homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.100.183
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / CSS
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: not2easy

CSS Forum

This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Poll: Tables or CSS Positioning for layout?
Reasons have been discussed to no end, but what do you use?
MatthewHSE

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 7:55 pm on Apr 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

In light of the recent activity in another thread [webmasterworld.com], I thought it might be timely to take a quick poll of what methods we all use for layout purposes. Let's assume that CSS is already being used for more basic purposes, such as replacing the <font> tag - let's talk about layout only.

Let's also try to stay clear of our reasons; they've been discussed enough already that I think it's safe to say we'll all automatically understand the reasons behind the votes!

So, short and sweet, what do people use, and when? Remember, no reasons, just simple statements of what method we use! :)

I'll lead off:

As of very recently, I use CSS Positioning as much as possible, but still haven't totally eliminated the use of tables.

 

XtendScott

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

mipapage

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 8:23 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

CSS-P only.

Even have one site that works well in NN4. NN4 will absolutely position from the left...

oberon

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 10:02 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

last site I did with tables was in 2001 I think...

jetboy_70

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

limbo

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 11:30 am on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tables.

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.

richlowe

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 3:47 pm on Apr 5, 2004 (gmt 0)

Moving towards using css instead of tables.

Brett_Tabke

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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?

XtendScott

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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?

<edit>speeling</edit>

MatthewHSE

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

skipfactor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

isitreal

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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:

If you are relying on absolute positioning to place items in the display, but that placement is actually not in accord with the linear flow of the html, you will have big problems. Right float should really be used with great caution because of this problem as well. Opera removes most, but not all, javascript, and css and replaces it with default css from what I can tell.

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.

TGecho

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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!
Heh heh

the massive growth occuring in smartphones. Those such as Pocket IE (ipaq), Symbian (Europe) Opera are not necc compat with css2 positioning.
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.

Oh yeah, the poll. CSS for everything it's designed for. Tables for tabular data. Simple, sweet... and it looks good too ;)

encyclo

WebmasterWorld Senior Member encyclo us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

Garfield

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

mep00

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 11:32 pm on Apr 7, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tables are used for tabular data, such as lists
Why not use one of the three (soon to be four) types of lists for a list?
TheDoctor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

mikep

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 2:15 pm on Apr 8, 2004 (gmt 0)

tables

LinuxGold

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

peter andreas

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 4:14 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

css definetly. Why would you not use it?

quozt

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 4:59 pm on Apr 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

css all the way! (well trying)

SynergyWD

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

WHeights

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 2:37 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

CSS-P all the way.

Reasons:
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

MsDetta

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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!

jatar_k

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 11:34 pm on Apr 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

tables

Llama

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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.

CityTownInfo

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 1:38 pm on Apr 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tables & CSS. Whatever is quicker at the time.

lexipixel

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 2:25 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)


....I think we're getting sidetracked away from the "poll"....

- MatthewHSE

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.

bortels

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 6:11 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Here's a non-answer for you: CSS when I can, Tables when I must. :-)

badzen

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 6:35 am on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

CSS. Too easy.

Nick_W

WebmasterWorld Senior Member nick_w us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 2:06 pm on Apr 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you cant build a site without using tables for layout. Give up.

Nick

tedster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3326 posted 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 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / CSS
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved