Posted by JDS on 06/19/06 14:14

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:11:12 -0700, Habib wrote:

> After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
> considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
> instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
> much more time consuming and more skillful.

False. Popular misconception that designing layout with CSS is harder
than tables. It is not harder, it is just "different" and requires a
different approach.


> so there should be a good
> reason for using table-less layout. I searched the group and I found
> some topics. but I still have a few Questions as follows:
>
> - I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
> right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?
>

Well, "never" is probably a bit over-zealous. Take the saying, "never say
never" for example. "Never" is always false in a true-or-false quiz. etc.

So change "never" to "as much as possible, try really really hard to not
use"

As far as the "proper" use of tables, well, tables are for tables. If you
have data that needs to be presented as a table to retain its semantic
meaning, then use a table. If you are using a table merely to position
elements on a page, then use CSS layout instead.


> - As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
> code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
> <div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
> mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
> parts?

Just because a website is "famous" does not mean they do things
"correctly" as far as their HTML markup goes! That is another big
misconception. "Well, <big, huge, popular website> codes HTML and CSS
like this! It *must* be correct!"

High quality examples of CSS layout in large corporate or "famous"
websites are very hard to find. I think this stems from the "anyone can be
a web designer/developer/programmer" mentality that arose through the
'90s. "Oh! I have an HTML book and a computer! I am now a professional web
developer/designer"

Unfortunately, web browsers have been designed to be highly flexible in
their HTML rendering, which, IMO, only has promoted poor HTML coding
practices over the years.

>
> - Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

Search engine ranking should not be affected too much by tables vs css
layout, although one could argue that a smart CSS layout will only improve
your readability to search engines and thus improve your ranking.

>
> - Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
> while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
> does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?

Maybe they are retarded? Maybe they have a phobia of numbers larger than
10? Maybe they wanted to have header rows visible no matter where you
were through the table? Maybe their brother, Louie, used a Timex Sinclair
to code the HTML, the Sinclair noted for being unable to use numbers
larger than 10? Maybe they have *extremely* short term memory loss and
every time they got to the tenth row they had forgotten that they had
already done ten rows and they restarted the table? Maybe in Germany,
host of the World Cup, the number ten is revered as a holy symbol of World
Cup Soccer perfection?

allright, later...
--
JDS

[Back to original message]