locked
CSS Unfriendly Control Adapters RRS feed

  • Question

  • User-45639160 posted

    I don't find these  so-called CSS friendly adapters. I'm very good using css, but I'm like working in design view the most so I can see my design as I create sites. However, design view is useless when using these controls.  I'm having extreme difficulties when using Ajax also. Am I wrong, or is it just that I'm using Visual Studio 2008 Pro to develop sites using asp.net 3.5?

    I just purchased VS Pro with a MSDN Subscription and paid about $3500. What a disapointment that the native controls adds everything in tables, and the CSS Friendly Controls are difficult to work with and use all Ajax options.

    Do you know if the newest version of CSS unFriendly Control Adapters that is being developed is going to be any different in Design View? How 'bout VS 2010; anyone know if its any better?

    Terry

    Friday, May 1, 2009 12:28 AM

Answers

  • User-1179452826 posted

    VS definitely has value, but even without the adapters, the design view is still quite crap. You should not use that for laying out your page, as it will look very different in different browsers. Besides, if you use something like jQuery (or javascript) to assign styles (for unobtrusive css), the design view will not show any styling. Yo should always test the "look" of your webpage in real browsers. Design view is mainly for the convenience of assigning properties, easier set up of data controls, etc [at this point in time]. It is not to be considered as a real "preview" of your page.

    • Marked as answer by Anonymous Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:00 AM
    Friday, May 1, 2009 3:37 AM

All replies

  • User-1179452826 posted

    Sorry to say this but the fault is not with the adapters, but with VS itself. The design view in VS is useless. The only real value of the design view is to hook up handlers and datasources quickly. As far as layout of controls is concerned, it is shite. It's not just with the adapters, it's for css and javascript in general.

    The best "design view" is keeping IE and FF open and continuously testing the page in the browsers while developing.

    Friday, May 1, 2009 1:32 AM
  • User-45639160 posted

     LOL - I guess it depends from what point of view you're coming from. I value VS more than CSS Adapters... Guess a second monitor would be helpful to speed things up if I keep IE and FF always open. 

    Friday, May 1, 2009 1:37 AM
  • User-1179452826 posted

    VS definitely has value, but even without the adapters, the design view is still quite crap. You should not use that for laying out your page, as it will look very different in different browsers. Besides, if you use something like jQuery (or javascript) to assign styles (for unobtrusive css), the design view will not show any styling. Yo should always test the "look" of your webpage in real browsers. Design view is mainly for the convenience of assigning properties, easier set up of data controls, etc [at this point in time]. It is not to be considered as a real "preview" of your page.

    • Marked as answer by Anonymous Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:00 AM
    Friday, May 1, 2009 3:37 AM
  • User-45639160 posted

    Do you Know if Expression web is better when it comes working in Design View and CSS? And would I have any problems using Expression Web on existing sites previously created in VS?

    Friday, May 1, 2009 5:25 PM
  • User-1179452826 posted

    Well lets put it this way...expression web is meant for designers and it probably fares slightly better. But if your app grabs some data from a web service via AJAX and displays stuff dynamically, there's no "design view" on earth that can handle that.

    Another way of looking at this is that "design views" aside, different browsers render the output html differently. How can one design view attempt to mimick the look of the final output? If everything is static, inline without javascript and little to no css, design view should shouw what the IE output will be, but even that fails most of the time. Again, design view is not a "preview mode".

    Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:18 AM
  • User-45639160 posted

    Well, you can't beat Dreamweaver CS4 with it comes to design view. It even has live view. The only reason why I started using VS is due to dreamweaver not adding asp.net 2.0+ support. I still use it time to time to add additions that VS doesn't provide.

    I installed expression web a few hours ago. I'm not so impressed with that either. But it does have some nice options. I think using the 3 programs in my development will work for me.

     Despite me using Design mode, I never rely on it for the finished product. I always use different browsers for testing. But the pain of not having some preview, yuk.

    Thanks for your help.

    Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:34 AM
  • User-1179452826 posted

    Having a "live view" isn't always great while developing. Suppose your app grabs some data from an amazon feed. Would you want to wait while the feed is downloaded every time you wished to set a property or were binding a different control that has nothing to do with the amazon feed?

    For me, I hand code nearly all of the layout code. As such, VS + browsers for testing does it for me [:)]

    Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:18 AM
  • User-45639160 posted

    But that's one of the benefits of live view while you design, even when with downloaded from content from amazon feed. You design live... I've used it many times and it's awesome. Unfortunitly, it doesn't work well with aspx pages with asp.net 2.0+.

    It was wierd using it for the first time when hooked up to a database. Perhaps 10 years from now everything will be different. We'll be speaking to our computers, "computer... I need one database with the following tables..." hahaha! But what will happen to our jobs?

    Later

    Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:34 AM
  • User-1179452826 posted

    Who knows, five years earlier, if someone told you about LINQ to Entities, the Entity Framework, Asp.net AJAX 4.0 templates, jQuery, Silverlight, MVVM, asp.net MVC, what would have been your reaction?I would've told'em to shod off, and yet here we are [;)]

    Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:07 AM