Related
There are many grids and framework to choose from. A Google search for CSS frameworks will return a dozen articles that themselves list a number of frameworks to choose from.
When it comes to choosing one, it's easy to be lost without having an intimate knowledge of all of them.
What are the main factors that go into choosing a CSS framework, and how will those choices map to certain frameworks?
More generally, how does one choose a CSS framework?
Note 1: I'm using "grid" and "framework" almost interchangeably here, but there is probably one I should use over the other. Corrections on this are welcome.
Note 2: I am well aware that some choices will depend on taste and accordingly, this question can turn into a "best of" contest/subjective topic. I'm trying to keep it as answerable as possible, as I'm pretty sure many have this problem/question of choosing a framework and an answer to that would benefit the community. As such, improvements to this question are welcome rather than just closing it.
When choosing a framework, consider the following questions :
Language : Some frameworks are written in SASS. Others are written in LESS. Yet others are written in pure CSS. Pick a framework written in a language you're most comfortable working with.
Features : Some frameworks offer just a grid. Others add typography. Yet others add a whole bunch of custom UI elements. Pick a framework that corresponds best with the features you want. You don't want a framework with either too few features or one that's bloated and contains many features you never intend to use.
Modularity : You don't want to overwrite 50% of the framework's output with your own custom code. If you do pick a framework that has many more features than the features you need, make sure it's modular enough to easily get rid of much of the code bloat.
Responsiveness : Pick a responsive grid if you want your page to be responsive.
Cross-browser support : If your project needs to support older browsers, make sure you pick a framework that supports all browsers you need to support.
I built my own framework Cascade Framework because none of the frameworks out there answered those questions the way I wanted them to. Feel free to check it out.
The first thing to start with are the requirements and goals of your web project.
1. Do you target only a mobile audience?
If you want a Web-App, you'll need more than a CSS framework, a mobile framework that combines look and feel for specific target devices' UI with functional elements by means of Javascript. The next decision will be if the framework better supports smaller smartphone screens, tablet screens or both.
If you don't need the more functional Web-App approach the way to go are frameworks that are responsive. You will have to concentrate on how you want to arrange and order certain page elements on different screen resolutions and what page elements can be turned off on the smaller resolutions. (This sometimes leads to political debates with the stakeholders debating around what is (more) important and what not).
2. Do you target both mobile and desktop audience?
You want a framework that supports reponsive or fluid layouts for greatest support of your audiences clients. If the graphic design you have to produce is more static the responsive route suits better as it allows easier planning in the different stages within the breakpoints. Most designers currently follow flexible approaches, lightweight, elegant, presentational, not-so-portal-like that also allow fluid implementations (where certain or all page elements are allowed to stretch or grow according to the client/browser viewports).
3. Do you target only traditional audience?
Then simply choose the framework you're confident it allowes the easiest implementation. Did the designer use a grid? Then maybe the CSS framework fits it. Some CSS frameworks come with a nice variety of design templates for Gimp, Photoshop, Illustrator and others, so maybe the design can be based on the template upfront which allows for the best realization.
Two other considerations:
A. There is no graphic design
If you start without explicit design templates I would choose a framework that allows for easy integration of Typography, offers lots examples, use cases, pre-defined page elements or components (buttons, navigation, thumbs...).
B. Time constraints
No time? Some frameworks come with their own or third party customization scripts or wizards. Choose the elements or components you need, turn on or off certain JS libraries, reset stylesheets, things like that and download the final package. That's it.
Some frameworks are pretty mature and well tested so the absence of a vibrant community may not tell you that much. Depending on your skills a lot of support may not be necessary (and even be a bad sign: The grid/framework should be simple and stay out of your way. The questions that may come up should so be the usual CSS questions that are quite common and can be answered even without details of the underlying framework).
Two examples to illustrate two approaches (more grid <-> more responsive):
http://960.gs/
Definitely take a look. Follow the "view the slides" link to read nice background information. A true grid system. It also links to derivatives that support fluid and elastic looks.
http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/
Modern, nice hype. Lots of components. Customizable. Responsive.
Web-Apps:
http://jquerymobile.com/ and http://www.sencha.com/products/touch
Most grids are 95% the same: they define the width of columns + include a clearfix.
You can even make your own grid if you like. So therefore, if we understand that most grids are essentially the same, which one is the best to use?
1) Customize Twitter Bootstrap by only downloading the grid. It's a great choice because most people are familiar with the "span1, span2, span3" convention. Also, it's available as fixed width and fluid (ie. responsive).
2) 960.gs is probably the most commonly used fixed width grid.
Unsemantic is the responsive sucessor to 960. Both were developed by Nathan Smith.
One question you can ask right off the bat is:
Do I want the framework to be responsive?
The answer to the question will cross many options off your list.
Another main question I ask is what kind of community support is behind the project. From my experience it is a pain to get invested into a particular project and than have it die and get no support. It is nice to have something that has key backers and a large following.
Considering the UI designers from Twitter made Bootstrap I wouldn't just call it hype surrounding that framework. It's excellent code and the most complete framework. 960.gs is a grid system which boostrap has called scaffolding. Bootstrap is also smartphone friendly. So where someone would have to hack together jquerymobile, jquery, 960.gs, plus all the plugins they need. Bootsrap already comes bundled with plenty to get you started with and works on all browsers and phones/tables.
I'm trying to figure out why I would use a grid system. I have read some but I just don't get it. I'm used to just putting stuff in html on a page and beind done with it but I have a new project and would like to use a grid because apparently it is a best practice.
I read in one article referenced in another SO question and it said that grid design was in all sorts of development, even application form design. That made me think of things like snap to grid, etc. and I didn't know if the grid in the web design sphere was the same. I was hoping someone could give me a brief but not overly complicated view and not a link to Google which I have used already.
Thank you for any help.
EDIT: I found this website the easiest: http://www.zurb.com/playground/css-grid-builder but again, what do I do with 12 columns? Is everything in a column "smashed" to fit in a column? that doesn't make sense to me.
EDIT: I read the grid 960 tutorial below and was feeling better but at the end it says:
You can just as well use the concepts of Grid 960 in the production code, but it is not recommend sticking with a framework all the way through production. CSS frameworks are just like any tool, they have their uses. With that in mind, go forth and prototype!
I'm not trying to take this out of context but if I don't use it in production, what's the point? I understand the need for prototyping but if I like the prototype why not use the 960 grid? I may not understand the comment. Thanks.
EDIT:
Is the 960 system for production?
I think you're too focused on thinking about grids as applied to web and applications, and need to do a little research about the underlying reasons why grids can be useful for any form of graphic and information design, whether pixels on a screen or hand-drawn ink on paper.
I would recommend you take a step back from the computer, forget about 960, divs, snap-to-grid, and HTML entirely for a bit, and if possible flick through a few graphic design books and magazines and do a bit of doodling. Or even just pick up a newspaper and have a think about what underlying grids they use (how many columns are there, are they the same width, do grids differ across pages or sections, which elements stick to the grid, which diverge from it?).
The Grid System has a good list of resources.
Then you should be in a better position to think about how grids in general might be useful for your projects, and whether a particular model such as the 960 grid might be useful.
When i design any user interface/web design i don't pay attention to a grid layout until i start to have my main elements constructed. once that is done i implement a grid to flow nicely with those main elements for easy visual scanning
Having recently become a convert to Grid Layouts, I find myself looking at more and more sites' code and seeing that grids are still grossly under-represented.
While I accept that grids might not always be the only right solution for every web design situation, I think that they are a tool that should be seeing higher rates of adoption than they currently enjoy.
I think if I'd known more about the design approach earlier, I would have saved a considerable amount of time and effort. But Grids don't seem to have the sort of exposure that, say, CSS standards do. Why should that be? Is it even a problem that some people might be missing out on a design approach that could potentially be a better solution to a problem they're working on?
The "Grid Layouts" you speak of, are nothing "special". What you are actually talking about, are "CSS frameworks". These "Grid Layouts" should still be using CSS Standard
You also did not mention the most popular CSS Grid Framework - YUI Grids CSS
I think the reason people normally don't use a framework, is that they don't want to be locked into something with limited customization. Also a big reason is that there is no guaranty that the framework will be around forever, and once it is gone, your knowledge with that framework is useless.
There is also some Criticism of CSS Frameworks on Wikipedia:
Lack of flexibility outside the limitations of the framework
Bloated source code
Additional HTTP requests for multiple files
Lack of substantial additional features beyond what is already available with CSS
Also I think that most web developers just like to write there own HTML/CSS.
I'm going to preface this by saying I personally have no strong feelings about grid-based layouts one way or the other. However, the reason other people may not want to dig into them is that it's a major time investment. For example, if you look over the docs and tutorials for Blueprint, it's clear that figuring out how to use it and applying it effectively for one simple project is going to cost you at least an afternoon, and that's assuming everything works exactly the way the docs say it will. If everything doesn't do that, you could be looking at several days of Googling and forum posting. Nothing against Blueprint or grid-based layouts. It's just the nature of these things.
So for all that risk and effort, here's the payoff: every element in your layout lines up on a grid.
The debate over whether that's worth the effort could go on for years. I'm not going to touch that one. Let's just say it's debatable.
I don't like them. The 960 grid sites don't work well on the iPhone/iPod Touch. And they're terrible on my Blackberry. I prefer a fluid layout that works well on smaller screens.
I don't mind if they show up as 960 on computers, but for Pete's sake, serve me something fluid on mobile. If everyone used this, I'd be happy.
I think we don't see grid layout to be so popular because to use any CSS framework you already need to know CSS on decent level, in case anything goes wrong, or because you gonna need to style your elements anyway.
So the question that asked why somebody who already decently know CSS will start using framework.
I think the best way to use framework is to rip some parts of it (like form styling) and use it with your own developed things.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Reading on another forum I've came across the world of CSS Frameworks. The one I've been specifically looking at is BluePrint. I was wondering if anyone else had come across CSS frameworks, suggest which is the best and if they are worth the effort?
CSS 'frameworks' are completely missing the point.
CSS is not like JavaScript, where you can include a base library/framework and then call functions and objects from it to do higher-level work. All a CSS framework can give you is declarative rules: some default browser-rule-reset stuff, some class styles to be forced to author your page to, and layout rules using 'float' and 'clear'. You can write that in a few lines of CSS yourself rather than pulling in the bloat of a hundred framework rules.
The 'grid layout' stuff in particular goes back to the bad old days of mixing your presentation into your markup. 'div class="span-24"' is no better than a table, you'll have to go back in there and change the markup to affect the layout. And all the frameworks I've seen are based around fixed-pixel floated boxes, making it impossible to create a liquid layout accessible on a wide range of window sizes.
It's backwards authoring, of use only for someone too scared to write a CSS rule.
So, nobody's responded to this question yet (although I've seen a few upvotes), so I am going to at least attempt to tackle the second question in this prompt.
CSS Frameworks are great; like any other framework, they reduce development time and let you get working immediately on site-specific design and CSS. They think about hard decisions so you don't have to.
Unfortunately, there are two downsides to using a framework (in general):
The framework dictates the overall structure and mechanics of your CSS code. Now, I'm not talking about a CSS reset (these are useful in their own right, but they are not true frameworks); I'm talking about an honest to good framework, that has already made the decisions about what semantic tags you are going to be using in your document, etc. As such, you are made dependent on the framework, and when there is a bug in the framework, you will most commonly have to fix it yourself.
Frameworks are not an excuse for being oblivious to cross-browser/advanced CSS issues. You will invariably run into them, just as you would working with a PHP or JavaScript framework. And you need to know how to deal with them. There is a common saying that you should write your own framework first, before using someone else's.
Taking a quick peek at Blueprint, I would not really call it a framework; maybe a reset with a few extra goodies on top.
I've looked at BluePrint and a few others and the only CSS 'framework' I'd recommend is YUI Grids
Pros:
Written by one of the best frontend engineers out there (IMO) (Nate Koechley)
Very small. 4KB
Very flexible (1000 different layouts)
Supports fluid-width (100%) layouts as well as preset fixed-width layouts at 750px, 950px, and 974px, and the ability to easily customize to any number.
Supports easy customization of the width for fixed-width layouts.
Template columns are source-order independent, so you can put your most important content first in the markup layer for improved accessibility and search engine optimization (SEO).
Self-clearing footer. No matter which column is longer, the footer stays at the bottom.
Layouts less than 100% are automatically centered.
Somewhat semantic classnames (better than top, left, right, etc)
Cons:
Lots of extra markup compared to hand-written HTML and CSS
Takes some learning to figure out how to do complex layouts
As other have posted, there are no real 'frameworks' for CSS. Reset stylesheets help a lot with layout too. I usually stick with a reset stylesheet and go from there. But if you don't have a lot of CSS experience YUI Grids could save you some time.
Compass is an actual CSS framework in the sense that it gives you not only templates (both YUI and blueprint), but also reusable constructs and higher-level declarations while still giving you familiar CSS syntax.
Take the time to study and understand (really understand!) a few css frameworks such as BluePrint and YUI, and css resets like Eric Meyer's. Then, take the time to put together your own reset and/or framework based on your work methods and the kind of sites you build.
Personally, I use most of the Eric Meyer reset with some classes and resets of my own, plus a few ideas from BluePrint and YUI.
I recently watched Eric Meyer give a presentation on CSS Frameworks in which he asked the question: "so which one is the right one for me?" He then answered the question by showing a blank slide. His point was, that there are certainly some useful concepts built into most resets and frameworks, but the one that will suit you the best is the one that you write for yourself (it's worth the effort).
Why use css 'frameworks'?
If you are pressured for time.
If you do not know css, and don't
know someone who can write it for
you.
If you are not overly precious about
standards etc.
I know programmers who have been really happy to use blueprint or 960, as it allows them to put together a layout on their own, without turning to a front-end developer. This is ideal for personal projects, or startups with limited resources.
If you have decent knowledge of CSS already, then presumably you have a decent library of stock layouts already, so you clearly won't need a framework.
However, if you're a beginner and just need to get something up and running, then you might turn to a framework, as it makes basic layout much simpler, and tackling browser compatibility also.
Having said all that, many frameworks out of the box do make use of some horrible class names etc. I know of some websites that have taken a framework as a starting point and then customised it with their own class and id tags. But clearly there's a bit of work involved in that rewrite too. Using something like Compass, as mentioned above, does help to get around that.
So, CSS frameworks - they can save you time, at the cost of semantics. They might also hurt your knowledge of CSS, but that is more up to how much you invest in learning the subject in general. Whether you make use of them is up to you.
You'd have to ask yourself how effective the available frameworks are at solving your problems. Do they meet your requirements?
By using a framework, you can set some rules or details at the pixel level and devote the rest of your time to implementing and producing. It's a massive productivity boost. If you find yourself spending time adjusting things by a few pixels late in the project (micro managing the design), it's a sign that a framework can be useful.
Tip #17 in The Pragmatic Programmer says: "Program close to the problem domain". Using a layer of abstraction can get you closer to solving the real problems of layout. For example: you might be able to concentrate of enhancing the user experience with the extra time you have rather than minor adjustments of pixels.
This is not to say you must sacrifice quality for quantity. It's about efficiency.
On a recent project, I made my own framework because we had very limited resources and the popular frameworks didn't do what I wanted. Then, I set up the design team's PSDs to snap to the same grid I deployed.
A framework doesn't have to be any particular implementation of CSS. It doesn't have to be something bloated you downloaded from the interweb or something implementing outdated ideas. It's just a technique for getting a job done. I wouldn't be surprised if some coders already have their own frameworks and don't even know it. In fact, if you consider the DOM as a set of default elements you extend with CSS, then that's a framework by definition.
I actually spent a good portion of the last 24 hours investigating this on my own, heh. My conclusion was that a nice reset (I used YUI Reset), and maybe something else to set baseline stuff (YUI fonts was worthwhile in my case; maybe the "extra goodies" of BluePrint would be in yours) is a good idea. But, a "framework"---which is generally something like YUI grids---is too restrictive, forcing you to use their class names, ids, etc. and rarely fitting into your site like hand-made CSS would.
So in short: resets seem pretty nice; it's good to eliminate all the variation in e.g. margin-vs-padding for lists, or paragraph spacing, or whatever. But that's as far as I would take it.
i haven't used it yes, but i think emastic may be a good alternative worth a check. it it is similar to blueprint in scope, but also supports elastic layouts (hence the name) and you can specify values in px, em or %, and even mix them.
Compass I think is amazing. Make sure you see the screencast.
I am using 960.gs for a few websites and find it very simple and easy and worth the effort. Saves me a lot of work on layout. Make sure to check the custom CSS generator which goes away with the fixed width of 960 pixels.
I think that this video presentation by Site Point CEO Kevin Yank will answer your question. I really recommend to watch it.
Compass lets you rename your framework's classes and ids with your own semantic names, so you might want to check it out. It also provides access to stuff you just don't get with plain-vanilla CSS such as mixins.
I'm astounded by so-called "CSS experts" who criticize these tools without really having digged in and used them. Are they essential? No. If you like your own framework (you do have one of your own, right? A CSS framework is just a carefully defined library--everyone should be using one) then by all means, keep on using it. No one is forcing you to use other frameworks and I don't see people who are using frameworks telling CSS purists that they are "doing it wrong."
Criticizing frameworks from such a standpoint just reveals an insecurity as well as an ignorance. For example, the notion is laughable that a person would use a tool like Compass without knowing CSS. You realize, right, that a framework generally doesn't write all your CSS for you? You can still break out and write your own CSS within the context of most frameworks. In fact, if you don't know CSS you might get frustrated quickly.
For myself, I appreciate having a framework because it is already documented, tested by hundreds of other users, and I can apply my own classes and ids via Compass. If I need something that the framework isn't suitable for, then I'll code my own.
Matt Raible of AppFuse fame had a CSS Framework contest a while back to develop CSS Frameworks for AppFuse. The results are published here. There are a few variations and I have used some myself because I use AppFuse and find them very good.
I should add that these CSS Frameworks work well because they are used in themed applications. That is, if you stick to the rules then switching from one to the next is as simple as changing one value in a properties file.
I have used BluePrint with much success on a site (I could mention the site here but I am sure the post would be marked as spam!). I am not sure if I will use it in the future though because one of the ideas of CSS i thought was to not have layout logic hard coded. You shouldn't have css elements called span-24 and span-12 to define the layout but something like searchBox and mainContent. At least thats how I see it.
Good link I found : Top 12 CSS Frameworks and How to Understand Them
Here is my blog post about CSS Frameworks When to use CSS framework?
The only way I know of to use a CSS framework and retain semantic markup is to use a higher-level abstraction. At the moment, Compass is the only one I'm aware of that's mature enough to use, but Nicole Sullivan seems to be doing some interesting stuff with her "Object-Oriented CSS" project.
I find Compass' clever use of Sass mixins to be brilliant, and a big step toward the Holy Grail of maintainable semantic markup. I don't think I'd want to use a framework like Blueprint or YUI without an abstraction such as Compass to keep presentation classes out of the markup.
BTW, there's a nice-looking CSS framework called Elastic that looks good enough that I'm considering adding it to Compass.
I believe CSS is about simplicity. The goal is to have one or two places to check when you're referencing between the HTML and your stylesheet. Adding more lines, and especially lines that you did not write and are probably not that familiar with, will exponentially increase the complexity thereby volatility of the CSS code.
I would suggest your layouts as you write them and develop a generic template system from that. While I love making CSS more modular, often and depending on the design, your CSS may be very case-specific and not modular at all.
I've used Blueprint on a few one-off sites and it definitely saved time, primarily in cross-browser testing.
It definitely sucks adding presentation code to your markup, although on the bright side it's readable. While I love the concept of "you can redesign without touching the markup", if you're producing a site where that really isn't going to happen anyways and you just need it done yesterday, Blueprint is something to look at.
There are also tradeoffs in what types of layouts it can feasibly create though. If you wireframe the site from the start on a strict grid, it will be much easier to transpose into the framework with a minimum of fuss.
I have used BluePrint and YUI but I always get frustrated with some of the names they give their id and classes.
To each their own, but I prefer doing things from scratch, but after a while you develop a process in which you will use your previous work and apply it to new projects and just make some tweaks to make the web site look the way you would like it to.
Be sure to use a good naming convention, just in case someone else down the road comes in to edit the css, then they will have a good idea what each style name is referring to.
Craig,
Compass is what you're looking for: it allows you to rename your Blueprint CSS classes like "span-24" with your own names. It also expands CSS functionality with variables and mixins. Truly, those that prematurely judge frameworks without having checked out Compass are "missing the point." It's sort of like those folks who told us years ago that we are missing the point by using CSS instead of HTML tables for our layouts.
-Matt
check out http://www.ez-css.org/. one of easiest and lightest css framework to work on. :)
Take a look to this demo:
http://www.richstyle.org/demo-web.php
This framework is based on idea that "HTML tags should be enough".
I think re-usability is the most important factor for choosing a software component, including a web framework.
For web frameworks developers, the more you commit to standards, the more you guarantee re-usability.
I know that tables are for tabular data, but it's so tempting to use them for layout. I can handle DIV's to get a three column layout, but when you got 4 nested DIV's, it get tricky.
Is there a tutorial/reference out there to persuade me to use DIV's for layout?
I want to use DIV's, but I refuse to spend an hour to position my DIV/SPAN where I want it.
#GaryF: Blueprint CSS has to be the CSS's best kept secret.
Great tool - Blueprint Grid CSS Generator.
There's the Yahoo Grid CSS which can do all sorts of things.
But remember: CSS IS NOT A RELIGION. If you save hours by using tables instead of css, do so.
One of the corner cases I could never make my mind up about is forms. I'd love to do it in css, but it's just so much more complicated than tables.
You could even argue that forms are tables, in that they have headers (labels) and data (input fields).
In the UK and in US there is a legal requirement for favouring CSS layouts over Tables. Both Section 508 (US) and the Disability Discrimination Act (UK) cover accessibility standards for users with limited vision.
In the UK the legislation extends so far as to actually make it illegal to commercially produce a site that impedes the ability of a partially sighted user in the same way that it is now illegal to have a shop with a step to enter it and no way for a wheelchair user to get in - admittedly there have been no prosecutions over website accessibility yet. However I would always go with CSS as it means that your site design is so much easier to maintain in the longer term.
Investing time in learning CSS (I used W3C schools and .Net Magazine http://www.netmag.co.uk) will pay off.
Why tables for layout is stupid: problems defined, solutions offered.
In my opinion, the bias should be in favour of CSS over IE6 - i.e. unless there's an insanely good reason (e.g. your site is only targetted at people using IE6, which would be weird), it's better to 'alienate' people using IE6 rather than people with poor vision and/or automated user agents. Usage of IE6 is decreasing; the latter group is increasing in number. Even if your site doesn't look perfect in IE6, it will probably be easy for those users to read it than a table-based layout will for those who can't see it.
This is a very general question, so it's difficult to answer with specifics. The two books that are excellent resources are:
Bulletproof Web Design, Dan Cederholm
CSS Mastery, Andy Budd
If you only have to spend an hour designing your overall site layout, that's not bad going.
CSS may not be a religion, but it is how browsers interpret HTML for layout. Like it or not, all modern browsers use (some version) of the W3C box model. To continue to rely on tables is continue to rely on a methodology that is just plain wrong in the eyes of the people who design web rendering technology.
I know CSS can seem awfully complicated at times, but I believe it is a necessity in this day and age (trust me, your clients are going to want it).
If you don't feel comfortable taking the time really learn CSS (so it takes you seconds or minutes to position elements...not an hour), then you need to pass the layout work on to someone who knows really knows the front-end.
Yes, there are a lot of problems with the current browser implementations of CSS, but nothing so drastic that you should ever feel the need to return to table based layout. Just sit down and take the time to learn it, like you would any other language or framework.
The best online reference resource I've found is this one:
http://reference.sitepoint.com/css
But it might not hurt to look at a book like Designing With Web Standards which goes a long way in helping you to understand why this stuff is important.
I was also thinking Blueprint was great until I saw YAML (Yet Another Multicolumn Layout). There is an online builder tool which is fantastic. I can get a cool looking multicolumn layout within 5 mins.
After a while you don't even think about it. Using divs with CSS seems like the easier option imo. Plus, you have more freedom when using frameworks such as jQuery. I couldn't imagine doing some of the cool jQuery stuff without using css or divs. If you use tables for style and layout I feel like you miss out on a lot of new technologies and stay stuck in the 90's.
This may be unhelpful but I somehow don't understand all these problems related to CSS. If a newspaper designer would try to embed a movie in the ad page, everybody would agree that he's a bit crazy. But still those same people pine after three-column layouts in HTML. HTML is just not apt to handle this kind of layout well at the moment. Furthermore, multi-column layouts are generally not really well-suited for reading on computer monitors. Aren't there enough viable alternatives?
And by the way, even tables don't offer a good way of implementing a fluent column layout so this is no reason at all to resort to such hacks. Assuming a halfway modern browser (i.e. > MSIE 6), tables don't offer any advantages over clean HTML + CSS that I know of.
I would just use the table.
In my experience, using a table for layout will work the same in all browsers and the CSS will not (especially if you're trying to support IE6). It's just not worth the hours and hours of coding to get a layout to work in CSS when it can be done in 10 minutes using a table.
The other advantage to using tables is that your layout can very easily dynamically size itself to content. Trying to get that done with CSS is a huge nightmare.
I find there are lots of limitations to CSS that just seem to hint the specification designers don't make websites for a living.
Use HTML tables if you can't do it easy in CSS.
Having said that, some of the frameworks do help and it always nicer to do in CSS if you can manage it.
You might be able to find some inspiration here: http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/
A List Apart is a great reference for using semantic HTML, the Holy Grail article is probably one of the best examples. Also, check out CSS Zen Garden for some inspiration on the topic or read Dave Shea's excellent book "The Zen of CSS Design."
You use CSS for layout because not only is it semantically correct but because tables have multiple drawbacks.
Tables are horrible for accessibility because they break almost all screen readers, which in turn gives the visually impaired worthless information because of the way the tables are read.
They also render much slower than their CSS counterparts. Tables have to be drawn twice, once for the layout, and again for the content. This can mean that if you have a remote image or two on a server with a slow connection that your ENTIRE LAYOUT will not render.
Would you use an array to store a dictionary when you have a hashmap? No. And you shouldn't use a table when there's something out there which works better.