Tables?

[Chuck]

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross

 

[Cameron]

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross

People are complaining because tables were designed for tabular data
rather than page layout, I personally can't see the big deal, done
properly it works, and not all browsers support CSS yet, even the apache
group (www.apache.org) use tables for layout.

~Cameron

 

[Tina - AffordableHOST.com]

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)

*puts on asbestos overcoat*

Its not the end of the world if you use tables or if you don't use CSS or if
your site doesn't 100% validate. Check any of the 'big guys' sites
(microsoft, eBay, etc.) and you'll find they don't validate, probably use
tables and have alot of other imperfections. Its like anything geeks
do...they love to argue about THE proper way something should be done. ;-)

*waits for the deluge of comments telling me how horrible my site is*

--Tina

 

[Cameron]

Cameron wrote:

People are complaining because tables were designed for tabular data
rather than page layout, I personally can't see the big deal, done
properly it works, and not all browsers support CSS yet, even the apache
group (www.apache.org) use tables for layout.

~Cameron

<trivial>
sorry, the "Apache Software Foundation"
</trivial>

~Cameron

 

[Cameron]

*puts on asbestos overcoat*

Its not the end of the world if you use tables or if you don't use CSS or if
your site doesn't 100% validate. Check any of the 'big guys' sites
(microsoft, eBay, etc.) and you'll find they don't validate, probably use
tables and have alot of other imperfections. Its like anything geeks
do...they love to argue about THE proper way something should be done. ;-)

*waits for the deluge of comments telling me how horrible my site is*

--Tina

Actually, not looked at source but your page looks rather good, however
Powered by FreeBSD and Powered by Redhat? what is what, and if you use
both why diminish the awesome power of FreeBSD with Redhat?

~Cameron

 

[Sid Ismail]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:41:40 GMT, (e-mail address removed) (Chuck) wrote:

: OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
: their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
: about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
:
: I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.


There is none. Want to have dinner, use a table! Love it.

Sid

 

[Tina - AffordableHOST.com]

Actually, not looked at source but your page looks rather good, however
Powered by FreeBSD and Powered by Redhat? what is what, and if you use
both why diminish the awesome power of FreeBSD with Redhat?

~Cameron

Thanks for the compliment!

Our site runs on 2 dedicated servers (not Cpanel), which have no other
hosting accounts on them. Both of these servers use FreeBSD exclusively.

However, we offer Cpanel hosting accounts...and all of our Cpanel servers
use RedHat. Cpanel will work with FreeBSD, but CPanel doesn't support it
and (I've heard) there are problems.

I tried to separate the 2 logos by moving the FreeBSD away from the others.
Hoping it would make more sense.

--Tina

 

[Richard]

Chuck wrote:

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

-Chuck. (www.wormspeaker.com)
_____________________________________________________
Spread love and understanding...
but don't be afraid to bloody your knuckles doing it.
-Alex Ross

Tables were originally designed as the "ONLY" way to do presentation.
CSS comes along and suddenly those that approve of it's use, say tables are
not to be used for presentation.

I made a comment just the other day at how horrible msn.com was with their
coding and how crappy it looked.
Guess what? It's been changed royally. And not one table!

But if you go to microsoft.com, it's table city.

I think it's truly a personal choice and what you feel comfortable working
with.
At least the older browsers know how to handle tables. Don't they?

 

[Barry Pearson]

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?

I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

Chuckle! You can't hope to understand. It is a holy war, not a rational
discussion.

First, no one with at least 2 brain cells to rub together objects to using
tables to represent data comprising 2 semantic dimensions. (Also known a
"tabular data"). They will be supported on the web for decades.

Second, there is no good reason to gasp (etc) about layout tables. Simple
layout tables are effective, efficient, usable, accessible, flexible, and
future-proof. (If anyone says otherwise, ask for the evidence. It won't be
convincing).

You can validate layout tables as XHTML 1.1. No browser that hopes to be
popular will dare to deny its potential users access to one of mankind's most
valuable information resources, which is overwhelmingly layout-table-oriented.
Obviously no one is going to wipe those resources off the web! Probably at
least 100,000 table-oriented pages per day are published on the web.

Modern non-visual browsers for blind people are getting better at handling
layout tables. Other browsers such as Opera in "small screen mode" can display
page using layout tables on sceens only 240 pixels wide. Obviously that trend
will continue, because browsers of all sorts *have* to be able to access that
vast global resource. There is no plausible proposal to cease support for
tables, even for layout tables.

It is a sin to use layout tables. You could fry in the web author's hell. But
if you don't believe there is a web author's hell (other than trying to find a
hack to make CSS positioning work in yet another browser), you are safe.

Some people are trying to rewrite history. Table layout helped to make the web
the exciting and successful place it is. Gosh! How bad!

 

[Cameron]

Richard wrote:

But if you go to microsoft.com, it's table city.

I think it's truly a personal choice and what you feel comfortable working
with.
At least the older browsers know how to handle tables. Don't they?

Yeah, I noticed Microsoft use loads of tables for layout but I thought
www.apache.org would be a better one to point out, for obvious reasons

~Cameron

 

[Nico Schuyt]

OK, I give in. Tell me why some people on this group gasp and throw up
their hands when tables are used? Is there something I don't know
about? Did they decide to remove tables support from the new browsers?
I'm just trying to understand the distaste for tables.

For me the most important thing is it makes my designs more flexible. If,
for instance, I want my menu on the right instead of the left in a site it's
done in a few minutes. When tables are used it's a lot of work.

Below some arguments from different persons in a former discussion in this
ng:

1. Layout is a presentation matter. HTML (and thus the <table> tag!) is
designed for marking up a document's structure -- not for specifying how it
looks.

2. Tables can introduce accessibility problems (although these are often
overstated!)

3. If tables were always used strictly for marking up tabular data, we would
now have some pretty nifty spreadsheet-like features in browsers -- sort
alphabetically by table column, automatic totals of numeric cell ranges,
click on a table cell to highlight the appropriate row and column
headers, etc. I want these features. So everybody! only use tables for
marking up tabular data!

4. As with all things CSS, it is useful to have all your styling in one
place so if you want to, say, move your navigation bar from the right to
the left, you don't need to edit 100 different HTML files: just one CSS
file.

5) User agents can cache style sheets, and pages using style sheets for
layout are (in my experience) always smaller then the equivalent table
abuse. This means faster loading pages, and cheaper bandwidth bills.

6) Different style sheets can be provided for different media types
automatically. A page can look great on screen, and great on paper without
the visitor having to follow a link to another page. Then you can have
another style sheet for handhelds so narrow displays get the benefit of a
single column version of a design.

7) As the HTML is simpler, it is easier to read and write.

 

[Michael Wilcox]

Tables were originally designed as the "ONLY" way to do presentation.

Tables were NEVER designed to do presentation. Authors abused them.

I made a comment just the other day at how horrible msn.com was with
their coding and how crappy it looked.
Guess what? It's been changed royally. And not one table!

You'd better be kidding.

I think it's truly a personal choice and what you feel comfortable
working with.

There's more benefits to not using tables than just comfort.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

For me the most important thing is it makes my designs more flexible. If,
for instance, I want my menu on the right instead of the left in a site it's
done in a few minutes. When tables are used it's a lot of work.

Below some arguments from different persons in a former discussion in this
ng:

1. Layout is a presentation matter. HTML (and thus the <table> tag!) is
designed for marking up a document's structure -- not for specifying how it
looks.

2. Tables can introduce accessibility problems (although these are often
overstated!)

3. If tables were always used strictly for marking up tabular data, we would
now have some pretty nifty spreadsheet-like features in browsers -- sort
alphabetically by table column, automatic totals of numeric cell ranges,
click on a table cell to highlight the appropriate row and column
headers, etc. I want these features. So everybody! only use tables for
marking up tabular data!

4. As with all things CSS, it is useful to have all your styling in one
place so if you want to, say, move your navigation bar from the right to
the left, you don't need to edit 100 different HTML files: just one CSS
file.

5) User agents can cache style sheets, and pages using style sheets for
layout are (in my experience) always smaller then the equivalent table
abuse. This means faster loading pages, and cheaper bandwidth bills.

6) Different style sheets can be provided for different media types
automatically. A page can look great on screen, and great on paper without
the visitor having to follow a link to another page. Then you can have
another style sheet for handhelds so narrow displays get the benefit of a
single column version of a design.

7) As the HTML is simpler, it is easier to read and write.

Hello Nico,
I am trying to convert tables into CSS for layout wherever I can. It takes
time. I am not sure though whether it is possibile to always use tables for
layout. But it may depend on that I know more about tables than about CSS.
Please, read my answer in the post. "Re: Layout and data"




--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)


http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/oversattning.html

 

[rf]

Chuck wrote:

I made a comment just the other day at how horrible msn.com was with their
coding and how crappy it looked.
Guess what? It's been changed royally. And not one table!

You must be looking at a different msn.com. From here all I see is tables. A
veritable furniture shop of them.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Hello Nico,
I am trying to convert tables into CSS for layout wherever I can. It
takes time. I am not sure though whether it is possibile to always
use tables for layout. But it may depend on that I know more about
tables than about CSS. Please, read my answer in the post. "Re:
Layout and data"

Just did
Nico

 

[Bob]

1. Layout is a presentation matter. HTML (and thus the <table> tag!) is
designed for marking up a document's structure <>

Except that there was no way to describe positioning before CSS-p.
When you leave out the history, you leave out an important factor.

2. Tables can introduce accessibility problems (although these are often
overstated!)<>

They can. Not all of us live in the UK or produce US Gov't spec sites.

3. If tables were always used strictly for marking up tabular data, we would
now have some pretty nifty spreadsheet-like features in browsers <>

You get that with XML/XSLt. It has nothing to do with HTML tables.
You will never see browsers implementing this feature for HTML.
Wrong vehicle.

4. As with all things CSS, it is useful to have all your styling in one
place <>

Very useful. It would have been great if CSS existed in 1994 when
browsers started to take off.

5) User agents can cache style sheets, and pages using style sheets for
layout are (in my experience) always smaller then the equivalent table
abuse. This means faster loading pages, and cheaper bandwidth bills.

<>

Use XML and XSL:FO. Even less overhead. What that's you say ?
Not all browsers support XML with CSS ? Oh... I see there's a
problem when not all browsers support the technology you're trying to
use for web presentation.

6) Different style sheets can be provided for different media types
automatically. <>

A nice idea. It will be nice when it has wide support.

7) As the HTML is simpler, it is easier to read and write. <>

Easier to read the HTML ? Yes. However, the CSS is a hacked jumble
because you have to jump through hoops to make it work in the most
recent browsers. The CSS is not easier to write because of this.
In addition, matching up the CSS-P details with the HTML and
figuring out what a page will look like is no less difficult,
and perhaps more difficult, than figuring out what the HTML
and table based layout is doing.

 

[Barry Pearson]

[snip]

7) As the HTML is simpler, it is easier to read and write. <>

Easier to read the HTML ? Yes. However, the CSS is a hacked jumble
because you have to jump through hoops to make it work in the most
recent browsers. The CSS is not easier to write because of this.
In addition, matching up the CSS-P details with the HTML and
figuring out what a page will look like is no less difficult,
and perhaps more difficult, than figuring out what the HTML
and table based layout is doing.

The problem is that CSS used for positioning doesn't express the author's
design intentions. Instead it expresses one possible implementation of those
design intentions.

People sketching out what they think a web page should look like to be
effective typically don't have concepts like "float" in mind. They are more
likely to draw some boxes on a piece of paper, or sketch them in PowerPoint,
or whatever. And there is good reason for this, because research shows that
layout such as that matters to users.
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/print.htm

A good architecture for heterogeneous distributed systems is to transmit the
intentions and let the various systems implement them in their way. It is a
matter of judgement where to draw the line, but it is about the point where
human beings stop adding value and technology can take over. (Eg, in a
different context, send source code or script, not order code). Whereas if you
transmit the implementation details, the user's system had better implement
every detail to specification, else it breaks. And the user's system doesn't
have the intentions available in order to try get as near as it can to what
was intended.

There are several ways of implementing (say) a 3-column design in CSS-P.
(Float the sidebars, use absolute positioning, float the centre column or use
normal flow, perhaps give the centre column wide margins ... ). Why commit
the user's system to any one implementation, when it might handle a different
implementation better? It would be better to work at a higher level of
abstraction.

And that is what a layout table is! A higher level of abstraction. It is in
the wrong place, in mark-up rather than in some metadata or schema somewhere,
but that is less important than the fact that it appears inherently to be a
superior expression of the layout intentions. (At least until CSS3, columns,
etc).

Tables are still not the optimum level of abstraction. Neither tables nor
CSS-P nor standard mark-up identify key concepts like "site navigation" that a
blind person could make use of. Instead, such things tend to be accessed by ad
hoc means. Perhaps put them first so that the reader will hit them early. Or
have D-links. Structured mark-up doesn't solve this problem, although an <h1>
should be a good way to get to the article (rather than to the site
navigation).

 

[Toby A Inkster]

A nice idea. It will be nice when it has wide support.

Support for the CSS print media has been featured in most major browsers
for ages. Certainly IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Opera 5+ do. Perhaps earlier
versions too.

WebTV supports the tv media, I believe. Handheld is supported by some
handheld browsers, and Opera 7's small-screen rendering mode. Projection
is supported by Opera 5+. The w3 browser for emacs supports aural CSS.
(A lot of people think w3m supports aural CSS. They are mistaken.)

So support for different media types -- especially screen, print and
handheld -- is supported well enough.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

[snip]
And that is what a layout table is! A higher level of abstraction. It is in
the wrong place, in mark-up rather than in some metadata or schema somewhere,
but that is less important than the fact that it appears inherently to be a
superior expression of the layout intentions. (At least until CSS3, columns,
etc).

When is CSS expected to come?

Tables are still not the optimum level of abstraction. Neither tables nor
CSS-P nor standard mark-up identify key concepts like "site navigation" that a
blind person could make use of. Instead, such things tend to be accessed by ad
hoc means. Perhaps put them first so that the reader will hit them early. Or
have D-links.

What are D-links?




--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)


http://www.italymap.dk
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/oversattning.html

 

[Toby A Inkster]

There are several ways of implementing (say) a 3-column design in CSS-P.
(Float the sidebars, use absolute positioning, float the centre column
or use normal flow, perhaps give the centre column wide margins ... )
[...] It would be better to work at a higher level of abstraction.

And that is what a layout table is! A higher level of abstraction. It is
in the wrong place, in mark-up rather than in some metadata or schema
somewhere

Of course with a full implementation of CSS2, there are things like
"display: table-cell;" at our disposal, so this higher-level of
abstraction *is* available.

CSS2 positioning is only a mess because of IE's crappy support for CSS.