Public Voice Network
- Politics 21562156
- alphabet funtime 44
- Flash Video Intro 33
- Medium Format 9292
- industrial music 2727
- Leica pics.. 1717
- Desktop screenshots 2424
- Pic of the Day 88098809
- Site Critique #3 88
- The Newstoday Jingle 2020
- FOOTBALL!!! 1818
- Scrollbar widths? 11
- Lost in Translation 2828
- Engaged!! 2323
- last week in LA... 22
- ikea 3131
- old but good 55
- Tees! Tees! Tees! 1212
- NT is on fire 1111
- Huge inc. NYC 1111
- Applecare worth it? 3838
- AS3 Question 55
- great music videos 44
- the beginning 55
HTML Table 4848 Responses
Last post: 4 months, 4 weeks ago | Thread started: May 13, 08, 7:13 p.m.
- ismith
I've been around this so many times, but lately the W3C has pissed me off and their standards are practically worthless (not entirely their fault, but their snail pace and the fact that none of them are successful web designers doesn't help). Anyway, as much as I love DIVs and SPANs and used to trash talk the table junkies, doesn't it just make sense to use tables? I mean for all practical reasons tables are just better since their nature is the grid, which is how I formulate a design in the first place.
Anyone think I'm crazy, apathetic, or feel like doing the same?
- May 13, 08, 7:13 p.m. – Permalink
- Mellimelvin
Quit tables in 06 haven't looked back.

- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:16 p.m. – Permalink
- Jnr_Madison


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:18 p.m. – Permalink
- ismith
I understand that they are each meant for their own things- but there's no denying in my case that using tables is the simpler solution. Less code and more consistency. Tables are loading as quick too... plus it's not ugly table code like Photoshop slice export.


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:25 p.m. – Permalink
- OnesandZeros
i use both


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:26 p.m. – Permalink
- Jnr_Madison
tables have a use: eating dinner.


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:29 p.m. – Permalink
- Jnr_Madison
I think there was a long discussion about this in another thread but I can't seem to find it.


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:34 p.m. – Permalink
- ismith
I can do it just fine, but for strict layouts like the ones I'm working with now it hardly makes sense not to use tables, because they lay themselves out in no time at all.
If IE supported all of the CSS display properties (see http://www.htmldog.com/reference…) I'd use div/span with these, because they behave just as tables. Basically what I'm getting at is that the behavior of tables serves a great function outside of tabular data, and until their is a universal method of utilizing that function efficiently then I might as well use them, since the only real downside is the stigma of using tables (visually impaired need not see the site) and slightly longer page loads (though nothing not acceptable).

- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 7:43 p.m. – Permalink
- mg33
ismith:
" Less code and more consistency. Tables are loading as quick too..."
Did you really said that about using tables? I would beg to compare that with CSS, there is less code and more consistency. Less HTML code for starters, and consistency? To me, consistency means changing a page element in ONE LOCATION and knowing that it looks as I wish for it to look everywhere it occurs without suffering through Find-Replace-Test, etc. etc.


- Dog-earMay 13, 08, 11:03 p.m. – Permalink
- moth
^^ That would almost make sense ^^
Arguing that CSS is broken is basically admitting that you don't understand it at all, and have no place working with the internet. The very fact you think the only down side to tables is no blind people and page loads only reaffirms that you have not understood (or care?) where the technology is headed, or how it is utilised.
However you dress up your wish to use tables, it has nothing to do with CSS not being "universal" or "efficient" - that is just laughable.

- Dog-earMay 14, 08, 5:43 a.m. – Permalink


