|
| |
|
|
chasta
Posts: 87
From: IL
Status: offline
 |
Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/2/2003 17:18:43
Except for the parts of my site where I actually have tabular data, I don't use tables. I started this about a year or so ago and was wondering if anyone else has ditched tables yet?
I recently wondered if I was excluding too much of my audience by this approach and took a hard look at my server logs. Only a very, very tiny part of my visitors would have problems seeing my site as intended. It would be ugly for them, but still usable. In my books, not worth the hassle of creating two versions of my site!
Just curious where others stood on this...
_____________________________
"You can only be a victim if you admit defeat." -Descendents
|
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2877
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/2/2003 18:45:38
quote:
Gail, I'm curious...why so enthusiastic about keeping tables? Do you just like them better than CSS?
There are a number of reasons:
I'm an artist and a web designer, not a web developer. Believe me, I don't pretend to be anywhere close to the best designer in the world. However I am prejudiced in that I believe good design is among the main reasons that keeps visitors at a website. I don't think CSS at this time provides the type of design control that tables afford.
In my My Favorites folder it contains a subdirectory called "Inspiration" which has bookmarks to some of the best designed (imho) sites I've ever seen. I visit these sites often. Many of them, major corporations, have recently undergone a total redesign of their sites. Checking the source code, each and every one of them use tables for layout (all use CSS for text formatting).
Saying all this, I would never discourage anyone from going all CSS. I've spent an inordinate amount of time redoing my digital photography site. If I ever want to do a major design change, it'll be some heck of a chore. If I used (and knew CSS2) it would be a snap.
gail
_____________________________
Digicamhelp - Easiest place on the web to learn about Digit@l Cameras & Photography
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/2/2003 22:12:21
Gail, I agree with you view on the importance of the "Design" side of web development;
But your quote:
quote:
I don't think CSS at this time provides the type of design control that tables afford. Leaves me confused. The reason CSS was developed was to give the "design" a way to have more control over the design without breaking the orginal concept of the HTML language. My experience has been exactly the opisite of you quote - I find CSS allows a much greater control over the design elements without preverting the use of tables for tabular data display.
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2877
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/3/2003 8:57:59
quote:
But your quote:
quote:
I don't think CSS at this time provides the type of design control that tables afford. Leaves me confused. The reason CSS was developed was to give the "design" a way to have more control over the design without breaking the orginal concept of the HTML language. My experience has been exactly the opisite of you quote - I find CSS allows a much greater control over the design elements without preverting the use of tables for tabular data display.
I should have used the word design "look" rather than "control."
To clarify, I meant that design-wise, I personally haven't seen many full CSS sites which, while attractive, have the aesthetic dynamism of those created using tables. I don't see huge corporations ditching tables and I've watched several do a recent and complete redesign and overhaul of their sites. They continue to use tables for layout, profusely.
Gil, I don't understand why you say that using tables for design structure is considered perverted. Though their original intent was and continues to be for tabular layout, tables are used effectively for layout on thousands upon thousands of sites on the web.
As mentioned, I certainly have nothing against CSS for positioning...it is a fine and certainly efficient "tool." At the same time, I do not consider use of tables perverted.
Another thing to keep in mind is the type of work each of us does. For my work, tables are just fine. There may come a time when I change my mind about tables but, for the foreseeable future, I certainly don't intend to dump them.
gail
_____________________________
Digicamhelp - Easiest place on the web to learn about Digit@l Cameras & Photography
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/3/2003 9:59:21
quote:
I should have used the word design "look" rather than "control."
Exactly what CSS was developed for - the "look"
quote:
To clarify, I meant that design-wise, I personally haven't seen many full CSS sites which, while attractive, have the aesthetic dynamism of those created using tables. I don't see huge corporations ditching tables and I've watched several do a recent and complete redesign and overhaul of their sites. They continue to use tables for layout, profusely.
So true. BUT, that will be changing very, very soon. More & more sites are moving to XML & XSL
quote:
Gil, I don't understand why you say that using tables for design structure is considered perverted
Simply because, as you state, the purpose of tables is/was to present tabular data - using tables for layout (while it has worked, and I've used it for years) is not the intended usage and therefore a perversion of the HTML code. I didn't mean it was a 'bad' thing - like I say, I've done it for years 
Check your email 
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
Gil
Posts: 7533
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/3/2003 12:32:36
No 'hard facts' or scientific data Gail. Just a gut feeling and a lot of interaction with other developers that are moving that way as fast as then are able. Almost every developer I know is digging into XML now and developing test sites based on XML / XSL
_____________________________
Gil Harvey, 1947-2004
| |
|
|
|
chasta
Posts: 87
From: IL
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/3/2003 13:38:13
Gil, I agree with you on CSS. I find it to be easier for design myself. I'm guessing tables are simply easier for others to use.
What's your guys opinions on W3C standards? Do you think it's more important for your site to reach as many users (and, thus, as many browsers) as possible, or do you think it's more important to be W3C compliant, even if it means your site doesn't look as pretty in some browsers?
My husband is a W3C standard freak. I heard he even told some of his co-workers "Shame, shame, shame...using tables for non-tabular data." I think they told him where he could go. Can't blame 'em! Sometimes he makes me want to go out and break every W3C standard there is! *lol*
_____________________________
"You can only be a victim if you admit defeat." -Descendents
| |
|
|
|
_gail
Posts: 2877
From: So FL
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/5/2003 12:16:07
quote:
ORIGINAL: slbergh
With my primary site having more than 1,300 files in it,
If I ever dreamed of creating a site that large, I'd be learning css positioning real quick! But, as I said above: "Another thing to keep in mind is the type of work each of us does. For my work, tables are just fine." CSS is a great method of layout but not the only one currently.
I think chasta made a very interesting point when she shared her husband's experience, and it sorta reflects the essence of why I was emphatic in saying "no" about ditching tables.
quote:
I heard he even told some of his co-workers "Shame, shame, shame...using tables for non-tabular data." I think they told him where he could go
I have two questions:
I think one of the most incredibly beautiful and artistically designed sites I've seen, particularly if you dig deep into it, is BBCi. www.bbc.com Their pages are packed with tables.
Will they be able to maintain that level of design and complexity using css positioning?
Also, can you give me an address or two to a site which uses full css and has that level of design and complexity?
thanks,
gail
_____________________________
Digicamhelp - Easiest place on the web to learn about Digit@l Cameras & Photography
| |
|
|
|
DarlingBri
Posts: 3123
From: Left of Centre, Cork, Ireland
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/6/2003 19:12:34
quote:
ORIGINAL: _gail
quote:
ORIGINAL: slbergh
With my primary site having more than 1,300 files in it,
If I ever dreamed of creating a site that large, I'd be learning css positioning real quick!
See, to me, that's the beauty of CMS databases.
Home page
Display page
Details page
I can easily run a site of 1,3000 pages by running queries to those three HTML pages. Just drop the content text and images into the CMS, and hey presto, a limitless number of pages generated from three templates.
Now, if those three pages were CSS-only, I'd be really stylin'! Having just done away with font tags in favour of style sheets, though, it will take me a while to get there :)
| |
|
|
|
slbergh
Posts: 323
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: Iowa
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/6/2003 23:38:36
Actually, I'm considering developing my own CMS to simplify my job! It's just a daunting task trying to get started. (I don't have a ton of $$ to spend on applications, so developing my own is much more feasible.)
_____________________________
Digital data lasts forever...or 5 years, whichever comes first!
| |
|
|
|
DarlingBri
Posts: 3123
From: Left of Centre, Cork, Ireland
Status: offline
|
RE: Has anyone else ditched tables yet? - 10/7/2003 0:47:36
You don't need to do that,thought obviously you can if you want. I think it's far more time-saving to use existing CMSs for what they do best:data input and administration. Then build your own front end to display the data and have the part of the site the visitor sees look exactly as you want it to.
Basically, you build the client a custom container and use the CMS with which you are familar to populate it.
I just sort of ran through this in another thread for someone else:
http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m_159572/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#160237
There are a million ways to skin a cat, I don't need to start making my own kittens :)
< Message edited by DarlingBri -- 10/7/2003 12:48:35 AM >
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
Too funny! 
