1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

<DIV> vs <TABLE>

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by latehorn, Jan 6, 2006.

?

What's your opinion

  1. I use only <DIV>

    38 vote(s)
    33.9%
  2. I use only <TABLE>

    20 vote(s)
    17.9%
  3. I use a mix between aka sementism

    54 vote(s)
    48.2%
  1. Hon Daddy Dad

    Hon Daddy Dad Peon

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    These are the key benefits. You can stuff way more content in links into your pages too.

    You can still use tables for layouts and be compliant.

    Having both used tables and divs, once you learn to use divs its way faster if you want to write compliant code. Trying to write complaint code using tables as the layout is a mission and a half.

    Compliant XHTML is important if you want to use XSLT and XML.SEMrush
     
    Hon Daddy Dad, Jan 13, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. stuw

    stuw Peon

    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #62
    And better accessability to screen reader users.
    Lower File Sizes - this has saved me over $500 a year on bandwidth on one site alone
     
    stuw, Jan 13, 2006 IP
  3. howardroark

    howardroark Active Member

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #63
    Creating a table is faster, so it's good for small projects. CSS makes managing layouts much easier for websites with hugh amounts of pages, so it's good for large projects.
     
    howardroark, Jan 13, 2006 IP
  4. Hon Daddy Dad

    Hon Daddy Dad Peon

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    I disagree. Once you get good with CSS and you know how a page should be laid out Div's are way faster.
     
    Hon Daddy Dad, Jan 13, 2006 IP
  5. Immorta

    Immorta Peon

    Messages:
    379
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    I always lay a site out in a table then convert it to Div's.

    Even easier if you export slices from MM Fireworks etc...
     
    Immorta, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  6. latehorn

    latehorn Guest

    Messages:
    4,677
    Likes Received:
    238
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #66
    Mee too!!!!
     
    latehorn, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  7. frankcow

    frankcow Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    264
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #67
    We can't toss the TABLE yet. Many email clients (eg Lotus Notes) still don't render properly, and email marketing is one of the largest online revenue sources
     
    frankcow, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  8. Instromaniac

    Instromaniac Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #68
    Yep, same here.

    The most important reason for me however is semantics. The benifits of using HTML or XHTML correctly is also code portability, readability and especially that it's more modular. Adding elements to your HTML a few months after you wrote it is much easier with a document that is semantically correct than for example a table based layout. Understanding a table layout when reading code can take a really long time while you don't have that when presentation and markup is separated AND the markup is applied correctly.

    Another essential reason why people should apply semantics is SEO. Your website will be a lot more "searchable" and understandable to spiders.
     
    Instromaniac, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  9. dsm56

    dsm56 Active Member

    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    27
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #69
    Does noone ever find that when you use divs, it looks fine in firefox and as soon as you check your site in IE its all a mess...
    Ive never had this problem with tables...

    (I still use divs most of the time though)
     
    dsm56, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  10. Instromaniac

    Instromaniac Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #70
    Yep, that's because Internet Explorer doesn't support CSS very well. Problems with the box model, floats, overflow, etc. are rampant in IE.
    It's indeed annoying but with some experience and Google you'll soon learn how to overcome those problems easily.
    Of course tables have less problems in that area but I believe the disadvantages of tables are much more significant than bad CSS support.

    If you want to know more about IE and CSS do a google search on "CSS hacks" and go to this website
    positioniseverything dot com (can't post URLs yet).
     
    Instromaniac, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  11. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #71
    :rolleyes:

    I knew it was just a matter of time before we got this again: It's all Microsoft's fault that our code doesn't work. It works perfectly on the browser we develop for which has zoomed all the way to a 10% market share...

    Similar arguments are proposed to justify designing for large display resolutions - apparently because the proponents believe that this will "force" people to update their computers, or OSs, or whatever.

    Hello? Earth to vague dreamers residing in a fantasy world? What about the concept of designing and coding for things the majority of people actually use?
     
    minstrel, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  12. SEbasic

    SEbasic Peon

    Messages:
    6,318
    Likes Received:
    318
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72
    Firefox doesn't get it right all the time either, but in comparison to ie, it's perfect ;)

    Edit --> Minstrel got there first... And ranted a little more ;)
     
    SEbasic, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  13. Riboflavin

    Riboflavin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #73
    It is not that one is correct and one is incorrect, divs are meant to be used in your layout and tables for displaying tabular data.
     
    Riboflavin, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  14. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #74
    :rolleyes:

    Spare me.

    Divs and tables are "meant" to be used for making web pages -- anyway you choose to use them.
     
    minstrel, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  15. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75
    Sorry, minstrel, but that is simply false. What any technology was designed to do is a matter of fact, not opinion: the fact is that tables were never meant for layout. You need to get your facts straight before your arguments can carry any weight.

    Of course, it is always possible for any technology to do more than it was originally designed for, and, for the most part, using tables for layout was accepted back when it was the only choice. Now, however, we have another choice that was designed specifically for describing presentation: CSS. In comparison, tables for layout has several disadvantages: bloated code, less flexible/maintainable, and less portable. CSS is supported well enough in modern browsers and there is no longer any good reason for continuing to use tables for layout.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Jan 16, 2006 IP
    MattBeard likes this.
  16. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #76
    Yeah, yeah... believe me I've heard it all before, including from you. It's still all blather and elitist bafflegab, no matter how many times it's delivered from the pulpit. :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  17. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    Of course you've heard it all before: facts don't change, even if you try to ignore them. Perhaps if your posts had some truth to them we wouldn't need to correct you nearly as often.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #78
    FLAN, you may feel like a nut but you're really just a common fool and not even an original one. :rolleyes:

    Use whatever you like. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. Just stop preaching this crap and trying to convert everyone else to the propaganda. You sound like a Jehova's Witness or a Scientologist and you're no closer to The Truth than any of those people.
     
    minstrel, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  19. FeelLikeANut

    FeelLikeANut Peon

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    It's no more propaganda than telling someone they should use a car instead of a riding lawnmower for transportation (a riding lawnmower works, sorta, but a car is better—you, minstrel, are like the person telling others the riding lawnmower will get better gas mileage), and my preaching is no different than that of a teacher trying to increase people's knowledge.

    If there was anything incorrect or misleading in my post before then say so, if not then you can continue to rant about it, or simply accept it.
     
    FeelLikeANut, Jan 16, 2006 IP
  20. Instromaniac

    Instromaniac Peon

    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #80
    I don't know who you're referring to, but if it's me you comment on things I never said.

    As a matter of fact I don't code for any browser. I always start out coding as it should be done, as proposed by the W3C. Then I test, and indeed first in Firefox or if possible in Safari because these browsers get most of the standards right.
    But, for me it doesn't stop with these browsers as you accuse people of. I also test in IE5+ and I'll never deliver a site to a client that doesn't display correctly in these browsers, because as you said they are the mainstream application used to view websites.
    I'll never force people to use this or that browser because that's not the point of accessibility. But I will promote Firefox, Safari or Opera because these browsers make a web designer's life more easily and are important to establish a semantic web.
    Standards are important, not because it makes the devs using standards look cool or because we can bash table users, but because standards define a common way to code a website, because they make webdesign easier and more uniform.
    I agree that many snobbish webdesigners act as if using standards is reason to act arrogant, but that doesn't mean that there are other webdesigners who are serious about it and understand the benifits.
     
    Instromaniac, Jan 17, 2006 IP