What's the big deal? The way I look at it is that tables are a perfectly valid method of aligning stuff on a page. By not using them, you are denying yourself a very useful coding tool.
Personally, I use them quite a lot. They are far less trouble than multiple divs if I want the same alignment, font, text size etc in lots of columns. And if I want to put a comment next to some text and have the comment in a smaller font but still line up vertically, what better way than to use a table?
So, why don't people like them? Why in CSS blurb does it say things like "Now you don't have to use tables"? I can't think of a reason not to use them.
Do you use them? If not, why not?
Why ?
For example you got table based layout right ?
If you want add another column or something you need to modify whole code, colspans etc and that sux.
Another example, you`ve modifed the page but u forgot to close td tag or something now find one unclosed td in this code where`s a lot of td`s.
Some browsers aren`t compatible width td:hover CSS code.
Tables instead of DIVs makes document much bigger and when u got a lot of subpages it`s always additional kilobytes of your bandwidth.
I also don't use tables and for the same reasons. All the tags everywhere are a pain and tables only do columns and rows. With divs you can float anywhere, position them to be somewhere where they wouldn't normally show etc.
They aren't as easy to modify as div's, make documents bigger (increasing bandwidth usage and loading time) and with div's, you can make it so that the actual content gets a higher priority with the loading. And tables are meant for displaying data in tables, not for layout purposes.
To be honest however, I find tables easier to use for simple tabular layouts, as I know how they behave, while div's tend to behave in different ways in different browsers. 
Also, I've seen that a lot of bigger websites use a mix of tables and div's (although I don't exactly know why if div's are really that good). | mathiaus wrote: |
| I also don't use tables and for the same reasons. All the tags everywhere are a pain and tables only do columns and rows. With divs you can float anywhere, position them to be somewhere where they wouldn't normally show etc. |
i prefer tables . I admit that its difficult to handle tables because of comples td and tr structure but the problem with divs is that thay have to be manually positioned, and if you have a big site rich of contents, i think it would be 10 times difficult for you to make a layout fit for all (almost) screen resolutions and all browsers, while with tables, the same task is very easy.
Yes there is a problem with table that it doesnt give you flexibility.Hello,
Using tables for displaying tabular data is perfectly right. However, using nested tables to render graphical design is a semantic nonsense. HTML and CSS provide tools (markup) to give a meaning to your page's content. As long as browsers and user-agents will not be able to understand and interpret graphical display, text within your html markup will remain paramount 
Tables are for listing data, nothing else, tables also takes a very long time to load compare to divs, it's alot more work and realy pointless since divs are alot easier and faster.
I take your point about keeping track of tr & td tags; but I use php to construct my pages so that isn't an issue for me.
I also take the point about being able to position divs. But as different browsers render positioning differently, you can't always position them exactly without a bit of bodging.
| Quote: |
| However, using nested tables to render graphical design is a semantic nonsense. |
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I wasn't talking about using tables for any old layout. Obviously those with a high graphic content would be better off using divs. Or if you've simply got a lot of text on the page in 1 or 2 columns, then that would be divs too.
My point is that many people simply refuse to use tables whereas I find them very useful. I don't understand the "never use tables" attitude. I started to use make tableles sites for about a year ago and now my trouble is with tables, to me is harder use them , because i use divs the most, it's habit thing more then a table X divs...
i think the big "TABLES ARE EVIL" attitude is something like a teacher that smokes talking about the smoking badness...
the main problem isn't the tables itselves, but the way its used, if you make a tableless layout "like spagetti" you'll have the same mess that you have with tables, a unmantainable site,...
my point here is not to state people not to change to a semantic-inside-the-standard site, i just dont think that someone with nice site must change if it's not worth, i think things are evolving in a way that using divs/css/standards will be common because it will be worth...
in my opinion the main advantages on using (well done) tableless layouts are:
the flexibility you have when changing layouts,
the code/resources economy ,
the javascript cool things that work much better with your site (
),
being semantics and standarized
i have saw a "professional page" where the site was laidout with divs and inside the divs was tables layouting menus and content, i took 2 hours to sleep that night | DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| I take your point about keeping track of tr & td tags; but I use php to construct my pages so that isn't an issue for me. |
This is one of the bests of Tables.Tables do good in websites. Very near and arranged information. 
It's just one of those things people like to use to make themselves seem superior over others. You can have a great website, but they'll find something to bash you anyway, e.g. use of tables.
In an older topic you can read what I think about that... (also scroll down a bit) what you use a lot of tables to do, can be done in very few div's if you know how to use css, and for cross browsers, there are ways to get around that problem...
they are too often used when divs are required
I used to make sites using tables. It's a lot easier for small projects that need regular updates. Now I'm becoming better in the css/div world, but still think tables have a room. Professional sites often use them. That's what someone said: divs exist for the main parts but then we've got tables inside of them. The blended feature seems to be the best solution.
I don't like to press F12 over and over again to see the page appearance, but Dreamweaver isn't wysiwyg for divs. Tables are wysiwyg though. I think that's a good reason why they are so much used. Besides: The page size is no longer the critical issue with broadband connections (an increase in even 50kb is unnoticed by most internet users.
| romaop wrote: |
I used to make sites using tables. It's a lot easier for small projects that need regular updates. Now I'm becoming better in the css/div world, but still think tables have a room. Professional sites often use them. That's what someone said: divs exist for the main parts but then we've got tables inside of them. The blended feature seems to be the best solution.
I don't like to press F12 over and over again to see the page appearance, but Dreamweaver isn't wysiwyg for divs. Tables are wysiwyg though. I think that's a good reason why they are so much used. Besides: The page size is no longer the critical issue with broadband connections (an increase in even 50kb is unnoticed by most internet users. |
I dont think that tables cause an increase in page size. The position of a table division (td) is obvious on a page while you have to add extra CSS for each DIV to position it.
The only extra thing tables add is just a <tr></tr> and i can sacrifice it for the benifits it provides.In this article it is very well explained why tables for layout are stupid Can you imagine that? Just because somebody used tables to create a layout makes him and his layout "stupid". Well, in that case Frihost and all phpBB2 forums are stupid. Go look at the source of this page. And never come back here, because you don't want to be "with stupid", do you??
I think in order to like tables you actually have to know how to use them effectively rather than just throw a basic one out there. In the end they are just as effective as CSS or anything else, just using a different method. Different people have different opinions
That's what made me change all those months ago....
Some people who have posted in this thread need to read this! :wink:
Edit: People who use tables for layouts aren't stupid. They just have inefficient code which isn't optimized for anything. You think. What tells you my table code isn't very efficient? I'm sure there are many situations where tables are more efficient, also for the general layout!
All the more when you consider the term "efficiency" outside of the box of its strict definition (which is filesize, I'm assuming) - it costs me less time to make a site with tables because the method suits me better!
Before you're going to point out that according to the great table bashing site mentioned above, <blah blah here>... they're wrong.
Using PHP it's not labour intensive at all to modify a table framework, you just have to edit a single template file that's linked to in all the others.
Blaming tables for generating excess filesizes/bandwidth is like blaming someone who farts for global warming. What about 24-bits colour images? Using PNG with reduced colour depth for simple screenshots, for example, will save a lot more.
ETC. ETC. What is this very forum running on? Go have a look at the source, it's mainly tables. Are the Frihost forums having major efficiency problems?
Bottom line: using tables can be called stupid nor inefficient.
I personally think its very simply. Tables aren't bad as such but there are better ways of aligning information.
| InsanePL wrote: |
Why ?
For example you got table based layout right ?
If you want add another column or something you need to modify whole code, colspans etc and that sux.
Another example, you`ve modifed the page but u forgot to close td tag or something now find one unclosed td in this code where`s a lot of td`s.
Some browsers aren`t compatible width td:hover CSS code.
Tables instead of DIVs makes document much bigger and when u got a lot of subpages it`s always additional kilobytes of your bandwidth. |
I agree with InasePL, that it takes longer to load pages etc!
Instead of just using divs, it looks nicer, cooler and it is much easier to user! (In my opinion!)
And when i used tables and php together, the site looked like shit, the tables bugged like hell, i mean when i get the latest news or something, the tables didnot go with the lines!
But that i think was because i never got into the use of tables, i started almost right at divs!
And since that id loved it!
.........Over and out!.........Tables make each page bigger. Size increase depends on the trs and tds you have on the tables and the formats you apply to each. You said that coding with css and divs makes the css bigger so it's the same.
No, it's not the same. It may be similar for the 1st page of the site you visit. Then, when you go to another page, the css is already loaded.
So, definitely tables make files bigger (and download times bigger), but not that bigger though in most cases.
I'm not a big expert on the field and might be wrong. What do you think, people?
It doesn't matter what many of us think, special if we aren't real experts on the issue.
I'm not a geek, just have some experience on the field.
If you are really geeks on this area, then I suppose you'd say that tables are important. The evidence is that a lot of professional company sites use tables.
Money guys support tables, it's too obvious that tables are important.
Perhaps a good exercise is to find out why tables are so important even though divs and css are already here for a while.
I like the positioning feature of divs. Imagine you build a site for a company. You just change a few lines on the css file and the navigation, content, adds area of each page site will radically change. The positioning is flexible. You may lower a div in pixels and make it at the exact position you want. With tables, you have a table inside of a table which is even inside a table. To reposition a table cell can be a hard task. It might involve changing tables sizes, merging, diving cells, creating new tables.
So you go to the money guy and he says he wants that portion on the right of the page, and another on the left, and he wants an image to go a little down. But you have got already a bunch of css files and show him various positioning solutions and you rapidly make the necessary adjustments.
There's another thing that tables involve. You have a cell that's inside a table, which is inside another which is inside another... There might be a lot of free cells. These occupy file space.
Merging also means more code.
But as I mentioned, this might be unnoticed for the net surfer, specially in broadband connections.
| mathiaus wrote: |
Please do not double post. Use the  button instead!
|
a) You become bound of your current layout in a much more stiff way than if you properly mark up your pages.
b) You add a big amount of extra weight to your pages you could spend on anything more useful, like MORE PAGES 
c) Most of the times you screw up the reading order of the content, causing multiple annoyances to people who can't just VIEW your stuff but have to get it read for them
d)Your code becomes simpler to read, thus leading to simpler debugging.
And the real reson why "money guys" go for table based design is even simpler: Enterprise CMS's don't give a damn about any of the previous unless specifically configured for such thing. In the past I had to redesign some at least four corporate websites that had their site generated from no less than three CMS's since the beginning of their business. For me i when i do some design stuff. I admit that i most often used tables specially if you have more concerns for your design coz you can display it correctly and more friendly. But if you are talking about the cleanliness in the source code i prefer to div. But by using divs at least you have enough experience on css so that you can handle div properly or else you get into trouble of it.
| InsanePL wrote: |
Why ?
For example you got table based layout right ?
If you want add another column or something you need to modify whole code, colspans etc and that sux.
Another example, you`ve modifed the page but u forgot to close td tag or something now find one unclosed td in this code where`s a lot of td`s.
Some browsers aren`t compatible width td:hover CSS code.
Tables instead of DIVs makes document much bigger and when u got a lot of subpages it`s always additional kilobytes of your bandwidth. |
i agree with this. but i still go for tables as i find it far better. probably i'm used to it. besides, i code mostly for special purpose and so prefers tables than divstables are just that: tables. And they are here to store tabular data, not to code the design of a site in them. DIV's (if used properly) can make a better job at it then Tables. Also if you think about people with disabilities you might want to know that DIV's act a lot better with no CSS and stuff like that.
| aningbo wrote: |
i agree with this. but i still go for tables as i find it far better. probably i'm used to it. besides, i code mostly for special purpose and so prefers tables than divs |
Tables aren't better, divs are. What tables are, is easier to learn that using CSS positioning to create div based layouts. In my opinion it is worth persisting in learning to use CSS and divs as it's benefits far outweigh those of using tables. One major one being less markup to deal with.
If you code for special purposes, surely you should code using the correct semantic markup? Using tables may be valid, but it's semantically correct. A screen reader would expect to be displaying tabular data not whole chunks of a website in one cell. | welshsteve wrote: |
| aningbo wrote: | | but i still go for tables as i find it far better. |
Tables aren't better, divs are. |
Actually he is using the correct phrase and you are not. It's all in the difference between "I find ... better" and "... are better". What you're doing, is simply presenting your opinion as a fact. And no, it is not a fact, as I have shown one page 1 it is a very subjective matter.i have always preferred tables. it might be because it's what i'm used to, but i'm just familiar to the point that i don't have difficulty making a layout the way i want it to be. plus, i find it far easier to make something that's going to consistently look good and correct when i go to someone else's computer and pull it up. i really like layouts that expand to fit a larger resolution.
Even though this thread is getting long and no one will probably read this reply... here's a few more thoughts.
I personally use CSS over tables whenever I get the chance. If CSS were implemented properly and displayed identically by all browsers, I think it'd be a far superior way to go. But if people stick with the old crap, why would Microsoft have any reason to fix IE to render CSS properly?
That aside, a lot of people argue that table layouts are still superior - if not semantically correct. Well here's a perfect example of something you cannot do (without creating an uber-headache) with tables.
Make text flow around an image that has variable widths - kind of like a magazine article would. Check out this tutorial - CSS Image Text Wrap Tutorial. I was quite impressed when I found it.
Basically, you can splice the image into seven or eight bits. Then, fit each slice into a div with the correct width for that piece of image. Finally, float the images along one side of the screen and watch the text flow flawlessly around the image.
Seems to me that would be next to impossible to achieve reliably with tables.
- Walkere Tables are slow loading (especially nested).
Tables are not accessible.
Tables are hard to maintain and update.
Divs are much easier to code (in my opinion).
| Arnie wrote: |
| Can you imagine that? Just because somebody used tables to create a layout makes him and his layout "stupid". Well, in that case Frihost and all phpBB2 forums are stupid. Go look at the source of this page. And never come back here, because you don't want to be "with stupid", do you?? |
I did NOT call people or layouts stupid. Please read the article I'm referring to - and even the title - before you burst out in anger.
Tables are not meant for layouts. It is made for listing data. A forum thread is a list of posts and memberdata ++, and will very logically and semanticly fit into a table. | SlowWalkere wrote: |
Even though this thread is getting long and no one will probably read this reply... here's a few more thoughts.
I personally use CSS over tables whenever I get the chance. If CSS were implemented properly and displayed identically by all browsers, I think it'd be a far superior way to go. But if people stick with the old crap, why would Microsoft have any reason to fix IE to render CSS properly?
That aside, a lot of people argue that table layouts are still superior - if not semantically correct. Well here's a perfect example of something you cannot do (without creating an uber-headache) with tables.
Make text flow around an image that has variable widths - kind of like a magazine article would. Check out this tutorial - CSS Image Text Wrap Tutorial. I was quite impressed when I found it.
Basically, you can splice the image into seven or eight bits. Then, fit each slice into a div with the correct width for that piece of image. Finally, float the images along one side of the screen and watch the text flow flawlessly around the image.
Seems to me that would be next to impossible to achieve reliably with tables.
- Walkere |
the irony here, and the reason i use tables -
in my browser, that's nothing remotely resembling flawless. :p
tables are a more reliable way of positioning something, and the same thing can be said about them as said about css - when you know how to use them, they are very versatile. i don't use tables because i can't use css, i know css very well, i just don't feel it's suited to every task. you can use both in tandem brilliantly... and how do tables take longer to load than css? we are talking about minute amounts of data, isn't the internet way past that? working with them might be a headache, and doing very complicated things might require a little more time and effort, but i find the payoff for using tables and knowing it will look the same for everyone is very worth it. | cavey wrote: |
I did NOT call people or layouts stupid. Please read the article I'm referring to - and even the title - before you burst out in anger.
Tables are not meant for layouts. It is made for listing data. A forum thread is a list of posts and memberdata ++, and will very logically and semanticly fit into a table. |
Oh, so you're referring to the strict grammatical interpretation of the title, which links the adjective "stupid" to "tables" instead of to "people" or "layouts"? You know very well that's an excuse, but I'll dig it out anyway.
Such an interpretation is impossible because in a strict sense you cannot call an object "stupid", as it is a characteristic used for people. In practice, adjectives are sometimes linked to different nouns than they belong to in a strict sense, e.g. "lazy chair". This is called a 'hypallage', but the meaning is still the same - it's the person in the chair who is lazy.
So you're either speaking nonsense, or you're calling people that use tables stupid (also nonsense anyway).
| Quote: |
| A forum thread is a list of posts and memberdata ++, and will very logically and semanticly fit into a table. |
Any regular website is a list of data in various forms (text, pictures "++")I have a simple reason why I wish I could use tables, but I don't...
THEY ARE CONFUSING (imo)
and a pain in the butt! I use tables, but not in the sloppy border versions normally used. I use tables to align a layout. It makes it easy to have a part or parts expand when more content is added. I hate div aligns because when used on various browsers, they can become quite messed up. What may align right on firefox looks terrible on internet explorer and vica versa.
| Arnie wrote: |
| cavey wrote: | I did NOT call people or layouts stupid. Please read the article I'm referring to - and even the title - before you burst out in anger.
Tables are not meant for layouts. It is made for listing data. A forum thread is a list of posts and memberdata ++, and will very logically and semanticly fit into a table. |
Oh, so you're referring to the strict grammatical interpretation of the title, which links the adjective "stupid" to "tables" instead of to "people" or "layouts"? You know very well that's an excuse, but I'll dig it out anyway.
Such an interpretation is impossible because in a strict sense you cannot call an object "stupid", as it is a characteristic used for people. In practice, adjectives are sometimes linked to different nouns than they belong to in a strict sense, e.g. "lazy chair". This is called a 'hypallage', but the meaning is still the same - it's the person in the chair who is lazy.
So you're either speaking nonsense, or you're calling people that use tables stupid (also nonsense anyway).
| Quote: | | A forum thread is a list of posts and memberdata ++, and will very logically and semanticly fit into a table. |
Any regular website is a list of data in various forms (text, pictures "++") |
The title is telling me that it is stupid to use tables for layout. It's a big difference in doing something stupid, and being stupid.Reasons:
-Speed
-Code editing
-Compatibility
-Too easy
