132 replies to this topic

[torka]

If you use tables for non-tabular data, websites will not always degrade properly in hand-held devices and other browser types, not to mention people with disabilities have their own problems with them.

Tables are not the problem in these instances. Poor implementation of tables is the problem.

FWIW, the exact same issues can (and do) hold true for sites in pure CSS that don't take accessibility and usability into consideration.

It's not the code, it's how you use it.

--Torka

[Akuta]

In hand-held devices, content will cause horizontal scrolling and confusion if you use tables for columns (non-tabular data) and other types of layouts. No, it won't make it unusable, but it's very annoying and doing it in CSS is even easier. Just think about the word table.... :O Tabular data. No reason to use it for anything else ;p

[mcanerin]

In the old days, we didn't say that something was "cool" or "a killer app" or whatever, we usually said it "sucked less" if it was an improvement, and "didn't suck" if we liked it a lot.

I kind of preferred that. CSS sucks less than tables. But it still sucks. Just because there isn't really a lot of other choices available doesn't mean that the choices we have are any good.

I'm reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill, which was "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for everything else."

That's the proper attitude, I think. As soon as people start getting into the "my way is the best" frame of mind, a lot of stupid and abusive things usually start to happen.

CSS sucks. I could count the ways, but it would take a really long time. Tables also suck. The reasons why could fill a very long essay.

This is not to say that either is useless, or that one doesn't have any advantages over the other. But as long as CSS is still being worked on as a standard, it's not even complete yet, so you can't possibly talk about it in any sort of absolute sense. Is CSS 1.0 better or worse than CSS 2.0? Depends on who you talk to - some people think it was broken by 2.0, others think it was vastly improved. Will 3.0 be an improvement? Maybe, maybe not.

From my perspective, I don't care. What I care about is my website. Does IT suck or not? That's where my focus should be.

My opinion,

Ian

[Michael Martinez]

In hand-held devices, content will cause horizontal scrolling and confusion if you use tables for columns (non-tabular data) and other types of layouts. No, it won't make it unusable, but it's very annoying and doing it in CSS is even easier. Just think about the word table.... :O Tabular data. No reason to use it for anything else ;p

Instead of repeating propaganda that clearly leads the way with straw man examples, stop and take a look at what you have been saying and how you contradict yourself.

CSS is actually easier to make websites ... cross-browser compliant, but you have to know what you're doing. ...

To be quite blunt, most people do NOT know what they are doing, including a great many who try to rely solely on CSS and avoid using tables (and you apparently don't understand what constitutes "tabular data" or the fact that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout).

There is a great deal of conflicting, misleading advice circulating about CSS and tables. Most Webmasters will never become Web designers, much less CSS-only Web designers.

Not without a tremendous change in technology and entrance requirements into Web page creation.

[Akuta]

(and you apparently don't understand what constitutes "tabular data" or the fact that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout).

Apparently you like to make things up since the W3C actually says to use CSS for positioning and layouts, not tables.

Right from the W3C (and there's plenty more if you dig deep):

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.

And there you have it, my argument on the W3C website!

[piskie]

Little wonder the Dinosaurs became extinct.
Heads buried in the sand and Misquotes such as:

"or the FACT that even the W3C Web site recommends using tables for layout"
"the ADA don't allow tables"


It is not a choice of CSS or Tables but many blur the issue by entrenching in one of these 2 camps and then firing mortars at the other.

[projectphp]

Two things:

minimize

Not get rid of, don't "never use", but minimize.

Second: the quote implies any of that matters. for something like "problems when rendering to non-visual media" to matter, that has to be a relevant issue. Lets just say that a telescope site might not need to bother too much

Anyway, who cares? Use whatever you like, you just have to suffer the consequences of your actions

Edited by projectphp, 09 January 2007 - 07:26 AM.

[Michael Martinez]

Apparently you like to make things up since the W3C actually says to use CSS for positioning and layouts, not tables.

Nope, but I do like to do my homework before saying something in a forum.

What the W3C has to say about using tables:

11.1 Introduction to tables
The HTML table model allows authors to arrange data -- text, preformatted text, images, links, forms, form fields, other tables, etc. -- into rows and columns of cells.

...

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.

Your apology is accepted.

[Jill]

Let's keep it civil guys. We're only talking about CSS and tables here, not war and global warming.

[Michael Martinez]

Let's keep it civil guys. We're only talking about CSS and tables here, not war and global warming.

You're right, Jill.

I'll bow out of the thread. Sorry.

[Akuta]

This entire subject has become such a mess because folks like to post incorrect material like "tables are recommended for layout and positioning". CSS is the "new standard" for this in the game (tables aren't meant for it, they never were, but there were no guidelines in the beginning), that's all. It's not a big deal and you don't have to do it, but I was just trying to set the record straight and give back a little for all the amazing information you guys give for free here. But, I think you SEOs have lived too long without guidelines... this thread is making you go through withdrawals! So, I'll stop the torture.

[Jill]

But, I think you SEOs have lived too long without guidelines...

We don't need no skinkin' guidelines! (That's my new tagline.)

[MetaTag]

EDIT: It also cuts down the size of your page & it certainly cleans up a bit of the clutter if you're using 10+ different styles on one page. Compared to not using the code below, that is.

I always use this:

CODE

<!--
@import url("centaur.css");
-->

Because, I think it cuts down loading time of pages as they only have to download that CSS file once, instead of loading all of the random CSS stuff in all of your pages' source.

Plus, it's easier if you use a webdesigning tool like Dreamweaver. You can easily tick an option and you got the style you want.
So, for webdesigning, it's also faster.

Overall benefit for me? Faster.

In the old days, we didn't say that something was "cool" or "a killer app" or whatever, we usually said it "sucked less" if it was an improvement, and "didn't suck" if we liked it a lot.

In that case, my opinion about CSS is that 'it doesn't suck'.


-Mike

PS: If you're wondering why I'm using the name 'centaur.css', then I got a quicky answer for you.
It's because I like weird names for files/webpages.

[MetaTag]

CSS-rendered sites are tricky to develop in a way that will display consistently across all browsers and resolutions. I have an all-css site that just drives me nuts because things overlap at lower resolutions and look oddly spread-out at higher ones.

Use percents instead of other things like pixels, cm, etc. that should fix it, I had the same problem and I was using pixels at that time, so I asked for a possible solution for that problem and they told me I should use percents instead. I can not remember where I got told I should use percents, though.

-Mike

PS: Sorry for doubleposting, thought it might get a bit cluttered in the message above if I added this.

[torka]

The problem with percents is that without consistent browser implementation of MAXWIDTH, at high monitor resolutions and large window sizes you can end up with lines of text that are so long as to be unreadable, which is a usability issue.

Again, though, it's not a matter of CSS versus tables. You can use percentages to size table cells same as you can CSS divs.

--Torka