the HTML is putting the cart before the horse -- 99% of sites built with the "lets draw some goofy picture in a paint program then slice it up" are a miserable failure in terms accessibility, usability, maintainability and speed. That it's become 'the norm' for many "designers" just further compounds the useless bloated garbage websites that basically end up nothing but bounce-land. To me the proper process to building a page is to figure out what's going on a page for content --- now I don't mean every last word, I mean things like "I have a topmost heading with the site name, a menu, some articles, a sidebar with subsections, and a footer" -- you then create these elements using Semantic markup; basically putting your headings in numbered heading tags, your menus and lists into lists, your paragraphs into paragraphs, grouping said semantic tags with neutral tags like DIV and SPAN, etc, etc... Then and only then do you crack open your CSS to create a layout, as much as possible bending that markup to your will instead of adding endless DIV to it for nothing. A few grouping DIV are fine, but not every element needs or should have a div around it. Images should come in DEAD LAST. If you end up choosing your HTML tags not because of what they mean, but because of how they appear by default, dimes to dollars you are choosing the wrong tags. Prebuilt HTML/CSS templates, CSS Frameworks, WYSIWYG editors, PSD slicing -- they're all sleazy shortcuts that result in broken/half-assed websites that do NOTHING but cost you more in the long term assuming the result even works for anyone except the handful of people using the exact same browser, resolution and system metric you are. Usually the telltales are them including the default CSS using the LINK tag, the use of classes that say what things should look like: class="left width960 hasshadow bigtext" as opposed to what things are: id="mainMenu"... Though a good litmus test to tell if someones HTML is garbage is to open it up in a browser that does not preserve tag additions (like opera), hit CTRL+A, CTRL+C to copy just the plaintext to the clipboard, paste it into a decent text editor (like crimson, notepad++, editplus) and finding out how much content there is. You compare this content size to the size of the HTML. If it's more than double, it's probably trash. About 95% of websites ideal markup size actually fits under this formula: total html size = 5K + content size * 1.5 + 200 bytes per image/object. For example if you can cut/paste from opera 4K of plaintext from a site, and said site has 5 content images (as opposed to presentational images like borders and backgrounds which have no business being in the HTML in the first place) should come in around 12k of HTML... and it's why I laugh when I see 30k... 40k... 100k of HTML for pages with less than 5k of content. ... as that's just plain ineptitude. Now that's not a be-all-end-all method of determining the quality of the code for a site as there's all sorts of other factors, but it's a pretty good litmus test.
Thanks very much for your input...! Not sure if it is HTML+CSS or CSS template that you use...but i assume its the former (although i could be wrong). But my idea was to save TIME by using a pre-made webiste that you can purchase from Template monster then manipulating it. It seems that you can save a lot of time doing simple websites with this technique. 1. Are you saying that One cannot save time by using a premade Template? 2. Can you DIRECT me to a couple of examples of a good CSS use...like a couple of webpages that use CSS correctly? Awesome post...sounds like you know what you are talking about. I'm just learning CSS and trying to figure out how it works w HTML. As i said, i wanted to save time by using a premade template...but i'm not sure what that template would be (HTML+CSS) or (CSS framework). I want to be able to save time writing the CSS code...and manipulate it...and then load content into the page. thanks very much for your input!
If you are new and just learning basics of css then firstly you should have some knowledge about html. If you have not knowledge about css then firstly learn about html and then css. CSS is Cascading Style Sheets. it define that how to display HTML elements. for learn about it you can visit http://www.w3schools.com/css there.