| 2:54 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Appologies to all offended by taking the "layout" to layout of tabular data. (mainly for the statement "I haven't coded a table since early 2002", probably meaning for page layout I see now)
I have tried to make some new sites with Div Basic Page Layout and for most things it works in most browsers most of the time, but I found table structures to be more cross browser compatible and much less time wasted troubleshooting and applying css fixes.
As said above look at Google(login page for adwords), nested tables within nested tables.
| 8:23 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Even have one site that works well in NN4. NN4 will absolutely position from the left...
| 10:02 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
last site I did with tables was in 2001 I think...
| 11:18 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I can now do everything I used to do in tables in CSS, with compatibility back to version 5 browsers. CSS rocks, but it's been many months' work to get here. Saying that, it's been no harder than learning the various layout quirks of Netscape 4 for the first time all those years ago.
"CSS is just a new way to present bad stuff faster" said BaseVinyl. That is a statement I can't argue with. However, CSS is also a new way to present good stuff faster if you have it.
| 11:30 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find myself cracking up when I try to get CSS to work in early browsers. (and IE5.5!)
Thing is, I can Ski, and every time I go to learn to snowboard I end up with ski's on again. It fun and quick and I can do it pretty well, but I REALLY do want to learn to board!
Time spent learning is the biggest factor for me. Jobs are to varied at the mo' to concentrate on just CSS.
| 3:47 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Moving towards using css instead of tables.
| 4:07 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> I use CSS Positioning as much as possible
Then what do you do with:
a) the massive growth occuring in smartphones. Those such as Pocket IE (ipaq), Symbian (Europe) Opera are not necc compat with css2 positioning.
Are you just abandoning that percentage of users?
Lastly, would those of you that are dumping those users, allow me to run a script off your site to take that traffic elsewhere?
| 4:26 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Lastly, would those of you that are dumping those users, allow me to run a script off your site to take that traffic elsewhere? |
Brett sideswipes the thread with a jolt of realization, what about those users?
Are there some tools to simulate what the smartphones, pda's, Ipaq would see?
| 4:38 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think we're getting sidetracked away from the "poll" and getting into reasons again. Reasons for using CSS have, and will be, discussed ad-infinitum around here. I was just curious to know how many people here actually use CSS Positioning. For the purpose of this thread, it's assumed that we know if we are "dumping" some users or not, and that we have made our decisions accordingly.
But since we've opened this box, I would like to add that the benefits of CSS-P may very well result in more visitors being attracted than are lost.
| 4:40 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>every time I go to learn to snowboard I end up with ski's on again
I always seem to go back to two planks too. CSS positioning is fun, but I use tables on money sites.
| 9:24 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Are there some tools to simulate what the smartphones, pda's, Ipaq would see? |
Yes, Opera 7 has an emulator for its small screen display mode, shift F11. But Opera's small screen rendering technology is quite different than for example's MS IE handheld version, which I believe actually tries to sort of render the whole page.
However, if you use Opera to view your page you will immediately find a few things:
Using Lynx to view your pages is useful to check the logic of your data, but will not show you anything you can't see from just looking at your html. One thing either of these tools will show you that questions of accessibility and simple table layouts are myths.
|CSS positioning is fun, but I use tables on money sites. |
Exactly, that's why big money sites almost universally use the most stable, reliable data container available in HTML, the table. Despite drdoc's belief that they wouldn't do this if they could start all over, I serisously doubt that's the case.
With a table you get pretty reliable rendering of your site for 99.75 to 99.9% of the site visitors. When you are creating the html for a megasite, you can't afford to have the page break for 1-2% of the site's visitors, that's thousands of people a day. It's this reason that google for example keeps its page in a table, not because they somehow can't change it but would if they could.
| 10:31 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|When I'm eating, I use a table since I can't figure out how to use CSS to position my plate. However, when it comes to Web pages, CSS all the way! |
Perfect! They don't see the fancy layout, and since I've carefully arranged the source of my page to render coherently without a stylesheet, they get a page optimized for linear reading. Frankly, I don't want to scroll around three columns on a tiny screen.
|the massive growth occuring in smartphones. Those such as Pocket IE (ipaq), Symbian (Europe) Opera are not necc compat with css2 positioning. |
Oh yeah, the poll. CSS for everything it's designed for. Tables for tabular data. Simple, sweet... and it looks good too ;)
| 11:48 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm building 3 separate sites for 3 different clients at the moment. One is full CSS, the second is a hybrid table/CSS, and the third is 100% HTML with tables and font tags (looks identical in Dillo/Netscape 2 up). In each case, the choice was made when weighing up all the relevant factors in terms of visitor profile, client requests, accessibility, etc.
If you think there is only one answer, then you're wrong! I'm generally a CSS fan, but above all I use the right tools for the job.
| 2:11 pm on Apr 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CSS is good for easy and clean layouts, that don't need much maintenance. But there are still some issues with CSS. Different browsers interpret CSS style differently, this can become a major problem, and I don't want to mess with box model hacks.
Tables are used for tabular data, such as lists, that are to complicated to do with CSS.
CSS all the way, but it still has it's limits.
| 11:32 pm on Apr 7, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why not use one of the three (soon to be four) types of lists for a list?
|Tables are used for tabular data, such as lists |
| 1:42 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Lists are not an example of tabular data.
Tabular data means something like product id, product name, product price, etc. And you shouldn't try to use CSS for this beacuse CSS is about presentation, whereas "tabular data" refers to content.
CSS is limited in what it can do with content in HTML tables, so you should avoid putting data into these (even if it's logically correct) unless you actually want to present the content in a tabular format.
| 2:15 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 12:36 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You can still style tabulars using CSS.
In my opinion, tabular is more stable in position as far as height are concerned, I got so frustrated with heights when trying CSS-P.
| 4:14 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
css definetly. Why would you not use it?
| 4:59 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
css all the way! (well trying)
| 10:09 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Plunged into CSS head first. Not liking it very much though, very simple to use but it is missing some vital components. So i'm sticking between CSS and Tables.
| 2:37 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CSS-P all the way.
1. The web was originally meant to use stylesheets in conjunction with html (used for stucture) from the start.
2. Clients are more interested in being part of the future, not the past.
3. I will not cut off mobile phone, pda and disabled users.
4. Who wants to:
A. Generate a lot of crappy code and slow everything down
B. Make life difficult for mobile phone users.
C. Make things exceptionally difficult for those with disabilites.
I just prefer to do what the web was originally meant to do, it's not Tim's fault that stylesheets got put back a few years.
My final answer is: CSS-P
| 11:32 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CSS-P all the way, and I'm even getting it to work in Netscape4 - not as pretty but very functional!
| 11:34 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 3:46 am on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I use pure CSS now that I've seen it's wonderous fantasticness. It makes coding way easier.
"CSS-P all the way, and I'm even getting it to work in Netscape4 - not as pretty but very functional!"
You just need to use the little comments trick to make Netscape 4.x exclude certain parts from any stylesheet.
| 1:38 pm on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Tables & CSS. Whatever is quicker at the time.
| 2:25 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
....I think we're getting sidetracked away from the "poll"....
This "poll" is like shooting fish in a barrel. Did you expect different results, (responses running about 15:1 in favor of CSS)... THIS IS A CSS FORUM. You'll get less biased results in a more general forum.
My vote: I'll stick with tables for positioning and layout purposes until CSS matures or something better comes along.
| 6:11 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here's a non-answer for you: CSS when I can, Tables when I must. :-)
| 6:35 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
CSS. Too easy.
| 2:06 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you cant build a site without using tables for layout. Give up.
| 6:51 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I can and have built all css layouts - but for now I usually head for the tables. It's a practical matter when keeping a client's project on-budget. I can't afford the extra time to develop kludges for antique browsers like IE6. IE conditionals? You've got to be kidding me!
That said, I keep growing my css layout chops, because some day they will be practical. CSS is a great hobby.
| This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1  3 ) > > |