What do you guys think about using table-based layouts that validate (i.e. my site - link in signature)? Is this frowned upon?
Validation itself means very little. It's a baseline, and every site should validate, but in-and-of itself, it is not a suitable criterion for evaluating the quality of a site's engineering. Valid markup is nothing more than the set of tools a Web developer uses to mark up a page. You can still use those tools properly or improperly, and to answer your question, yes, using tables to serve up a layout is generally considered a poor way to use those tools, for all the reasons you can find by searching for the many debates on the matter. Think accessibility, think semantic validity, think WCAG (as best as one can think of it), think rendering speeds, bandwidth expenses and SEO-friendly markup. Tables as a layout device often threatens some of these areas, and in many cases, all of them, validity notwithstanding.
I person think they are fine, as long as the site does as it is needed to and it looks good. I personly like you site but i do know some very badly done tebled sites. - John
That's false. Some styling is in your HTML structure, your page is only valid to HTML 4.01 Transitional (i.e. easy to make valid), your CSS file has errors, your page doesn't work properly in IE5. Turning off JavaScript breaks parts of your site (could you imagine finding the will to delete all your text in the contact form page to get a message to you?) Your design is quite nice (apart from the crap rounded corner effects in places), but the page wreaks of some kid out of school, doing work for a bit of cash on the side. Now to the text... "This is just a picture I made for a friend when I was bored" Uh great, thanks for letting me know that you have a lot of free time, aren't busy and the girl on the picture didn't sleep with you, although you want her to. "I made this image as a sort of "inside joke" for a class I was taking at school. " Do we care? We want to know what that'll do for us, not about your life history! "The idea was his, and I'm grateful that he took me in on the project." Aww, someone gave you a job! The blog is pretty bad as well. You don't know your profession and touting your work as premium web and graphics design isn't right. I'd get some books on design basics (alignment) and web coding. However, get as many jobs as you can get. Use them to learn and increase your skill. Offer a fair price for your services and keep learning.
having to code the page in tables = extra code on the page = bigger page size = slower page loading times. sometimes you needs tables to sort a page out, but if it can be done in CSS its better, and loads a bit quicker (and saves on your bandwidth bills a little)
Well, bandwidth isn't really an issue. About the page sizes, do you think they're large enough to recode the site for pure XHTML/CSS?
tables can still be useful and given the fact that "all css" designs invariably include hacks for the different browsers a new user can be forgiven for taking the conservative path. Yes CSS is better but tables aren't all bad. style="background: #FEFEFE url(images/arrow.gif);" Code (markup): this kind of thing is ok in the very odd instance where you are trying to acheive something as a one off. On your homepage in the integral design? no - should be in the stylesheet. But when alls said and done this guy's site is one of the better startup designer sites. I can find you plenty that are worse...
That's not so much of an issue as the fact that you're advertising development as a service, and if you're using less-than-optimal markup techniques on your own site, you run the risk of this reflecting on you negatively. A friend of mine once said she would never go to a doctor if she knew he was a smoker, if you get the meaning behind that one. I've not seen a design that requires hacks. I've seen designs where the designer chose to employ hacks, but you can produce practically any layout using only well chosen, perfectly normal, valid CSS markup. Just because someone's markup is tableless, doesn't mean it's good - it just means one particular mistake isn't being made
After reading your rather rude post, AdamSee, I switched the site over to XHTML. Yes, I know there are a few minor glitches, but some of the stuff you said before was uncalled for.
You wasn't the only person who thought that! You did get an insight into some pure honesty on your site, but it was a bit anal admittedly. Keep up the learning, it isn't easy no matter what anyone says.