Whilst I agree that any furthering of the/our understanding of the capabilities of CSS is a Good Thing (TM), I also tend to agree that, on average, the quality of articles on ALA has gone down significantly.
To put it another way, before (whenever that was), ALA articles generally had the base intention of helping a great many of the readers do something they’d been wanting to do for improving the websites they create *for the users.* Now (whenever that begain), ALA articles seem to have the base intention of publicizing hacks and kludges to the tune of pleasing the occasional off-kilter client.
Unfortunately, the only way to draw the line between the two is with “feeling” (the same way one person might judge something as “art,” and another might not). I can’t think of the right words for the situation, but it almost seems as if the distinction between techniques (which implies an element of craft) and tricks (which implies something of a more devious, short-sighted nature).
Perhaps the best way of saying it is that it feels as though we’ve reached the summit of the mountain, and are now, unfortunately, rolling back down the other side. We’ve pushed CSS/XHTML to its limit, and are now trying to estabilish new tricks that won’t help the user, but will only further our own egos (or those of our clients). We’re headed back toward tag soup—toward something we’d never want our clients to even touch, lest they “break” something, and that’s just foolish.