Posted by dorayme on 04/26/07 22:25

In article <Z15Yh.43990$ud2.33782@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> Scripsit dorayme:
>
> > In article <5RPXh.43509$Fz3.14261@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
> > "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Ages ago I gave an argument (in response to Jonathan Little which
> > no doubt very few if any would have understood or appreciated) to
> > show that there _was_ a tabular relationship between a side
> > navigation column and a right content column
>
> Sounds like a hopeless case.
>
> > when taking account
> > the website as a whole and not merely an individual page.
>
> A page is a page. Either your page contains tabular data, or it doesn't.
>
> > When
> > one finds it convenient to use a table, it is not too hard to
> > find arguments. I thought yours not too bad. I still think mine
> > was good.
>
> I think yours is much worse. There is no correspondence between the
> navigation "column" and the content "column". The navigation column could be
> described as one by N matrix, but it would be rather illogical to consider
> the content as another "column", except purely for layout.
>

I imagine almost everyone thinks my defence of a left col as
navigation and a right col as content as tabular is bad and
hopeless! I think it is still a thing of truth and beauty and
general unimportance. So much so, that I will repeat it here and
make it clearer for anyone interested.

First, let me say I do not use tables for such on any new
projects - and that I think it generally a bad idea. But it is
not quite as bad as some people think and certainly not for the
reason of the mantra that tables on a per page basis should show
a clear tabular relationship across the table row by row etc as
in classic paradigms.

Your statement "A page is a page. Either your page contains
tabular data, or it doesn't." is a statement about what you see
as crucially relevant. My view is that there is a deeper table
that will simply not be seen if you stick so solidly to the earth
this way. Dr Johnson once kicked a stone and said "I refute it
thus!" when challenging Bishop Berkeley about the nature of the
material world. It is generally considered a poor argument in
spite of the good doctor likely being more right than the good
bishop.

The argument is quite simple but it requires one to see that the
real and far more important table in a site that has 2 cols, left
nav and right content is a three dimensional one and is as big in
one dimension as the site itself. Once you see it this way,
suddenly there is grip for hanging a tabular relationship.

In the left col: about Deborah, about Fred, about George with
"about Deborah" highlighted in some way to indicate current. In
the right col, spiel about Deborah. Now, if you merely look at
the Deborah page, you will say that the "about Fred" link has no
tabular relationship to the actual right content. Indeed, you
would be right. But in the table I am thinking of, this link has
a direct tabular relationship to the right content on the "about
Fred" page. All the pages are part of the 3-D table.

I know some people will say it is ridiculous to redefine the
common meaning of table in this way, that it is a trick. But in
truth, when authors use a table for this particular layout
purpose, I say it is more in accordance with what they are
actually doing, it is a better description, a truer account of
their general reasonableness.

All this is not to be confused with some sort of licence to use
tables as layout generally. In so many convoluted table designs,
no such defence as above is available and I have no reason to
concoct one.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]