Tables vs. CSS

[Tree]

Didn't turn out half bad

http://projects.neoncube.net/Adam

That's just the HTML part of the project. The PHP and javascript are coming later.

 

[Bryson]

I personally like to cheat a bit...

I use .css all the time when I can simply for saving a bit of space (whether this works yet I don't know)

I actually sort of ripped mine off from a wordpress theme I was using at the time, and forgot I had it. But heck, if I decide to put up the same theme or whatever, its all there. I added a few things to it of course, and took out the author info etc, heck I don't even use half of it right now.

Id rather try to make it all .css, simply for the fact if you want to make a change, it shows throughout the entire site (can you do that with tables?)

I use a lot of <iframe> as well, without scrollbars etc, for me it just made sense.

 

[Bryson]

I also check all my work in three different browsers, firefox, ie, and netscape, and also hate the way ie renders (those guys need to fix that godawful beast they call a browser, and get rid of the "click" sound every time you click a link)

However, 90% of the world still uses ie (probably the web dev uninclined) so we have to make sure it renders properly in all browers. For me, the easiest and hastle free way to do it is to use the style sheets. After all, all it is plain text, and its kind of hard to screw that up.

Unless of course, you are using explorer.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I think you need to learn CSS and tables.

Then think again. If you still come up with the same conclusion, then repeat the process until you reach one which states that I already know enough CSS and Tables, as if the fact.

The fact is, you don't know enough CSS, seeing as how you seem to think that

Using Pure CSS, it is difficult to obtain proper horizontal alignment.

Which is absolute BS.

I asked you just how is it difficult, yet you could manage to come up with no valid response.

Capability and Compatibility is different thing IMO. :wink2:

And IE hasn't got either.

btw Tree your poll is wrong <div>'s, <p>'s, and such is CSS.

No actually it's HTML, but you use it in conjunction with CSS which is refered to as layout by CSS rather than tables, which is what you're trying to say.

I know CSS is better, but the divs are the most confusing part for me for some reason :S. Can't lock those down :/ So I'm forced to use tables.

Explain.

I also check all my work in three different browsers, firefox, ie, and netscape, and also hate the way ie renders

Thats good but more people use opera than netscape, and the way it's displayed in FF is generally the same as in Netscape.

Netscape and FF are very similar, Opera is a bit different so it's best to test in FF, Opera and *groan* IE.

I use ie7 for testing, and it still can't display ---- properly, so bloody annoying.

Here we webmasters have an array of imesnely powerful and good CSS tools, and because of gay arse Microsoft and their ----, we can't use it.

However, 90% of the world still uses ie

So? 90% of the general population who have a computer with internet.

The percentage of people who are online at least daily and use IE would be drastically smaller, and it only gets smaller.

Looking at the stats of my website, FF is usually around 50% followed by Opera, follwed by IE followed by netscape and others.


Anyway, you can always forbid users from using IE to access your site - and make a lot of money from it, by showing google's FF ad when saying "Sorry, you can't access this website using a ---- browser like IE".

Google pays you $1 for every user who downloads firefox from your link.

 

[Bryson]

But if you say people with IE are not allowed to view a website, what makes you think they will come back with another browser? Id rather tell Google to keep their measly 1 USD, earn a customer, not a one time impulsive easy buck, and take the chance of possibly earning 2 from my new, returning customer.

Yeah you are right, Netscape is a lot like Firefox, but it just looks nicer, and its my way of saying, "Hey good job!"

Maybe I should check out Safari/Opera.

They are both free now right?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

But if you say people with IE are not allowed to view a website, what makes you think they will come back with another browser?

Why wouldn't they?

Id rather tell Google to keep their measly 1 USD, earn a customer, not a one time impulsive easy buck, and take the chance of possibly earning 2 from my new, returning customer.

Well I guess if your website makes money it's different

Maybe I should check out Safari/Opera.

They are both free now right?

What? No, they don't have a similarity between them.
Apart from the obvious...you know both being browsers.

 

[Bryson]

No what I meant by that was I thought one of them was one you had to pay for in the past, just couldnt remember which.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

OOoooh I thought you said same lol. Hmm.

Yeh they're both free though I'm not sure if Safari would work under windows or linux.

But I know little about it.

 

[Bryson]

Why wouldn't they?

I know I wouldn't, you think I would want to go through the hassle of opening a new browser, finding the site again, and then getting what I want? This is how business works, if the owner,retailer, vendor etc doesn't have what you are looking for, they go elsewhere. Not to mention, it is a disservice to your visitor. Keep in mind, we are in business not for us, but for the customer, and customer satisfaction rules are still valid when it comes to the internet.

Look at this way, if you went to Walmart, and the door greeter said, Im sorry sir, but we are currently not letting people in who are wearing white sneakers, (you are wearing white sneakers). He then proceeds to say, but if you buy a pair from outside those doors, we will be more than happy to let you in.

This is where Target gets customers now, from turnaway traffic.

I dont want to turn away any traffic, I would be more than happy to serve my customers needs first, since they keep me in business, and not my own interests.:topic:

but now we are moving away from .css vs tables altogether...

 

[link92]

CSS for layout/design, Tables for tabular content

 

[martin ewing]

Then think again. If you still come up with the same conclusion, then repeat the process until you reach one which states that I already know enough CSS and Tables, as if the fact.

The fact is, you don't know enough CSS, seeing as how you seem to think that

Yeh they're both free though I'm not sure if Safari would work under windows or linux.

I think you should visit this link. You will find here very good article developed by Safari team. I think you should take many things into consideration before just going on commenting and putting quote. :classic2: And you might get clear idea what I am talking about. :cool2:

http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/bestwebdev.html

And IE hasn't got either.

I didnot mention any browser. I want to mention that by following good web standards, CSS with minimal tables is nice option. :knockedou

However, I appreciate Bryson, nice explaination.

 

[Maplesea]

Both.CSS and table are good , CSS make your site more pro :lol:..

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I think you should visit this link. You will find here very good article developed by Safari team. I think you should take many things into consideration before just going on commenting and putting quote. :classic2: And you might get clear idea what I am talking about. :cool2:

http://developer.apple.com/internet/webcontent/bestwebdev.html

I had a brief look through it, they appear to use tables...n00bs - I ain't wasting my time to read that (not that I have time to waste)

 

[Decker]

All depends what you need from the sites pages - pick what is best for you. To start use tables, easier to design in locally before publishing.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Tables are certainly easier, but in no way better.

 

[cronic5]

Tables. Why would I use anything else? I only use CSS for colors, borders, and places that I need it in order to make it compliant with the W3C standards.

 

[Decker]

Not everyone needs it though, unless you are looking at a really serious site and cross browser compatibility it's a load easier with current apps that are used for site design.
I agree CSS is by far better (though some security packages do block them, a bit of a bind to say the least) but still give better results. Still a case of what you have at the time - including skills.

 

[martin ewing]

I had a brief look through it, they appear to use tables...n00bs - I ain't wasting my time to read that (not that I have time to waste)

So do you mean the web standards article developed by Safari team is crap and waste? And You are the only one who is expert in the Web World as you don't have a time to go through that web standards article even (in my last post). :tired2:

Tables are certainly easier, but in no way better.

If you have gone through my previous post, I had also suggested for minimal use of tables with CSS. Minimal tables are the perfect compromise as Correct horizontal alignment is the most important advantage of tables.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

So do you mean the web standards article developed by Safari team is crap and waste?

No, that's putting it a little too harshly.

And You are the only one who is expert in the Web World as you don't have a time to go through that web standards article even (in my last post). :tired2:

Idk about the only expert...but are you saying I can't be one because I'm a busy person?

Nice one...

If you have gone through my previous post, I had also suggested for minimal use of tables with CSS.

Yeh I know what you suggested.

Any use of tables for layout is wrong.

Minimal tables are the perfect compromise as Correct horizontal alignment is the most important advantage of tables.

Horizontal alignment...

<div style="text-align:center;">stuff, images, anything</div>

 

[cronic5]

Even in webmastering classes tables are taught and told to be used for your layout. I know professional designers who use tabels for layouts WAY before CSS.