I'm gonna redesign my web pages. there're a lot of <table> tag in my code that make long loading time. Would you have any suggestions or learning sources about how to start with TABLELESS design, pros and cons of it over design with table. thanks for all feedbacks.
You made a very good choice, tableless design is better especially for the search engines but also for the browsers.
i disagree, ive had sites rank top 5 (never first i think second or 3rd was the highest) for a good keyword on sites (not just 1 site) using tables. Also now with b'band you dont notice it taking an extra 0.1 of a second. Tables are easy and very useful, by all means go for tabless designs im not saying its a bad thing im just saying for me personally ive not noticed anything different and so its not worth learning if you can do the same with tables. However CSS can be useful for links/backgrounds etc there are a few sies out tere with css templates you can learn off
Yeah, I doubt table-less design has any salubrious effect on SEO. It does however make for a less browser specific webpage.
just learn CSS from w3cschools.com then to position your site sections use DIV tag and try to position your site with margins and paddings!
checkout this site: http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/ you can grab the code for several variations of simple css page layouts, then customize to your own by modifying different css elements . Doing this for a couple sites will help you understand css layout better. Or, start out by using a css layout generator like: http://csscreator.com/?q=tools/layout Also, view the code on more advanced css layouts like www.csszengarden.com
i've heard that tableless design make page loading faster. so i want to know more about it. thank for comments and very useful resources.
i would only look to css if there was a program like dreamweaver but for css. I know you can do css in d/w however you cant use the wysiwyg properly
CSS based designs are much better than table based layouts. However if you have not used <div> tag before and are not much familiar with CSS, it can cause problems for you. I'd suggest if you want to make your site CSS based, you should hire someone to do it for you.
I actually wrote a tutorial here on DP a while back about how to make a Web page using semantic HTML and CSS. Let me see if I can find it for you.
Found it http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=2619952#post2619952 There was a correction to the post, which can be found here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=2630993#post2630993 One other thing. I no longer advocate using <h1></h1> for the site's title. Instead, use a DIV with an image inside that above the menu, and put the H1 elsewhere, preferably between the menu and content (I think that's it - I'd have to look at my code at home when I return tomorrow).
You know, i've really been trying to figure this out for a while myself. And to be quite frank, i've never actually figured out the benefit of learning the total css layout format over tables. If you know how to do tables effeciently then I really see no reason to make the switch. A) The claim that it is beneficial for Search Engines is bogus. Go to google and search for web hosting. View the top sites source code. You will see 4-5 of the top results are table designs and this is a very competitive market where SEO is key. B) CSS isn't great for cross-browser. Do a simple forum search here and see exactly how many people are having difficulty with CSS layouts working in Firefox and not working in IE. Also, read about the CSS hacks you have to do to have a layout work in IE as well as Firefox and other browsers. When I got motivated to try and make the switch merely because of the demand, i found these types of things annoying. Overall, CSS layouts are great. But I would say that if you don't already know how to do it it isn't worth it. On that same note, your money would be better invested in other areas for your website.
CSS is preferred over tables for accessibility reasons, not SEO reasons. Frankly, the people who advocate using CSS for SEO purposes are either idiots or just flat out don't know any better (probably having heard it from a so-called self-styled "expert" on the matter). CSS IS great cross-browser, but it DOES take some knowledge on how to use it properly. Knowledge that is either being guarded like Aladdin's magic lamp by those who know how to use it (I for one have NO problem sharing my knowledge openly) or that is being drowned out by the oceans of CRAP that is being propogated and evangelized by people who shouldn't have any business telling others how to build Web sites in the first place. As for hacking, unless you're trying to support Internet Explorer 5 (the extent of which is probably the use of the simplified box model hack), are trying to implement dropdown menus, image rollovers, PNG alpha transparency support or opacity in pre-7 IE builds, there's usually NO reason whatsoever why a hack should be necessary. Most of the hacks employed are done so because peope are using too much HTML and the wrong HTML in the first place. As for not being necessary, I have to strongly disagree there. A lot of companies are coming around to the benefits of CSS and are DEMANDING that it be used (no tables for layout). Not only htat, but the benefits of clean, minimal, semantic and valid markup have been recognized by the industry and governments alike, who are now recommending them as the de-facto standard for accessible and usable Web site development. (And as a parting shot, I'll also suggest you look here to see how many people are complaining that their layout works in IE but breaks in Firefox.)
Dan, i'm not claiming that there is absolutely no point in making the switch. In fact, if someone who is brand new to web design wants to learn it, I would actually recommend that they go the CSS route. The reason being is that there are a lot of companies out there that would rather have the CSS layout. There isn't anyone out there requesting tables that I know of. There is money to be made in knowing how to do CSS layouts. I simply haven't heard of a great reason to take a layout from table format to a CSS layout. It seems like a lot of work where the benefits are minimal. A correctly done layout using tables shouldn't have a huge load time. Even with tables, css should be used where it can be to format the text and links rather than the use of images. And btw, I'm not saying your wrong in anyway. I openly admit i'm not an expert at CSS. I have read a few tutorials and simply do not see the benefit in taking a working website and making the change. It fits under the "Don't fix what isn't broken" saying for me.
It may not be broken on the desktop, but what about for a person using a screen reader, aural device, PDA or Web enabled cell phone, or whatever technology may be developed in the next few years (or those "new" technologies that arleady exist but haven't yet made it to the general market)? As I said before, there are PLENTY of reasons to adopt CSS - ease of maintenance (don't need to maintain a separate "printer-friendly" version for starters), future-proofing, and most importantly - ACCESSIBILITY. If a person can't get to your Web site, or can get there but can't use it because it doesn't work on their device, then what's the point of having it in the first place? Hell, in some countries (Germany and Great Britian, I'm looking at you especially) it's actually against the law to have an inaccessible Web site that serves the public and can land you in some SERIOUS legal hot water (especially given how you can be sued in a German court under German law regardless of where you live). Heck, even here in the USA, if your Web site serves the public (read: government or receives government money) a non-accessible Web site will be considered a violation of Section 508 of the United States Rehabilitation Act (see www.section508.gov for more info). Don't believe me (bear in mind that the following example while not directly related to the 508 law is still a prominent example of American accessibility laws at work)? Ask Target why they had a class action lawsuit filed against them - not because they spilled hot coffee on a customer's lap or deprived a druggie of his "right" to light up a doobie on store property, but because people with disabilities (while being able to physically go to a Target store and buy merchandise) were unable to access the company's online presence (Web site).
Hmmm, I want to delve more into the accessibility issue. I personally don't have a device that uses the web outside of my computer, so I actually didn't know what the term accessibility was referring to when you were talking about CSS. Is it true that a PDA or web enabled phone can not view a website with tables? If so, this would actually enlighten me as to why the CSS is such a craze right now (outside of the existing myths about the benefits of it). However, there are SO many websites out there using tables, perhaps these devices might consider integrating the ability to view a site that contains tables?
It depends on the PDA or cell phone in question. Some will choke on the layout tables, others will create horizontal and veritcal scroll bars to appear, which really diminishes the usability of the Web site on the device. In the end though, the tables are being used for something that they were not intended - layout. Tables are to be used for tabular data (this was the rule BEFORE the Web went mainstream and the NCSA Mosaic/Netscape browsers were created - remember, back during the mid-90s, browser vendors gave two things about HTML rules; and Jack left town leaving his, well you know, behind and whoo did that stuff stink).