Tables or CSS?

[ATLien]

Ok, I just recently did my first CSS design to comeplete web standards. I think CSS is more confusing design wise, but it saves a crap load of load time by lowering code and file size lengths.

I see myself switching to CSS standards soon. Here is the design I did, it is not a site, just a parctice design.

http://focus.atliengeorgia.com/

What do you all prefer?

[Radnor]

CSS all the way!!!

[noob_0001]

I like tables because they don't fall apart if the stylesheet is not available. Prefer to have tables and css to make text look right. But without the stylesheet a pure css page looks like a 1990 page. Harder to make multi col pages look right - when the col's are not all the same height.

I do like some of the cool tricks you can do with css

[paranoidandroid]

I like tables because they don't fall apart if the stylesheet is not available

That's actually one of the positive sides of CSS, without the stylesheet you have a site that's high on accessibility and also ready to be used on portable devices.

Why would a stylesheet not be available? Not like javascript where a user can have it disabled.

CSS is harder to grasp than table based layouts, and until Internet Explorer matches Firefox, Safari, Opera it's always going to be harder to make a CSS site work on all platforms. So for speed I still like tables, though once CSS is fully mastered by me I hopefully will stop using tables for layouts.

I do like some of the cool tricks you can do with css

Yes many of the CSS designs you see on the following sites can't be done using tables, others would involve a ridiculous amount of nesting.

www.stylegala.com

www.cssbeauty.com

www.cssvault.com

www.csszengarden.com

[Michael Allison]

I think it's odd that you are asking css or tables. You make it sound like you can't use a stylesheet with tables - you can and I do it all the time.

What I use depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. I'm more comfortable with tables, but I like divs, too. I think they're cool. I like having both options open and I'm not above mixing divs in with tables.

Sometimes you need to display information in a table. To do that, you will always need, wait for it... tables! They will always be used for things like listing different hosting plans and the like.

For me, as long as it loads fast, validates and looks good in all browsers at 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768, then I'm happy. What method I use to accomplish that is irrelevant.

I don't see how anyone can claim one is better than the other. Try making a decent table with divs...

It's apples and oranges we're talking about - two different things with two different purposes. They both have their place.

-Michael

[paranoidandroid]

I think it's odd that you are asking css or tables. You make it sound like you can't use a stylesheet with tables - you can and I do it all the time.

Look at it this way, the majority of sites are either-

- Table based with no CSS at all

- Table based with CSS to handle font styling etc

- Completely CSS based (this type conforms to web standards)

Designing websites to web standards refers to using CSS to construct the layout, a site that uses tables to form the layout doesn't conform to web standards. The exception would be when using tables to display tabular data (the original reason for tables) within a CSS layout.

Many profesional web designers now consider the use of tables to construct layouts to be bad practice. Table based sites will continue to exist for a long time yet but ultimately more and more designers will ditch them, in the same way that many people now use CSS to style text rather than <font> tags.

<edit>just wanted to clarify, as ATLien was refering to designing with web standards (fully CSS) versus designing with tables for layouts</edit>

[Radnor]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

The exception would be when using tables to display tabular data (the original reason for tables) within a CSS layout.

So, are you saying you CANNOT display X cols by X rows of data via CSS????

[Michael Allison]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

Designing websites to web standards refers to using CSS to construct the layout, a site that uses tables to form the layout doesn't conform to web standards.

Actually, they are both to web standards... just different ones.

Browsers will always be able to read HTML 4.01 - always.

The new standards are XHTML, but the old ones will always be usable. So, really, does it matter which one you use? I mean, for reasons other than functionality. Again, try making a table with divs... would you ever consider trying? I wouldn't. If I want a table, I will use a <table> tag. If I want a dynamic menu, I will use css and <ul>.

Sometimes you need a wrench and sometimes you need a screwdriver, But, one isn't any better than the other. They are tools with different purposes, just like the tools we have to make websites.

-Michael

[noob_0001]

Originally Posted by paranoidandroid

Why would a stylesheet not be available? Not like javascript where a user can have it disabled.

Have you ever downloaded a page without an embedded stylesheet and then later view that page offline? Not everybody does a download webpage complete. Somepeople just download the webpage. Some people do not want to download all the ads that are on site. Without the css support file the page fals apart.

How is the stylesheet referenced? Without a complete url to your site how does the browser know which stylsheet to use? Without a base url in the header and an internet connection that is live, a page without the required stylsheet falls apart.

[Radnor]

Originally Posted by noob_0001

Have you ever downloaded a page without an embedded stylesheet and then later view that page offline? Not everybody does a download webpage complete. Somepeople just download the webpage. Some people do not want to download all the ads that are on site. Without the css support file the page fals apart.

How is the stylesheet referenced? Without a complete url to your site how does the browser know which stylsheet to use? Without a base url in the header and an internet connection that is live, a page without the required stylsheet falls apart.

D/L(ing) a page you can grab the css and js files too.....

If the ads are from the site you are visiting, not too much control.... If it's other banners, I like a HOSTS file for ads.adserver, doubleclick, etc. ....

[Radnor]

<html>
<head>
<title>3 X 3</title>

<style>
li {
	display:inline;
}

.lc {
	position:relative;
	left:10px;
}
.mc {
	position:relative;
	left:210px;
}
.rc {
	position:relative;
	left:410px;
}
</style>


</head>

<body>


<ul>
	<li class="lc">r1c1</li>
	<li class="mc">r1c2</li>
	<li class="rc">r1c3</li><br>
	
	<li class="lc">r2c1</li>
	<li class="mc">r2c2</li>
	<li class="rc">r2c3</li><br>
	
	<li class="lc">r3c1</li>
	<li class="mc">r3c2</li>
	<li class="rc">r3c3</li><br>
</ul>

</body>
</html>

[paranoidandroid]

Without the css support file the page fals apart.

If the site has has been designed correctly (which is what web standards is about) then removing the stylesheet only removes the 'styles' what is left is the raw text content.

I don't design sites so that they can be viewed offline. Another good aspect of CSS is that you can have a different stylesheet for people who want to print the website.

I am not saying using tables is wrong, simply stating the advantages that CSS layouts have in terms of usability, accesibility and design. I agree with Michael-

Sometimes you need a wrench and sometimes you need a screwdriver

[DaveyBoy]

This very discussion / argument is what has driven me away from a couple of other webmaster forums i used to post on - simply because the people there all give whether your site is CSS or tables the top priority when reviewing. They'll write about 40 lines saying why my site is bad cos it's in tables then they'll tack a bit on the bottom stating that is does look good etc.

Just irritates me so much, the way i see it is that i've spent the last what, 8 years doing it like this and while it's all very well keeping up with the standards etc. my sites still load fast (ok, so i'd have saved 0.1 seconds if was CSS..), still look good etc. Until somebody says, right IE or Firefox will not work with HTML or tables ever again, then that's when i'll stop using 'em. Yes there's a few benefits with CSS, but it doesn't make someone a better designer or anything because they use them. Just my opinion i guess.

[paranoidandroid]

They'll write about 40 lines saying why my site is bad cos it's in tables

Yes also I have started to notice in a few forums people also criticise sites that don't validate. If tables do the job use them, no one should have to make excuses for choosing one method over another. If you have the time and skills (and desire) use CSS, don't think where I work would take it to well if I explained that from now on I will only use CSS and therefore sites will take me 3 times longer to build.

[paranoidandroid]

So, are you saying you CANNOT display X cols by X rows of data via CSS????

No........saying that it is generaly accepted that you can design CSS sites that conform to standards (if that is your desire), and include tables for tabular data

But there is a perfectly good use for them, too: Tabular data! And if you want to make your tabular data tables not only standards compliant, but also accessible, this small list of links might help achieve that noble goal.

http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2003_09.html

[paranoidandroid]

Not had any clients yet who have said can we have a valid CSS site with no tables, but it would be good to have the skills for the future.

[etech-peter]

There's nothing wrong with using tables. Using strictly CSS produces much lighter HTML code, which in theory will give your content more relevance on the page and faster page loads. We use CSS for styling and tables for design, an advantage of using tables is you always get the browser output you want.

[LazyJim]

Hey,

Great start with your CSS, (not looked at any of the code though )

Why do people insist on using such small text?!