Tables vs. Tableless

Originally Posted by jjmac For me it has nothing to do with a bandwagon, it's about making my life easier.

My sentiments exactly Josh

I used to code with tables, but it is slow and complicated when you start getting into nested tables, etc. I now code using the w3 standards without the use of tables and not only is it easier, but the code produced is far cleaner. Even if I wanted to, I would struggle to re-learn how to code with tables.

Originally Posted by Julian My sentiments exactly Josh

Not really in my case. I call it bandwagon because people seem to treat it like macs on this forum. "Oh we gotta have a mac cuz we're designers with our cracked photoshop!" :P Not many people seem to want to treat it as "Another tool," which basically it is. IE: Sometimes there is advantages to not using such.


Personally, tables and base HTML allow for alot more cross browser for me, due to alot of the technology I end up making pages for do not have the ability to render CSS, or some of the newer languages.



Sure using tableless for a generic website is great, but try working with media that doesn't support it.

What technology does not support it that's web based? Cross browser issues are not an issue, there are only a few rules you have to understand and it becomes very easy. The only time you'd have an issue is if you're coding for much older browsers, and there have been plenty of times that I've used tables for this reason but only in very specific circumstances.

I agree that most people don't understand the function of a CSS based layout which is why it seems like it's a bandwagon. It's simply a matter of understanding all of the technologies and choosing the one that fits your purose, not the one that would be "cooler". Any web site that is serious about development and predicts future changes will benefit from CSS unless there is an underlying non-standard aspect keeping it from being coded in CSS, which as technology develops these aspects are becoming fewer.

I personally haven't come across a single project in the past year that didn't benefit from a CSS based layout, nor one that required a table based layout. I develop for government agencies, cities, and ecommerce sites mainly.

Not to mention the fact that you can save thousands of dollars in bandwidth costs per year with a tablesslayout vs a table based layout.

The only people arguing against using CSS are those who don't truley understand it or grasp its uses. I was like that a few years ago, just didn't see the point... Then I started using CSS and realized just how much better it was.

Originally Posted by jjmac What technology does not support it that's web based? Cross browser issues are not an issue, there are only a few rules you have to understand and it becomes very easy. The only time you'd have an issue is if you're coding for much older browsers, and there have been plenty of times that I've used tables for this reason but only in very specific circumstances. I agree that most people don't understand the function of a CSS based layout which is why it seems like it's a bandwagon. It's simply a matter of understanding all of the technologies and choosing the one that fits your purose, not the one that would be "cooler". Any web site that is serious about development and predicts future changes will benefit from CSS unless there is an underlying non-standard aspect keeping it from being coded in CSS, which as technology develops these aspects are becoming fewer. I personally haven't come across a single project in the past year that didn't benefit from a CSS based layout, nor one that required a table based layout. I develop for government agencies, cities, and ecommerce sites mainly.

I deal with alot of wifi stuff that require MUCH more than a little worry about if it shows in IE or firefox, let alone just on a laptop or pc. IE: dealing with mini unique products.

I'm not saying CSS isn't good. I'm saying its bandwagon because 90% of the people preaching it have no clue about it or why they are using it other than "well everyone else is!" Kind of like every making posts about "I'm getting a mac!" or "isn't my stuff SO web2.0 buzz!"


Ire "The only people arguing against using CSS are those who don't truley understand it or grasp its uses." /quote


Not to be too direct, but I do use CSS for many things, my bias of calling people bandwagon with it doesn't come from having an inability to use it for its advantages, because clearly I do.


I'm simply saying the reason most people <b>think</b> css is a better approach to scripting is because the 10 other kids "think it's cool!" There are times it's a god send, and theres times that it has no place in some mediums, simple as that.

Originally Posted by Bennett I deal with alot of wifi stuff that require MUCH more than a little worry about if it shows in IE or firefox, let alone just on a laptop or pc. IE: dealing with mini unique products.

I'm just asking for some examples. I deal with a LOT of web technology and I can't think of any right now. I code HTML/CSS because I have to for the programs I write. I'm a programmer in my day job and I code PHP, .Net, Java, Javascript, and some other more obscure languages on a day to day basis and I've yet to find any that don't benefit from using CSS based layout.

Yes, even the wifi benefits, probably more than others because I can specify different stylesheets for different devices. If a person on a PDA accesses my sites they get a completely different site (designed especially for their screen size) than someone on say a computer monitor, or even a printer. I don't see how this isn't a MAJOR benefit from having to try and write one table design that works on all, that's pratically impossible. In fact, writing for PDA devices is what really got me into using CSS based layouts, it's so easy and versatile to use between devices with differnt outputs, and there's no need to even mess with the content, you just write different CSS files for it.

edit: I still agree with you on your point that people see it as a bandwagon. Most people who are gung-ho CSS-P don't understand why. But there are definitely reasons for it, so it's not necessarily a bad bandwagon. Even if these people code CSS-P without knowing why, in the future they may find out and be glad that they did it that way from the beginning.

But what I notices, that even CSS-P designs can be terrible and completely negate the point of using a css positioning system. I see sites all the time that validate, and are tableless, but are completely layout dependant which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what CSS positioning is trying to accomplish. These are definitely "bandwagon" pages that you're referring to.

Originally Posted by jjmac I'm just asking for some examples. I deal with a LOT of web technology and I can't think of any right now. I code HTML/CSS because I have to for the programs I write. I'm a programmer in my day job and I code PHP, .Net, Java, Javascript, and some other more obscure languages on a day to day basis and I've yet to find any that don't benefit from using CSS based layout. .

Aye, you're thinking of the generic webpage, ie: you type www.bahbah.com into a computer and see it, however webpages aren't limited to that. For sake of not giving away my niche, feel free to privately discuss this with me, and I can explain why CSS isn't acceptable for what I'm doing.


To the other part of the post, 90% of them all are bandwagon, even you can see that. Maybe that's why 90% of all websites and designers are not up to par?

And then there is the whole other side of the spectrum, the realy skilled css users who can't design at all, and while they have the most wonderfully coded pages in existance, no one will ever return to such an eyesore.

Design and coding are seperate fields and should be treated as such. I am forced to design because our IS department is small enough that we don't have a dedicated designer. That is the reason I end up on so many design forums. My coding skills are up to par for sure, but I always have to work hard at good designs, and they usually only come out decent but not spectacular. I'm much better at coding, but work harder at design, it's kind of a strange combination

Ideally a designer would design a page, and a coder would code it. But we all know how often that happens!