CSS Instead of Tables?

[textbooksword]

What do we all think about the fact that Internet explorer does not support CSS like it should? This is a two part post because I’m also going to ask anyone well versed in CSS to tell me how or why I would use CSS to replace tables. What kind of layout couldn’t be made in tables and would have to be made in CSS? What does it all mean?

[Cota]

The table in CSS -vs- Tables has been processing and work load on the browsers. CSS fans, **cough cough** W3C....believe that CSS is the answer to everything. The fact is that load on the browser is not truly affected by tables or css positioning. Good article here
http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspx

[CyCL3]

Great article. Ive read the beginning half of it and came back just to say great article. I guess i will come back when im done. :madgrin:

[Michael]

The fact is, these are standards... the problem is that HTML went in the completely wrong direction, and it was because of designers. Tables are made and meant for tabular data, not layout. I think that even as a designer people need to love CSS the possibilities are FAR less than that of it's counterpart, Tables.

And even though the difference in speed is not as durastic as implied, it is a difference and because of the nature of the internet and peoples computers, we need to save as much memory and speed as we can.

There is nothing but UPs when you are looking into CSS. Even the learning curve isn't bad at all.

I'm a huge fan of the standard, maybe if everyone actually followed the standard I'd push for more functionality and control.

_Michael

I would suggest..if anything you use CSS to manipulate tables. I can help you with this.. but tables are awsome and I wouldnt stray from them.

any layouts can be made from css/tables. they both can have the same functionablitly as Ive seen. and Ive done both. worked with HTML and CSS together. with tables and divs.

I can help you if you like.

[Michael]

What about Symantics? And as far as speed goes, when you compare actual pages, CSS/XHML is much smaller than tables. There is far less code, less for the parser to parse. I think it just grosses me out to abuse tables. Another thing, have you ever heard a screen reader read your page... if not I suggest all you table designers out there do it now... Accessibility is an essential part of our jobs.

_Michael

[john23]

I use CSS classes to manipulate tables. Like I would say <table class="MainTable" .....> at the start of my tables, and then in the CSS file, define how MainTable will look, etc.

[Cota]

Michael..you mentioned CSS using less code, so it must parse faster?? But what about the render engine for that specific functionality...how much resources is that eating?

[Toucan42]

Tables are in fact meant for tabular data, but CSS was late to the party and now it wants to be seen as the guest of honor. Fact is that they both are capable though tables are less likely currently to cause cross-browser issues.

I use tables because I am lazy.
I use CSS because I love it.

Use what makes sense for your own situation and don't worry about purists. If you are building a site for the mass public then CSS is certainly worth a look for accessibility reasons alone.

Regarding the concern about table rendering speeds the real problem is tables within tables. If you MUST do this then use the fixed width property of the tables you create in order to force the browser to accept your width declarations otherwise it will spin it's rendering engine wheels forever before finally spitting out your document.

[chameleon]

Like a lot of people, I use CSS and tables together in what little work I do. What I love about CSS is

• the ability to separate out design elements and place things precisely where I want them.

• Change the whole look and feel of my whole website by linking it to another CSS document
• Layering with a z-index (not that I've got that working how I want it anywhere, but in theory it's cool
• Did I mention changing things around is REALLY REALLY easy?

• manipulating tables is easy - just declare a class and set the parameters that I want in it

What I hate about CSS is

• inconsistent implementation in browsers

I posted this link in another thread, but it's worth repeating here.. if you want to see what real graphic designers are capable of doing with CSS then

CSS Zen Garden

is an absolute must-see.

[Cota]

"real designers" thats almost insulting..though I know you didnt mean it that way. Why does every think that only "real designers" use CSS. I'm considered a "real designer" I dont think CSS is that great, uesful yes, amazing no.

[chameleon]

You're right - I didn't mean it that way I meant 'real designers, as opposed to people like me' - and it's not CSS that's amazing... it's what people can do with it. It's sorta like the difference between saying 'playdoh is amazing' and 'some of the stuff I've seen people do with playdoh is amazing'. Until I saw CSS Zen Garden, I thought of CSS as mostly a way to change a few colors and move stuff around a little. I was totally blown away by the possibilities when you combine it with graphic design skills and a talented, trained eye.

[Cota]

I will agree with that..

[Brighteyes]

YIKES the css vs table debate lives on!

First off... there are two different classes of CSS, so which one are we actually referring to here?
CSS in its basic form is used for font styles, sizes and colors, and the like.
Then there's CSS-P (or full css). CSS-P specifically refers to use of <div> tags to replace <table> tags, among other things.

I use both, since each has it's own purpose.

In my website designs and templates I use tables, sometimes with some css thrown in for design manipulation. In my designs for vBulletin I use css, because that's what vBulletin uses, but sometimes I sneak a table into the mix.

I have to say that on the whole, I do not believe that CSS is practical in all, or even most cases. Now don't hit me over the head!! I have my reasons.

All in all, I lean more towards tables. Why? Because I have a slogan that I go by in my designs... K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). And for me, that means TABLES.
Tables are simple, and tables work.

[johnboulder]

I thought this topis had expired somewhat.

However, to reiterate my views - I believe in function over form, or that in whatever you create, the ease of use is more important than the way it works.

This may sound like an argument for tables, it is however, a balanced one - as you can accomplish some things more easily in CSS than you can using tables, and vice versa. I'm also not a huge fan of completely seperating layout from content, as for the 2 to integrate properly, you need to consider both, and sometimes the only way to do that is to merge some of the attributes of each.

For instance, I try and seperate the page logic out into a template or series of templates which slot information into relevant areas - how content fits into those areas thoughm is up to the content generation module being used at the time.

However, back to CSS vs Tables - I use CSS for forms, as it provides a more flexible way of handling them.

Where I'm displaying tabular data though, I will use tables every time...

For interface data, though, I use a mix of both, purely because of the fact that browsers still refuse to share the same CSS interpretation (circa the 3px bug) - so for columns within a layout, I will use tables, but for tabs or other interface niceties - I use CSS.

At the end of the day, it's what you're used to and comfortable with that works best, dont worry about what others preach you should be using - your interpretation, as long as it doesn't affect your end clients, is completely your decision.

Regards

[nancy_kelpie]

I also use CSS.
CSS div layers to be exact. (easier to find tutorials with google if you search on "div layers")

You can place your things much better and a cool extra thing is that you can place things on top of each other! So when sketching how you want your website to be, you can be much more creative!

It was pretty difficult for me in the beginning to find out how it worked, but it's worth it tough!

[SHP]

Originally Posted by shinningstar

I onlu use CSS in my friendster profile. It really helps to improve my website. So far, I haven't tried other usage of CSS.

CSS is not only limited to editing social networking websites.
You should really look into maybe learning CSS a bit more.

This discussion is about the use of CSS vs. tables.

Any repeated posting with irrelevant topics and or short posts in miscellaneous forums will be considered spamming.

[JashimChando]

Yes ! major site have all changed their site to scemantique html and css style. Use CSS for style and HTML for content instead of mixing both in a HTML file mean a lot. Your design will degreace gracefully in older browser. Your design will be easier to maintain and use a lot less bandwidth (and by the side more speed). Easier to optimize for search engine like google. When you change some style you don't even need to touch HTML you can change every color and image in CSS.

HTML was created to store the data (content) of the website only.

All the style, color, image which are a part of the design go to the CSS.

You can use HTML 4.01 or XHTML both are fine. XHTML are HTML over XML and offer very small advantage. Content served as application/xhtml+xml instead of text/html.



All Electronic shopping