CSS vs. tables // fixed vs. variable

[Chris]

Hello,

I've already read several times that CSS should be used instead of tables to
layout your pages. But why is that actually? And why is fixed width layout
so bad?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I've already read several times that CSS should be used instead of
tables to layout your pages. But why is that actually?

Were there reasons given where you read that? What did they say?

Tables are for .. tabular data. A quick Google turns up a couple
thousand times this has been discussed. Here's one:

<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....les+vs+css+for+layout&rnum=7#45bce92624068442>

Main reason: separate content from presentation.

And why is fixed width layout so bad?

What is the width of my browser window?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hello,

I've already read several times that CSS should be used instead of tables to
layout your pages. But why is that actually? And why is fixed width layout
so bad?

You're a troll, right? This has been debated and explained to death in
this forum. Why not do a little reading? Anyway, if your make a fixed
layout what screen size do you design for? And what do you think happens
when a visitor deviates from your "design" or changes his font size, eh?

 

[Chris]

You're a troll, right? This has been debated and explained to death in
this forum. Why not do a little reading? Anyway, if your make a fixed
layout what screen size do you design for? And what do you think happens
when a visitor deviates from your "design" or changes his font size, eh?

Take it easy on the cofee. Herbal tea does wonders!

 

[Chris]

Were there reasons given where you read that? What did they say?

No reasons given, that's why I wonder. Also, styling a fixed width and/or
table layout is a lot easier. I try to use only DIV's according to the
recommendations, but I would just like to know why I am doing all the extra
effort.

Tables are for .. tabular data. A quick Google turns up a couple
thousand times this has been discussed. Here's one:

Main reason: separate content from presentation.

The fact that it has a couple of thousand times been discussed must show
that it's not clear to many people. Also I see many websites still make use
of table layouts and they don't look bad at all.

The main reason that you state is not clear to me. If I use a table for
layout, then to me that's part of the presentation. I can even style the
table with CSS in my stylesheet.

What is the width of my browser window?

the max size of your browser window is at least 1024px

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No reasons given, that's why I wonder. Also, styling a fixed width
and/or table layout is a lot easier. I try to use only DIV's
according to the recommendations, but I would just like to know why I
am doing all the extra effort.

Practically all of the Usenet discussions I've read on this topic always
give reasons.

The fact that it has a couple of thousand times been discussed must show
that it's not clear to many people.

Those who find this group and come and ask are new to the concept,
that's all. Also, most do not search for past articles before asking all
over again.

Those of us who have eschewed tables-for-layout long ago already know
how much easier it is.

Also I see many websites still make use
of table layouts and they don't look bad at all.

Sure, some/many of them *look* ok ...

The main reason that you state is not clear to me. If I use a table for
layout, then to me that's part of the presentation. I can even style the
table with CSS in my stylesheet.

One of the problems with tables is they are not linear. How about how
they "display" in a speaking browser? Does it read it column by column?
Or row by row?

Using CSS for layout, there is a lot less code, it is much easier to
maintain (and write, once you understand it), and search engines and
speaking browsers have an easier time of it.

the max size of your browser window is at least 1024px

My browsers are never maximized. If you had a fixed layout of, say,
800px, it *might* fit, but next time my browser may be around 700px
because I have another window opened next to it.

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Screen_size
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

The only tables at this site of mine are for .. tabular data. <g>
http://countryrode.com/

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Take it easy on the cofee. Herbal tea does wonders!

I think if your read what I have written your will discover my points
are valid and not reactionary. Aligned with was BTS has offered you.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I think if your read what I have written your will discover my points
are valid and not reactionary. Aligned with was BTS has offered you.

Yes, that seams to be the case. *If one more person posts a question
regarding the benifits of useing frames I will properly haft to resort
to placeing several sharp objects through my screen. Hint, in this day
in age, there aren't many at all. (if any).
I actually have found that since I swiched to useing CSS for layout,
that it is much easier to get the type of layout that I want.
I get less problems with navigation moveing around in strange ways etc
etc.

 

[Neredbojias]

Hello,

I've already read several times that CSS should be used instead of
tables to layout your pages. But why is that actually?

The trouble with tables is that they have too many letters. A nice tri-
alpha div is so much more pristine.

And why is
fixed width layout so bad?

It can never reproduce.

 

[Toby Inkster]

the max size of your browser window is at least 1024px

The max width of my browser window is 208px. (Unless you have some
kind of trick to expand the screen resolution of my Nokia 6230i.)

 

[Travis Newbury]

I've already read several times that CSS should be used instead of tables to
layout your pages. But why is that actually? And why is fixed width layout
so bad?

Fixed width is not that bad. It depends completely on the content and
reason for the site. There is no one size fits all on the web.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You're a troll, right?

Didn't come across that weay to me. More like someone who did not
understand the "reason"

This has been debated and explained to death in
this forum. Why not do a little reading?

It appears he did.

Anyway, if your make a fixed
layout what screen size do you design for? And what do you think happens
when a visitor deviates from your "design" or changes his font size, eh?

Who cares, it is just a different way to design a web page. One size
does not fit all on the web.

(man this is a boring, and meaningless argument)

 

[dorayme]

Who cares, it is just a different way to design a web page. One size
does not fit all on the web.

(man this is a boring, and meaningless argument)

It is hard to say. Some disputes have been going on for thousands
of years. They are not boring and useless in the sense that the
good arguments become clearer and more convincing to rational
people, the bad arguments held onto by either decreasing numbers
of people or else increasingly stupid people. Trust me Travis,
this is not a boring or meaningless process. It is an essential
one. You just are failing to identify the people who gain.

 

[Joe]

I actually have found that since I swiched to useing CSS for layout,
that it is much easier to get the type of layout that I want.
I get less problems with navigation moveing around in strange ways etc
etc.

I agree with that Chad. A couple of weeks solid work to get the basics
down pat, then reading this group (and others), experimenting -
Pretty soon it's second nature and way easier than nested tables both in
the initial stages and the maintenance phase.

btw - which Uni are you at? Just curious.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I agree with that Chad. A couple of weeks solid work to get the basics
down pat, then reading this group (and others), experimenting -
Pretty soon it's second nature and way easier than nested tables both in
the initial stages and the maintenance phase.

Yes, it was actually a lot of people in these groups that convinced me
to switch to CSS in the first place. Although I am still learning a lot
of the finer points.

btw - which Uni are you at? Just curious.

Deakin, http://www.deakin.edu.au

 

[Travis Newbury]

It is hard to say. Some disputes have been going on for thousands
of years. They are not boring and useless in the sense that the
good arguments become clearer and more convincing to rational
people, the bad arguments held onto by either decreasing numbers
of people or else increasingly stupid people. Trust me Travis,
this is not a boring or meaningless process. It is an essential
one. You just are failing to identify the people who gain.

We disagree. Not all websites are for everyone. I see the economic
value of design and layout. (Even if there is a small minority of
potential visitors you lose because they can not see the design.) And
I am sure we have discussed this to no end a billion times. You will
not change my mind, not am I likely to change yours.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

We disagree. Not all websites are for everyone. I see the economic
value of design and layout. (Even if there is a small minority of
potential visitors you lose because they can not see the design.) And
I am sure we have discussed this to no end a billion times. You will
not change my mind, not am I likely to change yours.

Faith based web design... I see I got you pegged!

 

[Travis Newbury]

Faith based web design... I see I got you pegged!

It pays the bills

 

[Dan]

Fixed width is not that bad. It depends completely on the content and
reason for the site. There is no one size fits all on the web.

Though, "one size fits all" seems to be the governing ideology of those
who insist on fixed-side web development.

 

[Dan]

Fixed width is not that bad. It depends completely on the content and
reason for the site. There is no one size fits all on the web.

Though, "one size fits all" seems to be the governing ideology of those
who insist on fixed-size web development.