wich is the better? I still use tables becouse I'm used to do it and becouse I find it more simply. I don't see any moral wrong in doing that
There's nothing morally wrong with using tables. Using strictly CSS produces much lighter HTML code, which in theory will give your content more relevance on the page. If you have 20k of HTML with tables, and 5k of content, your content only makes up 20% of your page. If you have 10k of HTML with CSS, and the same 5k of content, your content now makes up 33% of the page. Get it?
I think theirs benefits to using CSS for design, as iTISTIC says for SEO and also for faster page loads. But, don't think its probably even a noticable difference in either one. I use CSS for the styling but tables for the design, and I like it and have no inclination to change. If I had the choice of a tableless vs table layout, of course it'd be tableless... but it's much easier for me to use tables and I always get the browser output I want.
I try to use CSS for EVERYthing Im a CSS junkie, but sometimes its just not possible, so a mix is good.
I actually use css then and then but I think tables are much better for the ground layout(left sidebar and right content).
Depends on the layout of the site. For 3 column layouts I always use a table. For 1 or 2 column layouts, CSS. Break away from column layouts and always CSS. But, either way you choose, you should be familiar with CSS layouts because that knowledge will give you quite a bit more power over your layouts than purely HTML layouts.
Tables are not wrong, but why use them when there is a better way. CSS for layout is simply a better way of doing layout.
We cant entirely switch to layers (css based tableless design) because to present recorded data, we have to use tables. We cant replace tables there, like take a forum indexpage for example. The row contatins colums forum title, last thread, no of threads and like that. That is a presentation of recorded data and we cannot remove a n x 5 table with layers. So use layers when ever possible and tables whenever its unavoidable. the idea is to follow the XHTML 1.0 or what ever your html tag says as the page DOCTYPE, strictly.
If you re-code a page that used tables for layout using CSS and the end result was MORE HTML code, then it would obviously make sense to stick with the table-based layout you already had in place. Once has to know when it will be more, and when it will be less. Keep in mind you'd place all CSS in a seperate file, so all you would have in each page is the HTML for that page. On another note, however, I've yet to see a table -> CSS layout change that resulted in larger HTML files. I do suppose it is possible, however, but would assume it's VERY rare.
If you're just starting out learning, you'd be taking a major leap back by learning tables... just not worth it these days.
Tables have a purpose - they present tabular data. If you're trying to present data clearly, a table is often the best choice. One must distinguish the purpose for which a table is being used. Generally, if the purpose is layout, CSS is a better choice.
Let's face it: Under the vast majority of circumstances, spiders don't care and human visitors don't care one whit whether a page uses tables or CSS. Use what works and what you are comfortable with and get on with your life.
Is everyone forgetting that using <div>'s rather than tables actually makes your site accessible to screen readers... I'd say that's the key point here - using pure CSS layouts mean that *everyone* (Unless they're on ie5 on mac, in which case they should upgrade anyway ) will be able to see your sites.
Are you saying that screen readers cannot read tables? If so, maybe the visitor should forget about updating the browser for a moment and update the screen reader...
No they can, but they say "Table", "Row", "Column" when they come across one... It's pretty lame, but tables weren't meant to be used for design.