Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 09/21/06 19:26

Chris wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
<let's snip old stuff>

>> Those of us who have eschewed tables-for-layout long ago already know
>> how much easier it is.
>>
> I'm not new to the concept, just looking to expand my knowledge with
> insights that I may have overlooked so far or which I haven't come
> across yet.

Ok.

> Saying that answers can be found somewhere on the Internet is like
> saying that the needle is somewhere to be found in the haystack.

Here's several links I found with a quick search on 'css vs tables'

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
http://sitereview.org/?article=1859
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TablesVsDivs
http://www.ex-designz.net/articleread.asp?aid=323
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/css_layouts_vs.php
http://www.benmeadowcroft.com/webdev/question/example.html
http://www.dmag.org.uk/resources/design_articles/cssvtablesforlayout.asp

Google actually turned up 2,710,000 pages, but I didn't read them all.
<g>

> Somehow I find it strange that my question seems to irritate so many
> people and yet they take the effort to reply, although in an
> unpleasant way. Why answer if you don't like the question? It's like
> the people that get upset from watching a TV program they don't like.
> Why not just switch channel, there are plenty. Same here, if someone
> does not like my question, don't reply, there are plenty of other
> questions!

I didn't dislike your question. I wasn't irritated. Perhaps I was too
terse and succinct for you? Sorry about that. Really, the question is
asked every week. "Should I use CSS or tables? Which is best?" Or "I
use tables. Tell me why CSS is better." And so on.

>> One of the problems with tables is they are not linear. How about how
>> they "display" in a speaking browser? Does it read it column by column?
>> Or row by row?
>>
>> Using CSS for layout, there is a lot less code, it is much easier to
>> maintain (and write, once you understand it), and search engines and
>> speaking browsers have an easier time of it.
>>
> This is imho probably the best reason to use CSS, code readability. But

...and ease of maintenance.

> table layouts seem to be more consistent across browsers. Occasionaly I
> visit websites that impress me by their simplicity and degree of
> organization of content. At those times I do the effort to look at the
> source, then to discover that they make use of tables to layout the page.
> That's just an observation, not a fact. Of course, CSS layout is a lot more
> advanced,

Advanced? Not really. A newer concept, but certainly nothing
technically more 'advanced' than rows of tables cells. CSS is nothing
more than a rather simple text file.

> but to make it consistent across browsers, it seems to require
> the most mysterious hacks. When that's the case, the argument of readablity
> looses strength, because although the html page is very readable, the CSS
> file is not.

It's still a matter of the experience of the developer. If you've been
doing it with tables for ten years, and are just now looking at CSS, it
may seem strange to you. It did to me at first, many years ago. Then one
day, the light bulb went ON! Haven't looked back.

>>>>> And why is fixed width layout so bad?
>>>>
>>>> What is the width of my browser window?
>>>>
>>> the max size of your browser window is at least 1024px
>>
>> My browsers are never maximized. If you had a fixed layout of, say,
>> 800px, it *might* fit, but next time my browser may be around 700px
>> because I have another window opened next to it.
>>
> I think that there is also something as too much accomodating the visitor of
> your website.

Too much? If you don't want to accomodate the visitor, why have the site
in the first place? Web sites are all about the visitor, aren't they?

> I've read threads about coding forms that point to the same
> direction. Some forms on certain websites are so "overcoded" that they
> become unusable. E.g. it has already happened to me that I was not able to
> fill in my address because the coder of the form already made certain
> (wrong) assumptions about how my postal code should look like.

Forms ... different subject.

> That's why I wouldn't worry too much about a visitors browser window.

Why, do you hate your visitors? :-)

> If my website does not fit in his window, because he has another
> application next to it, then he will have to adjust its size. With
> that respect a width of 800px seems to be a current standard
> practice.

It is a practice, yes. Is it a correct practice? I think not. There are
so many - infinite? - possibilities that your visitor may be using, that
to design for one fixed size seems so counter-productive that I would
never consider it, and haven't for about eight years now.

Since you didn't comment on my site, I'll snip the link.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck.

[Back to original message]