[snaip]

Bill Merikallio and Adam Pratt provide a wonderfully-illustrated explanation of why using tables for layout is stupid:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

I've also come up across The Mother of all Table Talks which is the most comprehensible list of links to discussion on Tableless layout.

[cbunting]

Hello,
I started using tables when I first started in web design years ago. And even today, I still design nice clean web sites that the the job done for me. I sometimes do rey heavily on tables but my designs load much faster than flash or overbloated artsy sites.

At one time or another, Everyone has had to use tables for some reason. The article you mention includes using CSS, DHTML, and XML. While these newer advances are great, I can make a site look just as good using the old methods that I already know how to use.

How many webmasters can honestly say that they had a new visitor come to thier site, view thier source code and then send them an email saying... "I would have bought your product" or "I would have looked at your web site more in depth", But I viewed your source code and see that you use tables... So I went elsewhere...

Everyone has thier own opinions... Thats just how it is..

Chris

[cbunting]

After looking throught some of these articles, I see that they say to aviod using tables for specific reasons simply because they didn't know how to do what they were intending to do.. Thats moreless like myself saying that flash sites such simply because I have no clue how to use Flash MX.

I have never had a problem with tables and I have never had any of the problems that "They" say are valid reasons why you shouldn't use tables. I just think they don't know what they are doing.

Chris

[Archbob]

Originally Posted by snaip

Bill Merikallio and Adam Pratt provide a wonderfully-illustrated explanation of why using tables for layout is stupid:

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

I've also come up across The Mother of all Table Talks which is the most comprehensible list of links to discussion on Tableless layout.

Ehh, tables are just as good for me. Using tables in conjunction with stylesheets is the best. I personally hate aligning Divs.

[whiteraider]

Tables tend to do what they should in most browsers!

CSS2 works fine in some newer browsers but you need a code for almost each browser to use CSS2 to do page layout!

Just to get a CSS2 layout to work in IE6, Netscape 7 and Opera 6+ requires a fine juggling match and you still have to provide a layout for earlier versions.

I haven't looked at the millions of derivitive and special use browsers!

Whilst I detest flash sites they do get around the issue, even if they mean users leave and dont use that company again.

To date I've only had compliments about my site layouts, and yes I do use some CSS2 layout now but still serve a number of users with the older tables version if their browsers does not support CSS2.

In a world that is never going to exist, CSS2 is a great solution, atm it's a hodge podgy of poorly supported standards - pity!

[snaip]

Hi everyone,

Wow, thanks a lot for your replies.. Some really good points...

I really like the anology you made Chris. And I agree with you Archbob that using tables in conjuction with stylesheets is a better approach.

I was giving a thought as to how much time it'll take for us to see completely tableless designs? 10 years? Or will that ever happen?

[frostproof]

Thanks so much for posting that 1st link. After taking the time to read fully through that presentation I was able to garnish over a dozen valuable links, and some of the best css information that I've ever found!!!!

Thanks for the FYI.

Caching, consistency, usability and multiple output formats with less effort!

I've known that I should, and have been interested in moving towards css layout!!! Now I know a even more about why and how!


Gracias,

= fp

[Kaffe]

Well, the techniques presented at Seybould there are about web standards. That means using CSS2 and XHTML for lay-out. Using tables for lay-out isn't really valid. Think about it like using Excel to draw an image for you, and manage your Database with Adobe Photoshop. Now, that was a worst case scenario, but it's basicly what it all comes down to.

Tables were meant for tabular data. A blind person visiting a site don't want loads of images read to him as if it were data (in fact he can't). He would be better suited visiting a full-scale site coded to suite 508, WAI and well...blind people.

But it isn't all about blind folks. Web standards is about what the web should be about. Even though an user surfs around with NS4 or IE 3, he can still take part of the information, the design will be lost, but he can still read and browse as he should. Same with text-based browsers, who really don't benefit from flash or table-based lay-outs.

And it saves bandwidth. CSS2 and XHTML in conjunction, and the minimalistic approach of DOM scripting can cut down file-sizes by more than ½. Many sites would benefit from it.

So, please do not compare tables and stylesheets with Web Standard Compilant web pages, it's not the same thing.

I would also like to comment someone here mentioning getting a CSS2 lay-out to work in IE6. Well, the deal is that the site will work, the lay-out will only look a bit buggy, but instead of coding a whole new nested table to make a solution you can add one or two lines (or even characters) of code in a stylesheet to fix the issue or comment something out for certain web browsers.

Not to mention that all web browsers except IE 6 fully, or almost fully support XHTML and CSS2, with only minor bugs. IE 6 is no longer supported by MicroSoft, they're all busy with their new System and Web Browser (which is being released 2005).

I always do my sites with the latest web standards, because if we don't push technology forwards, nothing will happen.

http://www.zeldman.com
http://www.alistapart.com
http://www.stopdesign.com
http://www.simplebits.com

Are all great links.

[spikemeister]

Well Kaffe i tend to agree with you. But outwith accessibility issues is there any real reason not to use tables. Its all very well saying that if we dont push technolog forward nothing will happen, but consider the end user in this. Why should someone using opera for instance have to view a page that is not as pleasing on the eye as one in internet explorer and vice versa. Personally if i visit a site as long as it is easy to navigate and contains what im looking for then it doesnt matter whether its made using html,xhtml,css or whatever the designer has used. Saying that I have used css and xhtml extensively and have encountered nothing but problems with browser compatability but it is undoubtedly the way ahead for the web. So we have recommended standards, and remember these are just recommended, yet there are various browsers which interpret these standards differently.
In summing up i would have to say that until there is a 'browser standard' that compliments the ever changing w3c standards then myself and no doubt countless others will not hesitate in using tables to produce a consistent look to our sites.

[karlcore]

My guess is that those who are saying that "tables are fine" and talking about platform problems are those who don't really know much about CSS.

Not knowing CSS is no reason to go running back to tables and making up excuses about plaform issues. There are enough awesome examples of artistic, complex, cross-platform layouts out there today that making excuses for your use of tables is just plain weak minded and ignorant.

In fact, I find that most people who talk about why they want to keep with tables are the same people using ridiculous 4 and 5 nested table designs filled with dozens of 1x1 spacer images.