CSS vs. tables // fixed vs. variable

[Travis Newbury]

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

I actually prefer one size fits all. I find that fluid designs don't
allow the site to really push the envelope on design. And if you have
been here for very long at all you know I like fancy.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

No such thing as a "fixed width site". There are just sites that work
when you re-size them, and sites that fail. They're all going to get
re-sized sooner or later.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I actually prefer one size fits all. I find that fluid designs don't
allow the site to really push the envelope on design. And if you have
been here for very long at all you know I like fancy.

Fluid != Non-creative

also

Fixed != creative

 

[dorayme]

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.

Slight misunderstanding old boy, there is a (silly question) on
how all websites should be in respect to fixed size, there are
questions (sensible) on how most of them should be prima facie
and there is the question of how boring and meaningless all this
talk is. I was addressing the very latter. And you, secretly, do
not find it boring at all. I know Travis. You are as keen as
mustard on the question.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No such thing as a "fixed width site". There are just sites that work
when you re-size them, and sites that fail. They're all going to get
re-sized sooner or later.

Thanks for your web prophecy.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Slight misunderstanding old boy, there is a (silly question) on
how all websites should be in respect to fixed size, there are
questions (sensible) on how most of them should be prima facie
and there is the question of how boring and meaningless all this
talk is. I was addressing the very latter. And you, secretly, do
not find it boring at all. I know Travis. You are as keen as
mustard on the question.

There is nothing new in the arguments. If someone could come up with a
new reason either for or against fixed width then maybe some excitement
would enter into the picture. but until then, I really do think it is
boring...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

There is nothing new in the arguments. If someone could come up with a
new reason either for or against fixed width then maybe some excitement
would enter into the picture. but until then, I really do think it is
boring...

Guess it's just your shortcoming.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

There is nothing new in the arguments. If someone could come up with
a new reason either for or against fixed width then maybe some
excitement would enter into the picture. but until then, I really do
think it is boring...

What is wrong with the "old" arguments? They are still valid...

 

[Travis Newbury]

Guess it's just your shortcoming.

This is the least of my issues...

 

[dorayme]

There is nothing new in the arguments. If someone could come up with a
new reason either for or against fixed width then maybe some excitement
would enter into the picture. but until then, I really do think it is
boring...

You have to be careful how you count arguments. Old arguments can
be revived with effect and you might miss them because they "look
the same".

I trust you find this remark helpful?

 

[Joe]

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

aah - a Victorian! I nearly went there. I didn't though. Ended up at
Flinders (SA) and Curtin (WA).
I'm much too polite to mention the AFL finals, but I'll be happy for
whoever beats Sydney. (I was living in Adelaide when the Crows started
and WA when the Eagles started. While there, I spent a lot of time in
and around Freo)

 

[Chaddy2222]

aah - a Victorian! I nearly went there. I didn't though. Ended up at
Flinders (SA) and Curtin (WA).
I'm much too polite to mention the AFL finals, but I'll be happy for
whoever beats Sydney. (I was living in Adelaide when the Crows started
and WA when the Eagles started. While there, I spent a lot of time in
and around Freo)

Ahh yes, I kind of ended up here at Deakin as well, (they were the only
Uni that gave me an offer).
So I took it.
Regards the footy finals, I actually am not too concerned about them,
as the saints aren't in them anymore, although I hope Adelaide don't
get in.

 

[Chris]

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


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.

I'm not new to the concept, just looking to expand my knowledge with
insights that I may have overlooked so far or which I haven't come across
yet.

Saying that answers can be found somewhere on the Internet is like saying
that the needle is somewhere to be found in the haystack.

Somehow I find it strange that my question seems to irritate so many people
and yet they take the effort to reply, although in an unpleasant way. Why
answer if you don't like the question? It's like the people that get upset
from watching a TV program they don't like. Why not just switch channel,
there are plenty. Same here, if someone does not like my question, don't
reply, there are plenty of other questions!

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


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.

This is imho probably the best reason to use CSS, code readability. But
table layouts seem to be more consistent across browsers. Occasionaly I
visit websites that impress me by their simplicity and degree of
organization of content. At those times I do the effort to look at the
source, then to discover that they make use of tables to layout the page.
That's just an observation, not a fact. Of course, CSS layout is a lot more
advanced, but to make it consistent across browsers, it seems to require
the most mysterious hacks. When that's the case, the argument of readablity
looses strength, because although the html page is very readable, the CSS
file is not.

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.

I think that there is also something as too much accomodating the visitor of
your website. I've read threads about coding forms that point to the same
direction. Some forms on certain websites are so "overcoded" that they
become unusable. E.g. it has already happened to me that I was not able to
fill in my address because the coder of the form already made certain
(wrong) assumptions about how my postal code should look like. That's why I
wouldn't worry too much about a visitors browser window. If my website does
not fit in his window, because he has another application next to it, then
he will have to adjust its size. With that respect a width of 800px seems
to be a current standard practice.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I'm not new to the concept, just looking to expand my knowledge with
insights that I may have overlooked so far or which I haven't come
across yet.
Ok.

Saying that answers can be found somewhere on the Internet is like
saying that the needle is somewhere to be found in the haystack.

Here's several links I found with a quick search on 'css vs tables'

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
http://sitereview.org/?article=1859
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TablesVsDivs
http://www.ex-designz.net/articleread.asp?aid=323
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/css_layouts_vs.php
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/question/example.html
http://www.dmag.org.uk/resources/design_articles/cssvtablesforlayout.asp

Google actually turned up 2,710,000 pages, but I didn't read them all.

Somehow I find it strange that my question seems to irritate so many
people and yet they take the effort to reply, although in an
unpleasant way. Why answer if you don't like the question? It's like
the people that get upset from watching a TV program they don't like.
Why not just switch channel, there are plenty. Same here, if someone
does not like my question, don't reply, there are plenty of other
questions!

I didn't dislike your question. I wasn't irritated. Perhaps I was too
terse and succinct for you? Sorry about that. Really, the question is
asked every week. "Should I use CSS or tables? Which is best?" Or "I
use tables. Tell me why CSS is better." And so on.

This is imho probably the best reason to use CSS, code readability. But

...and ease of maintenance.

table layouts seem to be more consistent across browsers. Occasionaly I
visit websites that impress me by their simplicity and degree of
organization of content. At those times I do the effort to look at the
source, then to discover that they make use of tables to layout the page.
That's just an observation, not a fact. Of course, CSS layout is a lot more
advanced,

Advanced? Not really. A newer concept, but certainly nothing
technically more 'advanced' than rows of tables cells. CSS is nothing
more than a rather simple text file.

but to make it consistent across browsers, it seems to require
the most mysterious hacks. When that's the case, the argument of readablity
looses strength, because although the html page is very readable, the CSS
file is not.

It's still a matter of the experience of the developer. If you've been
doing it with tables for ten years, and are just now looking at CSS, it
may seem strange to you. It did to me at first, many years ago. Then one
day, the light bulb went ON! Haven't looked back.

I think that there is also something as too much accomodating the visitor of
your website.

Too much? If you don't want to accomodate the visitor, why have the site
in the first place? Web sites are all about the visitor, aren't they?

I've read threads about coding forms that point to the same
direction. Some forms on certain websites are so "overcoded" that they
become unusable. E.g. it has already happened to me that I was not able to
fill in my address because the coder of the form already made certain
(wrong) assumptions about how my postal code should look like.

Forms ... different subject.

That's why I wouldn't worry too much about a visitors browser window.

Why, do you hate your visitors?

If my website does not fit in his window, because he has another
application next to it, then he will have to adjust its size. With
that respect a width of 800px seems to be a current standard
practice.

It is a practice, yes. Is it a correct practice? I think not. There are
so many - infinite? - possibilities that your visitor may be using, that
to design for one fixed size seems so counter-productive that I would
never consider it, and haven't for about eight years now.

Since you didn't comment on my site, I'll snip the link.

 

[ron]

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

Chris here are my 2 cents:

Html by itself is left up to the browser to format/display to the user.
Web designers were finding it difficult to display information with
their own creative look and feel.

Then someone tried using tables for something they were not designed
for, and in a round-about-way it worked.

If you have a small site this may not be a problem, but if you have a
large site it becomes a virtual mess to update and/or fix. If you have
a very complex site, you will have tables nested with tables nested
within even more tables. It becomes insane.

CSS was not considered because at the time this was mostly suggested
for microsofts' IE browser, so to not discount anyone in the target
audience which had mozilla or netscape, most designer did not use CSS
for layout.

However today I can use CSS and it will work in Mozilla, Firefox,
etc... I can use CSS to create a layout with navigation bars and the
like, and for every new page I need, I just include the CSS.

 

[Chris]

Chris here are my 2 cents:

Html by itself is left up to the browser to format/display to the user.
Web designers were finding it difficult to display information with
their own creative look and feel.

Then someone tried using tables for something they were not designed
for, and in a round-about-way it worked.

If you have a small site this may not be a problem, but if you have a
large site it becomes a virtual mess to update and/or fix. If you have
a very complex site, you will have tables nested with tables nested
within even more tables. It becomes insane.

CSS was not considered because at the time this was mostly suggested
for microsofts' IE browser, so to not discount anyone in the target
audience which had mozilla or netscape, most designer did not use CSS
for layout.

However today I can use CSS and it will work in Mozilla, Firefox,
etc... I can use CSS to create a layout with navigation bars and the
like, and for every new page I need, I just include the CSS.

Thanks, ron. I think that CSS should have solved a lot of design issues, but
it didn't entirely fulfill its promise (yet). The support for CSS by
browsers differs immensely. Luckily we already have firefox, but we're
still stuck with IE which most of the average users seem to prefer to use.
To make a website look the same among browsers, requires a lot of very ugly
hacks. In many of those cases, putting a table in the layout might solve
the problem. So yes, tables are ugly, but CSS hacks are ugly as well. So I
don't know, I still think that there is a place for tables in "good" web
design, until maybe one day all those different browsers such as IE,
mozilla, opera, safari, konqueror, ... render the same way.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Thanks, ron. I think that CSS should have solved a lot of design issues, but
it didn't entirely fulfill its promise (yet). The support for CSS by
browsers differs immensely.

It's not as bad as you might think.

Luckily we already have firefox, but we're
still stuck with IE which most of the average users seem to prefer to use.
To make a website look the same among browsers, requires a lot of very ugly
hacks.

Not really. If you write good semantic well structured html you can
style it to be robust across browsers with a minimum of effort and very
few hacks.

Of course complicated layouts can get you into a lot trouble, but I
think there are just too darned many complicated layouts out there
anyway. No one, so far as I know, uses a particular site a lot because
it's layout is cool. On the other hand they will use a badly laid out
site often if it provides them with the content they seek. There's
quite a few sites I return to whose layout I hate.

If that is so, then surely it is layout should be serving content, and
make it accessible with a minimum of fuss. Not the other way around.

That is a constraint, but real creativity lies in creating great results
within the constraints of a medium. And there are always constraints.

 

[Chris]

It's not as bad as you might think.


Not really. If you write good semantic well structured html you can
style it to be robust across browsers with a minimum of effort and very
few hacks.

Of course complicated layouts can get you into a lot trouble, but I
think there are just too darned many complicated layouts out there
anyway. No one, so far as I know, uses a particular site a lot because
it's layout is cool. On the other hand they will use a badly laid out
site often if it provides them with the content they seek. There's
quite a few sites I return to whose layout I hate.

If that is so, then surely it is layout should be serving content, and
make it accessible with a minimum of fuss. Not the other way around.

That is a constraint, but real creativity lies in creating great results
within the constraints of a medium. And there are always constraints.

Interesting point. One remark though, as a webdesigner you don't have the
choice of putting content before design. You might get a jpeg from the
graphic designer about how the page should look like and if you're even one
pixel off, you're already gonna get nagged at. But I do agree that it
shouldn't matter so much, content should come first.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Interesting point. One remark though, as a webdesigner you don't have the
choice of putting content before design. You might get a jpeg from the
graphic designer about how the page should look like and if you're even one
pixel off, you're already gonna get nagged at.

Well that's life. It happens. But it's still wrong and it ends up
creating a lot of totally sucky web sites, IMO.

 

[Bergamot]

as a webdesigner you don't have the
choice of putting content before design. You might get a jpeg from the
graphic designer about how the page should look like and if you're even one
pixel off, you're already gonna get nagged at.

If that's the case, you're not doing web design, but print design. If
your graphic designer doesn't know the difference, teach him.