Jump to content

Tables or Css?


ben3001

Tables or Css  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Tables or Css

    • Tables
      6
    • Css
      33


Recommended Posts

what are you talking about?  :) I have IE6 and it does css layouts just fine.????????LG

IE6 does behave differently from all the other major browser because it only suports CSS1 not CSS2 like the others...the reason for this is that is just so old. It has been more than 6 years since the release of IE6....IE7 has been long over due.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
the WHOLE point of css is to seperate content from design.
Well that brings up a good point.. what if the designer, for whatever reason, specifically wants their site to be viewed only exactly how they designed it? What options do they have?
what are you talking about?  I have IE6 and it does css layouts just fine.????????
Everyone has IE6. There are some things that IE does fine, and some things that it doesn't. IE does borders, and backgrounds, and those sort of things reasonably fine, but it's not so great with positioning. Or rather, it does it different than everyone else. I'm thinking back to the days where everyone wrote javascript that detected IE or Netscape, and had different code for each browser. These days, you see a CSS sheet with a bunch of IE hacks where IE needs the extra code to do the same thing that other browsers do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that brings up a good point.. what if the designer, for whatever reason, specifically wants their site to be viewed only exactly how they designed it?  What options do they have?

thats exactly my point. a designer spends all there time designing a site only for the user to view it how they wants, in my opinion thats not right
Link to post
Share on other sites
thats exactly my point. a designer spends all there time designing a site only for the user to view it how they wants, in my opinion thats not right

Well, as you said it yourself ealier, a user wouldn't start applying his/her own stylesheet, thus completely changinge the design of the site unless (s)he is in a need to do so. It's better to have a certain user that uses his/her style, then not to have him/her at all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I carnt belive your all still even arguing about this.If you prefer using tables then keep using tables.If you prefer to make sites with div and CSS and conform to W3C standards then keep doing so.If your telling people to use table instead of divs just cos you carnt be bothered to learn how to make sites that conform to W3C standards then DONT!This just gets so boring hearing the same argument over and over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, what it comes down to is this. A good graphic designer knows browser limitations as well as the developer that will be coding the design. Together, the two of them should come up with a design that can satisfy the client and still be meet all the funtional challenges.If anyone has to spend this much time arguing either point, they are doing no one a favor (in my opinion) because there is NO plausable solution - that being there is NO way to get all the browsers to render code consistantly the same way and to standards until standards are something that are enforceable (whole 'nother topic). Unless you are on the board at W3C or have some other major role in the way polices and protocols are defined and implemented, I would think that your time would be better spent refining your creative graphical and coding skills to accommodate the very issues being argued instead of force feeding an idealology that cannot become a reality any time soon.I, for one, have worked with my design partner for over 5 years now and we have NEVER come across a design element that a client wanted that we could not accommodate - across all major browsers. Creative graphic designs and creative coding can get the job done - without hacks and without browser sniffers.In my personal opinion, if you have to use a hack or a browser sniffer (especially for using a whole new set of files) then you have bitten off more than you can chew and should fill out an application at White Castle.Don't get me wrong, this is a HUGE issue for web development. But it is a nonissue for the web developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there is NO way to get all the browsers to render code consistantly the same way and to standards
This is true. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is what keeps me coming back to tables, because they have been supported forever and I know exactly how it's going to look. Right now CSS feels to me the same way javascript felt 4 years ago, but that's just me. I haven't read any books on CSS, I spend most of my time on PHP and that sort of thing. So part of the problem could be my own non-mastery of CSS, but I would like to think it doesn't require mastery to use well. Anyway, this won't be the case forever, it's a matter of time either way.
In my personal opinion, if you have to use a hack or a browser sniffer (especially for using a whole new set of files) then you have bitten off more than you can chew and should fill out an application at White Castle.
That's probably a little extreme. I mean look at the questions that people ask here, there are plenty of people who don't want to learn, they want you to make their code work. But don't get me wrong, the reason anyone can write and upload content to the web is the reason that the web is so disjointed and fractured. If the only people publishing content online were people who know what they're doing (as opposed to copy/paste artists), the web would be a much nicer place.
Don't get me wrong, this is a HUGE issue for web development.  But it is a nonissue for the web developer.
In an ideal world.. but when the web developer is a kid who just got online yesterday, he's not going to go over to the W3C and read about how they think he should make his site, he's going to start copying and pasting.. and then come here and tell me to fix his code.
Link to post
Share on other sites

that kid wouldnt be a webdeveloper, he would be a script kiddie. You dont become a developer until you know atleast the basic language (in this case, xhtml)Though everyone starts as a script kiddie anyone who is serious about web development will read enough to know about the w3 and their work. I personaly didnt know about the w3 until i started reading up on css.A web developer wont come and tell somone to fix his code, hes serious and he wants to understand what he did wrong so that he can further his knowledge on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boring. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
i agreep.s scott you said this would be an interesting topic to talk about  :)

It is a good topic and it does bring up a lot of good issues but, it just goes on forever going round in circles and it has come up in other forums I use multiple times in each.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that you are bored - I did not realize the mission for the forums was to entertain folks. Just because you are bored with a topic doesn't mean it should be left alone. If you are bored with a topic, then stop posting in it and giving folks a reason to reply. I'm not trying to be an a$$ about, but just stating the obvious I guess.There seems to be a couple things that could still be ironed out on this topic based on the last few on topic posts.For one, the distinction between a web developer and a web hobbyist (script kiddie) was made to give more context to a statement. I also feel like its worth mentioning that I feel people do come here to learn, contrary to what justsomeguy said. And in response to my statement he replied to, I do not feel that my statement is extreme because no matter what you consider yourself (web hobbyist, script kiddie, web developer) you should still be coding to just beyond your capabilities. Which is to say that if you have no abilities, then you need to do the ground work the learn. The step that justsomeguy might be more accurately have issue with is not the copy-n-paste process, but what happens after that, or the lack there of. I learned practically everything I know from copy-n-paste. In fact, I keep a library of code on my USB drive in case I ever get lost trying to figure something out I know I've done before. What I think the real issue in this matter is the amount of critical thinking that is conducted AFTER you copy and paste. If you do none, then yeah you are not learning. But if you look through the code and learn from it, then its just as good, if not better than, trying to figure it out from a text book. And that, is more of the point that Brendan is making in his reply.All in all, while you guys were chatting about boredom, you missed out on some other conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well said...again :) I always enjoy reading your posts, you are clearly 'seasoned' in web dev and have lots of experiences to share.I have been a professional programmer for almost 2 years and feel I have a good grasp on most issues but I still lack the experience that comes from years of working through those issues.Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Skemcin your post has nothing to do with the original post though.But yes I agree aslong as you do go though the code your copy and pasting there is no problem in that, as you say infact it makes learning easier.No I don't just come here to relive boredom I come here to get help and help others whilst hopefully having some fun whilst doing it, and yes I do think it should be a fun and happy environment, I don't see the point though in going over the same thing again and again.I already know why some people like tables and I already know why some people like use divs and CSS. Going over it once is fine but going round in circles going over the same things again and again just seems a bit pointless.Even more so when people take this topic so serious that it causes people to fall out, in this thread and in all the other threads I have seen on this topic it spirals into quite a nasty little debate with personal attack fired in left right and center.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I keep a library of code on my USB drive in case I ever get lost trying to figure something out I know I've done before.

That's definetely a good idea. I keep it on my iPod.Well, the CSS anyway. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
But Skemcin your post has nothing to do with the original post though.But yes I agree aslong as you do go though the code your copy and pasting there is no problem in that, as you say infact it makes learning easier.No I don't just come here to relive boredom I come here to get help and help others whilst hopefully having some fun whilst doing it, and yes I do think it should be a fun and happy environment, I don't see the point though in going over the same thing again and again.I already know why some people like tables and I already know why some people like use divs and CSS. Going over it once is fine but going round in circles going over the same things again and again just seems a bit pointless.Even more so when people take this topic so serious that it causes people to fall out, in this thread and in all the other threads I have seen on this topic it spirals into quite a nasty little debate with personal attack fired in left right and center.

Well if you see no reason to keep up the debate that does not mean we should close it for others who want to debate it. No one is forcing you to read or post to this topic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But Skemcin your post has nothing to do with the original post though.

Yes and No. When read out of context, defining what a web developer and web hobbyist is has nothing to do with whether one should code in tables or CSS. But, when I introduced the reality of todays browser market, I stated that a creative adn skilled web developer would have to use both and couldn't (realistically) expect to favor one over the other (tables vs. css - I almost typed "chairs" instead of "css" - lol). This lead to a reply that questioned that relevence when considering the fact the a web hobbyist would not care or even know that one method may be more compatible with more browsers than the other. So, when put in context, my post (particularly defining web developer and web hobbyist) was on topic.
No I don't just come here to relive boredom I come here to get help and help others whilst hopefully having some fun whilst doing it, and yes I do think it should be a fun and happy environment, I don't see the point though in going over the same thing again and again.

I hope you understand that I was not implying that you only come here to pass time. I am sure all our members come here for those same reasons you do (offer help and seek help). I agree, too, that it should be a fun and happy place - that is the aura we seek. The aura of a discussion board is not the same as its purpose or goal. I simply wanted to state that one should not expect a post to entertain them but a post could educate you in an entertaining way - the emphasis and main intend being education.
I already know why some people like tables and I already know why some people like use divs and CSS. Going over it once is fine but going round in circles going over the same things again and again just seems a bit pointless.

I can understand your point completely. But I reviewed each post on this topics and there is not really anything that has been repeated - except within the last couple of posts - but there is nothing wrong with reiterating a point if it was not completely understood in the first place. Now, I am sure this topics has come up elsewhere, if not here definitely on another board. Maybe having participated in only one of these types of conversations is enough to understand one's position. But if it takes one longer to understand what to do with this math problem, 25x^2 + 36 = 60x, then is it fair to cut that person short of the amount of time or discussion needed to understand it?
Even more so when people take this topic so serious that it causes people to fall out, in this thread and in all the other threads I have seen on this topic it spirals into quite a nasty little debate with personal attack fired in left right and center.

I can also agree with your perspective of name calling and aggression. I observed this behavior, stepped in to correct it, and the posts got back on track immediately afterwards. So to everyone's credit, I think our members responded appropriately and maturely to the moderator intervention. And there is nothing wrong with a debate, especially if it is moderated - which this one has been. And you are correct, there have been other posts that have show similar behavior - all of which I beleive one moderator or another has come across and dealt with accordingly. Again, for the one's I've seen, everyone has been very responsive, especially since seeing Eric(going back a little there) leave.
well said...again  :) I always enjoy reading your posts, you are clearly 'seasoned' in web dev and have lots of experiences to share.I have been a professional programmer for almost 2 years and feel I have a good grasp on most issues but I still lack the experience that comes from years of working through those issues.Thank you.

thanks. I've ben exposed to quite a bit over the last 10 years and look at everything as a learning experience. So I am constantly taking mental notes hoping to later discover something to take away from whatever I felt necessary to note. What is funny is that I notice I rarely hold on to details, I focus more on concepts. Having understood a concept, I rely on my experience and intellect to fill in the gaps. And when they can't, I have no problem stating that I have no idea what I am talking about - that's when I usually say something like "I did stay at a Holidya Inn last night".:)
Link to post
Share on other sites

(before everyone jumps down my throat) would i be right in saying that if tables and css are implemented correctly and used together in an effective way to create an excellent layout would it be good to use them. maybe my orignal topic question was not right.In using tables i would say but having the framework of the site, thee css should be used for the styles and positioning of the table

Link to post
Share on other sites
I also feel like its worth mentioning that I feel people do come here to learn, contrary to what justsomeguy said.
I didn't mean it that way, there are definately a lot of people (the majority) that are genuinely here to learn. But some of the questions that get asked, or rather the way they get asked, seems to indicate that there are some people who aren't interested in learning. But I do enjoy helping people out, so hopefully they are able to take something away from it.
I learned practically everything I know from copy-n-paste. In fact, I keep a library of code on my USB drive in case I ever get lost trying to figure something out I know I've done before. What I think the real issue in this matter is the amount of critical thinking that is conducted AFTER you copy and paste.
That's true. I guess I'm generalizing here, I'm not expressing myself well. I was referring to what you're talking about, the types that copy and paste code from several places, try to put it all together without understanding it, and then wondering why it doesn't do what they want. I also started in the HTML world by copying and pasting code (or, actually just saving whole pages) and then changing things to see what happened. That's one of the great things about the web, if you see someone do something that interests you, you can just see how they did it and figure it out. It's a great way to learn how to do new things. I don't carry around code with me, but I do have a 'framework' of sorts that I've built up over the years that I use as a start for everything I do. I've been working on a template engine recently (I'm the type who builds my own wheel instead of using the next guy's), so I'm expecting to be able to reuse a lot of the HTML I do as well. Up until recently I've just reused all the PHP, but most of the HTML I rewrite. I tend to concentrate on the functionality, and so my applications are typically centered, no graphics, barebones. I call up my design buddy to make it look decent.
What is funny is that I notice I rarely hold on to details, I focus more on concepts.
That's true, if you know the concepts you don't need to remember the details. That's what places like w3schools and the php.net reference are for. I don't know what the syntax is for using the setcookie function, but I know how to use it and I can identify when I encounter a situation where I can or should use it. When I reach that point, then I head over to the reference and look up the details on implementing it. The same holds for a lot of javascript and css, I don't need to remember the syntax as long as I know where I can go to find it.
would i be right in saying that if tables and css are implemented correctly and used together in an effective way to create an excellent layout would it be good to use them.
I guess that's the question. There are two answers:1) it accomplishes what you are trying to do, so yes, that's right2) the W3C says that tables aren't to be used that way, so no, that's not rightVarious members here agree with one or the other.
Link to post
Share on other sites
(before everyone jumps down my throat) would i be right in saying that if tables and css are implemented correctly and used together in an effective way to create an excellent layout would it be good to use them. maybe my orignal topic question was not right.In using tables i would say but having the framework of the site, thee css should be used for the styles and positioning of the table

Ultimately what it boils down to in the end, regardless of what anyone says you should do, is the question does it work.If it works (and hopefully validates) and you and your client are happy then that is all that matters.Sometimes at work I need to just make it work...now! So I think about what is involved, how to make it somewhat reusable (if it can be), and balance between maintainability and a reasonable timeframe.I say that loosely because I like to have my i's dotted anf my t's crossed when it comes to standards but sometimes it is just not worth the effort or the timeframe doesn't make sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately what it boils down to in the end, regardless of what anyone says you should do, is the question does it work.If it works (and hopefully validates) and you and your client are happy then that is all that matters.Sometimes at work I need to just make it work...now! So I think about what is involved, how to make it somewhat reusable (if it can be), and balance between maintainability and a reasonable timeframe.

im sure thats exactly what i wanted to here, in my case when i have made this site for this club, they have never had a website before. Here is the specifiction they gave me:"Medussa NightClub has recently changed management, with a new change of management we would like a new site. We would love it if users can send there club bookings online."Thats exactly what the site does. When i was given my brief by them i had absolutly nothing to work with, no colours previos layout or even a logo, so i think with me making them a site which looks like this http://medussa3.atspace.com is pretty good in my opinion. (btw its not the finished site, just basic layout)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that's the question.  There are two answers:1) it accomplishes what you are trying to do, so yes, that's right2) the W3C says that tables aren't to be used that way, so no, that's not rightVarious members here agree with one or the other.

I agree with the second one, but not because W3C says so :) . It's because I know the why behind what W3C and all of it's followers say (I mentioned most of the things earlyier). But I see your point too. You are more interested in the how and that's reasonable too.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't really agree that a table is a spreadsheet-style table, and nothing else. It is an element, it's a way to structure content, whether that content is a list of numbers and averages or a series of images that frame a paragraph.But I know what the W3C is trying to do, they are trying to build the semantic web, where elements have meaning other than as containers. It would be a good thing, it would allow for a much more broad use of the information on the web, but I don't agree with how they are trying to do that. They are taking the structural elements that we have always used, and redefining them (or, actually just narrowing the definition). I would instead like to see them add meta attributes to all tags, so that the developer can say what the table is, or what the image is, or whatever, and assign it meaning that way, instead of saying that all tables are now for tabular data only.Just my opinion.. I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...