Forum Moderators: phranque
I am considering just making a XHTML 1.0 Transitional tabled design.
My theory is that if the CMS is transitional (I think I could hack it to make it strict, but that would take months since I dont know CSS very well), then why should I do all that work just for a tableless design?
Should I just go for a tabled template?
What are the real advantages to a tablelesss design (other than it was not meant for what I am using it for)
Briefly, most CSS-P proponents says that the major advantages are:
Speed and Cleanliness: The raison d'etre of CSS is to pull all that style and appearance junk out of the HTML and put it somewhere else, leaving behind squeaky clean, beautifully simple source code that loads fast and edits easy. Tables, it is argued, are like two-year-olds ... they're only going to get but so clean.
SEO:
Content can be first in the source, and is therefor spidered first. How much diff. this actually makes is still (and may always be) under debate. CSS-P also takes as it's default that the source code will be semantically a-okay, which is good for Google.
Updateablility:
Some major design revisions become a matter of minutes using CSS-P, while they can take much longer with tables since the table may have to be completely restructured.
Accessibility:
Since CSS-P allows for a lot of freedom in source code location of each element (but not total freedom), it allows you to structure your page content in a way that can be much more accessible to screen readers and unstyled browsers. The linearity of the source code is a major issue for how page content is presented to blind users through screen reader software. It's not impossible to linearize a table-based layout (I understand it's not even hard), but it does require some forethought while CSS-P is sort of natuarally linearized.
"Everyone" is Doing it:
There is something to be said for the fact that CSS-P is where many/most/some of the bigwigs in the industry have headed. Lots of the designers with "name recognition" are strong supporters of standards-based design, which, among other things, involves useing CSS to layout the page. The standards serve as a way to (try to) acheive uniformity across browsers and platforms, which I, for one, think is a GOOD THING.
There are counterarguments in favor of tables fo each of these points...there's no real evidence that source ordered code make that much of a difference with spiders; using a templatized layout, tables can be just as quickly updated cross-site; a linear table is just as accessible as linear CSS-P. And, of course, the 'ease' of using tables, and the 'lack' of cross browser issues when using tables are major arguments in their behalf.
It is worth noting that many arguments I've seen AGAINST using tables are easily countered by the intelligent use of tables. I.e., while a mass of nested tables full of spacer gifs and sliced images is pretty universally considered bad design, a well-thought out and carefully coded table is not.
Personally, I think this question always boils down to personal experience and comfort. I've always designed in CSS-P, so I vote in favor of CSS-P. Primarily because I find tables really difficult to use (b/c I've never used them ... for layout). Others have always used tables, and find that the CSS-P way has too sharp a learning curve to justify a shift.
if the CMS is transitional ... then why should I do all that work just for a tableless design
[edited by: createErrorMsg at 2:53 am (utc) on Oct. 29, 2004]
I use CSS for formatting the text.
There's nothing wrong with tables.
regards,
Mark
After a few more hours of trying, succeeding, failing, succeeding, and then running into another impossible problem, I've decided to go the table route (with CSS for all the page formating so it will still be xhtml transitional atleast).
My reasoning:
1) Tables are rigid, which make them awesomely easy and table on all browsers.
2) I can still be transitionally valid using tables
3) Tables will be support for atleast 5-7 more years (probably 10) and CSS 3 (when it is released in a few years) is supposed to have a solution.
I'm a "content guy" I want my site to just "work" so I can get back to writing content. The idea of fiddles a hundred more hours to make it all perfect in opera, mac, firefox, ie etc.. in many different versions is just ridiculous.
I've decided to go the table route (with CSS for all the page formating so it will still be xhtml transitional atleast).
Don't forget that you can get your web pages xhtml compliant (strict, transitional, xhtml 1.1 ) using tables, many people still confuse tableless design and getting webpages xhtml compliant.
regards,
Mark
Kudos!
I used table layouts from early 1997 to mid-2003 (except I used a lot of <br> <br> instead of transparent spacer gifs) and I'm only sorry I didn't decide to get to grips with CSS-P about two years sooner. It is an incredibly powerful tool. While it took a little time to get my head around it, it has saved me more time than I spent learning it.
There's no very good reason not to get to grips with CSS-P as soon as possible and, as createErrorMsg outlines, several very good reasons to do so.
Needless to say after all that cheerleading, I'm a big fan.
The header and footer and all other parts of the page will be divs
I'm gonna only use one table in the design ... all other parts of the page will be divs
Live, this is a pretty common practice, seems to result in fairly accessible and well-optimized pages when conscientiously (sp?) done, and, given some of the reasons you stated above, sounds like a good choice for you. The nice thing about a templatized (CMS) site is that you can always change your mind about the layout later with very little content alteration necessary.
Good luck!
cEM
I'm still learning all this and your right, down the road I can always go back and redo it. The CMS is completely customizable, all outputted code is in templates (not hard coded) so it should be easy to do it later.
This is a big step for me, from 100 to 500 articles, from no SEO to good SEO, from a tiny site to a big site so I am pretty hyped about getting it up and working.
