CSS vs Tables

(_seb_) wrote:

See, I want to have text and images in my tabular data. And make it look
not too boring, because my users are not just screen readers, but also
humans. What is the result? a Table layout web site.

there's no rule that says it is bad to put an image into a table cell,
particularly if the image and the other row content (or column content,
I suppose) are related. Just because there's an image doesn't MEAN it's
a tabled layout. What most are speaking of are complex, nesty
multi-depth constructs that use tables just to isolate horizontal or
vertical blocks of content for appearance purposes only. That's a far
cry from a tabular layout of a directory of image thumbnails and
information, for example.

Think about it, in real world web design, how many times do you need a
table?

Just about everyday. Just to keep the 'real world web design' real:
'float' is not even properly supported by the Major Browser.

which browser? I use float quite often and x-browser and it seems to
work just fine for me.

Donna

(_seb_) wrote:

The "optimal choice" would be for tabular data;

See, I want to have text and images in my tabular data. And make it
look not too boring, because my users are not just screen readers,
but also humans. What is the result? a Table layout web site.

I have no clue what you're talking about, who said you can't have image with
your tabular data?

Think about it, in real world web design, how many times do you
need a > table?

Just about everyday. Just to keep the 'real world web design' real:
'float' is not even properly supported by the Major Browser.

You're kidding, right?
Use tables for whatever reason you want, but please don't tell people that
CSS is not supported by major browsers. It is just ridiculous.

--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....

Malcolm N..... wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:35:27 -0300, "Roby" <razubel (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:


Hi guys,
Are there any benefits in creating a CSS tableless web site instead of using
tables to place the elements.
Is it as professional to use tables and CSS to format the info inside it?

Any thoughts?



I have the same dilemma.

I've been producing amateur web sites for about 7 years - and until
about three years ago the advise was CSS / layers was rather too new
for many people using old browsers. So I didn't pay too much attention
until about a couple of years ago.

I've been using CSS for formatting text etc., in DW and about 6 months
ago thought I ought to try tableless pages, but found it a little
tricky - and put it aside for a while.

Since coming back to this forum - I have been surprised to read that
many professional web designers are still using tables at times, and
people here giving conflicting advice.

So I'm not going to rush into converting my existing site - which
works, but for a new site I'm planning for next year - I'll have to
think hard on what to use. Do I use CSS just because some think it's
the thing to do - will there be something better coming along that's
better.

There's a difference between using CSS for positioning and layout and

"using layers," particularly if you mean building those "layers" with
the draw layer tool in Dreamweaver. HUGE difference.

CSS layout is becoming the norm, imo. But I NEVER use the draw layer
tool. I try my best to semantically correct markup (html or xhtml), the
proper doctype, and reasonably uncomplicated css.

It takes practice and a lot of investigation into accepted designs -
trying to understand how they work. But the best way to start is to
start simple and not jump into trying do a complex graphic layout. It
wasn't easy to do with tables at first, either, remember? Try something
VERY simple, like a two column, fixed width, centered layout and
remember to check in BOTH mozilla-based and IE browsers WHILE working on
the layout - not AFTER the fact.

go for it! you'll never get comfortable with it if you don't try.

Donna

"Malcolm N....." <malcolm (AT) mgnixon (DOT) org.uk> wrote in message

I'm thinking of going on a DW course to learn more advanced things -
and this is an area I want to master.

Depends on what course you are considering. From what I've heard many of
the college teachers aren't up to speed themselves

You may be best served by following Adrians CSS tutorials at the MM site:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/dreamweaver/articles/css_concepts.html

Come to think of it, Adrian does hold training courses in the UK I believe -
he would be a great teacher! http://webade.co.uk/overview.cfm


--
Nadia
Team MM Volunteer for Dreamweaver
--------------------------------------------
http://www.csstemplates.com.au
Templates|CSS Templates|
Dropdown Menu Designs | SEO Articles |Tutorials
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
---------------------------------------------
Search this forum:
http://tinyurl.com/2rfa2
---------------------------------------------

Malcolm N..... wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:35:27 -0300, "Roby" <razubel (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:


Hi guys,
Are there any benefits in creating a CSS tableless web site instead of using
tables to place the elements.
Is it as professional to use tables and CSS to format the info inside it?

Any thoughts?



I have the same dilemma.

I've been producing amateur web sites for about 7 years - and until
about three years ago the advise was CSS / layers was rather too new
for many people using old browsers. So I didn't pay too much attention
until about a couple of years ago.

I've been using CSS for formatting text etc., in DW and about 6 months
ago thought I ought to try tableless pages, but found it a little
tricky - and put it aside for a while.

Since coming back to this forum - I have been surprised to read that
many professional web designers are still using tables at times, and
people here giving conflicting advice.

So I'm not going to rush into converting my existing site - which
works, but for a new site I'm planning for next year - I'll have to
think hard on what to use. Do I use CSS just because some think it's
the thing to do - will there be something better coming along that's
better.

you should definitely learn about css, and more than for styling fonts
and colors, that is, also to position elements.
css positioning is great as it offers many other options, and more
subtle options than tables.
However building a table-less website using only css positioning is very
tricky, for two reasons:
first, IE rendering of css is quite buggy (or different from the other
browsers) and you need to apply many more, or different styles
attributes to your styles than you would think, even when you get a good
understanding of css-p. This makes using css-p a much more complicated
practice than it should be. (in a previous post, I was refering to IE
not properly supporting 'float' for example. Don't just think you can
apply a float-right to a div. It will work in most browsers, but IE will
require you to add more attributes to your div in order to actually make
it float-right, and this will become very complicated very fast).
Second, columns and rows, which are a natural building process with
tables, requires many unnatural tricks to emulate with css-p (sometimes
you can't).
All in all css-p is a great additional tool for layout.
In my everyday work-load I still use tables a lot because they are much
more intuitive, fast and reliable in many cases.
Finally, some options such as vertical centering are ONLY available with
tables (as in <td valign="bottom"> for example). There is no css-p
feature that can do that cross-browser.

--
seb ( --- (AT) webtrans1 (DOT) com)
http://webtrans1.com | high-end web design
Downloads: Slide Show, Directory Browser, Mailing List

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com wrote:

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Spoken like a true zealot.
Just remember, you went through tables to get where you are now.
Building solid tables is an essential element of being a
webdeveloper....

I speak from *experience*.

I disagaree with you. From my experience its far easier in certain
situation to just put a two column table on the page if you want a two
column layout somewhere within the main structure of the page, which may
be an all <div> affair. Not to mention if I need a background in the
wrapper to create the impression that the two side-by-side <divs> are
the same height I have to create a repeating gif image <div> into the
bargain.....humm seems not very economical to me.

Personally I got tired of having to create a wrapper and then two <divs>
inside of that, plus write the css, just to do this simple operation.
Once off it might be fun but if you need to do this constantly
throughout the site because pages do not conform ridgidly to a template,
it can and does become very, very tedious.

For me it comes down to a matter of choice. I now, after many months
experimenting, do not think one method is better than another. I look at
the situtaion and make my decision based on what needs to be done.

Just my opinion.

Huh?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"(_seb_)" <seb (AT) webtrans1 (DOT) com> wrote

The "optimal choice" would be for tabular data;

See, I want to have text and images in my tabular data. And make it look
not too boring, because my users are not just screen readers, but also
humans. What is the result? a Table layout web site.

Think about it, in real world web design, how many times do you need a
table?

Just about everyday. Just to keep the 'real world web design' real:
'float' is not even properly supported by the Major Browser.


--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....

--
seb ( --- (AT) webtrans1 (DOT) com)
http://webtrans1.com | high-end web design
Downloads: Slide Show, Directory Browser, Mailing List

Well, after reading through the entire thread. I am starting to see a bit of
ignorance in my previous statement yesterday. I guess I was just looking at
tables as a stricly a layout tool. It seems they do have their place.
Orignally, the whole reason I got dreamweaver was for it's CSS ability and
really focused on that.

This is why I love this forum. Even just reading through threads you can pick
up a hell of a lot of information.

So to all you expirienced developers, thanks for enlightening a novice...

Thanks for posting. Remember - there are as many different points of view
as there are people replying to the threads. But my particular point of
view is the really correct one. 8)

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"Mack879w" <kassab.j (AT) deptford (DOT) k12.nj.us> wrote

Well, after reading through the entire thread. I am starting to see a bit
of
ignorance in my previous statement yesterday. I guess I was just looking
at
tables as a stricly a layout tool. It seems they do have their place.
Orignally, the whole reason I got dreamweaver was for it's CSS ability and
really focused on that.

This is why I love this forum. Even just reading through threads you can
pick
up a hell of a lot of information.

So to all you expirienced developers, thanks for enlightening a novice...

they'll certainly won't look at the code.
I was wondering if there was any tangible advantage, but for what's been
written on the thread it's not too black and white.
Guess I'll read a few more tutorials, about it.

Just another question, based on what Osgood says about the two columns.
Doesn't it takes more amount of code to use CSS than tables, doesn't it
makes it slower? Am I missing the point?

Cheers

Roby

"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote

It depends on who you ask. I prefer CSS-based layouts, and you might, too
after playing with them for a while. Don't give up too easily. You'll
have
to shed a lot of old habits and misconceptions. If, in the end, you still
prefer using tables, then only a few people will want to shoot you. I
doubt
your customers will be viewing the source on your page and taking their
business elsewhere if they disagree with your layout habits.


"Roby" <razubel (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dkdl80$1p2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com...
Hi guys,
Are there any benefits in creating a CSS tableless web site instead of
using
tables to place the elements.
Is it as professional to use tables and CSS to format the info inside
it?

Any thoughts?

Cheers

roby