Jump to content

Photoshop To Dreamweaver But I Don't Want Tables.


BeeniDrew
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello Everyone,I am a Graphic Designer, don't know .html but I can only work in Dreamweaver. Created a website (in 4 months) with my all hard efforts which I have come to know that tables in a website is not a good thing and I am having difficulties to edit it. I hope if you see the website then you can realize I am in a big mess because right now if I have to do a little thing then I have to edit all approximately 4000 pages. I want to get rid of flash menu.A friend of mine advise me to learn .php but in W3Schools .php section, you first must know .html and javascript. I started to learn .html but it has too many chapters, unfortunately I want to do it fast.I would be very thankful if you suggest me some help, including some changes in my current website (best for me) or to start learning something fast.

Edited by BeeniDrew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anything worth doing is worth doing right. There's really no way around learning HTML/CSS without actually learning it, and that's exactly what I would recommend you do.CSS would be good for replacing your menu, and PHP would be good if you have a lot of pages but only want to have one page to make all your changes too. include() is a very simple PHP function to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,Tables are not really that messy, they just add <tr><td></td></tr> tags and have benefits like grabbing/inputing data numerically (and are more cross-browser compatible than CSS divs). The main problem is photoshop is creating the site for you and generating lots of excess code trying to convert the graphics to code. If you're not trying to learn web stuff I would advise you to just go with a CMS like wordpress, find a theme you like, and edit/add a few of your own graphics.Php's strength is working with databases and you also need to learn about a database like MySQL and safe coding practices so your site doesn't get hijacked or attacked by bots. If you learn HTML then you also need to learn CSS and cross-browser compatibility. Something like Wordpress or Joomla already has all of that and bLog/security features--plus even many businesses now use CMS so they expect you to have experience with them. If you still want to use photoshop I recommend using the photoshop web gallery feature. There are many tutorials online that can help you and it's simple and clean.

Edited by Ashenwraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tables are not really that messy, they just add <tr><td></td></tr> tags and have benefits like grabbing/inputing data numerically (and are more crossbrowser compatible than CSS divs).
I'm not really sure much of this statement is correct, or I would agree with it. If you're not using it to display tabular data, then tables are not to be used; this follows the semantic rules and nature of modern HTML web design. They actually take more time to render by browsers, and are notorious for being very inconsistent cross-browser when used for layout; hence why CSS was developed. I think the only way you could "grab/input" data into a table is if you're using PHP or Javascript; what way were you thinking of?
Something like Wordpress or Joomla already has all of that and bLog/security features--plus even many businesses now use CMS so they expect you to have experience with them.
Not that I've ever used them, but most people who use them around here tend to present pages that don't validate, which again makes cross-browser designing that much harder. I agree that they are easier for people who would like to get up and running and don't want to learn the details of creating a CMS or a lot coding, but the sacrifice is you give up a bit of control over your final code. Edited by thescientist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure much of this statement is correct, or I would agree with it. If you're not using it to display tabular data, then tables are not to be used; this follows the semantic rules and nature of modern HTML web design. They actually take more time to render by browsers, and are notorious for being very inconsistent cross-browser when used for layout; hence why CSS was developed. I think the only way you could "grab/input" data into a table is if you're using PHP or Javascript; what way were you thinking of?
This line of thinking is typical of anyone who began developing for the web after the creation of CSS. CSS's implementation has always been notoriously buggy with spotty support among browsers. The purpose of CSS was to style multiple pages, not to replace tables. This forum in fact uses tables for the layout--take a look at the source. It's the best way to get cross-browser liquid layouts. Table rendering speed is negligible unless you are doing something complicated like drawing an image out of pixel-sized cells--which isn't much faster in divs--I know because I've written code that does this.
Not that I've ever used them, but most people who use them around here tend to present pages that don't validate, which again makes cross-browser designing that much harder. I agree that they are easier for people who would like to get up and running and don't want to learn the details of creating a CMS or a lot coding, but the sacrifice is you give up a bit of control over your final code.
Many of the top pages on the internet are error prone and don't validate, that's why you build a page for it's content first and foremost. Modern CSS often relies on exploited browser bugs and inconsistencies to create a layout. The top browsers also test on the top CMS for compatibility and vice-versa. If you write your own you're probably risking more debugging unless you're reusing bits of common code.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This line of thinking is typical of anyone who began developing for the web after the creation of CSS.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would feel more comfortable if we were discussing code or coding practices rather than code developers.FWIW, I began writing HTML when Mosaic still required "helper applications" to view jpegs, and I never use tables anymore for anything but tabular data. I don't know if I'm typical or not. Don't care much, either. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This line of thinking is typical of anyone who began developing for the web after the creation of CSS. CSS's implementation has always been notoriously buggy with spotty support among browsers. The purpose of CSS was to style multiple pages, not to replace tables. This forum in fact uses tables for the layout--take a look at the source. It's the best way to get cross-browser liquid layouts. Table rendering speed is negligible unless you are doing something complicated like drawing an image out of pixel-sized cells--which isn't much faster in divs--I know because I've written code that does this.Many of the top pages on the internet are error prone and don't validate, that's why you build a page for it's content first and foremost. Modern CSS often relies on exploited browser bugs and inconsistencies to create a layout. The top browsers also test on the top CMS for compatibility and vice-versa. If you write your own you're probably risking more debugging unless you're reusing bits of common code.
Tables were only used for layout back then because they were the only element that was not linear back then, and CSS didn't exist to place objects around the screen.The purpose of CSS was to style pages, this means that anything that is not directly related to the content of the page itself should be done with CSS. Layout, positioning, appearance, and all the rest. CSS was designed to separate presentation from the mark-up. HTML is only meant to hold information about the content, not about how it should be presented. Putting tables on your page is telling the browser that the content contains tabular information.If you think CSS layouts are worse than table layouts, you must not have learnt how to do them correctly. Modern CSS doesn't rely on hacks because browsers these days follow standards pretty well now. I never use CSS hacks on my websites and they work just fine in all modern browsers. In order to develop using CSS, you have to change your mindset on how pages are put together, which is the most difficult part of abandoning table-based layouts. You have to think in a different way, and usually people have trouble with changing and don't want to take the effort to learn.These forums use tables because the information is, in fact, tabular information.A good explanation about tables (though a little outdated) can be found here: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tables were only used for layout back then because they were the only element that was not linear back then, and CSS didn't exist to place objects around the screen.The purpose of CSS was to style pages, this means that anything that is not directly related to the content of the page itself should be done with CSS. Layout, positioning, appearance, and all the rest. CSS was designed to separate presentation from the mark-up. HTML is only meant to hold information about the content, not about how it should be presented. Putting tables on your page is telling the browser that the content contains tabular information.If you think CSS layouts are worse than table layouts, you must not have learnt how to do them correctly. Modern CSS doesn't rely on hacks because browsers these days follow standards pretty well now. I never use CSS hacks on my websites and they work just fine in all modern browsers. In order to develop using CSS, you have to change your mindset on how pages are put together, which is the most difficult part of abandoning table-based layouts. You have to think in a different way, and usually people have trouble with changing and don't want to take the effort to learn.These forums use tables because the information is, in fact, tabular information.A good explanation about tables (though a little outdated) can be found here: http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
Uh, no. #1 'learnt' is not a word outside of archaic Britain.#2 IE is still a common web browser.#3 The last I checked images laid out on the page were not 'tabular data'--especially when they are nested.View the source of this page and do a search for '<table', you might learn a thing or two about the world. Edited by Ashenwraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure if you're here to debate convention or talk to down people. Could you provide example of table designed sites being less buggy, less consistent, and less "hacked" than CSS developed sites? CSS wasn't meant to replace tables, but then tables were never (or should never have been) intended to layout web sites, which is what CSS is for.I wouldn't be surprised by someone living over in Europe (Spain if I'm correct) using British English.What point are you trying to make in #2?I would go on a limb and say using a table is suitable way of representing database information, as this forum is designed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 'learnt' is not a word outside of archaic Britain.
Beg pardon. We are generally a friendly bunch on this board, and this sort of remark does not play well. We are also extremely international, so criticisms of other writers English are in extremely poor taste. I can't even remember the last one I saw.In this case, furthermore, they are wrong. "Learnt" is still current in Britain, and the English-speaking country that happens to be nearest Ingolme's home is, I believe, the UK.There are plenty of boards on the net where people do like to flame each other. A Google search might be of assistance in finding one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I hope the OP stills feels comfortable discussing the nature of his post. Hopefully, at the very least, this topic will at least provide with him insight and information by which I hope he will come back and still ask questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to semantics, anyway?Note:"Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a simple mechanism for adding style (e.g. fonts, colors, spacing) to Web documents. "[1]"Table layout can be used to represent tabular relationships between data. Authors specify these relationships in the document language and can specify their presentation using CSS 2.1"[2]

Edited by Synook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh GOD, I never knew that a simple questioning post could start a fight. LOLzzz. Well after reading all these posts I would thank you all for replying to my post but unfortunately I couldn't understand where should I start because when I read the first reply then the second reply against or represent it as a negative statement and so on. Well I am so sorry if I misunderstand the whole post.Well I am not a big fan of Adobe Photoshop but unfortunately I can't write language coding, that's all. Yesterday I have come to know about a great feature for Adobe Photoshop and I would love to hear comments about that because I tested that and it was amazing because the coding has no table frames. Can anyone please review about SiteGrinder 2.Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no experience with any programs like that unfortunately, so I can't give you any opinion as far as that goes. It does say it delivers standards compliant code which seems like a pretty big plus. I would suggest reading over some of the HTML/CSS tutorials, they're really not that hard to grasp; it nowhere approaches the complexity of traditional coding languages like C++ or Javascript/PHP, although the last two are fairly easy to learn compared to other languages. Is there anyway you could provide us a link to your site so we could see what you're trying to go for, so that we may be able to provide more detailed or constructive advice regarding your specific situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked at SiteGrinder - it isn't very good at the moment. While, yes, it doesn't generate table markup, the code it does produce is still un-semantic, highly superfluous, and generally just not very good. They say it'll get better, but until it does I would hold off on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, not that you mention it, I looked at the source code for some of their featured sites and although they pass validation, the application of CSS styles could certainly be tightened up a lot, and there were definitely some unneeded divs and misc. markup. Good call, Synook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure if you're here to debate convention or talk to down people. Could you provide example of table designed sites being less buggy, less consistent, and less "hacked" than CSS developed sites? CSS wasn't meant to replace tables, but then tables were never (or should never have been) intended to layout web sites, which is what CSS is for.I wouldn't be surprised by someone living over in Europe (Spain if I'm correct) using British English.What point are you trying to make in #2?I would go on a limb and say using a table is suitable way of representing database information, as this forum is designed to do.
IE has many problems with CSS--especially divs. Do a google search of 'IE CSS bugs' and you will see plenty.A liquid layout can be done with divs, but IE 6 does not support min-width/height so your buttons/images/etc, will overlap and smash over each other. Another example of poor/spotty CSS in IE is fixed positioning support. Many times you are better off writing javascript that moves the contents to give the illusion of it being fixed. CSS is a suggested standard, but at the end of the day it all comes down to browser implementation and what results you are left with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, I'll clarify that Internet Explorer 6's box model is corrected by using a Strict DTD, and once the box model is corrected, there is little more you need to fix. Most good layouts only use margin, padding, width, height and float; Those properties all work correctly in Internet Explorer 6 and up.We're not about to drop CSS layouts just because one single browser has slightly worse support for CSS than the rest.

A liquid layout can be done with divs, but IE 6 does not support min-width/height so your buttons/images/etc, will overlap and smash over each other.
I usually give my buttons a fixed width and height. I hardly ever use min-width and min-height except maybe to limit the width of the site overall, in that case it doesn't matter if it is ignored.
Another example of poor/spotty CSS in IE is fixed positioning support. Many times you are better off writing javascript that moves the contents to give the illusion of it being fixed.
Fixed positioning is never used for layouts, it's basically only used for Javascript applications to begin with, so there really is no problem there.Sites like YouTube and deviantART use CSS layouts and have no problem whatsoever with Internet Explorer. I'm under the impression that if you tried to simulate those complex sites with tables you would notice quite a lag with page loading.Actually, because of the fact that Internet Explorer 6 has so many faults, including security, Youtube has recently willingly decided to drop support for it so that people will upgrade, because Internet Explorer 6 hinders the advancement of web technology. Internet Explorer 6 was so bad, that Microsoft acknowledged the need to upgrade and even allowed pirated versions of Windows to upgrade to Internet Explorer 7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, I'll clarify that Internet Explorer 6's box model is corrected by using a Strict DTD, and once the box model is corrected, there is little more you need to fix. Most good layouts only use margin, padding, width, height and float; Those properties all work correctly in Internet Explorer 6 and up.We're not about to drop CSS layouts just because one single browser has slightly worse support for CSS than the rest.I usually give my buttons a fixed width and height. I hardly ever use min-width and min-height except maybe to limit the width of the site overall, in that case it doesn't matter if it is ignored.Fixed positioning is never used for layouts, it's basically only used for Javascript applications to begin with, so there really is no problem there.Sites like YouTube and deviantART use CSS layouts and have no problem whatsoever with Internet Explorer. I'm under the impression that if you tried to simulate those complex sites with tables you would notice quite a lag with page loading.Actually, because of the fact that Internet Explorer 6 has so many faults, including security, Youtube has recently willingly decided to drop support for it so that people will upgrade, because Internet Explorer 6 hinders the advancement of web technology. Internet Explorer 6 was so bad, that Microsoft acknowledged the need to upgrade and even allowed pirated versions of Windows to upgrade to Internet Explorer 7.
What constitutes a "layout", "web app" or a "website" is constantly changing. In the end you're still dealing with 90+% interface. IE 6 has a lot of market share because many businesses do not upgrade the browser and only do XP security updates--in many cases this is out of the hands of the user and IT department. Disabling support for IE6 just hurts yourself. I'm sure youtube and many sites still work, they just have less features if the user is not using IE6.It's not a matter of tables vs CSS, it's a matter of whatever does the job. Edited by Ashenwraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think CSS and IE6 are somehow incompatible?

It's not a matter of tables vs CSS, it's a matter of whatever does the job.
Ah, yes, but now, we have a choice. One choice leads us down the path of old-fashioned, clumsy, and un-semantic legacy code, while the other allows us to implement best-practice technologies with meaningful, streamlined markup. Why not do things the proper way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...