How many of you still use table based designs and why? I'm generally a pure CSS-layout guy. i only believe that Tables are good for data nothing else. Thoughts? Comments?

 

 

How many of you still use table based designs and why? I'm generally a pure CSS-layout guy. i only believe that Tables are good for data nothing else. Thoughts? Comments?

 

 

Hi Seth

 

You are 100% correct, css is the proper way to design layouts, except for tabular data, when its perfectly acceptable to use tables.

 

Pat

yup css all the way, tables just make the site slow and the code untidy. I only use a table when i need a grid table... And with css you can to alot more!

Css all the way baby! As I said in my recent blog rant - Tables are for eating at (and tabular info of course!)

 

I always roll my eyes when I see tables, especially from so called pro's. grrrrrrr!

I started off using tables as it was the only way i knew how to make sites. Since then i've made the transition to CSS and i very much doubt i'll be going back to tables.

Tables are for eating at (and tabular info of course!)

lol

 

 

 

I started off using tables as it was the only way i knew how to make sites. Since then i've made the transition to CSS and i very much doubt i'll be going back to tables.

 

Yeah, i used to use tables, when i didnt know about css, now i do, i'll never go back to tables EVER!!!! all the things you can do with css!

lol

Yeah, i used to use tables, when i didnt know about css, now i do, i'll never go back to tables EVER!!!! all the things you can do with css!

 

I doubt I could even code tables now

 

Pat

Hi Seth

 

You are 100% correct, css is the proper way to design layouts, except for tabular data, when its perfectly acceptable to use tables.

 

Pat

I use css but in think tables is just doesn't look as good so i personally think css is a better way to do things

I used to be a diehard fan of tables, I swore CSS as a phase and as rubbish but now I'm completely on the other foot!

I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have never used tables (other than when I used them for a data table when I was learning) The main reason was because I couldn't get my head around them

I used to use tables but never wrote them by hand. Only in Dreamweaver. Boy would things look strange. Now I write CSS and Tableless without even using the WYSIWYG until later when I need to make visual tweaks. I just don't get how any "pro" designers can gloat about how great a designer they are when they table their Web sites. It was a phase for all of us but still if you're a pro you need to know how to do CSS tableless. Yes I'm a CSS/Tableless Snob!

 

The whole CSS/Tables debate seems to have taken on almost religious dimensions these days, and I'm not sure it's completely healthy, particularly the arrogance that is sometimes displayed by those who don't know better.

 

For a busy designer with multiple clients, sometimes the odd table here and there to solve a tricky cross-browser layout problem can mean the difference between making a deadline and collecting a fee, or not.

 

I agree that tableless code is more elegant (though our clients don't care about that), can make for a lighter page (in terms of bandwidth used), can (in certain circumstances) improve accessibility, and when done properly, can be a little easier to maintain. But lots of other techniques can help with all of that, too, and I don't think that CSS, even though it's the new black, should be viewed as a panacea (certainly not until CSS3 is fully supported). It's a very useful tool in any designer/developer's toolbox, but it's still not mature and it certainly shouldn't be the only one.

 

Many of my projects are tableless, but some employ a table here and there, particularly the multilingual ones - and I posted about that particular issue in a blog article: Languages and Hybrid Design.

 

To those who feel they really must go the tableless route (apart from tabular data), that's fine. But make sure you know how tables work as well - you never know when you might suddenly need to use one to get you out of a tight spot, or to tweak a third-party CMS or forum.

Well I'm making a transition between tables and divs atm on my webpage.. The reason why I didn't do it earlier is because I thought tables were working fine.. and when I did attempt to use divs I thought it was to easy to be right (I know that sounds strange, but it was just so much faster and easier then tables that I thought it must've had some cons) so anyway I'm nearly finished changing it all to CSS.

I know that some people don't mind tables, but besides bloating code it also effects you or your client's site from ranking high in Google

I know that some people don't mind tables, but besides bloating code it also effects you or your client's site from ranking high in Google

 

If your entire site is multiple nested tables and you don't use Hn or title tags properly, then maybe. However if you're just putting the odd table here or there (which was my point above) it will have absolutely no effect. Pagerank is mainly all about backlinks.

 

And, if I may say, I noticed quite a few tables in some of your portfolio sites...

I've been doing a fair bit of email builds recently and with email it's tables all the way I'm afraid. Anyone who's tried to build an email with good standards-compliant HTML and CSS will know what I mean - many of the popular email clients just don't support CSS very well.

I can't imagine many people on this forum are using tables any more. I only began web design about 12 months ago, and I've never used tables, but when I do come across a site that uses tables, I'm amazed by how ugly the code is, and how anyone ever manages to update it. I think talking about CSS on WFD is preaching to the converted!

Good point Aaron. I also do a lot of work with HTML emails for marketing, and because of Outlook 2007 I can't even use something like style='padding:10px;' - and GMail isn't much better. It is indeed back to tables and long-forgotten element attributes (yes, cellspacing is back!) for emails. Another reason for people to retain expertise with tables

Emails yes. Email is still quite a few years away from websites as we know them.

 

Standard websites, though are purely CSS based. Tables should be used for tabular data and that is all.

I have yet to come across a table-less solution for websites that must span 100% in height. In addition, the table can be used to add a footer at the very bottom. See my personal website Quimp.net and Verreglas.com. I'm generally not a fan of websites that look like boxes floated on a background : they look just that, boxy.

 

 

Take the challenge : please prove me wrong

I'm will give anyone 20$ CND for a tableless version of quimp.net. It must be exactly the same on all browsers, at all resolutions.

I have yet to come across a table-less solution for websites that must span 100% in height. In addition, the table can be used to add a footer at the very bottom. See my personal website Quimp.net and Verreglas.com. I'm generally not a fan of websites that look like boxes floated on a background : they look just that, boxy.

Take the challenge : please prove me wrong

I'm will give anyone 20$ CND for a tableless version of quimp.net. It must be exactly the same on all browsers, at all resolutions.

It can be done. The only problem is getting it to work in all browsers. But would you really want to duplicate that layout?

Whether you like how the site looks or not doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that a table has two advantages when used for a 100%-height design.

 

1. http://www.quimp.net/challenge.php VS http://www.quimp.net/challenge.php?use=table. This DIV technique works only if there is no content below the fold. When the content expands, the height isn't stretched.

 

2. When I add a footer that should always be at the bottom-most position of the design, it's easy if there's a lot of content : you just add a contained there and automatically it is at the bottom-most position. When there's less content, it gets tricky with a DIV wrapper. I tried a few things and they all failed.

 

 

The 20 bucks is still up for grabs.

had a play around with this. Haven't tested it thoroughly or anything (will do later, but right now I need to go shower and stuff), but see if this is any use to you:

 

lot of content

less content

 

Both use the same CSS, which is here.

 

::edit::

well, bugger. in IE6, the footer doesn't stay at the bottom, it places itself at the end of the content.

I doubt I could even code tables now

 

They make me really have to think when I'm working with them nowadays

lol @ Helen for Tables are for eating at (and tabular info of course!)

 

and the only time I have used tables (since after schooling of course, because we all did back in the day ) It's all controlled by classes, width's and everything. its strictly a data site, not much else I could do. I must say when i disable the css in peoples sites and nothing happens it makes me cry, I loose a nights sleep over it :'(

I've always used tables and coded all of my websites in Notepad. Tables seem quite easy to me, although they can be difficult to maintain and the markup can be very ugly and complicated. Recently (as in, last week) I decided to start to offer a web design service. I decided that I'd need to learn CSS in detail first, so I read some tutorials and coded the site's layout entirely in CSS without a single table.

 

I'm quite impressed! The finished code looks a lot cleaner and it's not as hard as I thought. I used to think CSS was a fad and only recently it dawned on me how many sites were actually using CSS for layouts now. That's what made me think that I should learn CSS.

 

So, last week I was defending tables in my mind and thinking "Tables work! There's no need for change." I've tried CSS now and I feel now that it's the way forward (I'm probably a bit late in on that way of thinking!).

Tables have their uses. I think that web designers and developers that neglect tables for 'tabless design' are just as bad as those that use tables for layouts. Tables are needed in some cases and it is just as bad to not use a table when it is needed as it is to use it for its wrong purpose.

Tables have their uses. I think that web designers and developers that neglect tables for 'tabless design' are just as bad as those that use tables for layouts. Tables are needed in some cases and it is just as bad to not use a table when it is needed as it is to use it for its wrong purpose.

 

Dizi, you hit it right on the head. Hats off to you . I try to steer clear of tables as much as possible. But sometimes tables are just needed. I've found that setting up a form without tables makes the fields unruly, whereas if I put the fields in a table of sorts it keeps everything looking professional. But this is pretty much the only place I do it. I'm working on a insurance company's site right now. I hate forms with a vengance but unfortunitly there is a ton of them for this site, so I use formgen and it does everything in tables and it works nicely if you ask me. My opinion is this, the idea is to have site load, but if you're going to have a 10 page freaking form, like my clients do, it's not going to load any faster without tables and it's going to look a lot worse.

 

Pendulum, welcome to the good side!

 

Cheers!

I've found that setting up a form without tables makes the fields unruly, whereas if I put the fields in a table of sorts it keeps everything looking professional.

 

In "Beginning CSS Web Development: From Novice to Professional" by Apress, the author outlines several ways to create forms, from definition lists to tables - and tables is generally the method that enables greatest control.

It's just a shame that CSS does not yet enable us to create genuine columns without wacky overscroll or faux methods. It does smack of replacing one set of hacks for another - although the code is easier to maintain.