Comments on: Rant: CSS or Tables for Layout http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/ Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:29:16 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Martin Chaov http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-305 Martin Chaov Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:50:47 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-305 You can't just ignore about 50% of the public :) IE has not lost the war ... for now You can’t just ignore about 50% of the public :) IE has not lost the war … for now

]]> By: craig cosmo http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-132 craig cosmo Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:48:45 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-132 Be cool designers, We use whatever we want, right? don't be scared. In the case, we have to use what is appropriate, then I'll say CSS is for layout, table is for layout(sections) that requires a table to archive technically. Be cool designers,

We use whatever we want, right? don’t be scared.

In the case, we have to use what is appropriate, then I’ll say CSS is for layout, table is for layout(sections) that requires a table to archive technically.

]]> By: Russ Adams http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-56 Russ Adams Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:45:11 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-56 Some of you missed the tongue in cheek position of this post. Please take a look at my redemptive post. http://www.webdesign.fm/redemption-css-layouts/ Some of you missed the tongue in cheek position of this post. Please take a look at my redemptive post. http://www.webdesign.fm/redemption-css-layouts/

]]> By: craig http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-51 craig Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:15:32 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-51 I the reason this keeps coming up is that CSS is great, but .... It's implementation is not what it should be. You want a hack? How about making a row of elements. A very desirable and basic layout tool even when your content isn't "tabular data" in a strict sense. Try making a row in CSS without unecessary markup( ), or a hack like adding invisible "after" elements. One day this will be solved but I haven't seen anything non-hacky that works with IE 6. How about vertical centering?? How about cross-browser minimum heights for a container? These are very simple, and desirable design ideas that don't require dedicated tutorials to solve with a table. I the reason this keeps coming up is that CSS is great, but ….

It’s implementation is not what it should be.

You want a hack? How about making a row of elements. A very desirable and basic layout tool even when your content isn’t “tabular data” in a strict sense.

Try making a row in CSS without unecessary markup( ), or a hack like adding invisible “after” elements. One day this will be solved but I haven’t seen anything non-hacky that works with IE 6.

How about vertical centering??

How about cross-browser minimum heights for a container?

These are very simple, and desirable design ideas that don’t require dedicated tutorials to solve with a table.

]]> By: Stemkoski http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-42 Stemkoski Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:23:46 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-42 I suppose you are also supporting the use of 1 pixel gif spacers too! Just joking but I use CSS layouts all the time and I never have to use hacks. If you understand how CSS layouts work you should be able to achieve almost anything without browser specific hacks. I suppose you are also supporting the use of 1 pixel gif spacers too! Just joking but I use CSS layouts all the time and I never have to use hacks. If you understand how CSS layouts work you should be able to achieve almost anything without browser specific hacks.

]]> By: matt green http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-39 matt green Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:10:17 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-39 I get what your saying, I have debated that with myself and other people, but I'll never use tables for layout again for one reason alone, that tables are intended for tabular data... If it is not, then why use a table. use all HTML elements for what they were created for, simple as that for me. When I disable my styles I don't want my document still laid out in a table, it should flow naturally and make sense. I get what your saying, I have debated that with myself and other people, but I’ll never use tables for layout again for one reason alone, that tables are intended for tabular data… If it is not, then why use a table. use all HTML elements for what they were created for, simple as that for me. When I disable my styles I don’t want my document still laid out in a table, it should flow naturally and make sense.

]]> By: CoryMathews http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-35 CoryMathews Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:31:06 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-35 "springnet Says: Tables = Tabular data. CSS/Divs = Page divisions/areas That’s how it should always be and the only way I would work." Exactly, It cannot be said better. And im still waiting to see what these "hacks" you speak of are. Usually when someone writes about this its because they don't actually understand CSS yet. “springnet Says:

Tables = Tabular data.
CSS/Divs = Page divisions/areas

That’s how it should always be and the only way I would work.”

Exactly, It cannot be said better.

And im still waiting to see what these “hacks” you speak of are.

Usually when someone writes about this its because they don’t actually understand CSS yet.

]]> By: Mike http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-33 Mike Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:16:19 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-33 You're kidding right?....When I was learning how to build websites, I found that CSS was MUCH easier than learning tables. CSS allows for a far less complicated sizing and layout of content...not to mention the fact that makiing changes in CSS let's you make a global change all at once...how much would it suck if you wanted to change the table width of the main header on a 10 page website...having to go into each of those ten pages to make a change is just a retarded use of time... There are so many advantages to using CSS. You are retarded. You’re kidding right?….When I was learning how to build websites, I found that CSS was MUCH easier than learning tables.

CSS allows for a far less complicated sizing and layout of content…not to mention the fact that makiing changes in CSS let’s you make a global change all at once…how much would it suck if you wanted to change the table width of the main header on a 10 page website…having to go into each of those ten pages to make a change is just a retarded use of time…

There are so many advantages to using CSS. You are retarded.

]]> By: Ollie Wells http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-32 Ollie Wells Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:33:11 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-32 Oh dear. Ok, anyone going to even mention screen readers? Yes some readers will ignore tables which are used for layout, but you have to specify which are layout. Hack anyone? Also, the argument that search engines ignore tables, that a layout will work on all broswers in tables yadda yadda STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT !!!??? The attitude of "i wont do it properly because i can get away with it the way it is" stinks. I for one would not hire or work with someone like that. Yes, my first site was table layout. Its great to get going in experimenting with a site. But learning CSS isn't as hard as people make out. Getting very very good at CSS takes a long time. And as for hacks.... pathetic excuse. This can of worms can go on for years, and well done for generating an interesting heated debate. Bring on more! :) Mac vs PC anyone ? :D Oh dear.

Ok, anyone going to even mention screen readers?

Yes some readers will ignore tables which are used for layout, but you have to specify which are layout. Hack anyone?

Also, the argument that search engines ignore tables, that a layout will work on all broswers in tables yadda yadda STILL DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT !!!???

The attitude of “i wont do it properly because i can get away with it the way it is” stinks. I for one would not hire or work with someone like that.

Yes, my first site was table layout. Its great to get going in experimenting with a site. But learning CSS isn’t as hard as people make out. Getting very very good at CSS takes a long time.

And as for hacks…. pathetic excuse.

This can of worms can go on for years, and well done for generating an interesting heated debate.

Bring on more! :)

Mac vs PC anyone ? :D

]]> By: John H http://www.webdesign.fm/rant-css-or-tables-for-layout/#comment-31 John H Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:53:30 +0000 http://www.webdesign.fm/?p=59#comment-31 Your premise is faulty and here's why. You say that your objection to using CSS for layout is that you often must rely on hacks for cross-browser compatibility. While this is true in many cases it is not true in all cases and if the design is well thought out and executed properly very few hacks need be leveraged. Sure, this is an issue but you've forgotten one very big thing here. Tables are not meant for layout... they are meant for displaying tabular data. Essentially you are using a very big hack to achieve layouts by using tables as your structural element. Divs and Spans are structural elements, TDs and TRs are not. You are simply trading one hack for another. Your premise is faulty and here’s why. You say that your objection to using CSS for layout is that you often must rely on hacks for cross-browser compatibility. While this is true in many cases it is not true in all cases and if the design is well thought out and executed properly very few hacks need be leveraged.

Sure, this is an issue but you’ve forgotten one very big thing here. Tables are not meant for layout… they are meant for displaying tabular data. Essentially you are using a very big hack to achieve layouts by using tables as your structural element. Divs and Spans are structural elements, TDs and TRs are not. You are simply trading one hack for another.

]]>