tedhill
asked on
CSS positioning X Tables
Could someone clarify this to me: since CSS positioning can set up a web page layout in a fraction of the time used to do it with tables and its maintenance is far more easy, far less troublesome and faster, why there are so many web sites that still use tables ?
Are the programmers still stuck in their old habit of using tables ?
Are most of the web sites too old, that is why they still show a coding made up with tables ?
Didn't the programmers update themselves with the new techniques of CSS positioning ?
Or there is some other reason unknown to me ?
Are the programmers still stuck in their old habit of using tables ?
Are most of the web sites too old, that is why they still show a coding made up with tables ?
Didn't the programmers update themselves with the new techniques of CSS positioning ?
Or there is some other reason unknown to me ?
I'd say the primary reason is tables have better backwards compatibility as far as how they display. CSS is a younger technology and positioning is a lot more inconsistent than tables. Graphics heavy sites tend to find it easier to place images with precision using tables. Many corporate sites use tables extensively.
ASKER
<<Yes, some people are too lazy to learn CSS--some websites are already so much in tables that the developers are too lazy to change it.>>
Well Zyloch, if one needs to make a very small change in the web page then it is reasonable to keep the tables structure. But if it is going to be a big change then it would be far more time saving to learn and apply CSS positioning than doing it through tables ( specialy when there is a complex nest of tables inside tables. I have experience on that and i know what headache it brings ).
<<Also, CSS takes planning and many people are too lazy to do that.>>
I did a entire site with almost only CSS positioning and frankly the time required to plan the layout elements positions is the same. It does not matter if you decide to use CSS or tables to position them.
What matters is how easy and straight forward you can do that.
Doing that with CSS is by far more easy and far less troubling.
That's right. However, to really make a huge site that uses the least amount of styles and organization that can be easily reusable is actually not that easy
ASKER
<<That's right. However, to really make a huge site that uses the least amount of styles and organization that can be easily reusable is actually not that easy.>>
If by using styles makes the work very easy what is the point of economizing its use ?
And from my experience I found far more easy to organize the layout elements through CSS than Tables.
If by using styles makes the work very easy what is the point of economizing its use ?
And from my experience I found far more easy to organize the layout elements through CSS than Tables.
ASKER
Hi hyperslug
<<I'd say the primary reason is tables have better backwards compatibility as far as how they display.>>
Almost nobody uses old browsers anymore therefore backwards compatibility is almost irrelevant.
<<CSS is a younger technology and positioning is a lot more inconsistent than tables.>>
I strongly disagree here. When I compare the easiness of positioning web page elements with CSS and the headache that I had in doing it within a complex nest of tables I immediately choose the first method.
<<Graphics heavy sites tend to find it easier to place images with precision using tables. >>
My sites are crowded with graphics yet positioning them with CSS is really a gods gift.
<<Many corporate sites use tables extensively.>>
So what ? Many underdeveloped countries still use the plough to do the farming work. Does it make them advanced and efficient ?
<<I'd say the primary reason is tables have better backwards compatibility as far as how they display.>>
Almost nobody uses old browsers anymore therefore backwards compatibility is almost irrelevant.
<<CSS is a younger technology and positioning is a lot more inconsistent than tables.>>
I strongly disagree here. When I compare the easiness of positioning web page elements with CSS and the headache that I had in doing it within a complex nest of tables I immediately choose the first method.
<<Graphics heavy sites tend to find it easier to place images with precision using tables. >>
My sites are crowded with graphics yet positioning them with CSS is really a gods gift.
<<Many corporate sites use tables extensively.>>
So what ? Many underdeveloped countries still use the plough to do the farming work. Does it make them advanced and efficient ?
CSS does have a bit of inconsistency if you get into truly programming with it and comparing between IE and Mozilla particularly.
It is not that easy to redesign a css-based website. I think You can't claim that css based redesign will be faster than a table based html. You can easy change colours, fonts, borders, backgrounds, etc. but if you want to re-position and change dimensions -major layout change- it is a bit more complex.
And there are a lot of programs out their still producing table layouts when exporting to html, because there are a lot of users who want to keep that as their tool.
I am still pretty confident this will be a more intelligent way to layout and style webcontent.
I hope the experts layout-people (printmedia) will come online soon ;)
And there are a lot of programs out their still producing table layouts when exporting to html, because there are a lot of users who want to keep that as their tool.
I am still pretty confident this will be a more intelligent way to layout and style webcontent.
I hope the experts layout-people (printmedia) will come online soon ;)
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Hi wisbin
<<It is not that easy to redesign a css-based website. I think You can't claim that css based redesign will be faster than a table based html.>>
Yes, I can claim it because I did a lot of both.
<<You can easy change colours, fonts, borders, backgrounds, etc. but if you want to re-position and change dimensions -major layout change- it is a bit more complex.>>
You must be joking...
To re-position an element in the layout, you only need to change the values of left, top and z-index. With Dreamweaver it is a piece of cake, to change the position. The only thing that you have to do is, in the design mode, to DRAG the element.
<<And there are a lot of programs out their still producing table layouts when exporting to html, because there are a lot of users who want to keep that as their tool.>>
Just because there are dumb programs and dumb people wanting to stay backwards it does not mean that they are right or making a clever choice.
<<I am still pretty confident this will be a more intelligent way to layout and style webcontent.
I hope the experts layout-people (printmedia) will come online soon ;) >>
Finally you admitted that the "tables-people" are inconsequent.
<<It is not that easy to redesign a css-based website. I think You can't claim that css based redesign will be faster than a table based html.>>
Yes, I can claim it because I did a lot of both.
<<You can easy change colours, fonts, borders, backgrounds, etc. but if you want to re-position and change dimensions -major layout change- it is a bit more complex.>>
You must be joking...
To re-position an element in the layout, you only need to change the values of left, top and z-index. With Dreamweaver it is a piece of cake, to change the position. The only thing that you have to do is, in the design mode, to DRAG the element.
<<And there are a lot of programs out their still producing table layouts when exporting to html, because there are a lot of users who want to keep that as their tool.>>
Just because there are dumb programs and dumb people wanting to stay backwards it does not mean that they are right or making a clever choice.
<<I am still pretty confident this will be a more intelligent way to layout and style webcontent.
I hope the experts layout-people (printmedia) will come online soon ;) >>
Finally you admitted that the "tables-people" are inconsequent.
ASKER
Hi COBOLdinosaur
<< But I could be wrong. I'm just a dinosaur; but I'm still not extinct, and don't intend to be so I stay ahead of the curve, not chasing it.>>
Wise words.
If there are dinosaurs in the web development field then they are the "tables" people.
Your essay is enlightening and wonderfully answers my question.
Congratulations and thank you very much.
<< But I could be wrong. I'm just a dinosaur; but I'm still not extinct, and don't intend to be so I stay ahead of the curve, not chasing it.>>
Wise words.
If there are dinosaurs in the web development field then they are the "tables" people.
Your essay is enlightening and wonderfully answers my question.
Congratulations and thank you very much.
Keep up the good fight Ted. The top-experts in this and the related topics are advocates of CSS and open standards technologies. Slowly; very slowly one member at a time we are gradually convincing members who come looking for solutions to table layout problems to convert to CSS. Thanks for the A. :^)
Cd&
Cd&
Yes, some people are too lazy to learn CSS--some websites are already so much in tables that the developers are too lazy to change it.
Finally, sometimes, tables do prove more advantageous even though rarely.
Also, CSS takes planning and many people are too lazy to do that.
Regards,
Zyloch