You are here: Home / Dog Blog / Archives

All CSS Sites Look the Same

Tuesday 1 June, 2004 (11:21AM GMT)

This is a statement that comes up now and then, particularly in arguments over tables vs. CSS layout.

The implication is often that this is a reason not to use CSS, but this suggests that there are somehow special graphic design limitations with the technology. At the end of the day however, CSS is not some kind of strict template system - it provides a way of manipulating every little presentational aspect of a page, so you would have to say that such an argument is false on the grounds that "the only limit is your imagination".

So where has this argument come from? I can see what people are saying - a lot of sites designed using CSS have some similar characteristics.

One specific popular technique is the use of the border property, which is neat, quick and effective and achieves an effect that is rarely used in table-based layouts (because they're such a pain in the ass) and so makes the CSS sites stick out from the crowd.

This is a bit more abstract, but it also seems to me that those attracted to web standards tend to be relatively minimalist in their approach to design and really appreciate factors such as usability. Is it just coincidence that most CSS designed sites are easy to navigate?

I'm sure there are more things that tend to crop up and people notice but, like I said, the only limit is the designer's imagination - you only need to work your way through the designs on the CSS Zen Garden to realise this. I think that a lot of CSS sites do have similar characteristics, but I don't think these are anything more than trends - preferred fashions of the moment. If you don't like that fashion, there's nothing stopping you from doing something completely different.


Comment 1

I couldn't agree more. While there is something to be said for homogeneity in design (if we're going to build to standards, inevitably we design to certain standards too), there is no limit to the variety designers can create with a little imagination and some hard work.

Overall, I would say that in my experience I find CSS sites to be the most easily navigated and cleanly presented so there is no contest as to which I prefer.

So said Iain on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 12:04PM GMT.

Comment 2

I think that one factor influencing the similarity in a lot of CSS-only sites is that the main promoters of the technique are by-and-large the blogging gurus, people like Zeldman, Shea, Bowman, et al (, and it is only natural that beginners will attempt to emulate their heroes by consciously or subconsciously aping their design themes.

Of course, another theory is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it - why would you want to choose a radical new design style if all it accomplishes is confusing your audience?

So said Matt P on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 1:30PM GMT.

Comment 3

What I don't understand is why this is an either-or issue. Sometimes, CSS design is better suited. Sometimes, table design is better suited. If you want tables, use tables. If you want positioning, use CSS. Saying one should be used to the exclusion of the other is insane.

So said Randy Charles Morin on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 2:36PM GMT.

Comment 4

Some of the most original designs I've ever seen are done with CSS.
It's just another excuse for web designer who do not want to adjust.

So said Bart N on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 2:46PM GMT.

Comment 5

All my CSS sites look the same. Well very similar anyway. It's probably as I've only ever come up with one good design though rather than anything else!

So said Andrew Bowden on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 2:55PM GMT.

Comment 6

" If you want tables, use tables. If you want positioning, use CSS. Saying one should be used to the exclusion of the other is insane."

Using a hammer to drive a screw into wood when you don't know how to use a screwdriver - is that insane? Maybe not - it would work, but it's certainly not good carpentry. Similarly, using table markup to produce a page layout, when we have CSS layout to do the job in a cleaner and simpler manner, is not especially good design, as it's using a fine tool to do what it wasn't designed to do.

The main argument supporting abandoning table page layout, as I see it, is this: if tables were only used for actual tabular data, browsers could deal with tables more intelligently. Graphical browsers might not significantly change, but aural browsers could expect tables to be data tables. This would greatly increase usability by those who use aural browsers.

In addition, it is simpler to produce a design which works in all situations when CSS layout is employed. Back before CSS was supported, table markup was the only tool in our toolbox to do the job. Designers using tables to layout pages are as much of an anachronism as a construction worker using a hammer and nails while all his coworkers use nail guns. (The only difference, though, is that it does not take an appreciable amount of time to learn to use a nail gun, while mastering CSS does require an investment of time.)

The one time where table layout is excusable is when a client demands that the layout work in NN4 or some such older browser. Mind you, with CSS we can make the content work just fine, but if the client is stuck on a specific layout you're stuck using tabular layout.

Still, this practice should be discouraged - just as an architect would rightly discourage my demand that my new home be designed with 19th century architectural techniques which are not as safe or as practical as modern techniques.

So said Neal on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 3:12PM GMT.

Comment 7

Where I work, the designer mocks up a page in Photoshop first and then hands it over to the coder (such as me). The designers don't know about tables or CSS. Well, maybe they do, but they don't care, it doesn't affect their design process. It's up to people like me to take whatever they have designed and make it into a web page.

So said Chris on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 3:37PM GMT.

Comment 8

I don't think this has much to do with CSS at all. It's just a style that people are emulating. Think back to the all Flash sites of the late 90's. They had complete design freedom, yet many of them looked very similar.

I attribute this more to the fact that there have been some conventions established for usable Web design and people are starting to pick up on that. I know when I set down to design I have to hold myself back from getting "too creative" with the layout because, let's face it, certain kinds of layouts are easier to use.

As with everything that has come before and everything that will come after, CSS is a tool. Period. You can do just about anything you want with it if you try hard enough. But just because you could, doesn't mean you should.

So said Keith on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 5:38PM GMT.

Comment 9

"I don't think this has much to do with CSS at all. It's just a style that people are emulating. Think back to the all Flash sites of the late 90's. They had complete design freedom, yet many of them looked very similar."

Good point, Keith.

Zeitgeist. :D

So said Iain on Tuesday 1 June, 2004 at 7:35PM GMT.

Comment 10

To some degree, CSS designs are a little harder to do than tables. There are some things (footer positioning, left and right columns that span the page height, and rounded corner boxes around items) that can be done in CSS (take a look at if you need answeres to these) but the solutions are not as simple as doing the same things in tables.

So said Brian Broom on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 2:15AM GMT.

Comment 11

Keith has hit the nail on the head. And why are people copying the style? Probably cos the style works and does it well!

A List Apart looks a bit bloggish but its navigation now is a lot better than it used to be.

So said Andrew Bowden on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 9:55AM GMT.

Comment 12

Some interesting points here. As Chris said, in many larger design firms, one person will do the design and another will build the templates. In these situations the design you end up with tends to be more dependant on the tool used to create the design (e.g. Photoshop) than the way the design is realised (e.g. CSS).

However many CSS developers also design, so it's understandable that they will be influenced both by other CSS developers, and the medium they work with. I've had a few people say that my designs look very CSSy. This is probably party down to using things like the border property, partly because I'm a fan on minimal design (which people associate with the CSS look), and partly because the sites that inspire me are mostly CSS based sites and the nodes of inspiration end up overlapping.

There are a lot of CSS based sites out there that follow the current centred, drop shadow look. Partly because they are easy to accomplish in CSS, but also because they actually look pretty good, work well for the medium and are simply this years design trend.

So said Andy Budd on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 10:05AM GMT.

Comment 13

Throw my hat in with Keith's too.

Phases, that in part reflect the tool; we're going thru a phase, that's all.

So said Mike P. on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 12:44PM GMT.

Comment 14

Interesting issue and one that has come to my mind lately too. I think maybe the reason we here "all CSS sites look the same" is three fold.

I agree with MattP, the look of Web standards blogger sites have been a big influence on people including myself.

Also, conventions do pop up; as we experiment we find new and better ways to use CSS and when we share it everyone gives it a try.

And last, I have not heard anyone else state this idea, but here's what I suspect is also at play. This may be a controversial idea. I think what we are seeing in blog sites and site design in general is "safe design". What I mean is that a lot of us are not trainer "designers" but we know what looks good and as we find elements that look good, we combine these "safe" elements into sites. An example of this is the color pallettes we see, they almost always use a few shades of grey. Why? Because we know it's a neutral color, we know it looks good, and we know because we've seen it work many times. We could maybe say the same of the nice muted blue that can be seen in the logo of this site.

Now I am not criticizing this approach at all. I do it myself, and I think it produces some amazing results. Clean, simple, usable design. Just an idea. Wondering if anyone else feels the same way?

So said Chris Rizzo on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 2:31PM GMT.

Comment 15

Great comments everyone.

I believe the main issue is that the Internet is growing up and the novelty of wacky design for wacky design sake is wearing off. The Internet has been around long enough to have a history, and by having a history, people have expectations, both of what they want it to be and on how they want to use it. This means that frequent users find sites that work with their expectations and then request their own websites to emulate the sites that work for them. This creates a chain of similar designs across the Internet because these designs are functional and practical. There will always be a place for the avant garde, but in the daily affairs of many people and businesses, quick and easy access to well organized information is paramount.

So said BrianS on Wednesday 2 June, 2004 at 5:51PM GMT.

Comment 16

Excellent point, BrianS - perhaps this means that web design is coming of age?

I mean, how often do you go into a shop and find that the interior design is a totally wild, never-before-seen layout? Never - you always have all the mens clothes on the same floor, the fruit and veg goes together, the checkouts are near the door - because THAT DESIGN WORKS.

The same thing is happening with website layout - GUI design is converging and becoming a de facto standard, and anyone breaking the 'rules' runs the serious risk of alienating their visitors - put the 'Home' button in a weird place and your site will confuse your customers.

So said Matt P on Thursday 3 June, 2004 at 9:33AM GMT.

Comment 17

I never understand people referring to ZenGarden for showing CSS and its capabilities. In my opinion, it has got nothing to do with CSS but rather the graphical talents of the artists. Ok so some type settings can not be achieved with html and who can argue how painful it is to edit fonts within html documents, but other than that Zengarden does not help me realize any superiority of CSS over table-based design. Much of the effect and positioning can be achieved easily by using tables. Besides I think we will see table-design in the coming years(supported with CSS) becase web is not made of blogs and for large sites that contain lots of information, tables are still the safest and most reliable approach.

So said Don on Saturday 5 June, 2004 at 3:24AM GMT.

Comment 18

I think perhaps you're looking at the Zen Garden the wrong way.

Yes, some of the designs could be done using tables. But you'd have to edit the actual HTML to do it. For me personally... while most of the designs are very beautiful, the real "mindscrew" of the Zen Garden is that all of those designs are achieved by editing just the CSS files. The HTML doesn't need to be touched at all, it's the *same* HTML file for each.

So, if there's ever a chance that a site you design might need a new layout, or even a new structure, you're better off using "pure" CSS layout. Otherwise you'll have to change all the HTML files to change the layout, or you'll have to keep track of presentation tags while you change the content structure. Even if the site uses templates, why make more work for yourself?

So I think the Zen Garden is very useful, for showing that making life easier by seperating content and presentation doesn't necessarily have to mean ugly or boring designs.

So said Liz Calkins on Saturday 5 June, 2004 at 5:02PM GMT.

Comment 19

"... for large sites that contain lots of information, tables are still the safest and most reliable approach."

Until you have to modify the layout...

So said Neal on Tuesday 8 June, 2004 at 9:21PM GMT.

Comment 20

Well, it took me 6 weeks solid to make the transition from tables to CSS. Was it frustrating, you bet, did I want to go back to tables at times, you bet. But now I am hooked on CSS layouts. What frustrated me most was getting to grips with the multiple column and footer issue. I played around with floats for ages and hit other problems when putting other floated images on the page. But now that I use some very nice Javascript code from Dan Shafter, positioning a footer below the longest column is no longer an issue. This is my prefered method and yes I know its javascript.

However, what I like about CSS is that it really does allow seperation of presentation from content. If I want to, I can put my main content before any side navigation so that's great for search engines and pages are really quick to modify and load.

The topic however "all websites look the same" is something I am guilty of, I myself made the same comment not long ago. But the point I myself was making was the overuse of gradients and images that served no beneficial purpose other than design for designs sake, in some cases over-engineering the design. Indeed some designs distract visitors from the actual content. Of course Designs should be professional and nice to look at and CSS certainly offers much more flexibility than tables but just because you can does not mean you should. A relevant design with strong content and navigation has to be the order of the day and images used should be relevant to the topic. Its still a young industry and as web designers we have to prove ourselves, show clients how the web can increase their business income, customer services etc. As we achieve this (and we are) and they see the results then these clients will increase their investment in web marketing and that's good for everyone, especially the professional web designers, and there are some very talented people out there not making nearly enough money for the stunning work they do.

There is an amazing amount of content on the web to help us, I just hope we continue to improve the overall quality of websites, particulary navigation, accessibility and content layout and that we don't get carried away with CSS designs that push the limits of CSS in the way we used to (forced to!) with tables.

But tables are not dead and there are times when thay are right. Its not just about browser support either but many tools, take Contribute 2 for exampel have poor CSS support when a template uses an external stylesheet, so if the clinet wants this product to edit their site and they want it to look right in edit mode, the its inline styles, a design time template /stylesheet or good old tables. So CSS remains the way forward as does a continued committment to produce functional, well designed sites that work a lot better than the sites that were produced in the 90's.

So said dave on Wednesday 9 June, 2004 at 3:10PM GMT.

Comment 21

This one is special

So said Manucebes on Thursday 10 June, 2004 at 2:16PM GMT.

Comment 22

I agree with some of the above statements that this has not much to do with CSS. People tend to emulate things that work. We all need some good inspiration before any project can start. And it is very natural to be inspired by the sites we like thanks to their usability and pleasing look-n-feel. But they should always be only the inspiration for our own creativity. On each web site there are thousand things that you can design in so many different ways. Just simple change in color scheme may result in dramatic change of the atmosphere.

We should all be inspired by the great work of others but we are always adding our own personal touches to our work. And from technical point of view this can be easily accomplished with css. In my opinion css way for designing web pages offers endless possibilities. It is the designer who is responsible for the result not the css.

So said Martin Sojka on Saturday 12 June, 2004 at 3:49PM GMT.

Comment 23

I would say a lot of the common features come about purely through the advantages and power of CSS. For example font consistancy. Without CSS people might not be so inclined to use a fixed number of fonts and also be able to control these fonts when a design is changed. CSS by it's nature gives design consistancy.

One point I have noticed is that CSS sites tend to be clean and tend to less cluttered. One reason I think for this is that more sites using CSS are written about or designed by web professionals. Perhaps web professionals have cut out design methods that are no longer thought upon as as a good practice. You argue that all frame set designs and all imagemap page designs look similiar as well.

So said Darren on Sunday 13 June, 2004 at 9:43PM GMT.

Comment 24

I suspect that many people spend so much time taking a basic 2/3 column (X)HTML + CSS barebones design (e.g. from BlueRobot's Web Layout Reservoir @ ) and then shoehorning their site into it that they actually never get around to doing anything approaching original design!!! (Or at least, not until 6 months on when they decide that their site needs a revamp!)

Does that sound plausible?

So said Marcus Tucker on Tuesday 15 June, 2004 at 12:42AM GMT.

Comment 25

The actual similarity of design doesn't depend on the technology used. Well it’s actually a barrier between people who know scripting and the ones who doesn't (like me, by the way) but strictly speaking design geometry layout, as well as color & pixel treatment depends mostly on the “ideas floating in the air”. I think it takes at least 100 years for a media to settle some real truths and this circumstance of building methodology should be resolved in shortly. The thing behind this issue is, - I think - the “good manners” at the moment of building a website. Separating content from visual display it’s good, it’s a structured thinking.
A explanation of why CSS-based sites look alike should be that people that build them care for the same things such as: good and clear navigation and for that reason are inclined for observing the few web standards.
Well, the bad thing for me is that I’m left behind –again-. (I should go and study) : - P

So said Herbert Spencer on Wednesday 16 June, 2004 at 5:45PM GMT.

Comment 26

I definitely 'feel' the argument, despite there being distinct sections of the web that provde it wrong.

I think CSS by amateurs ends up in a two or three column 'clean' looking site - I myself have done this ( and I think it works in that for navigation and simplicity, it's second to none.

I'd also blame the fact that it's very easy to copy CSS code without really understanding what's going on.

But, the best sites will be those that continue to be well presented but have real content on them, and so get visited the most. I'd prefer these to be simple in layout, as I want to read what's on there, not be blown away by design techniques.

So said Neil on Wednesday 23 June, 2004 at 4:51PM GMT.

Comment 27

I'm a web programmer rather than a designer but appreciate the need to use CSS over table based layouts etc. (I feel like I'm standing up in a room-full of people saying, "Hi I'm Fred, and I use the font tag")

Coming rather late to CSS layout, I too have experienced the "all the CSS based sites look the same" feeling and I assumed it was down to the fact that blogger sites used the same software - Movable Type being one that came to mind. I've also marvelled at the Zen Garden site (which is largely the reason I've moved to CSS presentation - there are some amazing examples in there).

Anyway, I saw an example recently of a simple form being displayed totally "bare bones" - before any layout/spacing was applied - table or CSS based. And of course it looked rubbish - no alignment of text fields etc.

It then went on to describe a CSS solution which ended up looking very nice, but I did wonder about non CSS browsers (PDA's or mobile phones or whatever). Presumably they would see the "ugly" version? Is there not a case for trying to include a table based version where CSS is not supported? I'm not even sure if this would be easy to do in one merged page. It was just a thought that occured to me.

So said Dale on Monday 28 June, 2004 at 5:24PM GMT.

Comment 28

Ive done a site using both css for layout, and tables for some content, and believe while css generally takes longer to design for, is superior to tables in its flexibility.

So said Stempy on Thursday 1 July, 2004 at 6:03AM GMT.

Comment 29

I think all you posters just don't realize your experienced view of the internet. I know I am able to identify sites designed by macromedia (invariably, viewing the source proves me right).
Just as site designers have usually the same links on their pages, or have been to the sites of other designers' links. (or you can reference zen garden and they know what you are talking about)

You need to talk to someone not in the community, and ask them if all the web sites look alike. Not even. They will look at you like you are crazy...I know because I have done it.

So said Jackie McCaman on Sunday 11 July, 2004 at 2:57PM GMT.

Comment 30

Basically the whole xhtml + css thing has become somewhat of a popular design stream. And like with all things popular people tend to jump in and 'do it too'. In this case people borrow the styles of the popular sites that encourage xhtml + css use.

I've experienced something similar when it comes to the 2Advanced, K10K scene and all those London, Scandinavian design styles it produced (I can't really put my finger on a term as you can read). Whip some random shapes from 3DSmax and throw in some corners cut off at 45 degrees, voila.

In this case it's not just a design thing, it also has the web standards mixed in. People now actually have an excuse for following the flog, "it's xhtml+css, those sites supposed to look like this".

So said Martin Kool on Saturday 17 July, 2004 at 2:44PM GMT.

Comment 31

CSS sites do often look the same but I believe it's because people are taking a while to learn the techniques. My company has entirely abandoned tables of late , but have learnt the various tricks you need to know to make CSS not look like CSS (not that I have anything against the CSS look - I love it :) ).
Here's some recent examples of CSS sites we've done that don't look like your average CSS example: , and (coming soon)

So said Itomic Web Design Perth on Thursday 22 July, 2004 at 9:56AM GMT.

Comment 32

I am in the process of redesigning my site and must have started, stopped and restarted ten times now. Everytime I end up with the 2-col and 3-col CSSy look and feel and I then give up. Can anyone suggest a good book or web site that explores in detail the very specific aspect of separation of content and presentation in a clear and practical manner? One content, and different style sheets (text-based, no images) that give it a totally different look and feel (besides float right and left, and simple font changes)? Something very much like what ZenGarden does so well, but without the overpowering graphical aspect. I don't see a reason to redesign my site now (while I muck around with the CSS, the content grows stale) without ensuring I will gain that advantage. What is not too clear to me is that we still have to wrap the content with DIVs, and depending on how we do that, haven't we predetermined a certain CSSy look and feel? Thanks for any help.

It is interesting to watch Yahoo redesign its site using CSS and I am watching this development closely. Thanks to all who posted site examples.

So said Yin on Wednesday 15 December, 2004 at 7:57AM GMT.

Comment 33

CSS is part of any website we develop. None of the dating sites can do without it.

Jay, web designer

So said Jay, web designer on Friday 17 December, 2004 at 2:42PM GMT.

Comment 34

Excellent point, BrianS . I found many CSS looks the same! Perhaps not many html creator mastered CSS tech, so they just copy othere's CSS file and create the HTML page.

So said jeard on Wednesday 23 February, 2005 at 5:18AM GMT.

Comment 35

The thing people miss about CSS Zen Garden is that it's not particularly good CSS, it's good photoshop with a whole pile of background images thrown on elements. When 90% of your "CSS" is background images, I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as an example of "good" or "superior" css.

So said Ben on Monday 4 July, 2005 at 12:18AM GMT.

Comment 36

I'm just now learning a little html & CSS to implement my personal web site ) not up yet :-( , so I'm kind of going through an "oh, so that's how they do it!' phase and beginning to really take notice of creative and artful web design and not just content. So in a sense, my mind's eye is fresh and I'm not biased toward html, CSS, or with regard to any other coding that people commonly use. I'd say I really like the aesthetic I've seen on CSS sites more than html, but that being said, it would be boring if they all looked like that. Some of the most amazing sites ever, to me, are html with some really head twisting flash coding driving what you see. I'm glad CSS is out there and hope it continues to grow wide popularity, simply because it adds variety and an easy route for more visually or media oriented web folks who don't have sites primarily driven by text and are very position conscious. CSS is great, we shouldn't abandon other types of coding; instead, let's add it to our pallette of creative choices.

So said Schuyler Hupp on Saturday 8 October, 2005 at 9:48PM GMT.

Comment 37

Hi again. Went through the search and found an article in that does the rounded corners. Looks great, now just to get some gif images sorted and to have a play. Obviously not that I understand a word of the code!

Thanks again, and sorry to have bothered you with a question I now realise there's even more to the site than met my apprentice eye to date...even more thanks, David

So said David on Thursday 13 October, 2005 at 12:56AM GMT.

Comment 38

I feel old...

Reading some of these comments makes me realize just how far web design... Graphic Design in total... has come.

I am a Print Designer turned Web Maven. I started out in the cut & paste world of magazine design. We cut up stock images and typeset lines of text which we would then cut up for headlines and such, paste them onto a board, shoot our film, strip the film into spreads, yadda yadda...

I fell in love with Quark on my spiffy new Quadra way-back-when.

My, how far I've come!

I've given up the Mac for the PeeCee and Quark for HTMLKit, Eclipse and a few other tools with which I code, preview, test and finally smile upon as I rub the calluses upon my finger tips.

Now, looking at ecommerce sites and compatability issues across platforms and browsers as well as Velocity Templates, Struts, Springs, SQL queries and gawd knows what else - I find no other recourse than to look whimsically at my old 'xacto knife and sigh. Yes, that old blade is mounted on a nice koa wood plaque and hangs over my desk here. Huzzah for the old days! Some of my best works were done "the old way", and the color-seperations are nicely framed, gracing the walls of my home office.


People bicker and debate the finer points of design, but they all seem to forget the reason for what we do. Its to please the customer. Who is that customer? The person who is signing that check! That's who! Be it the Creative Director of your agency, or the dude running the neighborhood comix shop who you promised a half-decent PayPal site to. Those people have turned to us (the Designers - the Coders) to find the best, MOST COMPATIBLE solution to their needs. They want to display their content to as many people as feasible - and that includes all the people who still use Netscape Navigator Gold or the latest and greatest of PDAs.

It is our responsibility to look at the myriad of "specs that are not specs" out there, and find the best solution for our beloved providers of money. That comix guy doesn't care if his site works on a PDA, because his customers (demographics in the 10 to 17 age group) do not really have a PDA or even a web-enabled cel phone. However, that corporate entity with tons of white-papers that are available only via web-purchase (called soft-goods) most definately wants a pretty presentation of those white papers to his high-mucky-muck CEO partners on their Palms.

Stuff to think about, eh?

CSS has broken the barriers for designers. Tables, particularly NESTED tables, would cause me to go home and cry relentlessly into my pillows at night. It is because of nested tables I comment EVERYTHING I do. The CSS I produce now is so clean, you can eat off it! And with a platform/browser detector embedded in every page I create, only the CSS needed by the User is called.

And only CSS can do this. Tables are dependant on too many variables. CSS - if done creatively, and open so much media to the Designers and Coders - we may take over the world!!! (Well, unless Microsoft does something really smart, which has not been the case in the past.)

Gotta love this stuff... really! Gone is the necessity to code 2, 3, even 4 seperate sites for the same content! I can make artwork to display in as small as a 120px cel phone screen, and STILL have my content flow! A faded logo in the background of a PDA page does wonders for corporate branding!!!

Oh! How did I ever help my old clients back in the 80s and 90s?!? In comparison to what I do now, I failed them miserably!!!


What I'm getting atis that it is the mentality of the DESIGNER and the desire of the CUSTOMER that is holding back some really creative CSS usage. I will be the first to admit that I get stuck on a "template"... but all it takes is a bit of time away from the screen, and the creative juices start to flow a bit more freely.... then waaalaaaaa!!!

Another site is born.

Sadly, I don't really have the time to do a personal domain and show off what I've done in CSS.... I am too bogged by client requests... heh. :) Once this mad rush slows down (or I hire more staff), I will be sharing what I've done. I'm sure many of you will enjoy and benefit. But the most important thing to remember, it is your own creativity that makes or breaks the code... and the site.

Fret not children, the Design is in you.

So said LessZoa on Thursday 3 November, 2005 at 2:39AM GMT.

Comment 39

I designed this the other day at work:

And this at home:

They are different? Yes?

So said David Farmer on Wednesday 7 December, 2005 at 8:55PM GMT.

Comment 40

CSS sites don't all look the same. Take a look at the homepage of this site (, then look at a few stylesheets from CSSZG (, then go to What do you notice? They're very different.

So said Tom on Friday 6 January, 2006 at 7:11PM GMT.

See Also

^ Top

SiteGround: Fast, reliable, recommended hosting.