| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 42 ( 1  ) || |
|How to Convert DIV design to table design ?|
convert div design to table design
I want to convert my div designed website to normal table design. so please help me to how to convert div design website to simple table design format.
Is there any online editor who convert div design to table design ? or if i have to follow any coding steps then please let me know how to convert it.
Thank you in advance. I will really appreciate your reply to my post.
Can we all take a chill pill?
@Kendo. Have you run your page (in tables) as accessibility mode? That's the voice/speech, for the vision impaired, to see what a table layout website actually SOUNDS like? (To the vision impaired)
There really is a difference and it is important for semantics (meaning). At the same time there's no gun to anyone's head to make changes from what they know and can use.
And you CSS guys, take a chill pill, too! The Web is That Old and There's That Many Table Pages out there they are not going to disappear for another 10 years!
Time out for both side. Seriously!
After all it wasn't that long ago I was a table guy who eventually took up CSS.
The answer to the original question is simple: there is no sort cut, you have to redo everything manually.
|And you CSS guys, take a chill pill, too! The Web is That Old and There's That Many Table Pages out there they are not going to disappear for another 10 years! |
Its understandable. If Kendo was not a long standing member with a track record of sensible comments, I would be sure he was trolling. As it is I am uncertain. Yes, tables are used for layout on a lot of old pages/templates but converting to it now is a different matter.
@incrediBILL, huge CSS files are the result of lazy coding with no effort to minimise, over-reliance of frameworks and CSS generators, and modifying templates (its difficult to find and remove everything at is redundant).
Images are often unoptimised because it is a lot of work to do it manually, and there is insufficient support from system like CMSs for doing it automatically.
|In the skill test mentioned above I would simply insert another table. |
Isn't there some deathless quotation from I-forget-who about problems that can only be solved by nesting tables?
Nested tables are the results of dinosaurs mating.
In the gentlest possible sense (because tangor is right that we should all be able to exchange views here in a light-hearted, relaxed manner)...
... if you are still using tables to lay out pages, it simply means you don't understand what web-pages are.
It suggests you think web-pages are some kind of desktop publishing, two-dimensional, visual canvas... and that you think the primary, most important consumer of a web page is the human eye.
That's why it makes sense to you to lay pages out in tables.
All this betrays a series of fundamental misunderstandings.
|if you can use tables, and I mean not just know what they are, then it is quite simple [...] you can only do such things with DIV because that is all you know. |
Kendo, many of us learned to architect web-pages in the 1990s, and yes, in the absence of CSS positioning, we hacked together complex tables with colspan & rowspan and nested them as many as 5-6 levels deep. All of us who did this know exactly how to do what you are describing... we all updated from this clumsy hack to CSS positioning years ago because the latter makes web pages easier to build, easier to maintain, easier to restyle, easier to structure, easier to semanticise, easier for UAs to interpret...
If you like to change DIV tag of your website with table then it will create a serious problem to your website. The layout of your website will be distorted when a online user use Ctrl and Plus keys on his/her keyboard.
DIV tags are Used in CSS while table are formed in HTML. So, I think you will get my point why websites are developed in CSS rather than HTML tables. However some Html tables are used in CSS too.
Whole website design and layout depends on CSS DIV tags. These can not be replaced by tables in html. I have done this and did not get success.
A lot of people with handicaps know that.
|Whole website design and layout depends on CSS DIV tags. |
Why do you guys keep citing this nonsense?
Because the truth is the exact opposite. DIV tags are not needed at all and nor is CSS although CSS saves a lot of time when theming several pages or more.
And what is this about problems with nested tables? I have never had a problem because I use proper syntax. Some of my pages are nested within nested about 20 times and have no issues whatsoever.... because I use proper syntax.
Kendo... no one is attempting to change your mind, even if that was possible. But there is a difference between tables for LAYOUT and divs for the same purpose. That;'s just a fact we are both stuck with.
As noted above, several times, those of us on the web early on DID use tables for layout simply because there was no other way to do it. As also noted above, that use is predicated on desktop publication (DTP) and it worked... for that time and need.
CSS div offers a different method of doing the same thing, and does not interfere with the semantic meaning of TABLES (originally intended for row/column tabular data!). And at the same time offers great responsive display regardless of browser size or device.
The question of this thread has NOT been tables for layout, it has been why would anyone want to change a DIV layout to tables? Sadly, the OP has been run off and we will never know the answer.
I will say that crusading for table layout is much like Don Quixote and windmills: much tilting and no results. No one present in this thread is here to change your mind, by the same token, there's nothing you can say to change ours.
I suspect the value of this thread has been exhausted.
|A lot of people with handicaps know that. |
Good point, but not a lot of webmasters know that and not even some pro designers.
Having recently recovered from the land of the blind, I can tell you it's a real challenge and the table sites on mobile devices we're virtually useless for me at that point.
|I suspect the value of this thread has been exhausted. |
Yes, I think it's run it's course but I'll give it one final round so we can get it out of our system and stop beating the topic any time someone mentions tables for layouts in other threads. We should just tell them how to do it and if you want to give them the benefit of divs vs. tables, drop a link to this thread which says it all.
Tables vs. Divs is like Code vs. Pepsi, Coke vs. New Coke, McD's vs. Burger King, Radio Shack vs. Apple, IBM vs. Apple, Windows vs. Apple. Windows vs. Linux. It gets a lot of people polarized on both sides of the coin in a hurry mainly because it's a choice and we all like to think our choices are best and will argue to the death why one is right and the other is wrong. Always good fun over a couple of beers in a bar but sadly most can never have their opinions changed no matter
Like I said above, I did tables for layout and even shipped a product that created websites using table layouts because in '96 era that's all you had for positioning on a page and tables have been forever ruined.
Some of my old table layout sites still exist today without upgrading the template and there's nothing wrong with that, it ain't broke, and I don't have a problem with anyone that still builds them because that's all they know how to build.
There was even a product called NetObjects Fusion [netobjects.com] which only did tabular layouts that were so nested it was almost impossible to edit their pages by hand. I even wrote a plug-in for Fusion in Java around '97, blah. The pages Fusion put out even drove some other page editors to the brink and they crashed trying to edit those wacky pages forcing you to use Notepad, VI or some other archaic tools.
However, this is 2014 and that was 18 year old technology. Today we use responsive web design for meeting the needs of all our devices and that's kind of where table layouts fall apart. Sure you can make a table respond to the screen size and I have been doing that since you could set width and height with percentages instead of pixels. I always advocated fluid design over fixed which was typically 800px wide for many years and made my 24" monitor mostly blank space. Took quite a few years for people to catch up to the majority finally using 24" monitors before those old defaults fell by the wayside. Sadly, the tendency to use fixed width still was an issue and the reverse happened, sites didn't work well on my netbook, tablet, phone, etc.
That's the beauty of divs vs tables. You can easily move a div to a new location so divs can be side by side on 24" or stacked on a smart phone. Compare that to the table which, unless you completely redesign the page for a different device size, will still be the same table even if it fluidly scales.
There's just no logic to building the old way these days. WordPress themes and/or Twitter Bootstrap, or BootPress themes as these are often called, are the way most go these days which is why threads like this give me pause as I don't find them valid as it's not real world unless you're building a site for a computer museum that has to work on some ancient version of Netscape at which point I'd recommend getting a copy of Fusion and have at it.
Like I said, build whatever you want, I don't care as I've done it all, but the old methods aren't prudent for the current mobile generation.
It makes no sense.
Remember, Google's #1 recommendation for dealing with mobile devices is responsive web design:
Hope we've gotten it all out of our system.
Final comments welcome.
|and if you want to give them the benefit of divs vs. tables, drop a link to this thread which says it all |
Actually, it does. Great explorations and exhortations from both sides of the so-called divide. I've generally said my piece, so thanks for the fun, kiddies!
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 42 ( 1  ) |