Ok, so we all know tables were an easy way to develop websites, back in the day apps like Dreamweaver promoted it, developer books released as recently as 2 years ago still use tables to illustrate their methods.

 

It allows smug developers to regain us with the incredibly annoying and ironic KISS acronym. Well ok, I can expect it from developers because they are all about functionality and quite often don't care less about semantics, maintenance and efficiency. Many do, and I personally know many that do. However...

 

Design studios have absolutely no excuse to use tables as there basis of layout. To me it just says we are not up to speed with CSS, even though there are glimpses of CSS3 available in some browsers. You see css is there to make everyone's life so much easier. It is more efficient, the code is dramatically reduced and it is incredibly more simple to maintain. Imagine going through nest after nest of tables to try and find a problem. Then there is the infamous spacer gif.

 

Well regardless of whether or not you find it easy to use tables for layout or if your too damn lazy to change to the correct way of doing things. Yes correct, tables were developed for one sole reason and that is to produce tabular data, by using tables to lay out a site, you are hacking, cheating, bending the pipes to fit it all in.

 

I learnt about CSS in college in 1998. That's nearly 10 years ago, yet I am still finding sites that have been created in the past 6 months, still using tables to layout.

 

I understand that I am preaching to the converted in the main, but there must be some people who are still doing it because I am always seeing it. I'm also often going up against these people for contracts. My last agency I worked for used tables to layout there site. My boss at the time who was on 40k, over twice my wage at the time, created the site in tables. I created things using css, the right way. He did it the lazy way and earned twice my wage. He eventually got the bullet because he was eventually exposed. But is it fair?

 

Is it fair that I try and make myself a better coder, a better designer, evolving, staying on the bleeding edge? Or should I just wing it, and blag my way through like some people do.

 

Expecting a backlash here from the table lovers, well let me just say I love tables too, but for tabular data only, because that is what it is for.

No it's not fair, but sadly too many so called designers still use this method. It's incumbent on us to clients the true way to enlightenment.

No it's not fair, but sadly too many so called designers still use this method. It's incumbent on us to clients the true way to enlightenment.

 

Well the internet is full of documentation to make the coders do things the right way, there is no excuse. But you got it right there, "so called designers".

I don't think you'll truly see an end to tables (as layout devices anyway) until the mainstream WYSIWYG editors make the switch. Come to think of it, that may never happen - do they even make FrontPage anymore or are we forever stuck with the old 2003 version currently on the shelves?

 

Even for people who understand HTML code, the temptation to click into these and do things the "easy" way (clicky here, clicky there) is just too great. For example, I've known HTML since my mid-teens, but only in the past few years have I bothered to move beyond WYSIWYG editors. Not because I couldn't, but because I was lazy and old habits die hard. Since designers by and large start as hobbyists, I'd imagine it's a similar track even for most professionals. Only when you're seriously and professionally compelled to change do you bother to change, and if the money is there telling you not to change (clients see the end product, not the messy code behind it), well, there's your rut.

 

I think there is potentially a BIG market for someone to develop a simple, point-and-click WYSIWYG editor that fully utilises CSS. Unfortunately, developing it and marketing it as a mainstream app are two different things. So until that day...

I don't think you'll truly see an end to tables (as layout devices anyway) until the mainstream WYSIWYG editors make the switch. Come to think of it, that may never happen - do they even make FrontPage anymore or are we forever stuck with the old 2003 version currently on the shelves?

 

Even for people who understand HTML code, the temptation to click into these and do things the "easy" way (clicky here, clicky there) is just too great. For example, I've known HTML since my mid-teens, but only in the past few years have I bothered to move beyond WYSIWYG editors. Not because I couldn't, but because I was lazy and old habits die hard. Since designers by and large start as hobbyists, I'd imagine it's a similar track even for most professionals. Only when you're seriously and professionally compelled to change do you bother to change, and if the money is there telling you not to change (clients see the end product, not the messy code behind it), well, there's your rut.

 

I think there is potentially a BIG market for someone to develop a simple, point-and-click WYSIWYG editor that fully utilises CSS. Unfortunately, developing it and marketing it as a mainstream app are two different things. So until that day...

 

Eric Meyer has already done so I believe.

I wouldn't say creating websites with CSS is 'staying on the bleeding edge'.. creating a CSS based website is fairly easy these days.... also you need to remember that some clients just want a simple site that works on all browsers.... they don't want to know about external css stylesheets, css browser hacks etc etc etc...

 

Here is an article from Mr.Budd

http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/05/a...s_based_design/

I wouldn't say creating websites with CSS is 'staying on the bleeding edge'.. creating a CSS based website is fairly easy these days.... also you need to remember that some clients just want a simple site that works on all browsers.... they don't want to know about external css stylesheets, css browser hacks etc etc etc...

 

Here is an article from Mr.Budd

http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/05/a...s_based_design/

 

 

Is that right? People don't want to know that an electrician has put in the right wires that are built for the job? Or do they? Just shows the ignorance attributed to web design.

Eric Meyer has already done so I believe.

 

Yes, but the key is successfully marketing it to a mainstream audience. That hasn't happened.

Yes, but the key is successfully marketing it to a mainstream audience. That hasn't happened.

 

Well if you went to several agencies, I bet not many would know who Eric Meyer is.

 

Actually I spoke to an agency the other week, and started talking about Leopard, now they didn't know what I was talking about. And they used Apple Mac's too.

 

What can you do? People are only interested in the grinding of the industry and not so much the art of it.

Tables may be "easy" for layout (debatable) but it sure isn't easy chugging through, like you say, a mess of code to alter things, so surely that counteracts the "ease" that they apparently provide for layout.

Never used them myself, apart from tabular data.

Edit - I agree with you , I've spent some time getting to grips with controlling CSS, and for what - to be undercut by some table happy designer.

Tables may be "easy" for layout (debatable) but it sure isn't easy chugging through, like you say, a mess of code to alter things, so surely that counteracts the "ease" that they apparently provide for layout.

Never used them myself, apart from tabular data.

 

That's the thing Gibson, it isn't simple to do. You have to figure out the width of the table, the height of the cells. Whack in the spacer gif to stretch out the tables. Its alot of work and loads of messing around. Plus its not very portable.

 

Andy Clarke demonstrates in his book that you can use the same markup but with different styles (not talking colours, talking about positioning and layout).

 

I started in tables as most did. I hated it, moved to Flash, where I discovered CSS. I then moved back to html because css made me see that its easier to do.

well table websites don't exist in my book... i just don't see the point in doing them anymore.. they can get even more complicated than Div's/CSS

well table websites don't exist in my book... i just don't see the point in doing them anymore.. they can get even more complicated than Div's/CSS

 

Agree. But then we have people who just replace table cells with divs. Were getting there, also need to watch the use of id's and classes. I'm always seeing things like.

 

<ul class="mainNav">...</ul>

 

If its the main navigation bar then surely it won't be repeated, thus it should be an id and not a class?

Is that right? People don't want to know that an electrician has put in the right wires that are built for the job? Or do they? Just shows the ignorance attributed to web design.

 

Pretty much yeah, and comparing electricity to web standards is ridiculous. You know the answer to your question, it's plainly obvious.. are you just bored or do you enjoy 'trolling' ?

Pretty much yeah, and comparing electricity to web standards is ridiculous. You know the answer to your question, it's plainly obvious.. are you just bored or do you enjoy 'trolling' ?

 

What are you talking about? I think its an important issue? and trolling? if I knew what it was I could answer.

 

My point there was that nobody cares about web design except those who appreciate the art and the science of it. Clients don't, those who are exploiting the web and pretending to be somebody they are not don't.

 

I suppose though companies that matter such as ESPN, BBC, big clients. They care, they understand that to make a site as efficient as possible it has to be done right. Using tables is not the right way to go.

 

Do you not agree? Or perhaps you should just not bother replying?

I agree that big sites that have millions of visitors per day should have a 100% accessible website, which obviously means it needs to be designed with CSS (and contain a few hundred CSS hacks).

 

Smaller companies wouldn't really have an opinion on a websites accessibility; they just want there website to look right in perhaps IE and FF.

 

Of course any decent 'web designer' should use CSS, but just because someone designs websites and calls themselves a 'web designer' doesn't mean they have to follow the so called opinions of the web design elite (the ones with the blogs).

I agree that big sites that have millions of visitors per day should have a 100% accessible website, which obviously means it needs to be designed with CSS (and contain a few hundred CSS hacks).

 

Smaller companies wouldn't really have an opinion on a websites accessibility; they just want there website to look right in perhaps IE and FF.

 

Of course any decent 'web designer' should use CSS, but just because someone designs websites and calls themselves a 'web designer' doesn't mean they have to follow the so called opinions of the web design elite (the ones with the blogs).

 

Who are the Web Design Elite? Andy Clarke, Andy Budd, Dan Cederholm? Have you ever spoken to these guys? They don't see themself as such. Ok they write books and do talks, but they are just the same as everyone else. There principles are the same as everyone. They have clients that you may get or who I may get. They are just basically talking about how we should be doing things. Its not an opinion to not use tables as layout, its a matter of fact. Tables were not created by the Tim Berners Lee for layout, they were created for tabular data.

 

Don't get me wrong, just because someone is using tables instead of CSS doesn't make them a bad person or someone with little artistic flair. But as coders, they are not doing it right and are making more work for themselves, and the web in general.

 

Everything in html/(x)html has its place, elements are created for reasons, and I know that there is no real semantic way to markup forms without using p, dl or ul. That is its shortcoming. But its more semantic then using a table for marking up a layout. Especially when we can position elements so easily now with absolute and relative positioning.

 

I've just looked up trolling, and I'm not doing that. I think this is always going to be a topical subject and its healthy to talk about semantics in a web designer forum. Just as easily as it is to talk about web marketing and the like.

 

Also Accessibility and tables is not an issue. You can have a website created in tables and it be accessible. Its just not efficient. Whether a site has a million hits or 10, the principles should be applied the same.

Nice post. Those are the people I was talking about.

 

I think the 2 popular WYSIWYG applications, Frontpage and Dreamweaver, are at fault for all of these tabular designs. These programs are easily accessible to anybody and not only create designs made with tables but also provide pre-made templates made with tables.

 

People will slowly catch on I guess, I doubt the 'web designers' that use tables feel they are doing anything wrong, and they probably have many satisfied customers... but yeah, if you're going to do a job you should do it properly.....

Nice post. Those are the people I was talking about.

 

I think the 2 popular WYSIWYG applications, Frontpage and Dreamweaver, are at fault for all of these tabular designs. These programs are easily accessible to anybody and not only create designs made with tables but also provide pre-made templates made with tables.

 

People will slowly catch on I guess, I doubt the 'web designers' that use tables feel they are doing anything wrong, and they probably have many satisfied customers... but yeah, if you're going to do a job you should do it properly.....

 

Totally agree. I'm basically talking about widening the gap between professional designers and those who advertise that they can create a site out of Word. Trust me, I've seen the advert in my local enterprise centre.

That's the thing Gibson, it isn't simple to do. You have to figure out the width of the table, the height of the cells. Whack in the spacer gif to stretch out the tables. Its alot of work and loads of messing around. Plus its not very portable.

 

Yeah exactly - perhaps I didn't put myself very well, that's why I put "debatable" in brackets. It actually seems that by the time you've mucked around with the tables, it's actually easier to do divs and css, despite the table user's claims that tables are "easier". I think they say they're easier because that's what they're used to doing, not in fact because it's easier.

I agree also about the class thng - I only use classes if there is going to be more than one instance of it.

Edit - tables also strike me as a lot more inflexible once you have your layout - if you want to adjust one little thing, it's much much easier in CSS and divs.

I think the 2 popular WYSIWYG applications, Frontpage and Dreamweaver, are at fault for all of these tabular designs.

 

Yes yes.

Tables may be "easy" for layout (debatable) but it sure isn't easy chugging through, like you say, a mess of code to alter things, so surely that counteracts the "ease" that they apparently provide for layout.

Never used them myself, apart from tabular data.

Edit - I agree with you , I've spent some time getting to grips with controlling CSS, and for what - to be undercut by some table happy designer.

Yes, looking in short terms a table layout might be quicker. But looking in longer terms, maintain the site, updating the layout later on, accounting for handheld, print or aural presentation of the site and CSS layouts win. Something which is worth trying to get across to the client.

 

 

As for the market for CSS-WYSIWYG editors mentioned earlier. I'd still be hesitant of using them as I got a suspicion that they'll be using an excess of divs do to the need of generalizing components.

I agree that big sites that have millions of visitors per day should have a 100% accessible website, which obviously means it needs to be designed with CSS (and contain a few hundred CSS hacks).

 

Smaller companies wouldn't really have an opinion on a websites accessibility; they just want there website to look right in perhaps IE and FF.

 

I'd argue that most businesses, even small, would benefit from being accessible to people with disability and handheld devices.

Making sure the site is accessible is a curtsy that shows that you take care and value every potential customer.

And accounting for heldhelds,... well just look at the explosion of iPhone and Nintendo DS lately. As if it wasn't enough that mobile phones all now got WAP ability.

i have to say that im agree with you nick... been coding site with tables for a while and always had major problem on some browser(i wont name them: i.e.) and sometimes... like the previous coding of my protfolio... the left column wasnt showing up brokin all the beautiful design i've created

 

now its ok im still learning css and i really start loving it, but i still use table for datas