Are so-called developers talking rubbish when...

They knock the use of CSS? I must admit until about a year ago, I was what has become known as "old-school" in that I stuck everything in tables. Whereas this practice was fine a few years ago when there was little other way to line up elements in a complex layout, its not really so acceptable these days with the power of CSS.

I was talking to a developer only recently, and whilst the layout looked great and did the job, it was littered with tables within tables within tables. When I queried their use (there was only one use of tables to display tabular data) I got a barrage of abuse, insisting that I obviously knew nothing about creating web pages and that tables are far better than CSS, you can't do this and that with CSS etc etc.

Apart from being stunned, it got me thinking - how much can you do with tables that you can't with CSS? Did this guy have a point? I must say I happily use CSS for everything I do these days, and whilst I have run into quirks between browsers, there has been nothing without a workaround thus far.

Am I naive or was this developer intent on taking the easy route? Let's face it, I can still put something in table form within minutes whereas CSS might take me a little longer to get everything lined up as I want, but I feel absolutely no reward from doing this.

 

Tables are for tabular data. Layout isn't tabular data.

He's a lazy developer with little passion for his work and he'll suffer in the long run. Table design is easier. Although CSS design should be, there's still many browsers quirks to accomodate.

Using layers and CSS for layout, makes the code much cleaner, search engine optimisation becomes easier, bandwidth savings and better accessibility.

 

Hmmm... the barrage of abuse & condescention do not sound particularly savoury...

Tables are easy but (codewise) bulky for layout, and to do excellent CSS takes skill & patience. Have a look at CSS Zen Garden for inspiration

 

Preaching to the converted, Lever - I love CSS and sites like CSS Zen really are a tribute to the power. Same content, different stylesheet, radically different layout - I barely thought it possible when I first saw that site

No the comments were a little harsh considering I only asked why he went the tabular route!

That was my thought Adam, though I wanted some more opinions on this since I'm far from coder of the month material.

*Off topic, I used to live in Chesterfield (moved to Edinburgh for University).

 

I went from pure tables to pure CSS to a mixture of the two.

CSS is just annoying at times, largely due to browser incompatibilities.

 

Same here, I normally use a single table for my initial layout and css from there. I have a couple pure css sitesm but I find them to be more consistant if I start from a table.

 

People will pay good money to have a decent CSS layout that works on all browsers.

That's interesting Cobalt, what are you studying that covers web design? I'm sure you can find my age and pictures of me, from links on and from the four shapes site. Let me know if you knew me!

 

It's funny, I guess. I always thought table layouts were a royal PITA. Then with IE6 in 2001, and Phoenix .5 in 2002, css layouts became practical. The abandonment of NN4 was the golden moment, though.

I haven't coded a table layout in over three years, now, and I doubt that I could anymore. Once you know IE's shortcomings and bugs, the fixes become second nature. And fast? CSS layout coding runs circles around coding tables. I can can code just about any layout in little more than the time it takes to type the content. Then a little tweaking and it's done.

Sorry, table fanboys. If coding css is harder for you, it's only because you haven't learned it well yet.

cheers,

gary

 

Web design? I'm studying Physics - although I'm chained to the computer day and night, I do a spot of web design and write articles purely for the enjoyment. The few quid it brings in are a bonus too!

Fraid I'm not familiar with you, but its very strange to be looking at pictures of the crooked spire and reviews of the Green Room. Wasn't that long since I was a regular, though I preferred it after the numerous police raids. At least you could see from one side of the room to the other afterwards

I agree with you fully Gary - I used to be a fan of tables but that was because I knew and understood them, it was the easy route basically. Fortunately I moved into the realms of CSS after it became really usable, and I'm yet to come across any quirk that can't be fixed with a quick workaround. Sure I would rather not have to work around to get something that looks great in FF to look the same in IE, but it's a minor inconvenience to be working nearer todays standards.

 

I can see why people stil use tables, but to attack you like that is completely unwarranted. If they want to take their tables to the grave that's what they will do along with their future developing websites. People need to understand that times change. And, if you don't change with them, you'll be left in the dust either by some younger hot shot, or someone who is willing to learn something new. You can teach an old dog new tricks.

 

O nested tables, how ugly thou art!

Tables for layout = wrong. They are bulky, ugly, and that isn't their purpose. It sounds like the person who suggested otherwise is too lazy to learn to do things the proper way. CSS layouts are very easy after just a little bit of practice and CSS can do anything that a table can. CSS can also cut down on the data transfer when the pages all use the same CSS file(s) compared to each table page with its own table(s).

Did you ask him/her if s/he still uses the font tag?

 

I usually will have each sub-section of the site share another css sheet to keep formatting form those smaller sections together. Really it's just to make my life easier.

 

Tables and CSS both have their uses in real web design.

I design both in CSS and Tables, and I find both have good points and bad points. CSS is easier, less bulky, easier to troublshoot, and reuseable most of the time. However i canot see myself making a very complex layout in CSS such as http://famousqt.com. Some clients want flashy graphics and a cool navigation bar that would take forever to be done with just css.

Tablular layouts
http://practicalart.ca
http://famousqt.com

CSS Layouts
http://broadbandrates.info
http://flashygamers.com
http://seohelp.info

 

@tgo: The famousqt page would be a PITA either way, but the html would be much simpler w/o the the gawdawful nested tables. I suspect the css version would be easier to maintain, and certainly easier to alter.

The practicalart page is simple. It would be no problem in css, and certainly wouldn't break with the first font size increase as the table version does.

To repeat myself: "If coding css is harder for you, it's only because you haven't learned it well yet."

cheers,

gary

 

You could do all those designs in CSS. The famousqt one I'd absolute position all the hover boxes and made the whole image a background. The page also doesn't work as well without javascript - you could make it work fine with just CSS.

Tables aren't for full blown layouts and I'm confident enough in my skills to be able to emulate any table layout... Of course except when laying out tabular data.

 

The problem I have with CSS is that I only have enough skill to keep <div> tags from fucking up.

 

CSS is better from an SEO perspective as well, it get's code off of the page and raises the importance of the content in the search engines view. I've seen pages where the content doesn't even make an appearance in the code until three quarters of the way down the page. Never good for SEO

 

Very true.

I used to be addicted to tables, and just recently converted to all CSS layouts. I can't imagine turning back! For quick and dirty pages, I still find myself using tables, but in general CSS is a lot more fun to work with, not to mention cleaner code!

 

use the best of both worlds
most of the times a layout with 1 table (exactly ONE) and all the rest done in CSS is the best in terms of code-cleanness and speed of development
the table is used for the basic layout while the css is used for the rest, that way you don'thave to deal with all the browser hacks and problems while still keeping good code

 

I would consider it very rare that a table would be either better or faster—assuming one has become very experienced with CSS layouts, that is.