CSS or tables? - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | PRO digital corner | Join Image Upload

2 end

pahrens
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · CSS or tables?

Is there any point in learning to use CSS in websites? Or would I be just as well off making a table based site? I am using dreamweaver but haven't made a site in years, everything has changed so much. I see some of the advantages to CSS but writing the code and getting everything to work is just plain annoying.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 09:05 AM

invalid2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · CSS or tables?

I don't think there is any point in trying to use tables to make a website. Check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for a taste of what css can do for you (and those visiting your website).

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 09:37 AM

Alex Nail
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · CSS or tables?

USE CSS! Dont get yourself into the nightmare that is tables. CSS is much cleaner and you can use one template to define your whole site making it much easier to edit.

Best

Alex

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 10:04 AM

pahrens
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · CSS or tables?

I have since discovered a tool for drawing the CSS layouts how you want on a html page. I then copied it over to a external CSS file and cleaned the code up. It may be cheating but I am still learning so it all helps. Thanks for the replies, I know deep down inside that tables are wrong.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Gerry Kerr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · CSS or tables?

Whats the tool - can you post a link?

Thanks Gerry

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 01:46 PM

nathanlake
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · CSS or tables?

If you have the tools and the knowledge, CSS is a clear winner.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 05:58 PM

nylad
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · CSS or tables?

I would call it the nightmare of CSS, not tables. Why? Because tables show up exactly the same in every web browser. While CSS loads faster, takes up less bandwidth, is more flexible, etc, tables are 100% browser compliant. There is nothing worse than coding a website in CSS and then finding out it’s all screwed up in Firefox, or Opera, or another browser. With that being said CSS is the way to go if you are doing a lot of websites. If you are just doing your own and don’t want to spend hours (maybe even days) trying to find the CSS hack(s) so your navigation/some element on the page is in the right place, use tables for the layout. Then use CSS for the colors etc.

Sometimes you just want what works, and tables just work.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 06:10 PM

invalid2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · CSS or tables?

nylad wrote:
I would call it the nightmare of CSS, not tables. Why? Because tables show up exactly the same in every web browser. While CSS loads faster, takes up less bandwidth, is more flexible, etc, tables are 100% browser compliant. There is nothing worse than coding a website in CSS and then finding out it’s all screwed up in Firefox, or Opera, or another browser. With that being said CSS is the way to go if you are doing a lot of websites. If you are just doing your own and don’t want to spend hours (maybe even days) trying to find the CSS hack(s) so your navigation/some element on the page is in the right place, use tables for the layout. Then use CSS for the colors etc.

Sometimes you just want what works, and tables just work.

For working, how about accessibility? Or the work required to write the code and then maintain it?

The point of html is different from typesetting. The point of html is to tell the display system what your intentions are and let it handle the rest, since it knows what the display details are - the html generator knows nothing of this.

Edit: For those who want to read more details:

Edited by invalid2 on Nov 12, 2007 at 08:35 PM GMT

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 08:19 PM

lindabrowne
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · CSS or tables?

I first learned with tables also. Getting myself to switch was hard. It was easier to go with what I knew instead of learning something new. Learning css was actually not bad and much quicker in the long run. External css & external javascript make future changes very easy.

Good luck!

~ Linda

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 08:33 PM

nylad
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · CSS or tables?

Great links invalid2! I will be reading all of them and they may change my view!

Thanks!

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 08:40 PM

eeprete
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · CSS or tables?

CSS for layout and style. Tables for TABULAR data. End of story. Just ensure your documents are structured properly.

Although, I am a web developer, and my best suggestion for any amatuer photographer looking for a site, is simply go with something like zenfolio, because to do it right takes time either learning or paying someone else to do it right.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 12, 2007 at 11:20 PM

SingleMalt
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · CSS or tables?

I'm a huge believer in KISS. I designed a very simple site using tables. It's not going to win any awards. People don't hire me to design websites. My site exists to link current clients to 3'rd party designed slide shows (Lightroom) and to give quick information to prospective clients. (100% of which, at this point, are word of mouth referred.)

Eventually I'll hire a qualified professional to put together something more flashy. But only when it serves me best. Tables are quick, easy, and when done with basic rules, look nice enough. All that said, CSS, if you have the time and talent, is superior.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 13, 2007 at 03:48 AM

TT1000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · CSS or tables?

Table based design is ridiculous.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 13, 2007 at 07:35 AM

fotonix
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · CSS or tables?

There is a time and place for both CSS and tables. Someone viewing the site should not know whether its table or CSS based, but be able to USE the site. Usability is the issue more than the technology used to achieve it.

When HTML was young, tables and frames were the coolest kid on the block. Then frames got pimples because people had clue zero on how to code them properly - so the 'masses' turned and declared frames evil. Now the same hysteria is smearing tables. My view is that as new things come along (Ok, CS is already 10 years old), they get used to enhance the user's experience of your site. Like Shrek said, its like and onion, layers of technology working together.

my 2c.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 13, 2007 at 08:04 AM

troyhark
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · CSS or tables?

To quote from Invalid's Link One above
"Tables existed in HTML for one reason: To display tabular data. But then border="0" made it possible for designers to have a grid upon which to lay out images and text."

This is so often stated as why one shouldn't use tables. And is the most stupid reason possible. It's like saying Photoshop was created for Photographers, so designers shouldn't use it.
Tables as mentioned above by Nylad can be the best solution for someone who doesn't currently do web design and isn't au fait with the numerous and hard to discover workarounds needed with CSS. The bottom line is tables work. In all browsers, identically.
Fantastic as the Zen Garden website is, a lot of the designs don't fully work in IE. Allowing them to degrade gracefully is fine, but if you can do what you want with something that works, why worry about CSS.
I considered all sorts of fancy solutions to my portfolio site when I did it a few years back and only tables could guarantee consistent + correct layout at the quality I needed at the time, without using Flash. CSS has improved since then, so now if one has time to learn CSS [not a 5 min task], then using CSS may be worthwhile. Though the principles of how a site is built up semantically is often still worth employing even if tables are being used - i.e. separate content from design. Though with portfolio sites, the content may well be the design!

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 11:27 AM

invalid2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · CSS or tables?

troyhark, did you read the rest of the references I provided? There are many reasons not to use table other than the unsuitability for general design. Tables tend to work for standard graphical browsers, but they fail horribly at accessibility or even for just text browsers. It may be that for a photography website, assumption of graphics is acceptable, but in general, that assumption ranges from a bad idea to one that exposes you to legal action.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 15, 2007 at 07:49 PM

troyhark
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · CSS or tables?

I did. Though the daft and irrelevent reasoning of first doesn't really encourage one to proceed further.
I actually think, long term, CSS is better, but as tables work well and consistently in Browsers and over the years have resulted in a lot of well designed sites, they are hardly unsuitable for design. Though the coding could get a little untidy it's true if you nest tables, but then if you do that then your CSS will also probably suck too. One could even argue CSS is less suitable as it is less consistent across Browsers. Interestingly one of the guys in your links admitted his table version of site worked better in more browsers than the CSS version, and had this to say
"Although CSS-based design is really fast when you get used to it, you must spend a significant amount of time getting to know the rules, the box model differences, browser quirks and other theory. This comes through practice and practice only. In short: it's much easier to just use tables. If you want to make pure CSS designs, be prepared to invest time in learning. Even if you're already a seasoned developer, be prepared to hunt down bugs relentlessly, sometimes investing several hours in the process."
So if you know tables well, is it worth learning alll that extra knowledge if you aren't a full time coder?

The other site seemed to be anti CSS and more in favour of tables which is a bit odd for you to reference. !?

PS I just thought if you read books on design layout [print or web], using grids is almost certainly to be illustrated with what looks like tables, making up the page structure. So maybe tables are in fact ideal for design! ;-)

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Etadam
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #18 · CSS or tables?

1. Learn how to use CSS (buy Rachel Andrew's book)
2. Use CSS for the general page design
3. Use tables and CSS for tabular data

There are a few CSS easy concepts to learn ; CSS is - theoretically - covering most of the designer's needs ; its proposal (selected by the w3c) is a bit weird at times imo, but, again in theory, it works.

The real problem is the implementation of CSS in browsers. It is not a "1 + 2 = 3" thing. W3c provides a theoretical language unfortunately prone to misinterpretations. To get something that works nice in both Firefox and Internet Explorer [esp. 6] is enough to drive you up the wall!

It is why you need a book like Rachel Andrews's.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 11:34 AM

troyhark
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · CSS or tables?

The real problem is the implementation of CSS in browsers. It is not a "1 + 2 = 3" thing. W3c provides a theoretical language unfortunately prone to misinterpretations. To get something that works nice in both Firefox and Internet Explorer [esp. 6] is enough to drive you up the wall!

It is why you need a book like Rachel Andrews's.

Do you mean 'The CSS Anthology - 101 Essential Tips + Tricks'? As I second that it is indeed a good book. But your comment also underlines the major problem with CSS, you need to learn lots of hacks and workarounds to get CSS to work with the current browsers. Which unless you want to do web design, as opposed to just building your own site, is an awful lot of work.
So if tables will easily do what you want in all the browsers, why bother to spend weeks faffing around with CSS?

Insisting that tables are only good for tabular data is as I said above, is akin to saying Photoshop is only for Photographers and not designers. It's an all too often repeated bit of nonsense, pretending to be wisdom.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 01:09 PM

Etadam
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #20 · CSS or tables?

This is the book.
The advices I give are based on my professional experience.
It takes some time to get used to CSS and the book helps a lot. The global design of the page and its elements gets eased a lot using CSS. Tabular data go in tables that are also subject to CSS directives.

CSS is a new dimension in designing, changing a unique line in CSS can change the whole look of your page. Like, say, "by default all tables have a border of 2 pixels" or "all paragraphs named title are font Verdana". Using CSS a page needs less instructions, and loads faster.

The problem is the browsers compatibility, this is why you need that kind of book.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 02:38 PM

troyhark
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · CSS or tables?

I'm not disagreeing about the strengths of CSS like being able to change entire website looks in one go. But my point is that having to learn CSS and all the hacks to make it work in all browsers, is not always worth the effort for a non-professional web designer/coder. In a few years, when the browsers get their act together, non-coders will be able to use CSS without dreadfully bloated code that works in all browsers consistently.
A friend sent me a website done in iWeb a few days back to check, not only was the code way more verbose than a HTML page, it didn't even work properly in IE.

Going back to the nonsense about tables and tabular data. Many years ago, I read a similar edict about how one should never ever use line breaks for design as that's what was used in early 'design free' web pages. So I designed a website that specifically used lines as the main design element. Not only did the site look good, it was relevent to the content and used no bandwith on graphics bar a small logo.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 03:26 PM

mlavander
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · CSS or tables?

TABLES!!!

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 03:29 PM

invalid2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · CSS or tables?

troyhark wrote:
Going back to the nonsense about tables and tabular data.

When I write letters/papers/articles/etc, I let the text flow from one line to the next, and the document flows from one page to the next. I do not try to position words or entire paragraphs on some sort of grid. If you want to make a webpage that is a collection of elements positioned on a grid - tables are the right way to do this.

troyhark wrote:
I'm not disagreeing about the strengths of CSS like being able to change entire website looks in one go. But my point is that having to learn CSS and all the hacks to make it work in all browsers, is not always worth the effort for a non-professional web designer/coder.

It is nice that CSS reduces the requisite repetition for changes, but I don't see that as the major benefit. I think CSS is great for providing stylistic information relating to content and display hints. The point of CSS is not to put each word/letter/pixel in a specific place on the display (an impossible task), and that is not the point of html. CSS does not require much learning time to provide useful results, nor does it require piles of horrible kluges - that comes from trying to make something look identical (to the pixel) for all browsers.

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 09:40 PM

John Patrick
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #24 · CSS or tables?

Too bad PS (or, I guess, ImageReady) doesn't export CSS, only tables.

As such, my page is in tables.

Works for me.

John

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM

SoloHiker
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · CSS or tables?

Insisting on using CSS for ALL layout designs is just silly (I'm a professional developer, and have since the early days of the web). Tables aren't the bane of HTML that many above are insisting, but rather a tool to get some design element done quickly and correctly. Tables are supported in non-web browsers like Blackberry, PocketPC, and so on: CSS isn't necessarily supported (or not implemented according to standards, such as on BB). There are always some basic techniques that I use on all websites and intranets I build: if the design is accepted by a customer, I'll use tables for a basic overall layout, then frequently use CSS to layout components within the site (such as navigation, text, effects, etc).

To say "don't use tables!" is just silly (like one of the reasons given as "no support in text-only browsers": were photographers, folks: if someone is viewing your site in a text-only browser then there's not a whole lot of likelihood that they'll do business with you!)

Edited on Nov 23, 2007 at 03:06 PM

Nov 22, 2007 at 08:38 PM


FM Forums \| PRO digital corner \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end