Megan — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:09:20 +0000

But really, what are you going to say instead? You don't want to say div's because you're not just replacing tables with div's, you're using proper document structure. So what do you call that? I don't want tables, I want proper document structure? I guess that's alright, but I think we're a long way from people understanding what that means.

You could also say that the intent with the two terms is the same. With tables you are using tables to control the layout. With proper xHTML/CSS you are using CSS to control the layout. So from that perspetive it makes sense.

Renegade — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:17:24 +0000

If you really want to be a pedantic, understand the difference with "tableless design" and "tableless layout." Most people say "tableless design" when what they really mean is "tableless layout." A design is how a web site/page looks like. A layout is how it is put together or, layed, out.

Ones design may include say, a table needed for displaying prices, because of this, it is no longer a "tableless design" because it has a table in it. Therefore, a page put together, without using tables to position everything can be called a tableless layout, not design.

mik-crap — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:53:07 +0000

conrad;213366 wrote: Screenreaders hate nested tables therefore use CSS layouts and allow blind people to read your website.

That's exactly the thing I am talking about. There is no such thing as a CSS layout. There is such a thing as using CSS to control a layout. There's a difference. Nested tables can be easily controlled by CSS and made into a layout.

demonhale — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:28:12 +0000

Here we go again. Although before anything else theres a thread on the archives I don't have the link to for css and tables discussion, please check it.

For my part we do agree here in one thing, CSS for controlling design on html and Tables for tabular data. Although making Table structures using css divs is still a table, there are table tags for this purpose. If your presentation requires tables use table tags instead of css div table structure, it is perfectly ok to use it in this context.

I did encounter several persons approach me with what andy said as "buzzwords"... This exact approach sometimes pisses me off too like, "make me a table-less site and make my design web 2 Oh! can you also validate this with this and that?" etc.... I do oblige them but the definition of web 2 oh as a design style is a bit ambiguous don't you think? In this context as customers are excused, we go to the argument of Designers who actually know they're stuff. Those who often don't know what they're talking about uses too much buzzword and techy words to wow the customers. Customers just want to know one thing, they want to get exactly what they want. So your purpose is to guide them. The argument of tables and css here is pretty much a footnote to getting things done... just my opinion though...

Megan — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:19:55 +0000

A challenge? Maybe - this is on my list of topics to blog about and I was thinking I'd need to code something up as a sample.

Here is a real life example though: [url=http://www.thestar.com/"]The Toronto Star[/url]. They just put up this new design before christmas. It doesn't use tables for layout, but check out the code! The people who coded that really obviously don't get it. You could probably do that layout with simple tables and get rid of all those extra div's (theoretically). Not that I'm about to use that site as an example! Hmmm..... that would be a good challenge actually.

I wonder how people get all these mistaken ideas about standards. I guess it's not explained that well to those just getting started, and they want it to be simple so they just latch on to one issue that makes sense to them. Focus on the micro-issues rather than the big picture. It's easier that way, unfortunately.

Renegade - exactly! And then people come to the forums asking how to make a table without using tables. Um, that is a table.

Renegade — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:13:29 +0000

I think the term "tableless design" is what is leading a lot of people off track with what it really means to have a "CSS design."

When people think of "tableless" they think absolutely no tables what so ever, which has lead to people using DIVs as tables. "Tableless" doesn't mean without tables - the common misconception - it simply means, using tables in a more sensible way. As in, only for tabular data, what it was originally designed for.

mik-crap — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:05:39 +0000

Megan, You've basically expressed what I feel.

It also annoys me that there is a Web2.0 validator... To say Web2.0 is about creating a revolutionary application to expand the web's purpose and usefullness, many people have changed the idea to strange looking, toy-like AJAX applications that not many people have the time to load. (Plus Web3.0 is also making a debut).

I suppose it would be possible to create a site that uses tables for layout and is more compliant and formed than one filled with divs. It sounds like a challenge, would you be up for it? (It would certainly rock the world of the latest craze!)

I think the problem is that not everyone is being effectively shown what standards are. Just look at Google. It's the most backwards site I've come across, yet it is accessed about 18 million times per 24 hours. Perhaps it's about time the W3C was involved in legislation - the law of the land (or web).

andy206uk;213333 wrote: I just say to customers that use buzzwords, to let me worry about how the site is built and they just worry about getting the bloody content sorted on time.

I'm actually talking about the so-called web-designers lol. Clients can be excused, jack of all trades and masters of none can't.

andy206uk — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:02:10 +0000

It's just clients jumping on buzzwords, they'll see all the big designers banging on about CSS and jump on that but not actually having a clue about the way things work under the hood.

I just say to customers that use buzzwords, to let me worry about how the site is built and they just worry about getting the bloody content sorted on time.

Megan — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:37:32 +0000

So, are you talking about using tables for page layout or not? I'm not clear on what you're saying. Or are you saying that people are incorrect in wanting to do away with tables, since tables are necessary for tabular data? Ah, I see what you're saying now - tables are the structure, CSS is the presentation. So a better analogy would be "I don't want the house, I just want the paint and the decorations." So you're right, it's a misnomer really, used by people who dont' really know what they're talking about. It's like people saying they want something that's "Web 2.0".

I think it is sort of strange that some have focussed on this becuase they don't seem to understand the bigger picture. So you get people (like you alluded to in another thread) simply replacing tables with divs. So they get piles and piles of nested divs with classnames like "bluebox" or "righthandbox". Or some would boast that their site is standards compliant just because it passes a validator.

I was saying to my husband the other night (he's "Jeevesbond" here on the forum), that it would be theoretically possible to have a site that uses tables for layout and is more standards compliant and well formed than one that doesn't. The point being that there are many things that go into well formed code - the structure of a layout is just one of them. And, in relevance to this thread, it's odd that people focus on one aspect: divs vs. tables for layout or passing the validator and assume that that's all that matters.

There are lots of misunderstandings about this!