|
|
 |
|
| |
 |
| |
Has an independent R.O.I. ever been done on using a
full CSS solution (i.e. css tables) as opposed
to html tables? |
|
- RETURN
ON INVESTMENT (ROI).....ahhh..this
is a good acronym to know.....if we compare
a before and after website that uses <table>'s
or <div>'s just when is the new fully
CSS website going to pay off?
As you can see,
from the previous answer above, the bandwidth
argument is less and less because it is IMAGES
(.gifs and .jpg) that can take up 50% of the
bandwidth anyway. And after the necessary HTML,
anchor tags, CSS, and Javascript, the table
tags make up only tiny percentage of the bandwidth.
Thus, since the bandwidth argument is so little,
if any at all, switching to CSS will only
increase the time for any recovery of your
investment of time and money......
From a business
perspective, some have said you need to have
1 or 2 years to recover your investment.....Nonsense,
you are not given that much time to prove your
idea in the real world.....2 months tops!!!!....Just
think all the time and money that could have
been spent somewhere else: hardware, marketing,
sales, etc. Those can have a better
return on investment than 2 years! If you
put it into sales, it would be immediate.
- Independent ROI (Return on Investment)
Has there been multiple independent reports
that show an actual CODE comparison on
this full CSS integration method? Do you
know of anyone personally who actually
has a ROI on their own implementation?
ANSWER: No and no
TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) - What about the cost to move a site over to full
CSS? Do you pay designers more that know how to do this? Is there a breakdown
of hours in cost savings?
|
|
|
|
