tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post8296392676496528558..comments2023-04-28T04:25:50.218-07:00Comments on iamelgringo: Tables vs CSS: CSS Trolls begoneUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-51556419581508398052010-02-04T15:47:30.375-08:002010-02-04T15:47:30.375-08:00The one that continues using tables is because it ...The one that continues using tables is because it does not dominate or does not know CSS. To design in CSS is far better, by the subject of order, maintenance, accessibility, navigability and thousand reasons more.diseƱo webhttp://www.trazavirtual.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-41753510616148959542009-11-04T18:08:54.941-08:002009-11-04T18:08:54.941-08:00I find it ironic that one of the people extolling ...I find it ironic that one of the people extolling css based design and dissing tables in the comments above gives a link to a page that does not fit in my browser window. <br /><br />http://aplus.rs/css/on-css-tables-and-layout/<br /><br />I use an 800 x 600 display on my little laptop, and must scroll from left to right to read every line of his pro-css, anti-tables screed. <br /><br />If your css based design was accessible to ALL users, whether using older equipment or having low vision (thus using low res/large display) then I could take your argument seriously. <br /><br />But it's a complete PITA to have to scroll to read every line of a site.Dubiousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-51809669931878980532009-10-23T13:55:00.549-07:002009-10-23T13:55:00.549-07:00I love the "CSS Troll" name. Great one....I love the "CSS Troll" name. Great one.<br /><br />The bottom line may also be this: <b>You are probably the only one who cares because within 3 yrs all websites get rebuilt anyway.</b><br /><br />I've also built sites for more than 10 yrs and very few of the sites exist in any way now. Not because they weren't built right, but because someone wants something fresh and they have money to do it.<br /><br />Unless you are trying to optimize a site and save 4kb per page, I say - built it however you want, minimize your js and css, and turn on GZIP. You are good to go. Use what works. The right tool for the right job.<br /><br />peace out CSS Trolls !!! ha ahahahbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-59173193436482675572009-08-05T06:25:08.979-07:002009-08-05T06:25:08.979-07:00You're wrong. I've been designing and buil...You're wrong. I've been designing and building websites since 1994. I've done more table layouts than probably half the people on this comment thread. Tables. Nesting. Font Tags. Spacer GIF's. You name it. I go way back and I've seen and done it all.<br /><br />I made the switch to proper semantic coding a few years ago and yes... it is maddening as hell at first. To say the least. It's a HUGE mind shift and there are so many little things to learn and gotchas (like the box model issues in IE and how to clear floats... etc.). But once you get it... you will NEVER go back. It's hard, but if you care about what you do, you will take the time to learn. And now that I code this way, I actually find it significantly easier and it opens a whole new world of design possibilities.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you don't care about what you do and have no pride in your work, then keep on doing things the prehistoric way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-40076056691150911182009-07-29T12:47:42.796-07:002009-07-29T12:47:42.796-07:00For all of you designers discussing why css is bet...For all of you designers discussing why css is better than tables once you learn how to implement it correctly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that's the point of the article.<br /><br />I also think those responses partially prove the point about those who use css instead having a bit of a "superiority complex" with the following mindset...<br /><br /><i>"I used to be an idiot stuck on tables too until I actually bothered to learn css and now I'm enlightened and advanced enough to know never to use tables again, but, ya' know, if YOU'RE too stupid to be able to use css 'cuz it's just too hard for you to understand, then hey, why not use tables?"</i><br /><br />The fact remains that at the end of the day, some designers have only two goals: Put up a site quickly that displays the content the way they want it displayed.<br /><br />Not everyone cares about coding "holy grails". Not everyone's website is going to have 100 pages and be designed to support thousands more. Not everyone cares about facilitating the entire gamut of possible visitors to the point of straining themselves over accessibility beyond the typical web browser.<br /><br />Some people just want to do a simple thing simply and in a way that's cross compatible with the MAJOR browsers THEY care about without having to put in extra lines of code or hacks.<br /><br />No one should have to justify or defend their desire to use tables nor should they have to be continuously pelted with css users going on about why they "get what you're saying, but css is still better..."<br /><br />Not everyone cares.<br /><br />When it comes to table-based sites being unattractive, I can't say I've seen a pure css site that wowed me either nor have I seen one that didn't still have the <i>appearance</i> of being set up in a tabular format anyway.<br /><br />As for increasing load times, I've yet to see a difference in load time on the sites I frequent and happen upon that would even make a difference and I've encountered plenty of pure css sites that take forever to load. <br /><br />Saying tables can increase load times is like saying that eating too much can make you gain weight. Depending on what else your physical makeup is comprised of and how your individual body functions, that could be one pound or eighty, which means it only matters WHEN it matters.<br /><br />As for the comment that the only reason tables make more sense to some people is because they think of design in terms of what tables can do, the only reason that <i>may</i> be true is because what tables can do happens to mimic the way we actually see and interact with content in a browser window or often in life, for that matter.<br /><br />When you put two pictures up on your wall side by side and another below them in a way that looks nice to you, will you not readjust them later if something about the wall changes in order to keep it looking as nice as it did to you before?<br /><br />So what if someone uses tables to do the same for three pictures on a page? It's not the end of the world.<br /><br />There are plenty of things css can do. It doesn't mean you HAVE to use css when something else works perfectly fine for you and often in a more universal way.<br /><br />Let's not forget that there are people out there using the major most popular browsers who disable css entirely, not just changes to colors and fonts. <br /><br />I've seen plenty of pure css based site layouts degrade in a way that makes the content completely useless because you can't follow or read the content anymore.<br /><br />Everyone is always wasting their time arguing over what code SHOULD be used for. What code was SUPPOSED to do. When it comes to some things, all that matters is what will get the job done.<br /><br />If you want to use the back of a screwdriver to knock in a tack instead of a hammer, who cares? It did what you wanted, didn't it? In the same token, if you want to use tables to show your content instead of css, whatever works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-72623653003351019962009-07-24T22:48:50.061-07:002009-07-24T22:48:50.061-07:00your post is helpful and informativeyour post is helpful and informativewebsite design New York Cityhttp://www.atozsolution.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-21779974687388273272009-07-22T10:34:32.115-07:002009-07-22T10:34:32.115-07:00I've been behind the 8-ball for MANY years. It...I've been behind the 8-ball for MANY years. It was only recently (where the heck have I been?!) I learned that tables are 'out' and not considered standard compliant, and have since been working on converting my personal website to use DIVs/H1s/ULs/standards and (more) CSS.<br /><br />It's not easy.<br /><br />The inconsistency is what bugs me. One of the big ones being no valign=bottom. I ended up changing my whole header design due to this. As much of a 'hack' as using tables and spacer.gif's is, at the very least there I could code a design and get it on-screen very quickly. Not try to align something, find out (after hours of searches and tweaks) that it's only partially supported sometimes, and end up having to change my design because of code limitations.<br /><br />I can see the argument for CSS. Margins and padding are wonderful and a couple DIVs instead of tables inside tables and spacer images makes for much cleaner code. Then again, tables seemed to be a lot more consistent across browsers, where layout in CSS is giving me headaches as I'll add a float or whatnot and it suddenly renders different in IE vs Firefox.<br /><br />That said, going forward I expect to become much more comfortable with CSS, but I can see cases where a mix of CSS and tables is the most simple and clean solution. It all depends on context. I will continue to pursue tableless design for experience's sake though.Burgersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-1131289645150005972009-07-06T18:05:24.091-07:002009-07-06T18:05:24.091-07:00The one thing I hate about tables, is not even rea...The one thing I hate about tables, is not even really the lack of semantics, but the way you are so locked in to a design. Now when you start using css, you can easily fall into the same trap. But it is easy enough for a well designed css site to be rearranged later without touching the html. It also means you could easily use multiple themes on a site using only css and some method to select the css file.<br /><br />Using css is great when your page makes sense without css because the html is clean. Then you are free to change the look at will and the content is the same.<br /><br />Not trying to hate on table users, but I don't see the point of going back to tables personally.<br /><br />And one more thing, you shouldn't be concerned about pixel perfect results across browsers, it should just look good in all browsers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-64777999129651401622009-06-25T15:35:58.826-07:002009-06-25T15:35:58.826-07:00Forms are INTERACTIVE TABULAR DATA. Meaning, you s...Forms are INTERACTIVE TABULAR DATA. Meaning, you should use tables for forms. Period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-34283844695693438022009-06-24T06:20:49.359-07:002009-06-24T06:20:49.359-07:00Very good post.
Loved the comment:
"
Microsof...Very good post.<br />Loved the comment:<br />"<br />Microsoft: Navigation bar is a table. What did you expect? Unicorns and rainbows?<br />"<br />:) :)Chanduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08508453838216169824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-31673020731895872462009-05-08T05:07:00.000-07:002009-05-08T05:07:00.000-07:00Let's consider a webpage featuring the following b...Let's consider a webpage featuring the following basic elements:<br />1. two horizontally centered columns with different widths, full height and different background colours<br />2. the text in the first column is aligned to the upper left corner<br />3. the text in the second column is aligned to the lower right corner<br /><br />layout tables vs. css2: http://tinyurl.com/ccj8emAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-70130025055486418232009-04-30T10:46:00.000-07:002009-04-30T10:46:00.000-07:00Amen brother.
Like many of you I am a senior leve...Amen brother.<br /><br />Like many of you I am a senior level developer. I've been making websites professionally since 1997, everything from small stuff to 8 million dollar rollouts. <br /><br />You idealists try this: Make a tableless gridview where some of the elements wrap. Use border shading for every element. Observe the results. ERIC MEYER himself says that CSS is not capable of addressing the issues that you will observe. But according to many of you Eric Meyer is just too lazy and stupid to learn how to do CSS the right way. LOL.<br /><br />When we reach our utopia I'll be able to join all you web designers with your colored pencils and preaching against ANY use of a table. But until then, I'll use CSS for things that CSS does better, and I will use tables for what tables do better. The gridview is one such thing that tables do better.<br /><br />For reference - Eric Meyer:<br />http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2009/02/17/wanted-layout-system/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-48556949793153623372009-04-11T00:21:00.000-07:002009-04-11T00:21:00.000-07:00Nice postNice postwebsite design nychttp://www.atozsolution.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-6206934807057177252009-04-10T12:48:00.000-07:002009-04-10T12:48:00.000-07:00How about that: as soon as any of my users/visitor...How about that: as soon as any of my users/visitors will complain about table usage on my site, i'll deal with them.<BR/><BR/>LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-81943096790390384582009-04-10T03:25:00.000-07:002009-04-10T03:25:00.000-07:00You use the top sites as examples.. Are you buildi...You use the top sites as examples.. Are you building a top site?<BR/><BR/>How many search engines care about indexing Google's home page?<BR/><BR/>How many search engines are capable of penetrating the walled gardens of Facebook, Hi5, et al.?<BR/><BR/>Have you ever parsed a DOM tree?<BR/><BR/>Do you know what a DOM tree is?<BR/><BR/>You TABLE troll, in February of 2009, for CSS trolls to begone...<BR/><BR/>I have personally e-mailed leading accessibility and design professionals in the industry and they have responded (more times than not within <I>minutes</I>) things like "time marches on, tables [for layout] are history" and "tables [for layout] are a cheap hack".<BR/><BR/>Can you name one person I might be referring to as a "leading professional"? Try a Google search or two..<BR/><BR/>Check out <A HREF="http://www.w3.org/Style/" REL="nofollow">W3's CSS home page</A>. Read the quote at the top of the page. Are you familiar with a Jakob Nielsen?<BR/><BR/>Are you sure you have enough information to open your mouth? I find that the most naive of people have disproportionately large egos.<BR/><BR/>Why do so many people care about three-column layouts?<BR/><BR/>The designers of CSS, who have laboriously pined over the most miniscule of details, have prioritized a whole slew of issues that make the TABLE argument sound like child's play.<BR/><BR/>.. it really is ..<BR/><BR/>That said, leading CSS gurus have lamented on the layout system. I agree it is <I>far</I> from perfect.<BR/><BR/>The CSS working group (CSS WG) always has a public mailing list if you have any ideas.<BR/><BR/>In case you haven't changed your mind in the last two months I anonymously request that you try something:<BR/><BR/>Next time you're in the shower -- take a few extra minutes -- think about <I>how and why</I> smart people (look em up, don't take my word) might have neglected to solve the multi-column design pattern up until now.<BR/><BR/>Keep it simple stupid and learn to love CSS for what it's worth -- you'll soon realize that using TABLEs to pack information across multiple columns of the same screen probably works better for your .psd than it does for your site's users.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-82075485813765471332009-04-08T10:17:00.000-07:002009-04-08T10:17:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comments. You've said exactly what...Thanks for your comments. You've said exactly what I have been thinking. I too have been banging my head against the CSS wall trying to get all the code right. Everyone says CSS is better, but I can't see how. It's triple the markup, triple the headache, and you need two screens to keep it all straight. I agree, lets just use the code we know. It's not broken, it still works. So why kill ourselves over this??Laura Nashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18206589280435587634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-44116078525481321872009-03-28T04:16:00.000-07:002009-03-28T04:16:00.000-07:00Thanks for the nice post.Thanks for the nice post.Website Hostinghttp://www.rayhosting.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-77601198147718014492009-03-19T16:21:00.000-07:002009-03-19T16:21:00.000-07:00I appreciate all the comments. I think it's silly ...I appreciate all the comments. I think it's silly to insist on one way of building a site. I've used both CSS and tables for layout and happy there are both options. What annoys me, like others, is the attitude of some CSSers that it's the only acceptable way to do it. As far as screen readers, there are ways to code tables so that readers get the information.Robynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542367364945309334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-25761036474317965872009-03-12T00:34:00.000-07:002009-03-12T00:34:00.000-07:00Great article, and it reinforces the impression I ...Great article, and it reinforces the impression I got from these CSS fanatics. CSS is cool for some purposes, but these guys who think using tables for layout is the ultimate social disease need to get out more. I've read a lot tonight on "why you shouldn't use tables", and am not at all convinced. Each has its benefits, so I'll continue to use both.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11009339467509767917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-9777716594699548422009-03-11T23:20:00.000-07:002009-03-11T23:20:00.000-07:00How do you design a web page using CSS-P that has ...How do you design a web page using CSS-P that has a header, footer, and two columns of equal height with a 160px width static sidebar on the left and a fluid content panel on the right and have it resize properly with an overall minimum width of 320px? I've seen hacks like the use of extra div's, negative margins, and background images and still in the end, it doesn't work as cleanly and error-free across browsers as tables. IMO, not only is CSS-P esoteric and difficult to learn, but even if you master it, it still doesn't cut it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-86035333696203564452009-03-10T06:26:00.000-07:002009-03-10T06:26:00.000-07:00I appreciate what CSS offers and I use it CONJUNCT...I appreciate what CSS offers and I use it CONJUNCTION with tables. For these CSS purists who do say that this is the be all and end all, I refute primarily because of the 100% browser compatibility issues. As a commercial web designer it's something I MUST think about. There is nothing worse than have something work on browser A and fail on B and have to tweak it because of some little CSS anomaly.<BR/><BR/>That's not saying, in an ideal world, that CSS wouldn't be the way to go, but there does need to be a reworking of the whole "DIV" system. CSS allows you to build the framework, keeping your page code very clean, but it IS very confusing to set up (though much of this can be overcome with standards).<BR/><BR/>If you have to add Java in there to get it to respone, you're adding a layer of complexity that is now something else to break.<BR/><BR/>I use tables. Perhaps I'm old fashioned. I use CSS as well. I like the strengths that both provide and, as CSS is more widely accepted by the browser community, I'm sure I'll adopt more of it (but, for example, the Z-INDEX feature only works on some browsers).<BR/><BR/>I don't think there is WRONG way to build a site. If you're an avid CSS fan or rabid TABLE fan, then go with what works. Just keep the code neat and support won't be too much of a problem.<BR/><BR/>Those who "flame" people who don't agree with them usually tend to be people who really don't do this for a living in a world where we don't always have time to be "purists" because, as Myrth said "life, kids and mortgage"...Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17297701289331057897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-71444968748272396242009-03-07T07:39:00.000-08:002009-03-07T07:39:00.000-08:00This battle will wage on until the end of time. Ea...This battle will wage on until the end of time. Each group just shake hands and agree to disagree. This debate get old and tiring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-25475584718571767262009-03-07T03:53:00.000-08:002009-03-07T03:53:00.000-08:00Now that I've learned it and have used it for year...Now that I've learned it and have used it for years I just find CSS easier most of the time. It's hard at first but it's worth the initial frustration. CSS is actually easier for laying out content, the html is easier to read, style AND layout tweaks can be made mostly in the CSS without tampering with the html, and there are all the other benefits of semantic markup.<BR/><BR/>CSS has limitations (such as PIES's nav example) and sometimes you've got to bite the bullet and slip in a hack. But a clean separation between content and style is something to strive for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-33042655269682135352009-03-07T03:20:00.000-08:002009-03-07T03:20:00.000-08:00Allowing yourself to yield to other people comment...Allowing yourself to yield to other people comment is a mistake you have learned.<BR/><BR/>CSS and Div doesn't necessary mean the only way to get things done.<BR/><BR/>Thats why we have tables.<BR/><BR/>By goly, ever heard of the term: "Use whatever to get the job done right"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171221.post-79778663216848041412009-03-04T17:41:00.000-08:002009-03-04T17:41:00.000-08:00Learn CSS. Seriously. You're dead wrong about this...Learn CSS. Seriously. You're dead wrong about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com