CSS and Table combinations

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. Sometimes, the only way to make a specific design work is to use tables...

I've had to use it in the past, though currently I try to avoid it whenever possible. Of course, you can always cheat and not have the actual table in the HTML, but have some of your code display as a table using CSS.

Yes, that's perfectly fine under HTML 4.01 and xhtml transitional. I would add that for someone in your position it might be easier for right now to do it that way while you work on improving your html skills.

Before I Transitioned to css, I didnt know I was using the same principle when I first started with html and javascript, I was using divs like an addict in positioning stuffs, but I wasnt using the seperate style sheet and wasnt aware that i was basically using css, then I went to this website were when i selected text i noticed it was divided like a grid, so i figured this would be a good idea which was for a long time was used by other webmasters, so i tried table layout, it was cool for a while until i discovered pure css is better.

Maybe as a natural evolution I tried to formulate code combinations that would help noobs like me figure out css a little better, thats when i figured to use table codes to wrap up divs in an html document, I was surprised to generate a clean layout which was cross-browser compatible as well as easy to insert text and other info too... I figure that not only is this effective but fast...

albeit I still like to use pure css...

I think using pure CSS tends to be a bit overrated. I use a LOT of it, but mostly for style/appearance, but positioning of elements I rely primarily on tables. Not because I don't know how to use CSS, certainly not, but I find with CSS/DIVs I spend a lot of time in the position: absolute/relative float:left/right etc, where with tables, I know where they are going to line up and how and in general I have found the code to be shorter. Though I use much more traditional layout methods, the 3 column method is a favorite of mine.

I guess the main thing people use it for is making their layouts more flexible and dynamic, but I have a custom made template switcher for my site, with 4 layouts showing the content in varying ways. True that the positioning is similar, but of course somethings content determines form.

http://www.notian.net/?theme=classic
http://www.notian.net/?theme=historic
http://www.notian.net/?theme=dotnet3
http://www.notian.net/?theme=dotnet5

True CSS layouts are not overrated, I was a rubbish designer before I started using XHTML/CSS, now I've achieved the heady heights of: "Not quite as rubbish."

As for your dilemma I can't understand why anyone would want to use a table for layout... Tables are for displaying data in a tabular format! Why learn something wrongly because it's easier? That makes no sense!

Do it right, right first time. Just try not to run before you can walk, keep it simple and don't go beserk with advanced layouts etc.

I think a lot of people tend to get bogged down by the learning process with CSS layouts. We all had to do the same thing with tables back in the day. Remember all the work arounds and the NN4 irregularities? Similar sort of thing, just moving towards a better way of doing it. Once you get used to working with CSS it's really not any different than using tables, and it does allow for more flexibility in layout (not to mention a more modern look!).

I've done solely CSS/div layouts, I'm just not a fan of the coding.

I would love to stop using tables, but I find that CSS positioning is so irregular and I frequently spend hours trying to place something (less than successfully) that would have taken 5 minutes to position with tables. I find it hard to convince myself to keep trying.

Personally I find nothing wrong with tables and still use them along with CSS. You can position things inside table cells or even outside of the table itself with CSS, so you can use CSS 'layering' effects just fine with tables.

BTW...I've found that using a screen ruler helps take the guesswork out of positioning, I'm using the free JR Screen Ruler which displays horizontally on your screen.

I haven't found one yet that displays both X and Y...but I'd love to since it would be very handy.

Oh, Tina, don't you love that little program? I found it about six months ago and it's really helped take the guesswork out of positioning! As for vertical positioning, when the ruler is on top, scroll the wheel on your mouse--it does rotate. Also, if you don't have the scroll wheel, right click on the ruler to get a pop-up menu that will let you rotate, or use page-up, page-down. At least the paid version does...I don't know about the freeware version.

Hey cool....I'll check out the paid version... but still I'd love to see a screen ruler that displays like the rulers in Photoshop both X & Y ya know?!

My son loves CSS, I am an old dog and I like tables and html (maybe with a little style thrown here and there).
It takes him two or three times as long to build a page as it does me. Also if you want: do a little research on the web you will find CSS has far more compatibility problems then does html 4.01 trans.

This was the reason for 4.01 transitional, but most people use it wrong. 4.01 is not meant to be used with full CSS. But to provide a cross platform to accommodate older browsers, thats why you get by with older codes on html 4.01 where strict will not let you. Also the use of DIV is not really correct on 4.01 because older versions of netscape don't see it. So if you are going to use full CSS, you need to go 4.0 strict or XHTML.

Nobody uses the old version of Netscape anymore, I really believe the days of old are long gone and we can all use CSS/XHTML in earnest. Personally CSS is quicker than tables, but that may be because the entire process is done with this in mind.

And are there more compatibility issues with HTML 4.01 Transitional Vs XHTML? Screen readers - for example - don't handle tables very well and it doesn't degrade as well as vanilla XHTML with a CSS layout

Roo, there is one called screen ruler (of all things), is horz or vert with a slide of a mouse, a bit like the tool options in PSP but a lot less trouble to postition. Also sits anywhere on your screen. I think I still have it on my old puter, I'll try dig up the file or homepage for you. (is/was freeware)

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but can't help myself (I did hold out a while).
I think one of the biggest things about CSS layouts is they are very boxy, apart from cssgardens and the rounded css tutorial I have never seen a un-boxed layout. Most layouts you can tell are CSS just by looking at them, as you can with frontpage layouts.
HTML was never used to it's full protential as most people used editors that limited it's use, now CSS is here there are no limits and people think it's a lot stronger. It is more advanced (it should be it's newer) but similar results can be achieved very easily with HTML.

Also the mention of NN4, I wonder why IE5 hasn't been mentioned or NN6 which can both be troublesome browsers.
Screen readers can perfer tabled layouts if the layouts are done properly (using summary, titles etc), postioning with CSS can have the source all over the place so the contents can still be read back to front or in wrong order - A very simple layout (CSS or tables) wouldn't be a problem, just complex layouts)

I think the CSS Zen Garden is a great place to look for the benefits of a CSS layout. Sure, the basic structure is boxy, and on that level there isn't a huge improvement over tables. However, once you look at the variation in designs on that site you can really see what's possible. CSS layouts are the way of the future and it's a good idea to be prepared for future techniques. If SVG is ever implemented to a usable extent there will be an explosion of possibilities.

Even if you are using tables, you need CSS to control individual cellpadding - something taht wasn't available years ago - and all of the specific styling changes. So why not change it all over to CSS? A little learning now will allow for more flexibility and preparedness for the future.

I also strongly believe that it is the duty of webmasters to support the w3c standards. If we don't go along with what they recommend then they have no credibility and we have no standards. Sure, it's okay to use tables for now, but that won't always be the case.

ETA: I also think it's easier to make a modern looking design with CSS. Tabled sites often look outdated now.

I think that you shouldn't combine the two codes; it can get rather confusing. If I were you, I'd just use CSS. It's a bit harder to learn, but it's a lot faster and easier IMO.

Or you can just use basic HTML. I wouldn't suggest combining the two, unless it was just like a combination of mostly one or the other - not half and half.

IMO CSS is easier to learn that tables, I remember having a heck of a time trying to remember what rowspan, cellpadding/spacing, alignment in which section does what ... at least with CSS it will usually work or it wont, with tables you can get different results.

You want me to put that colspan where ?

lol Busy, funny you should mention that... I had to fix a table built site this week that someone else had built. Absolute nightmare - and not just because I couldn't remember much about tables!

The really annoying thing is that lack of flexibility, how do you change an aspect of the design when the layout is defined in each HTML page (by the HTML), and as you pointed out what a pain colspan/rowspan etc is!

I have been originally taught in tables and unfortunatly stuck to it for too long, I use css for some minor text control and effects but thats it, the problem is my sites are all dynamic, and are rebuilt each time the page loads, this enables me to use the admin program to change the layout, design and content via admin. no one element is fixed, That said how could I do the same using CSS as you cannot edit the css file in the same fashion? any one had any experience with this, and if so is it worth it for me to change over?

I guess I will have to take the time to learn the full extent of the ability of css and how I could manipulate it, is there any draw backs in having the style in the headder? that way I could build a librady of styles and only have the ones I need included via code

I guess it just depends on the type of site that you are building, from what I understand CSS is good to CSS developers, yet others like myself who have used tables an such for a long time for layouts will swear by that method.

Can anyone say that using just tables or useing CSS is wrong? Remebering opinions are just that. I have looked over CSS and its abilities and found it to be relativly powerful but I would have a great deal of trouble to implement it into a content management system, that was truly dynamic, remembering that the user can change font, color, size, effect, position, layout, image etc etc for each line or content area, this would mean that they would have to write to the CSS file each time they updated or that we only give them the option of using the CSS styles we have created in a library. Yes it could be done, but not sure a. if it would be worth it, b. if it would be better.

JeevesBond wrote: Nobody uses the old version of Netscape anymore, I really believe the days of old are long gone and we can all use CSS/XHTML in earnest.

The only way to know for sure is to have a peek at a high-volume site's (like Yahoo) stats to see what percentage of their users still use older browsers.

Having said that, I tend to agree as it applies to my situation. If I were getting 1000 visits per month from any browser that incapable of rendering CSS, I might consider my options. But I'm getting less than enough to suffer any major cosequences that might result in their exclusion. And some of those should still be able to view the textual material.

I am a CSS convert. It is more time-consuming, it is more difficult to understand (especially postitioning), it is not compatable with older browsers. So, why do I use it?
For one, I was able to get the design I wanted with CSS and because as JeevesBond said:

JeevesBond wrote: Tables are for displaying data in a tabular format! Why learn something wrongly because it's easier? That makes no sense!

.

Tables were used for layouts back in the day because there was no alternative. There was no correct way of doing it so people had to use work arounds and hacks. Read the w3C recommendations. Read Zeldman. Read the Web Standards project. Tables are not and were never the correct way of creating a page layout. Period.

They validate because they can't not validate. A script has no way of knowing whether you are using a table correctly or not. It can only find technical problems with it. That said, tables used for layout ARE accepted in HTML and xHTML transitional but after that CSS should be used for all presentational markup. That means layout.

I haven't written anything that says I'm against tables, but I agree with Megan.

And I don't live in a compound full of weapons and never have I thought that a spaceship hid behind a comet, come to take me away...ah hah, hee hee

I wouldn't say I'm "against tables" either (nor am I a "CSS Addict", BTW). Actually, I'm working on a project right now where I have been forced to use tables for layout (CMS issues). It happens. This is a transitional period in web development but we're at the point now where tabled layouts should be the exception and not the rule.

Well I am a self-confessed CSS addict so can't resist this topic... The reason people used tables was because the guys who invented the net were not graphic artists - they wanted to pore over scientific data all day long!

These people also did not predict how fast the net would catch-on, where people are (especially affluent middle class people with money to spend and time to kill) the companies follow. The companies want their branding on web sites, so a clever designer finds a way to use tables to make sexy designs one day and the rest is history (okay, so I made this bit up. But it sounds good and isn't that far from the truth).

Fact is that tables were invented so the geeks could display their scientific data in a tabular format, and that's why you're wrong Steve: Tables were used for displaying data in a tabular format way before they were used for design. That's what they were meant for in the first place and now we have other - better - mechanisms for formatting they should return to their proper place.

dataNdesigns, tables were orginally designed to display data, (or so they say) things like this forum are wrong as the tables control the layout of the data not just the data itself.

I personally don't believe tables are just for data, or they would of been phased out at HTML 3 or 4. It's like when Henry Ford invented the model A, it was meant to be away of replacing the horse and cart. It wasn't designed for what it is used for today. Model A's now are in all shapes and forms, drag cars, hot rods, custom ... with some still in orginal conditon.

When tables were created the option of using bgcolor and later backgrounds so they were intended for "show" not just display. Then Microsoft came in on it and brought out IE only stuff, like bordercolor etc. Later on thead, tbody etc were added. Tables have always been updated, summary="" for example is a classic element for a design table (helps screen readers and text browsers tell whats where).

The table/CSS debate will always be around, it's like the Netscape/Internet Explorer debate that even still goes on today, although now it's Opera/Mozilla/Netscape/Internet Explorer

Steve, its just points of view, I dont think anything said here will have any real impact on what acctually happens. As for the real world, everyone can debate all they like, but as busy said its just like the differences between browsers, I for one find your input worth while and would had to see you leave over an opinionated topic.

CSS is a good option for those who use it, the others who use tables just so, tables are supported and I have yet to see anything else other than opinion that would lead me to think using tables in wrong. Ok so the CSS users tell us that it is better but nothing has ever proven that it is wrong, and while browsers, WC3 and the rest still support tables who really cares? I am an asp developer and I could have the same argument about perl programmers, but who is right and who is wrong?

End Of the day my sites rank, my clients are happy and I get paid, the rest is irrelevant!

Bah, me and my over-opinionated ranting! My apologies Steve, please ignore me, I just enjoy a good debate.

I guess the thing I'm learning from everyones opinions here is that we all have different methods, they all produce slightly different results but if a site looks good and does what it says on the tin then who am I to argue...

Fact: tables were never meant to be used for layout
Fact: CSS works perfectly well for layout
Fact:there is nothing technically wrong with using tables for layout under HTML 4.0 and xHTML 1.0 transitional
Fact: under subsequent specifications there *is* something wrong with using tables for layout
Fact: most (if not all) of the leading experts in the field moved to CSS long ago
Question: does everyone need to do the same? Does it matter?

So, what are we arguing about? Seems that we all agree but are looking at it in a different way. Bottom line is that tables are fine (for now at least). We're not all Zeldmans or Jeevesbonds If you're not a code expert and have other things to worry about there's no compelling reason to switch. It IS something interesting to play with and to think about for the future.

Steve - we totally don't mean to pick on you personally. As I said at the beginning of this thread, tables are an acceptable way to build a site, especially for those new to web development:

Megan wrote: Yes, that's perfectly fine under HTML 4.01 and xhtml transitional. I would add that for someone in your position it might be easier for right now to do it that way while you work on improving your html skills.

IMO there are many more important issues in design than what method you use to code. CSS is good, you might want to look into it more in the future. But for now there's nothing wrong with what you're doing.

Wow, Megan did you just compare me to Zeldman? How I wish it were true... Well I suppose I'm working on it. Thanks though!

Good points Megan, and although I fight the XHTML/CSS corner vehemently your points are right. If customers are still paying, websites are still working the details of your methodology are somewhat moot.

Although I'd like to think I have a higher standard when defining "working." I like designs to look better than that normally achievable with tables, I expect code to be written in a certain way, I spend geeky hours with my head buried in the W3C specifications.

If your priorities are the same as mine then you'd do the same, but obviously you're not me so they're not! So if it suits use tables, I can't imagine a customer would make the differentiation.

Google uses tables on their site, microsoft uses tables on their site, ninemsn uses tables, and the list goes on and on and on.

Megan I can appreciate that you are a CSS advocate, however considering the poplularity for tables I and the rest of world very much doubt that tables will dissapear any time soon.

IMHO, it's not that tables are popular, its just that people have a reluctance to change what they have always known, which is designing with tables.

Renegade - Which would mean? probably that tables are indeed popular.

From an employers perspective, I have 2 developers working for me, one codes with tables same as me the other is a trainee who is learning CSS through uni. If she can convert our content management system over then so be it, else we will keep using tables. Remember bottom line is all that is important and while tables are functional and coders can keep producting good work with it there is no reason to justify the expense of retraining. I have been interviewing for 2 weeks now for a new developer so hopefully the new person will have CSS ablility and run through implementation but that person will have to be able to prove why changing over would be worth while.

So I am assuming that most other development firms are similar with developers that are comfortable using tables, why change that? the next generation mite fix this problem, only time will tell.

No one is disupiting that tables are popular. We're just disputing the correct use of them, that's all. I don't know why everyone is getting so upset about it.

And Busy - none of those are facts.

Megan - yes tables are popular, be it from lazy developers, lack of time to learn and implement, or just the the conversion over would not justify the time factor based on gain. Who knows, my argument is that tables are in fact an acceptable format for the web regardless of comments to the contrary. They are used by far more than CSS alone and in more important websites. However that said most do use a combination of the two to some degree (even me).

But I think the next big change on the net will not come from developers shifting over to CSS but in fact new technologies and methods altogether different from any current standards.

Who knows? what would happen if flash or something similar came with the players already built into the browsers?

Further more provided the code is clean, the site works well and its functional does any of this really matter?

Yeah, we won't have to worry about IE6 so much because we have to worry about IE7

The IE blog has some interesting debate, seems Microsoft are going to break RSS by building in their own extensions as well... Marvellous.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

You would think microsoft would have learn its lesson with .net and xp, the take up on both of those has been extreemly slow with many uses and corps still running the win 2000 pro operating system if not converting to lynix. I think they will upgrade themselves out of business one day.

Windows 2000 pro is a nice operating system we run it on all our systems here, personally I like it anyway, I have just been forced to upgrade to xp as it came with my new laptop, and I hate it! everything is locked down and no IIS system in the home version, so I either have to downgrade back to win 2000 or upgrade to xp pro which is poor if you ask me.

What shocks me more than anything is ms office, to get the full version here, its almost $400 which is the same price as a good bare bones computer, does mircosoft really think that just the application is worth more that the computer it runs on?

Buy the time you work it out, the computer at wholesale price is $400 xp pro is $175 oem and office is $400 you end up paying more for the software that you do the system itself. For what? just so I can use microsoft to develop with? You would think microsoft would promote developers to use their product and at least give us a package price that is affordable, even just to promote there own product.

I know for a fact that MS has dropped their policy of supporting older software, particularly stuff that uses OS-specific hacks to increase performance with Longhorn. Bad idea, how many people are seriously going to upgrade if most of their favourite programs don't work?

Win2K is a good operating system, there is nothing about XP that makes me want to upgrade, especially with that nasty Home/Professional edition differentiation. Linux is getting easier to use for the average person, I'd love to see more of an incursion into Windows market share on the desktop front.

I would expect that if no-one could upgrade to ie7 when using anything lesser than Longhorn then we'll see an even greater take-up of Opera & Firefox, think about the bigger picture... IE7 being restricted to Longhorn could be a good thing

dataNdesigns wrote: Buy the time you work it out, the computer at wholesale price is $400 xp pro is $175 oem and office is $400 you end up paying more for the software that you do the system itself. For what? just so I can use microsoft to develop with? You would think microsoft would promote developers to use their product and at least give us a package price that is affordable, even just to promote there own product.

They were also planning on making Longhorn subscription based so you'd have to pay a yearly fee to use it (not sure if this is still true either). Obvioulsy that's going to turn off a lot of users. This sounds like a make it or break it deal for MS. They're taking a big chance with this, IMO. Word is getting out among the newbie types about Moz so it could be that eventually people switch over rather than paying for Longhorn (same goes for other software too. Really, who needs an improved version of Office?? IMO a lot of software packages have reached the point of diminishing returns) . It'll be interesting to see how this plays out - it's got huge implications for web development, obviously.

Isn't Longhorn going to be compiled into new PC's anymore?
It could be like Nortons AV, when you buy a new PC you get Nortons (and the CD) but is only a trial version which lasts 6-12 months then you have to pay for it. It will still work afterwards, you just wont have the latest/greatest.

Could make the net a whole different ball game for designers, who is going to pay to subscribe to IE just so they can test their pages with it when they use nix or mozilla/opera ...

If the operating system comes with new PC's, people will pay. I meet someone the other day that said they have been on the net for years, yet they didn't know there was other browsers/software out there to choose from - they are now enjoying mozilla