I find your post a little offensive
I'm used to that by now -- apparently my bothering to understand the point of HTML, the point of CSS, taking the time to understand what all the tags mean and what they are for, embracing 4 Strict, understanding the logic behind 4 Strict, and actually bothering to practice minimalist semantic markup with separation of presentation from content makes me some sort of 'radical' or 'heretic'.
That is not the point of DIV tags and of HTML5;
"These elements define content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but impose no other presentational idioms on the content. Thus, authors may use these elements in conjunction with style sheets, the lang attribute, etc., to tailor HTML to their own needs and tastes."
There is NO other reason to have them in the HTML if you are practicing semantic markup. They do not change the semantic meaning of what they wrap.
You have at least heard of semantic markup, right? (The moment you say web crapplication I have to assume not).
with programming, as long as something works it is okay. Why should it bother you that someone is doing something you do not like?
PROPER site building for the majority of sites out there -- the ones providing actually useful information as opposed to the ones that just use images and js to dump a can of shellac on a pile -- should first make a working page with semantic markup and logical/proper structure provided by numbered headings (and HR to indicate changes in topic where a heading is inappropriate/unwanted -- ONLY good thing I can say about HTML 5 is it clarifying HR's job)
. If you can't make it work without CSS or Scripting, it probably shouldn't be a website unless you're doign something truly cool like google maps. Then it should be enhanced with all the different layouts (YES, PLURAL!!!) using CSS with proper media targets, and now media quereies. (and you don't need 5 for that either). Then and only then enhance the page with scripting.
So why should it bother me? Because I'm sick of seeing webmail turned into inaccessbile broken ** that went from six years ago me thinking mail clients were dead, to the past two years me running screaming back to thunderbird and M2. I'm sick of having websites with little to no useful information on them taking a year and a half to load and pissing away the battery on my laptop, tablet or handheld just because someone wanted some stupid animated scripted effect that doesn't even work right on anything less than desktop resolutions. Quite often said 'effects' are just the worst of 1990's style animated GIF's on a larger scale or the flash ** we FINALLY got rid of. Naturally forgetting the problem wasn't that it required a flash plugin, but because it made pages load slower and was inaccessibile. Kind of like Target, where we tell people not to shove new windows down everyone's throat by deprecating it, and then the scripttards pour out of the woodwork to make it happen with JS ignoring WHY it was deprecated.
Most sites guilty of the above being slower and less useful than what was available 15 years ago on dialup.
It bothers me when a client calls me up now that I'm retired begging for me to bail them out because they got someone else to update them, and now they either need to move to new hosting or their traffic numbers have dropped through the floor because of this type of half-assed broken methodology. Basically, sick of cleaning up other people's messes.
I personally use very many DIV and other elements in the HTML DOM and the HTML5 world I work, and I find your post a little offensive. I also personally cannot imagine getting something brilliant (e.g. cool web app) together without using many tables and DIVs.
Cool Web App. Hahaha... That's a good one.
Though I'm not saying don't use them if you're USING THEM. I'm saying don't add extra ones for NOTHING. If you are using a table for tabular data, GOOD! If you're properly building heading relationships with SCOPE on your TH with a proper caption, GOOD! If you are using a DIV to group tags to apply styling or to avoid pointlessly slapping classes everywhere for no good reason, GOOD!
Meanwhile if you're doing dumbass garbage like this:
Do the world a favor and back the devil away from the keyboard until you have enough knowledge of HTML to build a table properly.
For the curious:
Who cares/why does it make a difference?
Ever use JAWS? You know, screen readers? How about data scraping/search engines? Braille reader anyone?
Which of the above code actually says WHAT THE CONTENT IS? If you don't know what the tags are for or how to use them properly, you probably shouldn't be writing markup!
I think you misread or mis-interpreted my last post.
I think I have written enough web apps by now to be able to say this: it is better to use more nested elements (e.g. DIVs) than to use less. It doesn't hurt anyone, and it makes expanding the app more convenient.
Oh yes, we've only been told for years to shrink our DOM use with sites like Google adding excessively large DOM sizes to the things their speed analysis (which is now part of rankings) for slapping down poorly made sites. Google pagespeed will even TELL YOU THAT!
Larger DOM can't possibly have an impact on how long already heavy functions like getElementsByTagName or getElementsByClassName will take, much less the fat bloated slow extra overhead wrappers from garbage like jquery, mootools, or any of the other trash people use to DESTROY perfectly good site concepts.
... and of course more elements on the DOM makes it SO much easier to traverse it to do things with. RIGHT. Is that like how the developers over at turdpress say having 20 classes on every menu LI is 'easier' when none of them are actually useful if you understand the 'cascading' part of CSS?
But then, I'm one of the nutjobs who still sets file-count limits (12 ideal, 24 max for a contentless template)
, file-size limits (72k contentless template ideal, 144k with content plugged in, that's HTML+CSS+SCRIPTS+IMAGES)
, bothers actually trying to *SHOCK* deliver content of value to as many people as possible using as acessible a design as possible...
the goofy graphics some 'designer' hung around it or the endless stupid scripting that is in there just to stroke some programmers... uhm... ego.
Funny since we finally have the tools to do things like responsive layout using media queries and lean out designs with CSS3... Separation of presentation from content being easier than ever before resulting in being able to make more accessible designs that leverage caching better, and take less time to develop because you should be writing less code.
There's this oddball noodle doodle idea I keep hearing people say that somehow throwing more code at things makes it EASIER? How the devil is writing more, with more complexity, EASIER?!? From idiotic frameworks, to pointless "gee ain't it neat" scripting that does nothing but get in the users way, it's like a return to the worst of the late '90's.
Since you take those away and look at HTML 5 as strictly a markup specification, the Emperor is standing bare for all the world to see.
Edited by JasonKnight, 06 April 2013 - 11:39 PM.
The only thing about Dreamweaver that can be considered professional grade tools are the people promoting it's use.