Re: Divs vs Tables?

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
<usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a query
about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs instead,
but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much prefer coding
with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different approach, a
different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too harsh. What you
really should try to do is write your documents with markup that actually
tells a browser of any kind what the elements are that you use. Structure
your documents logically and as semantically as possible. Normally you
would use a div (or a span for that matter) only if there is no more
appropriate element available.

What exactly are the benefits of using divs, apart from 'ease of use',

Once you have thus marked up and structured your document, any browser and
thus any visitor can get your content. So it has nothing to do with 'ease
of use', but all with accessibility. Usability is an other chapter.
Also you will find that, once you have mastered the use of correct markup
and structure for your pages, it is much more easy to maintain the lot
than it is with tables layout, especially if done by hand in an editor of
some sort, and not using a CMS. Both content and layout are seperate
issues in a site, if properly set up, and can be addressed as such,
seperately. You may not think much of that now, but once you try it and
understand it, you don't want to go back to tables layout anymore.

and can I get away with using tables instead?

Why would you want to 'get away with' something other than best? As I
said: it takes time to learn some new concept, give it time then. You
weren't born being able to code pages using tables, were you? It took time
to learn that too?
But, there is noone stopping you if that is what you mean. In some
countries though, accessibility is an issue that is regulated by law. Even
if this doesn't apply to you or your design situation, it might give you
something to think about.

Also, can someone point me to a good div tutorial online?

Maybe you should google this newsgroup (and others) for the discussions
that have been numerous, and along the way you're bound to find some URL
pointing to interesting articles and tutorials.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=tableless+design&as_oq=tables+tableles s+semantic+markup+structural&as_ugroup=alt.html%2A %2C+comp.infosystems.www.authoring%2A>

What you need is not a good div tutorial, but tutorials on proper markup
and on good use of cascading stylesheets.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different approach, a
different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too harsh. What you
really should try to do is write your documents with markup that
actually tells a browser of any kind what the elements are that you
use. Structure your documents logically and as semantically as
possible. Normally you would use a div (or a span for that matter)
only if there is no more appropriate element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment that
actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on css! A Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport and the
shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having to regress my
html ten years. Imagine a css interpreter that cannot handle margin and
padding on a fixed size viewport - not nice!

I'll go back to lurking now.

--
Andrew @ Rockface
www.rockface-records.co.uk

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
<andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different approach, a
different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too harsh. What you
really should try to do is write your documents with markup that
actually tells a browser of any kind what the elements are that you
use. Structure your documents logically and as semantically as
possible. Normally you would use a div (or a span for that matter)
only if there is no more appropriate element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment that
actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on css! A Video
on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport and the
shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having to regress my
html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might (and
probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned view on markup
and design to recognize such an exception and to deal with it wisely. And
it takes quite some time to develop that learned view, may I argue.

Imagine a css interpreter that cannot handle margin and
padding on a fixed size viewport - not nice!

LOL

I'll go back to lurking now.

Uh, that's a pitty. This one reply of yours makes me think you've got
quite something to contribute.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different approach,
a different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too harsh. What
you really should try to do is write your documents with markup that
actually tells a browser of any kind what the elements are that you
use. Structure your documents logically and as semantically as
possible. Normally you would use a div (or a span for that matter)
only if there is no more appropriate element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment that
actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on css! A
Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport
and the shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having
to regress my html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might (and
probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned view on
markup and design to recognize such an exception and to deal with it
wisely. And it takes quite some time to develop that learned view,
may I argue.

It's pretty nasty. I've even resorted to using empty nested tables to add
margin to one side of an existing table...shiver! And as for fitting content
in such a small area! Still it's a learning experience and keeps me busy.

Imagine a css interpreter that cannot handle margin and
padding on a fixed size viewport - not nice!


LOL

I'll go back to lurking now.


Uh, that's a pitty. This one reply of yours makes me think you've got
quite something to contribute.

Thanks, that's a nice thing to say. I have posted a few times before, once
for a site crit on my rockface-records (php generated html using divs for
layout), which I know has it's faults, and yes I know grey is dull but
that's the colour scheme of the hardcore punk community Sort of in the
process of rewritting it during lulls at work.

--
Andrew @ Rockface
www.rockface-records.co.uk

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:51:11 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
<andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different approach,
a different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too harsh. What
you really should try to do is write your documents with markup that
actually tells a browser of any kind what the elements are that you
use. Structure your documents logically and as semantically as
possible. Normally you would use a div (or a span for that matter)
only if there is no more appropriate element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment that
actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on css! A
Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport
and the shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having
to regress my html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might (and
probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned view on
markup and design to recognize such an exception and to deal with it
wisely. And it takes quite some time to develop that learned view,
may I argue.

It's pretty nasty. I've even resorted to using empty nested tables to add
margin to one side of an existing table...shiver! And as for fitting content
in such a small area!

Could you not have used a spacer.gif styled to an appropriate size? Or
a series of them?

BB



--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

Big Bill wrote:

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:51:11 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different
approach, a different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too
harsh. What you really should try to do is write your documents
with markup that actually tells a browser of any kind what the
elements are that you use. Structure your documents logically and
as semantically as possible. Normally you would use a div (or a
span for that matter) only if there is no more appropriate
element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment
that actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on
css! A Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport
and the shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having
to regress my html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might
(and probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned
view on markup and design to recognize such an exception and to
deal with it wisely. And it takes quite some time to develop that
learned view, may I argue.

It's pretty nasty. I've even resorted to using empty nested tables
to add margin to one side of an existing table...shiver! And as for
fitting content in such a small area!

Could you not have used a spacer.gif styled to an appropriate size? Or
a series of them?

That's exactly what I mean - I'm having to regress. I haven't used spacing
gif in a very long time. I'll give it a whirl, though I have to keep an eye
on page size as the Set Top Boxes have limited memory, plus tv users expect
pretty much instanateous page changes/transitions.

Cheers for that.

--
Andrew @ Rockface
www.rockface-records.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:22:41 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
<andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:51:11 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have a
query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use divs
instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with and much
prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different
approach, a different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too
harsh. What you really should try to do is write your documents
with markup that actually tells a browser of any kind what the
elements are that you use. Structure your documents logically and
as semantically as possible. Normally you would use a div (or a
span for that matter) only if there is no more appropriate
element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment
that actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on
css! A Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport
and the shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm having
to regress my html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might
(and probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned
view on markup and design to recognize such an exception and to
deal with it wisely. And it takes quite some time to develop that
learned view, may I argue.

It's pretty nasty. I've even resorted to using empty nested tables
to add margin to one side of an existing table...shiver! And as for
fitting content in such a small area!

Could you not have used a spacer.gif styled to an appropriate size? Or
a series of them?

That's exactly what I mean - I'm having to regress. I haven't used spacing
gif in a very long time. I'll give it a whirl, though I have to keep an eye
on page size as the Set Top Boxes have limited memory, plus tv users expect
pretty much instanateous page changes/transitions.

Cheers for that.

I thought designing for tv and that was all behind us now. Bummer.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

In news:b2bk51tdn5i67jsgtqi9f3ht0atjqp14d5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:22:41 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:51:11 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew @ Rockface"
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:37:10 +0000 (UTC), Andrew @ Rockface
andrew (AT) rockface-records (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Further to a critique request I made a short while ago, I have
a query about
tables vs divs. I was told to scrap my table coding and use
divs instead, but I find these very hard to get to grips with
and much prefer coding with
tables.

That's okay. It takes time to grasp an entirely different
approach, a different concept. 'Using divs instead' is a bit too
harsh. What you really should try to do is write your documents
with markup that actually tells a browser of any kind what the
elements are that you use. Structure your documents logically
and as semantically as possible. Normally you would use a div
(or a span for that matter) only if there is no more appropriate
element available.

Don't normally post, but I'm working on something at the moment
that actually forces me to use tables for layout and not rely on
css! A Video on
Demand system for TV. Because of the static size of a TV viewport
and the shit way in which the STB browser interprets css I'm
having to regress my html ten years.

There is allways the inevitable exception to the rule. This might
(and probably is) just be such an exception. It takes a learned
view on markup and design to recognize such an exception and to
deal with it wisely. And it takes quite some time to develop that
learned view, may I argue.

It's pretty nasty. I've even resorted to using empty nested tables
to add margin to one side of an existing table...shiver! And as for
fitting content in such a small area!

Could you not have used a spacer.gif styled to an appropriate size?
Or a series of them?

That's exactly what I mean - I'm having to regress. I haven't used
spacing gif in a very long time. I'll give it a whirl, though I have
to keep an eye on page size as the Set Top Boxes have limited
memory, plus tv users expect pretty much instanateous page
changes/transitions.

Cheers for that.

I thought designing for tv and that was all behind us now. Bummer.

what I'm doing is an interface/GUI for a Video on Demand system. It's all
pretty simple stuff. Each video has an xml file describing what it is
(category, title, certificate, review etc). My php then parses the xml and
builds a pages for the categories (inc next and previous buttons). You go
into a category and it'll show what film are available. You click on a film
and it'll show the film's details. The Step Top Boxes are capable of regular
web browsing but we'll probably turn that off. Only two php files and all
less than 300 lines of code, but I'm going to refine it this week to trim it
even more.

It's sort of fun, and at least I'll get to watch free films

--
Andrew @ Rockface
np: Punk 45 Radio - 700 Plus Vintage Punk Rock and New Wave records!!!
(RadioPower.org) www.rockface-records.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:21:42 +0100, "SqueakyWee"
<usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
newspsoyhc7k4x5vgts (AT) zoete_b (DOT) ..
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:53:30 +0100, SqueakyWee
usenet (AT) CUT_ITsqueakywee (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

snip

Thanks, your reply was very helpful. I've made my first attempt at using
DIVs to design the site, and it can be seen here:
http://blackbooks.squeakywee.co.uk. I wonder if you could take a look at it
for me? Also, any ideas on the general layout/design on the site would be
good.

Kat

Hi ya
I just looked at http://blackbooks.squeakywee.co.uk this morning
(19th) and the site does not look good at all in Firefox.

You can see a screen grab here:
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Forums/19th.jpg


HTH
plh
Paul


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----