Are tables as bad as they say?

Well never say never lol

 

Look at the big sites.

Most try to "work" and don't worry about w3 compliance.

If you can code a table faster and it looks good - use it. It doesn't hurt you in search engines or in any other way. .... Actually the only draw back to table based designs is bandwidth . In general a table layout is a little larger.

 

Hi,

After reading this thread i decided to go for CSS but i am highly disappointed by it. I started with a basic tutorial and as soon as it got into advanced things the browser compatability issues started coming which is very sad.

Some code according to W3C works good in IE and not in FF and some works good in FF and not IE.Then there is screen resolution problem which is causing issues...i mean do i really make 2 version of pages and then put a javascript first to determine the browser type and they do the output ?

This is more time wasting that using tables. If by css the page size reduces by 50% then meaning a 400 kb page will get to 200 kb..but does someone really borthers about it ?

* When did you last checked the size of the webpage you wanted to check out ?
* Did you stopped downloading it becuase it was not in CSS and it size was mroe than x kb ?

I mean no offence but when it gets stable i will definately use it. But according to me the time is not right as of now. There are lot of issues to deal with but ofcourse you can surely use the standard stuff with tables to reduce size as much as possible and take benefits of CSS by using style sheet to define fonts colours etc. in 1 single go which is good.

Thanks.

 

CSS isn't any harder to learn than anything else, even with the remaining browser inconsistencies that one must overcome (these diminish with every browser browser release). At some point, you had to learn how tables are put together, how to create rows, how to pad/space cells, how to create cells within those rows, how to align objects, how to apply backgrounds and colors, etc. I'll wager most people learned all of this, and still didn't learn about proper use of table headings, table summaries and other finer points of tables.

That's a whole lot to cover, especially when you're putting so much effort into creating something using inferior methods. Take that came amount of energy and direct it toward proper development techniques.

As for search engines, lean, well organized markup can make a significant impact on a site's indexability and rank. Are you familiar with those "Where's Waldo" books? You eventually find Waldo on every page if you look hard enough, but you have to filter out a lot of noise in the meantime. If Waldo was on a blank piece of paper on each page, you'd sure go through that book quickly, right? It really isn't very different for search engines. They want to find what's important, they do look through markup (they must, else they wouldn't be able to give weight to items that are tagged properly, which they do!), and the more noise you filter out for them, the happier they are. I've seen some dramatic improvements in SE placement as the result of site reengineering in my time. Don't knock it until you've tried it!

 

Hi,

Maybe you're correct but recently i optimized my own website which was earlier made in frontpage and all pages had in the website were usinf full font tags etc so the page size was quite big.

One day i decided to change the tags etc. to basic css so the size reduces. The PR5 website has dropped to PR4 from that. No content was changed etc. only <font etc. was removed and class=" was added and yes pagesize also reduced alot which made me happy too but in this PR update the PR has also dropped

Thanks.

 

@InnovativeWebNola

It is true that IE is the majority browser, and will be for the foreseeable future. We all have to code for it, but, thankfully, not in it. I stand by my statement, there is no sane reason to use tables other than not yet being competent with css-p. I haven't done a table layout since sometime in 2003, and I can code a page damned near as quickly as I can type it in. IE presents virtually no problem, as the fixes now come naturally; much as the automagical hacks you apply to tables. Opera and Konqueror/Safari are the greater PITAs with their oddities. I am not, however, anal about it, as the user can override anything we do anyway.

Don't argue for your shortcomings. It won't be that hard to get up to speed on css-p. Then you'll wonder why you ever coded or defended table layouts.

cheers,

gary

 

Given that this thread is only 2-3 days old, I'm saddened you decided so quickly you're incapable of learning how to code pages properly! I have the feeling you're not giving yourself enough credit, which is unfortunate, or you can't be bothered to learn. I hope you never get in an auto accident making a left turn, because you might spend the rest of your driving days only able to turn right!

I hope you understand why I use that metaphor ^^. We're talking about learning not just some new lines of markup, but different ways to approach coding, a different, more end-user transparent and therefore friendly way to create online. Show me 100 people who are experts in both CSS-based and table-based layout, and I'll wager a cold one 99 of them will tell you to learn the CSS way (that last one will say "tables," just to be a smartass - there's always one ).

 

You can't really blame that on the CSS. There are a lot of off-page factors coming into play.

 

I would say it is better to use CSS than tables for SE

 

If your code is written properly then there really shouldn't be that much difference in the view given, it's a matter of finding the correct syntax that shows properly in both. As I said in my above post if you have problems check your float declarations.

If you code for 800x600 or as I do 1024x768 (and to hell with people using the equivalent of a horse and cart to race a Ferrari) then you shouldn't have much problem making a site thats visible to all.

I bother about it when my bandwith usage and online storage goes down.

I last checked the sizes of MY webpages, I don't care about anyone elses.

I stop my browser loading a site when it takes forever to load. If it's more than 2 minutes sorry but I'm off.

It is particularly stable but as the_pm says you need to give it more time to learn what is needed to use it properly. I think the thing to note is that even though it is a work in progress it has been in place and usuable for a heck of a long time. It is used again and again with plenty of success. It is next to impossible to get it to work in every single browser on the market, when you have that many standards it's impossible to get it right everywhere, it's a question of numbers. How many people visit your site regularly in Safari? On mine it's maybe 0.2% Is it worth busting your arse to code your layout for them and risk making it unreadable in the most popular browsers? I would say no.

 

Its more about your hosting bandwidth being used up, and also users getting bored waiting for a page to load and/or render before they press back.

Also because your content is separate from your style with CSS, you can change the look and layout of your pages by changing a single CSS file (you can even allow the user to do this dynamically when they view the site - think skinning/themes etc), compared to manually editing however many files whenever you decide to change your layout or fonts.

Some things people haven't mentioned are disability laws - in many countries now it is a legal requirement to make web pages accessible to those with disabilities. Tables are awful for accessibility, where as CSS designs (i.e. CSS for layout, not just tables with CSS styling!) are usually easier for those of us with disabilities to use.

 

This should not be about bandwidth, we have outgrown the bandwitch limits that were once bothering us. And internet speed is pretty decent nowadays so an extra 50Kb won't hurt the visitor if that is what it's all about. I truly believe these CSS vs Tables debates are similar to religious conflicts in IT terms

You won't find a single webmasters' forum that doesn't touch this subject, and I think we are following a wrong direction, really. Some of us drive 3rd generation bmw's fitted with latest technology booms while others are still confortable in their 10 year old cars that are well contributing to living a decent live. Of course, 7 iarbags in a car are better than 2 but trust me, no airbag at all is still enough for a car to do its job. Maybe a higher risk, but same result afterall if you're lucky enough, you still reach the destination as many do.. Same with the table designs, big players aren't worried about their websites reaching the target as much as we are..

To draw a line, all I'd say is that we have to accept that pure CSS designs are great but we must also agree that not every customer has the budget for a bmw. Not yet

 

I don't get it. Why does creating something properly have to cost more than creating it poorly? I've never seen a Webmaster price sheet that said: "Shitty site engineering: $30/hr. - Proper site engineering: $60/hr." That's just silly!

We're not talking about the difference betwen a BMW and a Toyota. We're talking about the difference between a 1998 Camry and a 2007 Camry. Same car - same price relative to the market. One's just newer and better.

 

To be honest Matt I have never thought about the disability laws or how they apply to website design. Just to be nosey for a second, and to gain some insight into the subject, what is it about tables that stop you from accessing a site properly?

 

Tables are bad for users that need to use screen-readers (i.e. text to speech) and/or Braille readers. Tables are there for tabular data - they imply certain semantics about the data within; thus using them to control your site's layout can significantly confuse tools used by those with vision problems. Even just simple things like increasing the default font size can be problematic with tables. Its (implicitly) illegal in the UK anyway - check out Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if you want some more info.

Then there are a whole load of other "every day" problems too, like it is often hard to dynamically resize a page to fit different screens (i.e. not just computer monitors), there are printing problems with table layouts, the aforementioned issues with maintaining the design, rendering delays, spidering issues etc.

It really makes sense to use CSS. I agree that its not as straightforward or as intuitive as tables, but its really not that hard once you get what is going on.

 

Cheers for that Matt, I had heard of the act but never really thought about it in those terms. I'll go check it out although I think I'll be ok.

 

From my experience, blending CSS and tables has really helped me. I've tried many times to turn my back on tables completely, but some of the things I can do with a table in 5 minutes would take me considerable time with just CSS and easy flexibility is sometimes not there.

What a better knowledge of CSS has done is 100% make me rethink the way I code a page, and in the process reduced the amount of code I had been using by more than 50%.

I've found tables to be indispensable when using multiple inline elements that aren't the same (such as a form inputs with buttons and notes).

The reason I think CSS is so great, is that you can have a repetitive element and control it's spacing and properties externally, without the need for database programming. For example, if your logo is 1px off, you can fix all pages at once by editing the style sheet.

My current approach is this:

1. NEVER use nested tables.
2. NEVER use image spacers.
3. Use CSS to control ALL spacing and properties.
4. Always try to keep the code simple, easy for me to read through, and as minimal as possible.
4. ALWAYS think: "Is this bit of code necessary? Can I do XYZ a better way? How much time do I have to spend on XYZ?"

A book that might help you would be "Web Standards Solutions" by Dan Cederholm.

 

Rightandtight, I couldn't have said it better myself. This was the point that I was trying to make earlier. I think a web developer should try to code the layout in CSS, but make use of tables where it will save it time (and doesn't interfere with any other issues such as accessibility).

Kk5st, you suggest that I'm defending my shortcomings in my previous post. By shortcomings, I guess you mean I'm not an expert on implementing CSS hacks/workarounds/fixes which would allow me to completely rid myself of using tables for any sort of layout purposes. From your perspective, I guess you might see this as a shortcoming. But is it really worth my time to learn all of this as well as use development time to implement them?

Now Kk5st, I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but I have to make a point regarding this entire debate. When I go to your homepage, you admit yourself that on your site a few pages don't work properly for people using IE and there are no fixes or workarounds for this. Right there you are admitting that at least in one situation, while coding using CSS-p, that IE will not display it properly. How therefore can I rely on CSS-p in all situations? Would I not have to make use of tables therefore to insure that my site will appear correctly in IE?

The ultimate question is then, will pure tableless CSS positioning/layout, with the current majority of people using the browsers that they are using today, allow me to rid myself of tables completely, at the same time not costing me more time in terms of testing, learning, and implementing workaround and hacks? Is this feasible today? Or should I make use of tables where it will save me time and where the extra amount of bandwidth isn't an issue?

 

I wrote my views on the subject a couple of months as i was originally brought up on tables, although now have shifted towards pure css. I'm sure there are elements that people will disagree with, after all it is just my view...

http://www.michaelthorn.co.uk/021106.php

 

I'm not kk5st, and I won't address the underlying emotions in the exchange, but the answer to question of whether it's worthwhile, I can say I have never met someone who has actually taken the time to learn proper separation of structure and style who has not found it to be a worthwhile endeavor - not once.

Gary (kk5st) can confirm this himself, but I'm going to guess his site is meant to be a developer's playground. He's made the conscious choice to not bother supporting IE, because it allows for experimentation into techniques IE may not support today, but should support tomorrow (FYI, the clock is already ticking on IE8 - they've hinted it will be less than 18 months between major versions this time!).

Yes, in a very real-world, practical sense, the answer to this question is absolutely yes. Moreso, it will actually allow you to satisfy the needs of more people, because you'll cover alternative browsing devices and assistive devices better too

If you must, you must, and the world won't stop spinning. But like I said earlier in this post, I've yet to see anyone actually make that leap over and then come back later, and if you can learn to create pages that use leaner, more semantically proper markup, you'll end up learning a skill that saves you time in the long run. It will take time to learn, but it's definitely worthwhile. There are reasons people don't go back to tables, and they are littered all over this thread Read sabian1982's article, linked above. It sums up the transition and reasoning nicely. His article outlines a very typical scenario.

If you do end up transitioning, post again with your views on the subject after you've shed tables as a layout device for a while. I'll wager yet another cold one they'll look a lot like sabian1982's article