So I created a perfectly validated XHTML/CSS design for this guy, who then tears it apart to re-build it in tables?

 

Did I miss something? Aren't DIV's the way to go?!

 

 

So, far I've had to go in and pretty much recreate it. Using CSS is great but completely relying on DIVs for page structure can cause browser compatability issues and make it difficult to have control over complex page layouts. I know there is a lot of reliance on and eventually we'll all get to CSS only page structures, but realistically we're not developmentally ready to take that step in many designs.

 

Maybe it's also partly me as I've been developing for 12 years now and have relying on tables for layout since I first started. I love CSS and rely on it for as much styling as possible, but as web pages rely on the box model for formatting it still makes sense to use table to control layout.

I think he missed something, not you The occasional table can be used, but as for the entire layout, its just wrong. Does he still make the same design of websites he created 12 years ago? It's called evolution, and its good

Not to be rude, but no you didn't miss something, he did.

 

Tables cause issues with accessibility, as it is semantically incorrect to use a table for layout.

 

This guy says he has been designing for 12 years, so have I just about!!! I started off using tables but switched 2-3 years ago.

 

Have a search around this website, I know somewhere someone posted a tonne of links to articles discussing why you should use Divs and not tables.

 

- Eris

Sorry to double-post but I found the post that I was talking about:

 

http://www.webdesignerforum.co.uk/index.ph...ost&p=26114

GIVE HIM A SLAP!

 

So, far I've had to go in and pretty much recreate it.

Oh boohoo...

 

Using CSS is great but completely relying on DIVs for page structure can cause browser compatability issues and make it difficult to have control over complex page layouts.

That's very true. But, it's the job of the web designer / developer to fix those issues.

 

I know there is a lot of reliance on and eventually we'll all get to CSS only page structures, but realistically we're not developmentally ready to take that step in many designs.

Yes we are.

 

Maybe it's also partly me as I've been developing for 12 years now and have relying on tables for layout since I first started.

It's great that you've been developing for 12 years, but you need to keep up to date with current trends / standards. This isn't 1996 anymore. We don't all need Comic Sans, bright blue links, and deprecated code to make a site anymore.

 

I love CSS and rely on it for as much styling as possible, but as web pages rely on the box model for formatting it still makes sense to use table to control layout.

No it doesn't! It doesn't make sense at all! A table is for tabular data. Is your layout tabular data? NO! So don't use a table to lay out your site. Be semantic. Save on markup. Learn something new. Be daring.

 

 

 

Gah. Sorry about the above venting. People like this just... irk me.

teehee reminds me of a site I designed, perfect css based design that someone then mashed into a table/css mess...funny thing is they did the entire site the same as I had designed it, so it looked the same but looking at the code it had been butchered. I am still yet to understand why they did this, as there is no cosmetic difference to it.

 

 

As for the 12 year guy, I have to laugh at him and tell him to get with the times. 12 years in an industry that changes all the time = nothing at all if you don't keep up with its developments and standards.

Rachael has said everything I wanted to say!

 

Your client is completely wrong, basically. Tables should be used only for tabulated, gridded, data. Everything else should be structured with semantic HTML tags (not just divs!), with (external) CSS to style the structure.

Lol Rachael, love the rant!!

 

So, far I've had to go in and pretty much recreate it.

 

This is the bit that really tickles me! Poor him, you've made all this work for him cos you didn't do it properly? When in fact it was fine as it was no doubt and he's just scared of change. Perhaps he didn't like the fact that you were so ahead of him and he had to make up for it by turning it back into tables cos what he basically said was: "Slow down son, the world's not ready for you yet". It's like parents who won't buy their kids the latest gadget cos "It'll never catch on".

 

- Eris

Wow. I feel really bad for you, Mike.

 

I had a potential client once who didn't use my services because of the tables/CSS issue. Quite frankly I was glad to have that out in the open before the contracts were signed and I did all the work; I can't imagine what this must be like for you.

 

So who is this guy? Client? Employer? If he's been making practically perfect websites for 12 years, why did he hire you?

 

Depending on who he actually is in relation to your job (like, don't get fired over it), I would set him straight. He hired you to do a job and you have done it correctly according to every web standards organisation on the planet. If he wants to live on Mars and screw with the finished code and turn everything into a table, that's his business (after he pays you). But you can't honestly be expected to deprecate the site back to 1996. Would he take a Porsche to a mechanic and complain that he's "just not ready" for that kind of speed and performance, so can they please make it a hoopdee? Of course not!

Explain to your client that the web isn't used by just browsers, but there's an increasting amount of medias. Print, screenreaders, search engines, mobile phones. (In Japan mobile browsing is equal to computer browsing.)

My opinion on using tables as layout tool is very simple:

 

tables are meant for tabular data... nothing more, nothing less.

 

(page layout is no tabular data so tables aren't the tool to use)

Intersting.

 

I never use tables unless tabular data, position everything in my CSS etc.

 

But actually if asked to justify this beyond using the word 'semantic' I'd not know what to say. And there is a strong arguement that tables react to browsers in a much less random way than <divs> and the box model. Not the fault of cSS or the box model that but differing implementation of standards across browsers.

 

So from a speedy development perspective I see his point.

 

Remember i'm a CSS user not table user so don't shoot me, but here's a challenge - without using the word 'semantic' tell me in a sentence or two why CSS / DIV's are peferebale to tables.

 

Search Engine optimazation. When you are using div and css in a valid and semantic way, search engines will have an easier way of understanding the content on your page. As a result of that, you'll get a better ranking.

 

It is also important to remember that you can use less code when using divs and css. You will be rewarded with a faster load time.

 

There is some issues when working with css and divs in stead of tabels, but when you have first startet to explore div and css, you will quickly understand how you can work you way around common browser rendering differences. Some keywords are Eric Meyers CSS reset and knowlage of a few IE hacks. If you know how to give IE6/7 different code than else browsers, it won't be a big problem to get you site just right in every browser.

 

Hope that explains it for you.

 

Edit: Your site was interesting, headcoat. Really liked it even though you coud use more colors.

Search Engine optimazation. When you are using div and css in a valid and semantic way, search engines will have an easier way of understanding the content on your page. As a result of that, you'll get a better ranking.

 

It is also important to remember that you can use less code when using divs and css. You will be rewarded with a faster load time.

 

There is some issues when working with css and divs in stead of tabels, but when you have first startet to explore div and css, you will quickly understand how you can work you way around common browser rendering differences. Some keywords are Eric Meyers CSS reset and knowlage of a few IE hacks. If you know how to give IE6/7 different code than else browsers, it won't be a big problem to get you site just right in every browser.

 

Hope that explains it for you.

 

Edit: Your site was interesting, headcoat. Really liked it even though you coud use more colors.

 

Yep 10/10

 

Also I just came up with the fact as with everything CSS changing the site is easy - so if you want a column 10 pixles wider assuming it's in the same place on each page just change the once in the div.

 

Thanks for the comment on the site. I'll take interesting as a compliment, if nothing else it's good to try and be individual.

 

Good point re. colours, though it's worth bearing in mind the portfolio page will change as I add more thumbnails to the gallery getting rid of the particular overuse of grey on there. I did try filling the windows with various colours but couldn't get anything I liked or improved.

 

I may revist that specific page and add some more colour. anywhere else on the site you felt particualrly lacking in colour?

 

White space, simple but effective colour schemes are what I'm trying to aim for, designed but not over designed.

Another point why CSS is better then table markup is data...

 

Let me explain:

 

Imagine you run a wide visited website that has a lot of pages (i.e. more than 100 pages)...

This website generates a lot of traffic. Each character you use stands for 1 byte.

 

We all know how the code of a table based site looks like... And when the site is a complex one, you really have a lot of code.

 

This website is placed on a server where you pay for bandwidth or perhaps you own a server by yourself....

 

When transitioning to CSS you maybe have enough with a less heavy server... or maybe you only need one instead of two servers... or maybe, at the end of the month, you have 5GB data traffic instead of 10GB...

I may revist that specific page and add some more colour. anywhere else on the site you felt particualrly lacking in colour?

 

White space, simple but effective colour schemes are what I'm trying to aim for, designed but not over designed.

 

You know, telling people what is wrong is easy. The problem is that I'm not that great with colors neighter. I've tried to read some color theory, but it is so boooring. Anyway. Just experiment some more. I'm sure you'll nail it at last.

You know, telling people what is wrong is easy. The problem is that I'm not that great with colors neighter. I've tried to read some color theory, but it is so boooring. Anyway. Just experiment some more. I'm sure you'll nail it at last.

 

no worries...

 

but hey LOL not so good with colours *neither*, I'm told by an experienced graphics designer and a photojournalist/graphics design graduate/television producer - that my colour use is 'fantastic'

 

beauty is i guess in the eye of the beholder. some like lot's of colour some prefer something a little more subtle.

 

mind you defo too much gray on the portfolio page you are right there.

 

(was i being a bit defensive there?)

When transitioning to CSS you maybe have enough with a less heavy server... or maybe you only need one instead of two servers... or maybe, at the end of the month, you have 5GB data traffic instead of 10GB...

 

Excellent point Tony

 

Many years ago when hosting was much more expensive than it is today, I cut one customers monthly hosting fees in half by converting his site to CSS. The old site was table based, used lots of <font> tags everywhere, mainly text, and a typical HTML page was 30-40k (and 100+ pages built in Frontpage - aaargh!).

 

After stripping all the bloat out the pages loaded twice as quick and his data transfer usage halved overnight - as a result he saved well over £100 a year in hosting fees.

but hey LOL not so good with colours *neither*, I'm told by an experienced graphics designer and a photojournalist/graphics design graduate/television producer - that my colour use is 'fantastic'

 

Sorry about that. I'm not a fluent english speaker, but I'm learning.

 

I just wanted to point out I'm, at least, not better than you with colors.

 

Hope I made myself clear now.

Sorry about that. I'm not a fluent english speaker, but I'm learning.

 

I just wanted to point out I'm, at least, not better than you with colors.

 

Hope I made myself clear now.

 

not a problemo i'm being a prima donna

Tables are great... for displaying tables of data. They're not quite so hot for laying out entire pages of content, for every reason mentioned above.

 

Sounds like your client (who has been a developer for 12 years apparently?) can do a fine job by himself and doesn't need your help.

I feel for him. Up to a week ago i always used tables but just found it too diffecult to switch as i'm not a full time web designer to remembering what code to use was a pain.

 

But now because (as mentioned above) standards are changing, mobile, and print have to be considered, i have started the process of leraning it fully now and created my first site wit CSS.

 

Guess after 12 years of tables he just doesn't want to let go

He'll have to, otherwise no one will hire him. To be honest, no one should be hiring him with his attitude to current technology anyway!

I'd really love to know how this situation panned out.

 

But then I am a nosey whaddyacallit.

Kill him. It's the only way to be sure that such ignorance does not spread.

 

Seriously, I can't begin to convey my thoughts on this without resorting to swearing. It's such a ignorant comment to make it really does get my back up. He owes it to his company, his peers and his customers to drag his sorry arse into the modern world and learn best practice. Arse.

Kill him. It's the only way to be sure that such ignorance does not spread.

 

Seriously, I can't begin to convey my thoughts on this without resorting to swearing. It's such a ignorant comment to make it really does get my back up. He owes it to his company, his peers and his customers to drag his sorry arse into the modern world and learn best practice. Arse.

 

Ah the standards fascists have arrived. You will obey!