Tables vs. Tableless

It seems to me that the future is going in the direction of CSS. I think it's easier to control the position in browsers on computers with tables. But if you think about it, in the future most people will probably access the internet with devices other than computers. It's much easier to customize internet content for other devices with CSS than it is with tables.

I also think DHTML is easier with CSS/Divs than it is with table rows and cells.

But I am speaking from the perspective of a working dude... If I was making major bank with Adsense and referals then maybe I'd have a different opinion, but as a person who makes his money in a corporate environment it's surely in my best interest to become as proficient in CSS as possible.

 

Hi, Lorraine. I'm going to mildly disagree, based mostly on a couple of assumptions I make in method and a couple of common conditions seen in table layouts. More...

On the assumption that the design is non-trivial, and that the css-p layout developer knows how to create well structured, semantic markup, the following conditions are usually true:

The table layout will contain nested tables and rowspans exist that span multiple rows. Both of these conditions lead to an inability to linearize the table without breaking the structure of the content;

The well structured, semantic markup will maintain structure in spite of any css or javascript.

While the style rules could make text difficult to read for anyone, those same styles can be turned off leaving one with the basic marked up content.

In the common case, these assumptions and conditions do suggest that a css based layout is likely to be intrinsically accessible to at least a reasonable degree. At the same time, they suggest that a table layout will be considerably less so.

True, true.

cheers,

gary

 

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css/
http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/05/an_objective_look_at_table_based_vs_css_based_design/
http://sitening.com/blog/2005/11/07/going-tableless-why-css-should-be-used-for-layouts/
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

Now find me some articles on the net saying tables are better for layout than CSS.

 

I wish there was a "both" category in the poll

IMO, CSS is better, and is the way things are headed (in the near future anyway). You can usually get cleaner code, and you don't end up with a table nested in a table nested in a table, etc. It's better for large sites when properly used. Editing one .css file, you can change the width of all the sidebars on your site, change the font/color, change the way your links look, etc. Tables can mean hours of work making a layout change throughout the site.

That said, tables are easier. Setting up positioning with CSS is a major pain (although I'm sure most people are better with it than I am and will tell me otherwise ). A novice can learn how to use tables pretty easily using a WYSIWYG editor like frontpage, and can probably even put together a pretty site. There's a learning curve to CSS and I don't think you're going to find a WYSIWYG editor that lets you manipulate the CSS layout of a site with the same ease that it will HTML.

Tables have been around for awhile, and they'll still be around for awhile. They're well supported, predictable, easy to use, learn, and understand. CSS is newer, not quite as predictable sometimes, can be tricky to grasp, but is more powerful, and taking the time to properly utilize CSS in a site instead of tables can save hours of work down the road when you need to make a change.

 

Consider someone coming to HTML for the first time. Which do you think makes more sense to them:

<table width="80%"> <tr> <td> <table width="400"> <tr> <tr>
<span class="heading"> <font color="red"> <font size="4> <b> <span style="font-weight: bold;> <div> <div class="header-2"> Title </div><div> </span> </font> </font></span> </td> </tr> </table>
</td> </tr>
<tr> ....


or

<h3> Title </h3>



CSS is hard to learn if you learnt with tables. CSS is NOT hard to learn if you learn it from scratch.

 

Is that a split infinitive I see before me?
Actually, Gary I don't think we are in disagreement at all. I could have phrased my 'If this' and 'If that' comments better, but I do love to play around with (false) negatives and positives.

It is true that CSS layouts can be intrinsically accessible, but as you point out this is not just because the page is laid out so - there are many more considerations for the conscientious developer. So, my suggestion was the mere use of CSS-P is not inherently accessible.

It is true that some, perhaps simpler, table layouts can be accessible, but making them so is more of a pita than css (personal opinion).

Both techniques do (at a stretch for tables) have the potential of producing accessible sites - it depends on what they "inherit" from the developer

 

I am so embarrassed. I cannot bring myself to disagree even mildly with the implied criticism.

I see your point, and should have stressed that the difference depends on the quality of the html markup, rather than table layout vs. css-p layout. The practical problem is that a non-trivial table layout cannot be well structured nor semantic. thepineapplehead's example uses exageration to illustrate a common trait in table layouts. Well done css-p requires well structured, semantic and well formed html markup.

Which is what you said—in a convoluted sort of way.

cheers,

gary

 

i choose tableless.
less file size

 

Tables are for tabulated data/content
CSS is good for layout

Although you can do it just about any way... there's not many excuses left these days apart from familiarity

 

sure there are

cross compability across browsers sucks dead donkey balls.

 

I use both.

I was using tables before CSS existed, so it's what I know best. I do try to design as much as possible using CSS, mainly to rearrange the source ordering for better search engine spider food. But if it's a quick-and-dirty site or I'm not worried about search engines, I usually end up doing a nasty table site.

I have managed to build nested table sites that are valid HTML but beastly slow for any browser to render.

 

I use CSS all the way, and compatible is very important to me, and I'm having no issues with that. Compatibility to modern browsers that is. So not to IE6, which hasn't changed in the last >= 4 years. I try to make my site viewable with IE6 simply because of the user base, but I do not target the design at it.
Use tables for what they are made for: information presentation

 

Layout = tables, CSS = styling.