CSS vs Tables
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- squidfingers0
It's not too early for xhtml/css. It is already very sophisticated, it's just my opinion that most designers aren't aware of the concept of how you're suppose to code xhtml/css. It's alot more than just closing and lowercasing your tags, it's a whole different way of laying out the content. I've found that divs are more powerful than tables, as long as you're not trying to still code your site like a table layout.
- mvb0
XHTML/CSS is a good thing. You have to take some extra care with the code to get it right in all platforms/browsers, but the more designers use it the more browsers will take it seriously.
When it come down to it, you go with what works the best for the project. In my opinion validated html is just as effective.
Valid working code is valid working code. Validated XHTML/CSS is great, but don't make things harder than they need to be.
- CAJTBr0
i feel bad using tables, but i still have to do it occasionally. tables make code messy and overcomplex. css makes code simple, but css with all the hacks you have to implement to get it to work right cross-browser can be just as messy.
standards will be good when they truly exist. at the moment, there are too many browsers in circulation that don't support them for them to even really be called standards.
thenoodleincident's box models are prime examples - half of them don't even display right in ie5.5, let alone netscape4.7, which depending on your (or your client's) target audience, can make tables the only viable option. sure, the noodleincident argue that if you stick to the standards, in 20 years time people will still be able to view your site, but that will hardly reassure a client who wants a website which is viewable and good looking today.
one of the main problems i find with css is that it is painful to use if you want cross-browser sites that look pretty. it's easy to make sites that have that css look (again eg thenoodleincident, and most of the sites it links to), but if you're dealing with imported content (and thus can't usually use absolute positioning) simple things like keeping bottoms of columns aligned become a real mess.
- sp0
I think an important distinction to make here, in order to better understand both this debate and technologies involved in web design is that XHTML and CSS work correctly. It is the web browsers that do not implement standards correctly.
In reality, the only reason why using DIV and CSS doesn't work is because of poor browser rendering.
Also noteworthy to this debate is the fact that both Tables and DIVs validate XHTML compliant.
The argument has never been using DIVs over Tables because of validation, it is because the schema and standard specification written by the W3C states that Tables are meant for tabular data not layout.
Another important ideology to put aside is that the use of Tables for layout purposes was a bastardized incantation from designers not from the creators of Markup, the Web or standards.
The reason why DIV is the correct way is because it follows the doctrine of web design.
I can design a car with 20 doors which all open different ways, but it's not a correct implementation of the technology.
Mr. mvb makes a very sound point, the important thing is Validation. Code must be well formed and written clearly, concisely and correctly.
I am a major antagonist of Tables for layout purposes, but the underlying importance of web design is validation by means of W3 recomendations.
As long as CSS, XHTML/HTML validate, I really can't argue with how the designer built the site.
[Note: I do however have a problem with designers whom don't want to learn the proper way of designing sites]
Learning how to use DOCTYPE effectively to create valid and correct markup is most important.
This means learning what tags, elements and attributes are now defunct. For example "height" property in some tags no longer exists, nor does "center" tags.
Because separation of style and content is so important to the life of the web, all "layout" centric elements are being expunged from valid markup.
This is why XML is so important. Even if you never use XML technologies in a design, everyone should learn XML for the simple structure and form of the markup.
The problem is, that as long as designers continue to write poorly formed markup and ignore correct, standards compliant code, bad browsers will linger. If you want to get rid of Netscape 4.7 from clients computers, stop designing for it.
Netscape doesn't even support tha browser anymore, why should we?
And, for those who asked for resurces, take a weekend and check out some of these sites:
http://www.alistapart.com
http://www.webstandards.org
http://www.w3schools.com
http://www.w3.org
http://www.meryl.net/css/
http://glish.com/css/It is aslo worth noting, that proper design standards mean more than just web page layout. Fonts and Scalable graphics can be created by proper coding (XML/SVG), communication with software, services, etc are achieved through standards. The power of web standards goes way beyond that of creative web sites.
- sp0
Hm. lets rewrite the follow paragraph, shall we...
"Another important ideology to put aside is that the use of Tables for layout purposes was a bastardized incantation from designers not from the creators of Markup, the Web or standards."
To just ->
"Tables for layout purposes was a bastardized incantation from designers, whom didn't know proper standards, not from the creaters of Markup, the Web, Recomendations or standards."
I'm not sure why I mixed thoughts up there....
- ********0
heh...
good points tho, sp!
- unknown0
this is far less angering than the previous thread.
=)I agree with sp, totally.
- enobrev0
just to comment to mr dobolina, you can set imageready (at least the one that comes with ps7) to output css based layouts. Which basically puts all the images into divs and uses absolute positioning to place em.
- sp0
I'm too wiped out from work today to be pissy, bitter and/or cynical. Sorry to disappoint.
:)
On a completely personal note - I think Imageready is a blight on the design software populous. It's like using softare to generate your work for you.
You just come up with a picture and "poof" here's your markup. It removes all aspects of knowledge and skill from web design - more so than WYSIWYG editors. In doing so, and by using it, you are saying that you - as a designer - are no better than little Billy the six year old kid down the street who makes 'web pages' for his family.
In my humble opinion of course.
But then again, I don't do web design anymore...so really, I don't care.
Oh, seems the cynic in me is peeking out again. (And not "cynic" in the good way for all you afficionado's of Greek history)
:)
- digitalspiri0
all depends on what you're doing. i use a hearty mixture, but always use CSS when possible...CSS2 has a hard time centering, esp. vertically. but yeah - XHTML & CSS2 is most def. the way of the future, i code everything i can that way and deprecate into tables as necessary...but let's not forget even in an XHTML/CSS model, tables serve an accepted purpose when presenting tabular data - such as charts, comparisons, etc.
dS
- kpl0
tables are a blight and should never be used again. Tables are not only technically wrong, but they are morally wrong. look at whitehouse.gov, they use tables.
- ********0
i agree
- jevad0
unfortunately the REALITY od the situation (and don't get me wrong here because I agree with sp) is that we are going to have to keep designing with tables until:
a) clients get a clue about browsers and standards - and it's up to us to educate them
b) OTHER designers we are wroking with get a clue about browsers and standards (it's no good me designing and coding a CSS/XHTML site if my fellow team members aren't knowledgeable about it!)
c) ALL browsers SUPPORT STANDARDS. Not jsut a little bit - but through and through - exactly the same way. No shitty little buggy fixing for one browser or another. You code the CSS and the XHTML the way it is supposed to be coded and it looks the same in every. fucking. browser.
Until that day comes - I will be happy using my tables thanks very much.
*Steps off high horse*
^_^
- unknown0
Here Here!
- unknown0
Just before Christmas we were working with a Big Telecommunications company for an intranet site... and their browser spec was Netscape 4.7 !
- ximeraLabs0
gotta agree with jevad and sp here.
we can push all we want, if the browsers and audience client isn't picking it up we might as well hit our heads against the wall.But we have to keep hitting it until it breaks ;)
- Blofeldt0
We did the UK's largest office supplies company and their headquarters use Netscape 4.7. And I think all of The London Institute use it too.
It's out there.
- jevad0
you see?
Hitting our heads against a brick wall....NN4.7 for fuck's sake.
- mvb0
I don't think that one day clients are just going to hit themselves on the heads and say 'Oh! Now I get standards!". You have to sell them in on the advantages of standards compliance and valid code. Tell them that forward compatibility is just as important as backward compatibility. Tell them that by shaving about 20k off of every page on the site they can cut down on bandwidth. Tell them that accessability is important and that it is in their benefit that people with disabilities have access to the information on their site.
When all else fails, put it all in money terms. That's all clients understand anyhow.
If we don't push it, it doesn't flourish. If they already got it we wouldn't have secrataries designing websites in Frontpage.
- mvb0
Nice site in XHTML 1.0 Strict.