<DIV> vs <TABLE>

I use divs when I'm designing properly...

...until I hit a snag. Then I throw a hissy fit and shoehorn it into a table.

Does that make me Jewish? (according to the poll).

(I know, I know, I can't spell)

 

I use only tables I find it much easier. ('',)

 

How exactly?

This is like the argument that tells us we should only use .html extensions, not .htm extensions, because .html is the conly correct way.

 

No it's completly different...

This was the last thread we discussed this in...
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32685

Which you stopped replying to when I posted this...

Really, I'm not making this up to wind you up.

Tables are BAD for accessibility - to say they aren't is like saying .html is the only extension that should be used for static sites.

 

1. I imagine I stopped posting because there was little to say - a wikipedia reference is hardly definitive and in any case it misses the point. There are several antianxiety agents in common use by millions of people today which were originally medications designed to treat epilepsy, depression or other conditions. However, they work and very effectively to treat anxiety. According to the logic of your argument, we should not be allowing that.

2. tell me HOW "Tables are BAD for accessibility"

I'm not trying to convert you, SEbasic - that's not likely to happen and it's pointless. I just get irritated by the mindset that says "this is how I do things and anyone who doesn't do it this way is wrong".

 

SEbasic has the right of it here.

While I will use tables if I really must, I try to avoid them like the plague. Two reasons for this:

Firstly they make the pages larger. As has been mentioned in this thread for a large site the saving can be massive.

Secondly is the accessibility issue. Getting even this simplest of tables to pass for 'AAA' accessibility is a pain in the backside. Plus, you take all the time and hassle to add scopes and summaries and all the extra to make if 'readable' for a blind person, only to find this doesn't work with Braille readers and that doesn't work with Jaws. Also the pages get bulked up on all the extra code.

*Mutter*

.

 

1 -- I hear what you're saying, and understand to a certian extent - I just like keep up with standards and can't do that when using table-based design (As a side note, I find <div> based design a lot easier than writing tables so prefer it as a standard anyway - it's what I learnt on when I first becamse a developer).

2 -- Screen readers have MASSIVE issues with tables. Instead of simply reading out the page content, it also reads out the tables, so to a user, a table based site 'sounds' something like...

"Blah blah blah blah by this <TABLE> blah from the most successfull blah blah <ROW> and you can blah blah <COLUMN>..."

It's not exactly great for user experience is it?

I hear where you are coming from... I just think that change is sometimes good.

 

You hold your opinion just as religiously as anyone else; have you seriously been ignorant all this time to the problems created by the issues you disregard?

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.4
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-structure-presentation

This is not like that at all. There are practical issues involved here.

 

See SEbasic's reply above. But please don't quote W3C proclamations to me. That's like referring me to the writings of Stalin or Hitler and expecting me to accept it as fact.

I'd still like to know what the hell this is supposed to mean...

 

I think that's the first time I've heard of the W3C being compared to Stalin or Hitler...

Haha

 

The W3C is very good at explaining why they make recommendation they do. I have specifically referenced those explanations. If you choose not to read them then you choose to remain ignorant.

 

I'm not comparing them to the people. I'm comparing their proclamations to the propaganda spawned by those people.

 

See? Once again, you're telling me that unless I think as you do, I'm wrong, ignorant. That's my main objection in both this thread and the Firefox one where you're saying the same thing.

 

No, I'm saying you're ignorant because you refuse to even educate yourself on the other side of the issue. You asked a question, I gave you the answer, and you refused to read it.

 

You're assuming that I'm not already aware of the W3C site and those references. That's presumptuous.

 

If you were aware of the information then you wouldn't have needed to ask the question you did. The information describes how tables work (or don't work) in non-visual user agents. If the W3C got it wrong then I'm sure you can tell us how. If not, then it is exactly what you asked for, and the justification for discouraging tables for layout.

 

If you say so. I guess I'm not convinced that using tables creates the massive problem that implies but as I've already stated I have no interest in trying to convert you.

 

Ahh, so that's what it comes down to. Given an explanation of how tables break accessibility, your response is simply "I'm not convinced." So, if explanations are not convincing, I assume you will get yourself braille browsers and speach readers to see for youself? Or will you continue to hold your opinion with no real knowledge if you are right or not?

It's not that your opinion is different from mine that is irritating, it's that you seem to have no base for your opinion, and you're ok with that.

 

No, Nut. It's more like I can recognize a dead horse when I see one and I don't see the point in continuing to flog it. You have your opinion about this issue and about the Firefox issue and it's pretty clear to me that I am not going to penetrate that even if I had a desire to do so. That's fine with me. Carry on. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that your opinion differs from mine - it really doesn't matter to me at all.

 

I think the layout that's being to referred to is Semantic layout, not Semitic - what the longer version is I'm not willing to embaress myself off the top of my head. A friend of mine wrote this introduction to it. I'd be lying if I said I fully understood it.