div or table

[GuyBrush Treepwood]

When I want to display some lists next to each other like:
http://wilma.vub.ac.be/~lddekeyz/final/pages/links.html .
Wether they should have a title or not, should I do this with a table or
with a few div's? Can this be regarded as tabular data?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

When I want to display some lists next to each other like:
http://wilma.vub.ac.be/~lddekeyz/final/pages/links.html . Wether
they should have a title or not, should I do this with a table or
with a few div's? Can this be regarded as tabular data?

Look better as lists to me, not tabular data ... you should be able to
put each list in

<div class="mylist">
<ul ...
</div>

..mylist { float: left; }

Whatever comes next may require a clear: left; style.

 

[Archimedes]

Personally I think a table would make more sense. It's tabular data of
"links", split into three main categories (<th>'s). Using div's would
not show the relationship between the lists.

-Archimedes

 

[GuyBrush Treepwood]

Personally I think a table would make more sense. It's tabular data of
"links", split into three main categories (<th>'s). Using div's would
not show the relationship between the lists.

This is indeed what I was thinking. But in the Pics section, I want to add
pictures of different gigs. But to utilize as much space as is possible,
I want to have a few lists of links next to each other, without the
titles. Would a table also make sense here, or should I go for the div's
in this case?

 

[Archimedes]

Not sure, but just ask yourself if the data you are presenting has a
tabular relationship. If it does, then a table makes sense. If it
doesn't, then it's better off as an unordered list.

Of course, all this is nitpicking and more on the "accessibility" agenda
rather than the appearance one. I am sure most of your site's users
will be reading the page from a regular browser, and will never ever see
the code that went behind it. However, from a professional point of
view, these questions are very important because they are necessary to
accomodate for the disabled and their methods of accessing the internt
(screen readers, etc). Ask yourself who your audience is, and go from
there.

Peace,
Archimedes

 

[RF Rohrer]

My point would be to use whichever is the easiest, most reliable
cross-browser and does the best job of being useful to the visitor.

Often, tables are still the best, even for placement control on the screen.
They are easy to concieve of and solid accross all browsers.

Unfortunately, CSS is not cross-browser reliable on first implementation on
anything I do. I always have to find work-arounds, even with CDD and HTML
code that validates.

If I want something cross-browser reliable, FAST . . I'll do it with tables.
Later, I will look for CSS methods that will please MSIE, NS, O and FF.

I notice it is the people who work with CSS nearly every day that are able
to know all the quirks of the various browsers and feel that tables should
be left to the dust bins of Internet. For those of us who are infrequent
creators of HTML and CSS documents, we find ourselves up many blind canyons
with HTML and CSS that looks fine in MSIE, but horrible in NS, O or FF.

So, people like me, still find it more time worthy and reliable to use
tables to do things.

It is interesting that PDF files work everywhere. but CSS doesnt! I wonder
why?

Perhaps we should all elect Adobe to create a browser core that all others
would have to license. Hmmmmmm . . we might even get downloadable fonts then
too. I would like that.

But, mostly, I would like the solid cross-browser nature of such an idea.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

I notice it is the people who work with CSS nearly every day that are able
to know all the quirks of the various browsers and feel that tables should
be left to the dust bins of Internet.

Tables are still used for data, anyway.

 

[Disco Octopus]

RF Rohrer wrote :

My point would be to use whichever is the easiest, most reliable
cross-browser and does the best job of being useful to the visitor.

Often, tables are still the best, even for placement control on the screen.
They are easy to concieve of and solid accross all browsers.

When suggesting this to unaware web developers (newbies, etc), you
should also keep in mind that some people who use text browsers or
other non gui browsers for whatever reason, they may not be able to
receive the message that you site is trying to convey. This kind of
table-layout may hinder some from getting the information that the
developer wants them to have.

Unfortunately, CSS is not cross-browser reliable on first implementation on
anything I do. I always have to find work-arounds, even with CDD and HTML
code that validates.

I think that this may be just a matter of experience. take this
scenario...
ralph: i dont know how css works, so i will use tables instead.
or this...
chachi: i dont know how to make an html page, so i will make it in
msword and convert it to html instead.
or this...
marion: i dont know how to create a msword document, so i will write
it on a piece of papaer, then scan it to a bitmap image, instead.

If I want something cross-browser reliable, FAST . . I'll do it with tables.
Later, I will look for CSS methods that will please MSIE, NS, O and FF.

again, this is very subjective. this is what /you/ would do, and
perhaps you will find it faster, but i know it will take others much
less time to do the same in css than it would using tables.

I notice it is the people who work with CSS nearly every day that are able
to know all the quirks of the various browsers and feel that tables should
be left to the dust bins of Internet. For those of us who are infrequent
creators of HTML and CSS documents, we find ourselves up many blind canyons
with HTML and CSS that looks fine in MSIE, but horrible in NS, O or FF.

indeed. but again, this would be a matter of practice. being an
infrequent html/css user is no reason to suggest that tables are easier
to manage layout than css is.

something else to consider...
arthur: i dont use css much, so i receommend that you use tables to
make your html layout. it works for me.
or this...
richie: i dont use html much, i recommend that you use msword and
convert your document to html. it works for me.
or this...
potsie: i dont use msword much, i recommend you draw your picture,
then scan it to an image and use that. it works for me.


re OP... I dont think that this may actually be considered tabular
data. see what you can come up with using <dt><dl> <dd>, as this may
be more appropriate.

I would personally use simple elements, and suggest the layout using
css.