I don't remember pushback against CSS, but I do recall it was common for websites to dabble in CSS for styling fonts but still use table layouts. That's not pushback, just practicality.
If you wanted a solid predictable grid, you used table layouts. Particularly for tight and complex layouts. It wasn't uncommon for the navigation section to be a table layout even if other parts weren't. "Pixel perfect" was the name of the game. There emerged some pushback against the elimination of pixel-perfect design, not CSS.
They never caught on. Pixel GIFs were more common and predictable.
Until flexbox went mainstream in 2014, CSS float layouts were an exercise in balancing spinning plates. Empty divs didn't behave the same as divs containing content, and it sucked. We'll never get those hours back, but at least we were paid.
The idea that early CSS gave us wonderful "zen garden" layouts doesn't align with my experience. Then again, I was making information media sites not fun arty sites.
If you wanted a solid predictable grid, you used table layouts. Particularly for tight and complex layouts. It wasn't uncommon for the navigation section to be a table layout even if other parts weren't. "Pixel perfect" was the name of the game. There emerged some pushback against the elimination of pixel-perfect design, not CSS.
Around 2000, remember spacer elements?
They never caught on. Pixel GIFs were more common and predictable.Until flexbox went mainstream in 2014, CSS float layouts were an exercise in balancing spinning plates. Empty divs didn't behave the same as divs containing content, and it sucked. We'll never get those hours back, but at least we were paid.
The idea that early CSS gave us wonderful "zen garden" layouts doesn't align with my experience. Then again, I was making information media sites not fun arty sites.