Nothing really too new here, except for the observation that, with everyone’s help of course, we’ve more or less made it impossible to argue that CSS design is inherently ugly.
…tableless design transforms the web into a library and less of a visual spectacle…
This is an interesting point, since, yeah actually —
that’s exactly what’s happening. And it’s good, remarkably good, for this to happen. Not only are table-less sites not boring, they’re accessible. Keep in mind that all CSS Zen Garden examples validate to WAI AAA-level accessibility, although the individual designs can be more and less accessible depending on techniques used. Not only are they accessible, search engines love them. The Zen Garden is insanely high in Google thanks in part to well marked-up content. Not only are they search engine optimized, but they are, contrary to what you say, far less bandwidth hungry than tables. The average conversion of a site from tables to CSS-based chops the HTML file size roughly in half, reduces the number of server requests necessary, and generally reduces the number of images needed. All for the same design.
update: Okay, so I guess we’re not talking about that. Looks like the comments got hijacked into a thread on triple-A accessibility instead. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Discuss. §