HTML: Tables considered harmful?

[Crowbar_of_Irony_3]

I don’t see a point of using CSS tags to layout your page, unless you are aiming for an interactive-intensive site, pack with DHTML, Javascript or Ajax. Table layouts are good for simple, static webpage, and is the easiest layout tool there is.

Not to mention that ensuring that your CSS and DIV tags work cross-browsers is extremely probelmatic.

[Duckster]

@LSLGuy

My complainit with CSS-styled sites is that they don’t resize well. I don’t use standard fonts, I don’t use standard window sizes and I often see stuff mispositioned all over the place.

Also, I block most of their ads, meaning the graphics are much smaller than their absolute positioning expects.

Result: a mumble-jumble of stuff on top of stuff. Link bars on top of content, icons on top of link bars.

Had they used tables for layout I’d see an organized outcome with no overlapping. Sure, it wouldn’t look like the designer intended, but the critical baseline concept of HTML is (was?) that the browser/user ultimately controls how it looks, NOT the web designer.

Now if css has robust relative positioning, then things would work OK. But it doesn’t, and won’t any time soon.

Actually a CSS tableless design resizes just fine if you build according to the concept of “elastic design.” Of course, there are limits, but those folks who use way out there screen resolutions and/or archane browsers will not be happy.

[LSLGuy]

@Duckster

Actually a CSS tableless design resizes just fine if you build according to the concept of “elastic design.” Of course, there are limits, but those folks who use way out there screen resolutions and/or archane browsers will not be happy.

DO you have an y good references to this “elastic design” concept? I’m mediating a religious war on this at work & I’d like to find some solid references that point out how to do css well with widely divergent screen sizes & aspect ratios.

[dotchan]

I’m still mostly using tables (although I’m slowly learning CSS to help streamline updates) due to the fact that I’m too lazy to learn other ways of doing similar page layouts. I so need to figure this whole PHP business out so I can free my content from those damn rows and columns…

[jjimm]

@Rune

No offence, but better disabled accessability seems to be a pretty marginal advantage for the fairly big work and mental reorientation that goes into new layout

Hey, I agree with you! First time, probably!

CSS-only sites are a massive headache, and one that I now have to live with, since I have recently taken over running a government website, which needs to be screen-reader compatible (even though I have had precisely zero hits for the past six months from any screen readers). This sounds harsh, but if you don’t care about it, carry on using tables in whichever way you like.

Further reading on replacing tables with CSS, and read the hassle involved in trying to make “the holy grail” three-column display using only CSS, something tables could do in about 5 minutes.

[Chronos]

I don’t think accessible for sight impaired is of very high priority for a site which peddles images of nude girls. Of course, being honest I don’t need a very good reason to do this and I’m going to do it regardless.

But we’re not doing it for the sake of art. And we’re not doing it for the money. We’re doing it because… We like painting naked people.

[CookingWithGas]

Sorry for the tangent but I was just wondering if the OP is familiar with the Dijkstra article from which the OP title is derived.

[Rune]

@CookingWithGas

Sorry for the tangent but I was just wondering if the OP is familiar with the Dijkstra article from which the OP title is derived.

Yes I intented the title as a small pun on “Go To Statement Considered Harmful”.

[CookingWithGas]

@Rune

Yes I intented the title as a small pun on “Go To Statement Considered Harmful”.

Cool. Kids today writing in that confounded Java don’t even know what a Go To is.