I need tables that scale to mobile devices.
CSS only, no JS.
I want the design to have implicit columns, so large, complex tables
look neat. When i hacked this together i used colspan and "table" but
i cant make it scale to mobile screens and, well, if im redoing it i
might as well use something cleverer people than me designed.
I dont care if this is implemented with or .
I want it to be simple. As in not bloated
When my mediaquery detect a thin screen i want my "table" to collapse
into one column only. Its good enough.
I guess my problem is that i have insufficient knowledge of layouts, block, inline, float etcetera.
Ive looked into the 960 system. I like the idea but its bloated and its about pagedesign rather than tabledesign.
Basically, i could hack something together. But im looking for a modus operandi that exists out there. I believe there is a good design in use, i just cant find it. To present a table of data must be a common task, no?
For responsive Grid systems, I'd recommend Bootstrap from Twitter - it's one of the most mature frameworks at the moment. This solution shows how to hide columns for mobile devices. JavaScript is not required.
Adaptive tables (without js) is quite a problematic thing.
You can look through those articles:
http://css-tricks.com/responsive-data-table-roundup/
http://css-tricks.com/responsive-data-tables/
http://elvery.net/demo/responsive-tables/
with a js:
http://zurb.com/playground/responsive-tables
Related
I had experience with Twitter Bootstrap and Foundation, and I personally think the only thing I want to use is their grid system. Other features are just bloated.
So I read about the prospect of a grid layout. All of the articles I found are oriented toward an 'artistic' explanation (golden ratio ect). I am a coder at heart, I need a clear & logical reason to use a grid layout (for example: 'columns can be easily stacked on top of each other on mobile screen, and expand horizontally on larger screens'). Can someone give me the pros and cons of applying a grid system to my website? Personally do you think using a grid system is good?
If the answer is yes, should I use a premade grid system like from Twitter Bootstrap/Foundation or just make one for my own? All of the other features are unnecessary for me an irrelevant to my problem.
Thanks! :D
I agree with #kunalbhat that this might not be the best area to ask this but since you did I will try to answer it.
The grids are designed allow for speed and adaptability. Speed in multiple senses. The first part of the speed is the speed of writing the code. You can easily get the layout you want when you are using the grid system and everything aligns correctly. You don't have to remember your tables and columns and col-spans, etc.
The second speed is modifying your code. Inevitably you will need to go back and make changes, with a grid this is easily to do. Changing a col-md-7 to a col-md-6 easily makes a little tweak in the layout of your page that can easily be tracked and performed.
You mentioned responsive design, both Bootstrap and Foundation have responsive grids. The grids will snap to different sizes based on the viewport size. However you have control as well. For example if you want something to take 1/12th the screen in desktop, 1/4th on a tablet, and 100% on a phone that is easily done with Bootstrap and Foundation, both have grid classes that target specific viewports.
The also provide visibility classes based on those viewports.
For the "bloated" part that is easily solved. Using SCSS you can easily only import portions of a library. For example for one project I was on I only imported the Grid and it was considerably smaller.
I happen to think that this is a SO question, simply because of one of the main cons of CSS grid systems: semantic.
I think semantic is important for a web developer and having a class named col-md-7 is not the most semantic thing to do.
But I like grids, because they are easy and quick to use, so I started to use LESS. Because it allows me to use variables and functions(mixins) in CSS, I can build my own grid system on my CSS rather then on my HTLM.
You can start on Frameless and customize your own 'classes'.
Since I new with CSS, I just started to work with CSS Grid system. I would like to know if are there any technical issues in use CSS grids? I mean, which are the reasons for you to not use grid?
Thanks
Flexibility
Once you start using the grid, you are stuck with it. Any other issues you might wind up finding you will have to conform to.
In my opinion (and every other designer I've talked to) it is far easier to simply define your own columns and default sizes as classes and apply them as-needed. A custom grid if you will. Then changing the styling is as easy as changing a line or two of CSS, instead of either re-generating the grid system or redesigning the site and sacrificing in order to use the grid.
I'm a fan resets and some minor love from Blueprint (especially the Typography), but that's about it.
I've just started using object oriented CSS (OOCSS). I'm really enjoying it because it provides a very basic and minimalistic grid system. It allows you to create relative sized grids by dividing an element into halves, thirds, fourths, or fifths. The divided elements are infinitely nestable.
OOCSS is more of a philosophy than a framework. It's all about how you extend a very basic foundation.
Check out these links:
http://oocss.org/
http://developer.yahoo.net/blogs/theater/archives/2009/03/website_and_webapp_performance.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6sAm7CLoCQ
The only real reason is that they can lead to bloated markup, sometimes you have to do some serious nesting depending on the layout and desired effects+flexibilty.
They also lead to excessive class name lists on elements. However, you can avoid this at least if you move the CSS to semantic classes/ids before deploying... but thats can be alot of extra work. Blueprint is the excpetion here because it has acommand line tool to allow you to apply the rules from its framework classes to semantic selectors.
Overall i generally use them because its alot easier to teach a designer how to use a grid template. That why im not do alot of production art tasks when i go to slice things down. It jsut makes the whole process smoother IMO.
If your site has a column layout AND repeatable design patterns throughout the site... then there aren't any reasons not to include a grid. A grid adds: organization, proportion and alignment to your page. So why not keep that consistent? There is no reason.
Just don't Overuse A Grid
Some people say a grid is inflexible? That's not totally true - you can use it where you need it. You can always remove it or adjust. Just don't overuse it.
It depends on the grid system. Most grids have a fixed amount of columns, which restrict you in how you create your layout. For example, they don't allow you to combine 30%/30%/40%, 50%/50%, 25%/75% and whatever other combinations you can think of.
Some grid systems also don't allow nesting. That means you can't use a grid element as a grid for child elements in those grid systems, which makes it a lot more difficult for many layouts to be coded to HTML.
Also, some grid systems use techniques that don't work in older browsers. Before you use a grid system, you should always make sure it supports the browsers you need to support with your project.
There are frameworks out there without such restrictions, though. Cascade Framework, in fact, has a grid system far more flexible than that of any other framework out there and works fine in both IE6-8 and modern browsers alike.
I'm working on a web app that currently has a table-based layout. Ideally I'd like to go to pure css, or failing that, a hybrid tables-and-css layout* .
I've banged my head against the wall trying to understand css layouts and positioning. The main problem I'm encountering is that, depending on the state of the app, I have different things appearing in a 'section' of the layout -- what might be contained in a div or table. For instance, I might have some text and links, and then after user interaction, there might be a form, a table, some images, different text, etc. Anytime I find a css solution, it is for a fixed-element layout, or works in a specific case, etc. They're not robust solutions, in other words.
From this In Search of the One True Layout, the author about "Vertical placement of elements across grids/columns": "Designers face the choice of relying on elements being a particular height, resorting to tables or simply not bothering." Is this true? In my app, I can't rely on elements being a particular height.
Do I fall back on tables when I have elements of various hieghts ( which is quite a bit of the site, actually). I noticed that quite a bit of sites done by well-respected people and organizations use tables for layout in certain places, and not just for tabular data! This site included.
The chances are that there are CSS techniques to achieve what you want, but they may not be obvious if using CSS for complex layouts is new to you.
In your case, to 'get it done', I would recommend a hybrid type layout, and not feel bad about using a table to layout the pieces of the application that require those particular behaviours.
If it is particularly complex and difficult than a table might be the best and simplest approach even for the CSS expert.
Dynamic heights are only a problem if you need to implement a special effect of soem sort or a background image and oftent there are ways around that. It really depends on the Visual Design and what needs to be done to make each "block" flexible to use. Sometimes things arent possible but most of the time they are - they jsut tend to add complexity to the markup. But even that added complexity is easier for me to understand than nested tables :-)
My advice if you want to get things done and spend a ridiculous amount of time on css layout, browser compatibility, CSS reset, fonts:
write simple, valid, semantic HTML
use a simple CSS framework (like blueprint). You will rely on a simple grid system for positioning and layout.
add CSS classes to your HTML
add your custom CSS for colors, backgrounds...
Please reconsider using a table layout 'to get it done'; you will be disappointed, especially if you want to add some JS magic later.
I use CSS layouts for my web apps. But, my apps don't have wildly varying information, so I can set the content area and not have to worry about the layout looking "off" because a column is way out of balance with the rest of the content.
If you're having trouble with CSS layout and positioning, I'd suggest tables first, learn more about CSS/HTML positioning, and then convert your layout LATER. I'm sure that it's made for a frustrating experience learning CSS on a "real" project.
In the meantime, get some really good sources for CSS: books by Andy Budd, Simon Collison, Eric Meyer, et. al. Also, go to their blogs and dig into the archives. A really good book for CSS layout, positioning and general use is Beginning CSS Web Development by Simon Collison from APress. All the ins and outs with great working examples.
I have seen all these 'grid' type css frameworks and I'm still a tad confused as to what they do.
I understand that they help you quickly create a page since the layout is already defined for you, but do these frameworks make certain things MORE difficult?
It depends on how you typically use CSS to set up your pages. They wind up using less semantic classes ("indent-12" vs. "rail-content") if that's important to you, but they also solve a lot of layout issues people tend to run into.
They take care of the need (mostly) for floats, which can break designs faster than... well, something fast.
What they make harder, however, is customization. If you don't take the time to learn just what those classes mean, it can be hard to make things look just the way you want because your CSS rules might clash with something you didn't know about.
They are great as a way to switch from tables to CSS-based design, and they also really help implement the "grid" theory of design, where things line up and are in horizontal and vertical rhythm.
Take 'em or leave 'em (I left them, but sure played with them a bit)
EDIT: I used both 960 and blueprint, about 8 months ago or so. Unclear if significant changes have taken place since then.
Grid 960 is a CSS framework. Mainly, it can help you develop faster the mock-up of your page.
You can learn more about it in this tutorial.
Enjoy!
The idea is to stop thinking in terms of %s or pixels and start thinking in terms of columns. Grid systems automate the implementation of column-based positioning. My favorite is Fluid 960 - a grid system that stretches its columns to entire available width.
I have looked into various CSS frameworks in the past and I think they are aimed at removing a lot of the nitty CSS bugs that come across between browsers, if you ever tried to hand roll your own CSS you will know the issues that come up. If you have your own template that you have developed I would stick with it, that is what I ended up doing. I am familiar with it and it is very lightweight.
A 960 grid is a framework that should be implemented from the initial design stage. It helps both the designer and developer create clean organised UIs. In my experience the 960 grid system (http://www.960.gs) has helped a lot as it will allow me to create a formatted page quickly without re-writing any css files no matter what a client asks for. Typically I implement CSS styles like the following
.marginLeft20 { margin-left: 20px; }
.oneColumn {
float: left;
width: 60px;
}
This means I can make a div with the above classes applied
<div class="oneColumn marginLeft20">This is a oneColumn example</div>
If you need anymore info on grids I would recommend http://www.960.gs
Grid systems/frameworks are sort of like a sandbox with all the shovels, pails, sand and shapers ready made, so that all you have to do is pick up a tool and start making your castle.
Burt makes a great point about rolling your own CSS and all of the browser issues you run into. It can make for a very frustrating experience depending on the project you're working on!
While the framework you're using may have some limitations, it alleviates some headaches also.
My one of web designer friend still making sites with table but he use css very nicely and I also use css nicely but with <div> and i face cross browser problem in layout more than my friend.
and i given some reason to my friend about cons of <table>. read my whole discussion with friend?
I - you site will be problematic with screen reader
My friend - OK, but i never got any call from any client regarding this.
I - you will devote more time to make any changes in layout, if changes comes from client
My friend - I don't think so, but if it is then show me how can i save time with <div>?
I - your sites will not work well with search engine.
My friend - it's not true. I've made many site and no problem with any site or client regarding this
I - layout is old way, non w3c and non standard way.
My friend - what is old and what is new, Who is W3C i don't know, What is standard? Whatever i make works in all browsers, it's enough for me and my client will not pay for standard and W3C guidelines rules
I - Your site will not work in mobile browsers
My friend - No problem for me, my client don't care about mobile phone
I - Your sites are not accessible?
My Friend - What do u mean not accessible? Whatever i make works in all browsers. my any client never asked about accessibility
I - You will not get more work in future, with table?
My friend - OK, no problem when clients will not accept site with table then i will learn about div based layouts in future.
My questions?
Is it still true, to make cross
browser layouts for desktop browsers
using table+css is easier then
div+css?
What is the benefit for developer to
use DIV+CSS layout in place of
<table> layouts if client would not
mind if i use ?
Personally I find it much easier to think about the layout in terms of independent chunks rather than a table where the cells are tightly coupled to each other and dependent on each other. Having used both methods extensively, divs are easier when you've learnt about them.
Tables are a nightmare to maintain, too. If you want to add a column you need to make sure other rows aren't affected. Even with CSS, the HTML for tables is still very bloated and difficult to understand "at a glance" (particularly with nested tables).
I'd be surprised if tables really are a huge problem with screen readers (one would hope the software is smart enough to deal with all types of web pages). However, you should take all reasonable steps to make sure the site is accessibility to all, since it's the law.
Mobile phones can display tables fine. The only problem here is if you want to create a separate mobile stylesheet it's virtually impossible to remove the column format.
Finally for SEO, it makes no difference. SEs say time and again that the validity of code makes no difference.
Laying web pages out with tables is probably a bit more intuitive for most people than CSS.
Depends on the layout though. Deeply nested tables can get pretty hairy. CSS layout options (basically float, at the moment) are a different way of thinking about page layout. I find it easier than tables nowadays, as I’m used to thinking about layouts in terms of CSS floats.
IE has a few float-related bugs. I think they’re the main source of cross-browser issues with CSS layouts.
Using a CSS framework makes creating layouts with DIV's a cinch!
I personally use 960 Grid System, but theres plenty of others out there too.
CSS is more flexible and cleaner. Period. I personlly think that 3 nested divs with meaninglful names is much more readable than 3 table tr td s right? There is a reason it's the new accepted standard. I use tables. But only when displaying tabular data. Once you learn the tricks in CSS you can write super clean div structures that are completely cross browser compatible.
I remeber a time I felt like your friend. It was mainly based out of fear. Don't be afraid. And remember it's us developers that determine the future of code and browsers. Agree with all the other answers on here too. No matter how you do it (from scratch) or grid layouts, you'll be much happier with a tableless layout. And to agree with the above, thinking of the site as blocks helps a TON. Good luck!
As nobody mentioned this: HTML aims for semantic markup. That means, the tags you use have a semantic meaning.
So using table for tabular data is fine and the only way to do it.
But using table for layout contradicts the semantic meaning.
And the relevance of semantic should not be underrated as semantic is what the WWW is striving for now (Semantic Web). I know that Semantic Web and HTML are not necessarily connected, but I guess using HTML the right way can only help.
Creating appealing layouts with divs might be more difficult. This comes with the advantage of greater flexibility.
And as already mentioned, maintainability can be a pain with tables.
I personally try to keep my HTML files as semantically correct as possible, i.e. using the right tags for the right purpose. The look (which a layout belongs to) is a matter of CSS.
Btw. if you are searching for CSS vs tables get a lot nice comparisons (most in favor of CSS).
table layouts results in more html, more html results in more code to write and maintain, and less clarity for dom manipulations via js. the amount of css code will remain almost the same (I'm not talking about 2004 inlinestyle markups, that surely will dramatically reduce the amount of css). and there is always the better seo factor that speaks against table layouts. so it can't be easier if you fully understand css. maybe you need to clarify what browsers do you include in your "cross broswer" statement, since its not even self-evident to support ie6 and ie7 nowadays.