HTML Table
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- johnnnnyh0
This was the other time we spoke about this . . .
http://www.qbn.com/topics/547371…
I see my mate moth has already added his comments on this thread. Most of my thoughts on this are contained in the previous link. I would say that a few years back I laboured over a site with a client who insisted on following webstandards to the letter. We completed and handed over the site which was then buggered about with and all hard work lost. I suspect at times, the table solution will be used to just fix and get out quick.
Nevertheless, since there are a few layout designs which *only* and table can hold together without it screwing up I may consider them a (not very nice) option for marking up a page when all other options have run out (including time).
- ernexbcn0
tables still have uses, but not for the whole page layout
- ismith0
Just to get back to this thread... I don't think CSS is broken at all... just that it's unintuitive for accomplishing a task that tables do very fluidly, which is an auto-spaced grid. I know how to do what I want with CSS, and if it were going to be changed frequently it would obviously make sense to do it with external CSS, but this just isn't the case. If the "table" tag was renamed "grid" I definitely believe everyone would love it...
But to update, the whole page layout is certainly done with CSS. The tables portion seems like a better option only for a small portion, but we'll see how it goes (actually, you guys probably won't. soon anyway). The point of the thread & my question was to ask why the hell I should continue to follow web "standards" even when they're inefficient and not cross-compatible? Take tables out of the equation and see if that makes sense at all, because to me it's just stupid.
IMO the usefulness of web standards is determined on a case-by-case evaluation and even though web standards will be the best option 99% of the time, there is still room for the standard not to fit the workflow or layout method.
- editor0
Blueprint CSS is the new table..
- moth0
"why the hell I should continue to follow web "standards" even when they're inefficient and not cross-compatible?"
You're obviously using some version of the internet that nobody else does.
Or - you don't understand CSS.
- rafalski0
Here we go for the 1345th time!
Moth, you're right that many people in the industry and actually in this thread don't seem to understand the value of presentation/content separation, semantic markup and all the good that comes with CSS.
This doesn't change the fact, that CSS has very annoying flaws in its design and the giant step forward it is, it is a bit of a step back as well. This could've been avoided. Easily.
Probably the main reason is the way it emerged - not by evolution and real life testing, but from drawing boards of a group of nerds.
It wasn't a gradual process of real life checks. Well, at least there wasn't enough of such process.
Real world, real browser evolution was seen ie. in browsers' 'quirksmode' rendering which was browsers' makers direct answer to developers' needs. These hints were neglected by CSS err.. fathers, who went exactly in the opposite direction.
As for tables for layout, they were good in the way they worked, even if a mess structure/code wise. They weren't replaced by a good similar tool ('display: table' is stupidly overcomplicated and doesn't fully duplicate table behaviour).
There wouldn't be this discussion, or the thousands before this one had CSS not been flawed like that.
CSS is good, only sloppily designed.
- moth0
There's nothing sloppy about it!
It changes the presentation of HTML markup, which, given a few changes, has remained pretty much the same since 1999.
Your approach to the web (and most peoples on here it seems) is to think about it in terms of a design tool. It isn't. It's structural markup. It's hierarchy. It's a relative of XML. It was developed by programmers, for programmers, for consistent communication of data. The ONLY time it fails, is when you approach it with a set of "real-world" rules in your head. You want it to play nicely with Adobe CS3, you want it to be easy, you short-cuts and plenty of them because you can't be bothered to understand how or why the tools work as they do. You seriously need to change your approach.
The fault, is with you rafalski, johnnnnyh, ismith. Learn the how's and why's, and you will not have ANY problems building that which you realise.
- maximillion_0
css is a huge step forward over tables, the problems with "it" is browser developers like M$ who consistently dont abide by the standards and create a load of work for digital in the process - the box model being an example
- Actually not, microsoft dumped their box model in IE 5 The saddest thing is, their box model was better.rafalski
- hyt0
I think ismith fails at web design...
- moth0
- johnnnnyh0
So what you're saying, moth, is we're all wrong because we see and note the flaws in the system and you're right because you don't think it's flawed if you view CSS and not being used for design but as an add on to the communication of data.
I can see where you're coming from but aren't you forgetting that CSS is about styling the mark-up and by styling we're really focusing on designing and layout. So, as designers it is legitimate to note that it doesn't work in quite the way we expected it to and more importantly as a method used before (ie Tables) did.
If you think CSS is faultless I suggest you haven't really used it enough or pushed it enough and I do think you're on your own with that view. However I would agree that learning the how's and why's will assist in creating most of the designs people want to produce. Nevertheless, what most people, except moth, think is that there are some things it was just easier to do using a table.
- rafalski0
Moth, CSS deals with presentation of structured html data - as you say.
What I'm saying, it could've been better and more usable without interfering with xml semantics. Forget tables for a while, fuck the tables actually. It's about small and not justified by the general idea decisions CSS creators made that caused developers lots of pain in the ass and in some cases were strictly political - anti-Microsoft, to be precise.
- johnnnnyh0
"It's about small and not justified by the general idea decisions CSS creators made that caused developers lots of pain"
I agree with this too, rafalski. It's not just about tables, although they in some ways illustrate part of the point.
- moth0
I've been working with a pretty damn good ruby developer over the last few months, and the faults in my own skills in development have been getting less and less. There is a HUGE divide between properly trained developers and "developers". I can only hope I continue to learn from this guy. Most of my programmatic errors are simply down to the way I think. If you have a computer science degree, you'll instinctively understand why HTML and CSS is how it is.
Designers turned web-developers (like me) are actually starting to fill me with dread.
Most people here, and myself included, really are riding the coat tails of giants.
- moth0
DAMN. Jonny. Tables were NEVER meant for layout. Null and Void. Next.
- maximillion_0
johnnny,
you can style table elements with CSS as well as semantic markup, the problem is that creating web pages isnt just about how easy it is for the designers to adapt flats to html pages, there's a whole host of other apects involved and reasons to use XHTML and CSS. trying to justify the use of tables over css with this argument just doesnt cut it, separating design from content has big benefits over the use of tables.there are lots of users who posts threads on here (more so a few years ago when more ppl made the transition) and its generally visual designers who post them and the reasons are that they dont understand how to use the new tools (CSS & XHTML) more often than not these ppl are championing CSS months later after they invested their time in learning to use the technology
- johnnnnyh0
"There is a HUGE divide between properly trained developers and "developers". - absolutely agree 100% with this and rest of your point. I think it's worrying on every level too. Personally, because one realises one's faults and professionally becuase despite the gulf in skill levels there's still people out there making a living despite their skill set.
- maximillion_0
not sure why yr using quote marks as that's not a quote and you also seem to be agreeing with something you wrote in your own thread.
my point wasnt about developers but designers adapting to CSS & HTML
- it is a quote - see moth above. I never said this!!johnnnnyh
- johnnnnyh0
"creating web pages isnt just about how easy it is for the designers to adapt flats to html pages" -
The point I'm making is that while css is great in 9 out of 10 instances it is not 100% perfect. This would be fine except when one finds that there are things which could be done which now can't be done quite as efficiently (I use this word instead of easily as I'm not trying to short cut anything here).
And before anyone gets too worked up over this I never use tables for layout, but I do accept that there were things I used to do with a table that are now more challenging (three column layouts springs to mind for example which expand but do not crash back in on one another).
ASIDE --- I'm actually refreshed by having a real design/mark-up discussion on here by the way, rather than the usual boob and what's your favourite chat up line threads.