Tables vs. Tableless

I’ve moved from tables to DIV tags and CSS. Since I’ve decided to take make the step I’ve seen a lot of improvement in readability and search engine compatibility.

 

Since when does being color blind or having reduced mobility issues prevent people from reading text on a page? And how does CSS help color blind people see images better? Once again, someone manufacturing reasons to use CSS that have no merit.

I do agree that a professional web designer must be able to efficiently code CSS layouts... but there comes a time when that designer must also know that sometimes tables do a better job. Now, I am not a professional nor do I lead anyone to think that but I do design websites for myself and occassionally others. I do realize, with all things equal and having the same output I would rather have the CSS coded page for many reasons.

There are some brilliant CSS designers here, and they can do much more with CSS than I could do with tables and for that I applaud their skills. BUT - taking the stance that not using tables for layout is cruel to handicapped people and amateur is well... amateur.

 

it's because of the way page readers see pages and interpret them for the blind.

if it's in tables it can't read it linearly - it'll jump over the place, whereas if it's good CSS it'll read properly, look at msn.com without the CSS file.

 

This wasn't a question aboout blind accessabilty, what your saying makes perfect sense. I was questioning the other reasons I mentioned above. kk5st leads us to believe there are more people using blind page readers than there are left handed people in the world.

I suppose my primary concern is the belief that if you don't design in CSS you are discriminating against handicapped people. Honestly, the percentage of blind people surfing the internet is neglegable.

I say, if you're a business owner and you don't want to design for that .02% of the population - then that's your problem and you won't make any sales to those people.

 

Oh yeah, you're right. But you're talking to a left handed person with retinitis pigmentosa

It's just a nice thing to do, which is why I have a mix of both CSS and tables, I only use tables in short sections for vertical alignment.

As well, I don't believe it's happened before, but I think legally people have the right to sue or something if a site isn't accesible to the disabled.

 

I just made a poll about this:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=65690

Figured I'd stop talking about blind accessability here so this thread can get back on topic.

 

Let's get it right. I said the handicapped numbers are about the same as the number of left handers. You're the one who restricted the definition to the blind. Poorly structured content and nonsemantic markup cause problems for many classes of handicapped other than the blind.

Yeah, and the number of people wheel chair bound or on crutches that you saw out and about prior to requisite ramps was pretty negligible, too. In 1960, if you saw a sign on the cafe that said 'no colored allowed', you could bet the number of blacks inside was negligible. If there are barriers to a class of people, it's no surprise how few you'll see.

If you're a business owner who arbitrarily rejects a class of customer, you're a stupid business owner.

You are apparently oblivious to the point of separation of content and presentation. Images? Images have nothing to do with tables or css, they're simply content.

Reduced motility? If a person can't use a mouse or other pointing device, a non-trivial table layout increases the difficulty of keyboard navigation. The next header visually may be in a different area completely in the table layout. Using css separates the presentation from the content, so the next header is, indeed, the next section. That's a trivial, but important example.

Color-blindness? You can do right with tables, but the problem still lies with the table developer's penchant for font tags and the inability to override them. If a color scheme is hard on a person, he has the option on turning styles off, or substituting his own.

What about reduced vision? The least increase in font size tends to break table layouts (and yes, I'm aware of equally bad css layouts). A well structured content transfers readily to displaying without style, whereas a table layout tends not to linearize well or maintain structure.

You state you are not a professional; do you argue with your accountant over how to keep books? Why are you arguing in favor of your lack of craftsmanship?

Stop being silly.

gary

 

There are two fundamental reasons you should use CSS exclusively for layout and design: making your pages accessible to all people and devices, and making your pages much more maintainable and easier to change. If you care about one then you get the bonus of the other. And, there are NO drawbacks. Make no mistake, CSS can produce ANY layout; you need to be patient to learn how.

 

What is up with this poll? Those two percentages have never added up to 100%. The strangest times are when both percentages are well over 50%.

 

he chose allow users to select multiple options.

a person can vote for both.

 

So in those cases, the forum adds only 1 to the total when two votes were cast? Seems like bad math to me.

 

I left it open for people who might do both.

It should count one for each that is selected. Looks like it is doing that.

 

It counts each vote within each category, but misses a vote for the total number that it needs to divide by. For instance, imagine a poll is 5 votes against 5 votes; the total is 10 votes, so the percentages are 5/10 * 100 and 5/10 * 100. Both come out 50% which is correct. Now someone comes along and puts in a vote for each category. Both categories are now at 6, and the total should be 12, except the forum would count only one of those two new votes for the total, so it thinks the total is 11. Now when you make the percentages -- 6/11 * 100 and 6/11 * 100 we find that both categories are greater than 50%, and the total percentage exceeds 100%.

Just to be clear, Slapyo, I'm not criticizing your poll. I'm saying there is an error in the forum software.

 

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Interesting. Might want to bring that up on the vBulletin forum.

 

its much better to go tableless as the size of your file will be less along with other numerous advantages

 

Both!

 

Can we come back to subject, as rivetting as the machinations of the voting system may be?

Tables are NOT inherently inaccessible. CSS-P is NOT inherently accessible.

If the developer can linearize tables (particularly deeply nested tables) properly, design for text and screen size changes and produce valid (x)html and css formatting the chances are the site is getting pretty close to accessible. If the developer cannot produce sites in CSS-P that are cross-browser compatible (and it is possible to do that), design for text and screen size changes and produce valid code the chances are the site will not be accessible.

The catalyst to modern (and accessible) design is the knowledge and expertise of the web developer, not the development techniques. But CSS-P is preferable for bandwidth, rendering speed, assistive devices and SEO purposes. It just takes a bit of time (though in my experience less time than tables) to get the hang of CSS for Positioning.

 

another thing of note is that most WYSIWYG programs can't render and create complex div tags as easily as tables.

 

Too true, but how often does a master carpenter buy kit (assemble yourself) furniture, rather than make it him/herself - "by hand", expertly using all the tools available to him/her?

 

Hehe, personally I was very afraid of CSS...never designed with it in my life, but I took a look at w3cschools.com and some tutorials, and basically copied other people's code, and now i'd say i'm quite good with it

it's actually really really really simple and intuitive