Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!


More SEO Content

International SEM  | Social Media  |  Search Friendly Design |  SEO |   Paid Search / PPC  |  Seminars  |  Forum Threads  |  Q&A |  Copywriting |  Keyword Research   |  Web Analytics / Conversions  |  Blogging  |  Dynamic Sites  | Linking  |   SEO Services  |  Site Architecture  | Search Engine Spam  | Wrap-ups  | Business Issues |  HRA Questions  |  Online Courses

Sponsored Content

 

 
 

Photo
- - - - -

Tables Vs. ... What?

Started by jfj3rd , Dec 05 2005 09:02 PM

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 jfj3rd

jfj3rd

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Riverside California

Posted 05 December 2005 - 09:02 PM

Ok so I came across a post that got me questioning the use of tables in a site design for site structure.

I've done this predominantly for like ages now. I apparently have jumped off the bandwagon and never got back on though.

What negative concerns are there with using tables and what is an alternative to using tables?

Is there any SEO downside to sticking with tables? Any advantage to sticking with them?

HELP! omg.gif

#2 dmcconkey

dmcconkey

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC, USA

Posted 05 December 2005 - 09:40 PM

Hi JFJ3rd,

SEO speaking, unless you REALLY abuse tables, I doubt you'll see any difference. The reason W3C and and the like want you to abandon tables is that tables were never intended for layout. HTML is supposed to describe structure, not presentation, and using tables to control where elements display on a screen flies in the face of HTML's original intent.

So where does that leave you practically?

HTML and web pages are starting to see their way into devices other than computers. Cell phones, PDAs, even refrigerators now use HTML. If your markup only describes structure, then any device ought to be able to render it at some minimum level. However, if your markup now has elements that obscure the true structure simply for layout purposes, these alternate devices might render you content in horrible ways.

Still 99.9% of people downloading your web pages are good little Windows/Mac/Linux graphical desktop computer users who view tables with no problem. A few are vision impared users whose screen readers will trip over your tables. And a very rare few are using alternate devices.

Not the biggest deal now, but why continue to mark up pages in a manner that will progressively become a worse problem as time goes on?

Hope that helps,
-Dan

#3 dmcconkey

dmcconkey

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC, USA

Posted 05 December 2005 - 09:43 PM

Incidentally, tables are okay--so long as you're using them to describe tabular data. If you have a list of books, authors, publishers, etc., I can think of no better way to structure your markup than with a table.

-Dan

#4 jfj3rd

jfj3rd

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Riverside California

Posted 05 December 2005 - 10:16 PM

Well unfortunately I create most of my design structures with tables. So knowing it isn't a HUGE deal now... it might become one later down the road. So what alternative do I have other than tables?

I know I don't know everything and often find myself dipping one toe in at a time after I've found something that works but maybe I need to look at other things. Whats the scoop? What am I missing?

#5 jfj3rd

jfj3rd

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Riverside California

Posted 05 December 2005 - 10:17 PM

By the way, thanks for the quick response. I do appreciate it. I am building a rather large directory right now and in its beginning stages I'd rather find out about an alternative that would be better in the long run.

#6 dmcconkey

dmcconkey

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC, USA

Posted 05 December 2005 - 10:46 PM

The paradigm (as decided by W3C) is CSS, cascading style sheets. Many tutorials exist for CSS-ing your site, so I won't go into the "how" of things. For the "what" of things, I'll blabber on...

CSS allows you to assign display controls to HTML elements. For instance, I markup a page rather plainly:

CODE
<html>
<head>
<title>Burp</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>All about burps</h1>
<h2>The national anthen</h2>
<p>Burping the national anthem has long been...</p>
<h2>Root beer burps</h2>
<p>Widely held as the best source for ...</p>
</body>
</html>


Notice, my HTML only describes structure. I have a page. I have a title. I have two major headings, each with its own supporting paragraph. Nothing in there about display.

Using linked or inline CSS definitions we can provide suggestions to the browser how to render our structure. We can tell it that all h1 tags should be 23 pt dark red. We can say that any p tag immediately following an h2 should indent the first line my 2 em. We can say that a body always has a right margin of 10% and pads 14px on the bottom. We can position elements absolutely (top:200px; left:48px) or we can tell things not to display at all.

There really are some fine controls to CSS. Unfortunately, Microsoft sees no need to implement certain really good portions of it. (CSS table model comes to mind.)

The first really great thing about CSS is it can keep your code very lean. By dropping all the tr, th, and td tags that were only in there for display, you find it much easier to logically follow your own HTML.

The second really great thing is that any device that doesn't support CSS will still see good HTML and render it in a sensible manner.

However, if you follow the CSS route, be prepared to abandon your rounded corners and perfect vertical alignment. At least if you want IE users to read your site.

Good luck,
-Dan

(Hope I've made another convert.)

#7 jfj3rd

jfj3rd

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Location:Riverside California

Posted 05 December 2005 - 11:13 PM

Thanks Dan for the input.

I actually use style sheets but only for defining such things as h1, links and so forth. I've never dived to heavily into the concept of using it for other things.

That being said, maybe I'll try to expand my horizons with CSS and take a dip in the wild side of it... Gotta figure it out first though... that being said... off to Google I go.

Any favorite recomendations? (Gotta ask)

#8 lyn

lyn

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts
  • Location:London, Ontario

Posted 05 December 2005 - 11:42 PM

There are several threads in this forum on the merits (non-SEO) of stylesheets and how to use CSS for layout.
It does take some getting used to, if you have always used tables, but it becomes habit forming! biggrin.gif

L.

#9 Jill

Jill

    High Rankings Advisor

  • Admin
  • 32,317 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 12:39 AM

QUOTE
What negative concerns are there with using tables


Tables are fine. The search engines have no problem with them.

#10 linux_lover

linux_lover

    LiLo

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 831 posts
  • Location:York, UK

Posted 06 December 2005 - 06:46 AM

IMO, use CSS where its more efficient to, and use Tables where its more efficient to use tables.
Sometimes a layout is just too much of an censored.gif to get looking right with pure CSS (usually multi column affairs) across all browsers, and with text resizing (thats the real trick).

A healhy mix is what is best (IMHO).
CSS is great, but not quite implemented well enough for my liking - especially in the $MS browsers.

I disagree with the comment about accessibility - tables are perfectly accessible, so long as they are used right - as it says in the W3C accessibility guidelines. Where tables are bad - is when people use them for multiple slices of graphics and the page just looks like a jumbled mess to screenreaders.

#11 Raphael

Raphael

    The Limey Cowboy

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 06 December 2005 - 07:26 AM

Unfortunately, lilo, that's exactly *why* people started using tables for layout, so they could get their graphics perfectly aligned with where they wanted them - However, CSS can definitely do things that tables can't, like wrap-around text that flows neatly around an image that doesn't have a straight line.

#12 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 07:46 AM

Just MHO, but now would be a really good time to start getting used to CSS. It's really not that difficult.

Why now? Because the specs for CSS3 are such that it'll then allow you to do a lot of things that most are now using Tables to accomplish. Right now there are some things (most notably columns) that are far too difficult to pull off with straight CSS. Partly because it just wasn't built into CSS1 or CSS2 and partly because different browsers treat things differently.

That said, if CSS3 lives up to its promise it would probably be a good idea to have a leg up.

#13 Raphael

Raphael

    The Limey Cowboy

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 06 December 2005 - 08:10 AM

This, of course, depends on browser implementation wink.gif

#14 dmcconkey

dmcconkey

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC, USA

Posted 06 December 2005 - 08:39 AM

And there, JFJ, is the downside. All the best aspects of CSS are wrapped up in the CSS3 spec while we're still waiting on decent CSS2 implementation. Unfortunately, we can't design for Amaya.

I will also reitterate Randy's thoughts that now is the time to learn. As implementation improves, CSS will more and more become SOP. Learning now means you can still get in ahead of the curve.

-Dan

#15 linux_lover

linux_lover

    LiLo

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 831 posts
  • Location:York, UK

Posted 06 December 2005 - 08:46 AM

QUOTE(Randy @ Dec 6 2005, 12:46 PM)
Just MHO, but now would be a really good time to start getting used to CSS.  It's really not that difficult.

Why now?  Because the specs for CSS3 are such that it'll then allow you to do a lot of things that most are now using Tables to accomplish.  Right now there are some things (most notably columns) that are far too difficult to pull off with straight CSS.  Partly because it just wasn't built into CSS1 or CSS2 and partly because different browsers treat things differently.

That said, if CSS3 lives up to its promise it would probably be a good idea to have a leg up.
View Post


Unfortunately that will mean all old browsers dont support the new CSS so we really cant use it effectively unless we provide an alternative version for every implementation. *sigh* (violin plays in background)

I can feel a compatability php class or two coming on that automatically generates the right css etc.

CSS 3 does indeed look very cool.
Back to CSS/XHTML Discussion and Questions


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. HRF SEO Forum
  2. → Search Engine Optimization
  3. → Search Engine Friendly Design & Usability
  4. → CSS/XHTML Discussion and Questions
  5. *READ FIRST*--> Forum Rules