I have a friend who wishes to work as a freelance web developer, but insists that tables are the way forwards for layouts.
Several points he maintains in favour of tables:
This is what was taught at the beginning of 10 years of programming & computer science degrees, thus it 'must' be right.
Large companies use tables to achieve 'technical' things (like server side scripting and working with forms)
It saves time.
I have coded him some examples of CSS exactly matching table based layouts, and provided many links to articles explaining SEO and accessibility benefits.
With regards to semantic uses of HTML tags, I have explained at length with examples how tables are great for displaying tabular data but not for general layout.
From the perspective of a client, I have been explaining to him that I wouldn't hire someone using outdated methods as their main strategy for layout. As he is my friend and I wish him every success, I believe it is important for him to gain the best start when pitching for work.
The question again: How can I explain to a programmer that CSS positioning has many benefits over table based layouts?
Show him CssZenGarden. You can't do that with tables.
Designing with tables is really easy. Changing a tables design, such as "Put navigation on the left instead of the top," is anything but.
This is what was taught at the beginning of 10 years of programming &
computer science degrees, thus it
'must' be right.
So were frames and marquee tags. people dont use that anymore for a reason
Large companies use tables to achieve
'technical' things (like server side
scripting and working with forms)
If by 'technical' things he means ugly looking things, then hes right. also as i said, tables are good for tabular data, and you SHOULD use them for that. also, i dont see how server side scripting and forms have anything to do with tables.
It saves time.
Yeah it does, at least initially. if you want your code to be maintainable in the long run, tables will not save you time.
I would say that an approach that uses both tables and divs/css is best.
Tell the programmer to look up accessibility requirements and/or 508 standards. Depending on his target market that should mean it's a requirement.
Otherwise challenge him to a contest. Take a scenario of a potential client that likes the functionality but wants this button moved there, that menu moved here, blah, blah, blah. See who wins.
In your friends defense. If he is targeting small businesses, most of them probably won't know the difference if he uses tables or CSS. They just want a site that works.
It really sounds like your friend is just lazy. He's not going to last as a free lance developer for long if he insists on not keeping up with the technology and trends.
Tables were used for layout because that's all we had. It's always been a hack, they were never intended to do all of the things they were put in to. Surely, most programmers today know the history of HTML enough to know why things were put in place how they were...and that at the time of their invention we had NO idea what the internet would become.
No one put them out as a design mechanism, at least no in the way they ended up. So the argument that "that's how it always was" falls flat there. It was that way because we hadn't come up with the right way yet.
I don't personally think it saves time, either. You spend as much time repeating yourself and typing those irritating tags over and over again, all the while keeping straight how many columns your currently supposed to be spanning.
Table-less design has so many advantages (unless you're displaying tabular data). They are more accessible, easier to manage, (generally) smaller...the list goes on and on.
Anyone who is still holding out is simply either not willing or not able to learn tableless design.
I love this question. It does seem still to be a tough cookie.
I'm a developer, and prefer CSS for everything. first of all
1> This is what was taught at the beginning of 10 years of programming & computer science degrees, thus it 'must' be right. - HA
Table format as I've seen is a presentation thing. Therefore should be removed from the logic.
Working with designers, allowing them to change a tables format at will is a big bonus for the freedom of design.
Tables definitely still have their place in the world but large companies only use them as the techincal team are often met with larger challenges than the choice for a table layout or presentation changes
It can save time, but can later meet other problems, again with redesigns, SEO, accessibility.
I've had the problem when wanting to add another field... inside of <div class='cell'>my new field data</div> POP DONE - you have to fiddle with all manor of table formatting, which is time consuming and tedious -
"Working with designers, allowing them to change a tables format at will is a big bonus for the freedom of design." I don't understand this point, could you elaborate further? I am a designer first and have only been learning web coding to meet my clients web design needs. My friend is a programmer, and needs my design skills to help him gain business.
Well, its my experience, every designer has the right to say "I'd like to move that field slightly to the right by three pixels" - with a table it tough to break out the box. Giving the designer an option to either present something in a table format, or do magic -
For example, today - working with Google maps - its my mind, the route steps (directions you get for turn by turn roads) I saw that as a table and thats it. Later the design scope was changed and it was no longer a simple table format. If I did do table stucture - it would have been a recode on my side or an ordeal on the designers part.
Related
This is a best-practice topic.
I saw it as a prefer method for some web developers. Instead of doing the CSS layout from scratch, they start a photoshop mockup first and then decode it into CSS.
What do you think about this approach?
Best to all,
Mockups are great, but I don't know if photoshop is the very first thing you'd want to try for the purpose -- at the very start, when you're just trying to get a logical layout for the various pages of the site (before refining it in terms of looks &c), a whiteboard with dry-erase markers and post-it notes affords for very fast, repeated mock-up rearrangements for the early brainstorming. Once there is some reasonable agreement on one (or a very few) possible arrangements of information, then visually more accurate tools enter into play.
BTW, just don't forget to photograph the whiteboard before changing it (any decent cellphone will do, you're not trying for high quality here;-) any time there are ideas or suggestions you may want to revisit or ponder in the future!
It is fast. This is why i always use this method. You don't want to spend the time building cross-browser CSS until you are actually set on a layout.
Most webdesign graphic artists work this way.
Many programmers simply find it a waste of time.
It has advantages, and disadvantages.
Advantages:
Many graphic artists grok photoshop/illustrator more than they do dreamweaver.
Customer gets a preview of the final product that works everywhere: mac, pc, firefox, ie, safari, whatever. Sending an html preview in early stages of production with developers using firefox and customer using MSIE always stirs up trouble.
And don't think to be on the smart side, scribbling MSIE driven html. Starting with non-standard html and converting to standard is more painful than doing it the other way.
There's one more catch: many web site customers tend to have a Mac and use Safari. Web committents tend to have a stronger taste for graphics than the average, so the chance to bump into Mac maniacs is higher in this sector than in others.
More design alternatives can be prepared spending less time on each one. This could be a dramatic advantage while dealing with murky clouds of executives with no designated decision-makers on the customer side. Alternative mockups will be passing hand-to-hand until general consensus is reached on one design or the other.
Disadvantages:
"Cutting" the graphic design into html becomes an additional work and it's not clear who's gonna pay for that extra time.
It favours graphic-centric, and rigid, design workflows. Customers agree pre-emptively on a given preview and that's what they get by contract. Every graphic modification means money, behaviour and programming instead tend not to be well defined, or worst, ill defined by the mockup.
The quest for pixel perfect cross-browser adherence to the mockup may drive you insane. If you agreed on a given rigid design with the customer, that could become a dire issue to pursue.
Dirty CSS tricks shoe in into your design. Using an HTML mockup, the customer would have approved a design driven by code with less tricks in place.
Anyway, I wouldn't suggest photoshop for a mockup, but inkscape. (or illustrator, if you worship adobe by burning piles of money into magic circles at midnight)
A scribbling stage is good too, while discussing the contract live with the customer.
I prefer pencil and paper to felt-tips, and I webcam shoot ideas for archiving and email forwarding. When it comes to scribbling, anyone does what feels more natural.
Not doing any and rely onto sample site examples and screenshots for graphical reference is always an option.
If you're productive that way, why not? Not everybody manages to envision their Web site perfectly as they're typing in a bunch of angle brackets.
More seriously put: It's your job, so it's your responsibility to do it in a way that allows you to do it effectively.
When prototyping, it's important to choose the right fidelity. This article from BoxesAndArrows provides a nice introduction to the various options and their uses.
I particularly like this line by Bill Buxton which the article quotes:
There is no such thing as high or low fidelity, only appropriate fidelity.
In this TechTalk by the Facebook Design Team, they mention how they use Photoshop in their design process (IIRC it's somewhere midway through, but I can't seem to forward through the video).
I am a web programmer who knows html and css fairly well. I can use a graphic program for it's basic functionality, but desinging a complete graphical web site is not my thing.
I let a graphic designer use his or hers graphic program to create a nice looking layout, and than code the website by hand in html and css.
It works for me, and gives my customers a design they like (cause a graphical designer will always make a much more nice looking design than most web programmers).
Agile methodology would suggest something easily modified in consultation with the customer. Dave Thomas in Agile Web Development with Rails suggests scribbling on paper. But anything has got to be better than chipping away directly at handmade CSS unless you really know what you want.
I was thinking about saying "scribbling might not cut it for a formal presentation" but the awesome SO crowd beat me to it in the comments...
Personally, and at every webdev firm I've worked at, I've always mocked-up in photoshop first. Jumping straight into CSS and markup is more of a bottom-up approach and makes sense to a lot of programmers but in web development you have to keep in mind that there are aesthetics to consider and a creative direction to follow. It's not enough that your product is functional, it needs the input of a professional creative-director/graphic-designer in order to make the product pleasant to look at and use.
In my experience, the problem has always been wrestling with inflexibility of team-members. Graphic designers who are aesthetics focussed and refuse to compromise their design integrity; which sometimes results in impossible or extremely difficult and un-semantic layouts. Developers who flatly refuse to compromise the integrity of their code where there is a workable solution - which might be a little less elegant. The key is to have a creative team who is intimately familiar with CSS and what is and isn't possible and an engineering team who have an appreciation of the importance of design and aesthetics.
In my freelance life (having had the benefit of working in both camps) I find it much easier to mock-up in photoshop first because I know what I can and can't do. And photoshop mockups are a lot easier to change on client feedback than are CSS and markup. Also, if you can show your client a mock-up, they feel more secure because they know that their money is going into a well planned project with a definate direction.
Hope this helps!
this is my firts post here ever.
I have to develop an aplication for a group of people with special needs. The functionality is really trivial, however, i have no clue of how to do the interface for them to be able to use it.
Their intelectual habilities are perfect, they are actually studying high school, but one of them types with his nose which needless to say, is very dificult and another one types reaaaaaaally slowly with only one of his fingers and neither can use the mouse.
I was wondering if i could use javascript to develop a usable interface, based on huge grids or something like that or maybe you guys have a better idea.
Political incorrectness aside, why don't you ask them? You're talking about accessibility here, if they're using computers they must be able to tell you about what they like or dislike about user interfaces that they've encountered.
I'm going to split my answer into two parts - design and implementation.
From a design perspective, it's important not to be intimidated by the fact that the users use a computer in a different manner. Treat this like any other project. Observe how they currently use other apps, and ask about the kind of things that they find helpful, or have difficulty with. If they claim nothing is difficult, ask a teacher or assistant, who will be familiar with the kind of things they struggle with.
Once you've started implementation, try an idea and get initial feedback. If you simply ask how they find the prototype, they'll likely say it's ok. Instead, try observing them using it without saying anything or giving guidance. If they get stuck, let them find their own solution to the problem. If appropriate, you could ask the user to speak their thoughts out loud (e.g. "I need to save this form, so I'm scrolling to the bottom, and clicking save").
On the development side, try to use web standards (valid HTML, CSS and Javascript). People often point to the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (WCAG2) but this is quite turse and hard to understand; there are many more friendly articles on "Web Accessibility".
Someone with a physical disability is likely to use an alternate input device, such as a "Switch", onscreen keyboard, head-tracking device, a device for pushing keys on the keyboard, or speech recognition. Many of these methods involve simulating the keyboard, so by far the most important thing is to consider the accessibility of your site without using a mouse. For example, try tabbing through the page to see if you can access all elements in a reasonable amount of time. Consider using the acesskey attribute to provide an easy way to jump to different parts of the page (using 0 through 9 is often recommended so you don't interfere with browser shortcuts).
Also make sure that no part of your site is time-dependant, as different users may take different amounts of time to perform a task. For example, don't use the onchange Javascript event to update a page based on a listbox selection. Ensure you have alt text for images, so it's accessible for speech recognition. make the pages short enough so that excessive scrolling isn't required, but not so short as to require following lots of links.
Those are just some ideas to get your mind going in the right direction - but there are many accessibility resources on the internet - steal freely, and don't reinvent the wheel.
I realise I haven't addressed your question about Javascript - that's because I think it's probably one of the less important considerations. If possible, use Progressive Enhancement techniques to make the site work with and without Javascript. You might also look into the WAI-Aria standard for giving semantics to your Javascript.
And finally, to reiterate my initial point - make something simple, show it to the users, tweek, and show again.
It doesn't really matter what technology you use. Use whichever suites you.
But, make sure that you make UI components BIG in size(Bigger buttons, bigger font, bold font, coloured font(are there any colour blind?). This is for the ease of use of people (you said someone types with nose).
Also, better to have audio as informative source along with the usual screen display whenever some wrong action is performed on the application. This way visually impaired people will be assisted more.
Do it well, you are doing a divine job.
The first thing that you should read up on is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines written up by the W3C.
In a nutshell this document describes the basic principles for people with disabilities in general.
For your needs regarding persons with special needs, you might want to look at Jakob Nielsen's article on Website Usability for Children, wherein principles of web design for young children or people with otherwise limited cognitive ability are outlined.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Concerning pages that build a web application:
Lately, I have found myself creating web pages that are simpler than the ones I used to. Before, I would try to jam as much functionality into a single page as I could to prevent from having lots of pages.
I am starting to realize that this was just making things way more complex, convoluted, and confusing than it had to be. Why not have more pages? I think the reason that I was doing this was because I didn't want the user to have to browse to other pages; just to have all the functionality they needed on a single page.
Well, these good intentions turned into an overly confusing interface for the user and very unmanageable source code. I am a new developer and I am trying to be very reflective of what I am doing so that I can improve. If it makes a difference, I am developing in ASP.net (though these are probably considerations for any platform).
My questions are:
Am I overthinking these things?
Has anyone else found themselves doing this?
Where is the happy medium?
There is no expert who can give you a rule that works in all places at all times. I have been known in my industry for years for "easy" interfaces and we've won significant amounts of business for it (as well as 5 "Best in Class" awards). I have also had people within my company and outside of it tell me - for years - that they like my work but wish that I would "jazz it up" with more graphics and such. What always amazes me is how little connection people see between the two.
So...a few rules of thumb:
A page should do one main thing.
A page may well have multiple links related to the main thing
Menuing and link layout should be consistent across pages
Simpler is better than more complex
Pages should be visually appealing and inviting
Rule 4 is more important than rule 5.
For example, my product provides an interface that lets people define classes and events to be displayed in a calendar. I could have one page that lets you Review, Add, Update, Delete and Edit the classes. Indeed, in some simpler areas, I've used the gridview to let people manage everything in a grid. However, classes have too much information to do this and still follow the rules above.
So,
The main idea is: "Here is a list of classes for this location"
The links are "Add New" shown above and to the right of the grid, Change and Delete are links within each row. This is consistent across the app.
Menuing for the system as a whole is always across the right/top. Nothing else appears on the class/event page except for standard elements common to all pages (a logo, a header, a footer).
The grid is nicely styled but there are no spurious graphics (4,5,6)
A few last things about UIs and graphic design.
First, develop your own vision and be consistent across pages and apps.
Second, do not be afraid of simplicity.
Next, when soliciting advice from others keep in mind that you do not want their advice - you want their impressions: you want to understand the way they perceive the interface. Advice is sometimes good but, more often than not, actually harmful. In my experience, everyone thinks that they are a UI expert.
When you do your hallway (or formal) useability testing you should discount almost all advice to the effect that "you should make that stand out more." As you'll see, it will quickly become "and that," "and that," "and the other." If you follow this advice, you'll end up with a mess due to Brittingham's first rule of design: If everything is important than nothing is. (There you go: when explaining why you can't make someone stand out more, just tell them that "it violates Brittingham's first rule of design!")
Hope this helps!
You hit the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid)
I've done this in the past as well and not only does it make for a hideous UI, but confusing as to what operations you can do on the page due to having too much functionality. I've often found in testing that I did not have enough checks to see if the user could perform a certain operation based on the state of the data.
It's easy enough in ASP.Net to write several pages that do simple tasks and then link them together with Response.Redirect or Server.Transfer. Now all I try to achieve on any given page is what the design specs say. So if my page is just a search page, that's all I give. If the user wants to see the details of an item that was returned in the search, then I send them to an itemDetails.aspx page.
You've broken a wall that most software developers have, the one that was blocking your view on usability before. A lot of developers don't really think about it and try to make it easier for them by stuffing functionality in one window, web page or whatever.
The thing is once you start designing software from the user's point of view, i.e. making it easier, several things start to become clear. One is the issue of code maintenance, that code is easily more managable to work on if you don't stuff everything in one giant class or whatever travesty you've been doing. The other is usability itself, that you start to think how the user is actually using your application through the graphical interface. Third is avoiding requirements or scope creep where you stop developing functionality that the user doesn't need.
We as users want simplicity partly because we don't want to spend most of our time muddling through a bad UI when we can get our work done faster with a simple and slick UI. That makes it for us software developers the right thing to do, to think through your design on all levels... that and specs always lie.
Definitely agree: most attempts at writing pages/forms that do too much have resulted in
bugs and rewrites. Problems occur with keeping all parts valid/synchronized,
excess managing of users' expectations ("I've entered a bill number here and clicked "find person" there but it gives an error message. Why?") when the two are logically separate. These questions cannot arise if only the valid options are visible,
Formatting/layout issues: In ASP.NET pages, trying to layout independent User Controls turns out to be a nightmare ("But we really want all the buttons vertically aligned!" in separate user controls. Good luck with that.)
I'd consider webpages with more than one functionality only if the target audience consists of domain experts, i.e. people that need lots of functionality on one page for better productivity (think data-entry or financial software with lots of variables).
Even then, most of the time, it's possible separate pages into single units.
No
Yes - me
I found the happy medium was to use Masterpages, and using it in a way that was familiar to IFrames. That I could have a lots of functionality combined well together. There is a more interesting way of doing this with WPF/Silverlight called Prism
The amount of functionality on a page is usually not determined by you but by your customer. If the customer demands a single page to update some VeryComplexObject, you're likely to end up with an aspx page that has a significant number of lines. Main reason is that you simply have a lot of event handlers for all actions on the page.
Whether that page is complex is entirely up to you. You should always attempt to make your code-behind file as simple and clean as possible. Some suggestions in that direction:
Move all business code to another application layer.
Use ObjectDataSource for providing data to data-bound controls such as ListView, GridView, Repeater, ... Delegating loading of data to a dedicated object prevents a lot of overhead in your aspx.cs file.
Another suggestion is to use user controls to implement portions of your page. You would usually only do this when you can reuse the user control, but it can also be of great help reducing page complexity (both of your code-behind file as well as your aspx).
Sometimes I think we are all guilty of forgetting just who it is that we develop our applications for. It isn't always easy as a developer to be able to take a step back and have a look at your application as a user might do so. This is why big companies employee hundreds of people to do this for them and they don't always get it right.
Usability is a massive subject but it is defiantly something that all developers need to keep in mind. It has taken me a long time to learn this but when tackling any development task I always try to think about how my users are going to interact with what I am writing. This will make a difference to all levels of your development.
I would suggest reading Don't Make Me Think by Steve Krug. This book won't take you an age to read and it puts across some fantastic ideas that can help you to develop applications that are much easier to use and understand.
I always find that once I have thought about the user experience the decisions about what my web pages are going to do and how they are going to interact are much easier to make.
Maybe you should ask the people who are using your site. Or better yet, just watch people use your site. I think that would tell you if your site is designed well, or if you need to change it.
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.
It seems like every time I try to create a pure CSS layout it takes me much longer than if I'd use a table or two. Getting three columns to be equal lengths with different amounts of data seems to require particular fancy hacks, especially when dealing with cross-browser issues.
My Question:
Who are these few tables going to hurt?
Tables seem to work particularly well on tabular data — why are they so reviled in this day and age?
Google.com has a table in its source code, so do many other sites (stackoverflow.com does not by the way).
Since this is stackoverflow, I'll give you my programmer's answer
semantics 101
First take a look at this code and think about what's wrong here...
class car {
int wheels = 4;
string engine;
}
car mybike = new car();
mybike.wheels = 2;
mybike.engine = null;
The problem, of course, is that a bike is not a car. The car class is an inappropriate class for the bike instance. The code is error-free, but is semantically incorrect. It reflects poorly on the programmer.
semantics 102
Now apply this to document markup. If your document needs to present tabular data, then the appropriate tag would be <table>. If you place navigation into a table however, then you're misusing the intended purpose of the <table> element. In the second case, you're not presenting tabular data -- you're (mis)using the <table> element to achieve a presentational goal.
conclusion
Whom does this hurt? No one. Who benefits if you use semantic markup? You -- and your professional reputation. Now go and do the right thing.
Like a lot of things, it's a good idea that often gets carried too far. I like a div+css driven layout because it's usually quite easy to change the appearance, even drastically, just through the stylesheet. It's also nice to be friendly to lower-level browsers, screen readers, etc. But like most decisions in programming, the purpose of the site and the cost of development should be considered in making a decision. Neither side is the right way to go 100% of the time.
BTW, I think everyone agrees that tables should be used for tabular data.
In the real world, your chances of taking one design and totally reskinning it without touching the markup are pretty remote. It's fine for blogs and concocted demos like the csszengarden, but it's a bogus benefit on any site with a moderately complex design, really. Using a CMS is far more important.
DIVs plus CSS != semantic, either. Good HTML is well worthwhile for SEO and accessibility always, whether tables or CSS are used for layout. You get really efficient, fast web designs by combining really simple tables with some good CSS.
Table layouts can be more accessible than CSS layouts, and the reverse is also true - it depends TOTALLY on the source order of the content, and just because you avoided tables does not mean users with screen readers will automatically have a good time on your site. Layout tables are irrelevant to screen reader access provided the content makes sense when linearised, exactly the same as if you do CSS layout. Data tables are different; they are really hard to mark up properly and even then the users of screen reader software generally don't know the commands they need to use to understand the data.
Rather than agonising over using a few layout tables, you should worry that heading tags and alt text are used properly, and that form labels are properly assigned. Then you'll have a pretty good stab at real world accessibility.
This from several years experience running user testing for web accessibility, specialising in accessible site design, and from consulting for Cahoot, an online bank, on this topic for a year.
So my answer to the poster is no, there is no business reason to prefer CSS over tables. It's more elegant, more satisfying and more correct, but you as the person building it and the person that has to maintain it after you are the only two people in the world who give a rat's ass whether it's CSS or tables.
Using semantic HTML design is one of those things where you don't know what you're missing unless you make a practice of it. I've worked on several sites where the site was restyled after the fact with little or no impact to the server-side code.
Restyling sites is a very common request, something that I've noticed more now that I'm able to say "yes" to instead of try to talk my way out of.
And, once you've learned to work with the page layout system, it's usually no harder than table based layout.
I'm of the thought that CSS layout with as few tables as possible is cleaner and better, but I agree that sometimes you just gotta use a table.
Business-wise, it's generally "what's going to get it done the fastest and most reliable way." In my experience, using a few tables generally falls into that category.
I have found that a very effective way to mitigate cross-browser differences in CSS rendering is to use the "strict" doctype at the top of your page:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
Also, for the dreaded IE6 CSS issues, you can use this hack:
.someClass {
background-color:black; /*this is for most browsers*/
_background-color:white; /*this is for IE6 only - all others will ignore it*/
}
The main reason why we changed our web pages to DIV/CSS based layout was the delay in rendering table based pages.
We have a public web site, with most of its users base is in countries like India, where the internet bandwidth is still an issue (its getting improved day by day, but still not on par). In such circumstances, when we used table based layout, users had to stare at a blank page for considerably long time. Then the entire page will get displayed as a whole in a tick. By converting our pages to DIV, we managed to bring some contents to the browser almost instantly as users entered to our web site, and those contents where enough to get the users engaged till browser downloads entire contents of the page.
The major flaw with table based implementation is that, the browser we will show the content of the table only after it downloads the entire html for that table. The issue will blow out when we have a main table which wraps the entire content of the page, and when we have lots of nested tables. For the 'flexible tables' (those without any fixed width), after downloading entire table tag, browser has to parse till the last row of the table to find out the width of each columns, then has to parse it again for displaying the content. Till all these happens users has to stare at a blank screen, then everything will come to screen in a tick.
If you have a public facing website, the real business case is SEO.
Accessibility is important and maintaining semantic (X)HTML is much easier than maintaining table layouts, but that #1 spot on Google will bring home the bacon.
For example: Monthly web report: 127 million page views for July
Monthly web report: 127 million page views for July
...
Latimes.com keeps getting better at SEO (search engine optimization), which means our stories are ranking higher in Google and other search engines. We are also performing better on sites like Digg.com. All that adds up to more exposure and more readership than ever before.
If you look at their site, they've got a pretty decent CSS layout going.
Generally, you find relatively few table layouts performing well in the SERPs these days.
Keep your layout and your content separate allows you to redesign or make tweaks and changes to your site easily. It may take a bit longer up front, but the longest phase of software development is maintenance. A css friendly site with clear separation between content and design is best over the course of maintenance.
One other thing I just remembered, you can assign a different stylesheet to a page for printing vs. display.
In addition to your normal stylesheet definition, you can add the following tag
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="PrintStyle.css" />
Which will render the document according to that style when you send it to the printer. This allows you to strip out the background images, additional header/footer information and just print the raw information without creating a separate module.
doing a complete revamp of a 15 page web site just by updating 1 file is heaven.
This is true. Unfortunately, having one CSS file used by 15,000 complex and widely differing pages is your worst nightmare come true. Change something - did it break a thousand pages? Who knows?
CSS is a double-edged sword on big sites like ours.
In my experience, the only time this really adds business value is when there is a need for 100% support for accessibility. When you have users who are visually impaired and/or use screenreaders to view your site, you need to make sure that your site is compliant to accessibility standards.
Users that use screenreaders will tend to have their own high-contrast, large-font stylesheet (if your site doesn't supply one itself) which makes it easy for screenreaders to parse the page.
When a screenreader reads a page and sees a table, it'll tell the user it's a table. Hence, if you use a table for layout, it gets very confusing because the user doesn't know that the content of the table is actually the article instead of some other tabular data. A menu should be a list or a collection of divs, not a table with menu items, again that's confusing. You should make sure that you use blockquotes, alt-tags title attributes, etc to make it more readable.
If you make your design CSS-driven, then your entire look and feel can be stripped away and replaced with a raw view which is very readable to those users. If you have inline styles, table-based layouts, etc, then you're making it harder for those users to parse your content.
While I do feel that maintenance is made easier for some things when your site is purely laid out with CSS, I don't think it's the case for all kinds of maintenance -- especially when you're dealing with cross-browser CSS, which can obviously be a nightmare.
In short, your page should describe its make-up in a standards compliant way if you want it to be accessible to said users. If you have no need/requirement and likely won't need it in the future, then don't bother wasting too much time attempting to be a CSS purist :) Use the mixture of style and layout techniques that suits you and makes your job easier.
Cheers!
[EDIT - added strikethrough to wrong or misleading parts of this answer - see comments]
The idea is that Designers can Design and Web Developers can implement. This is especially the case in dynamic web applications where you do not want your Designers to mess around in your Source Code.
Now, while there are templating engines, Designers apparantly just love to go crazy and CSS allows to pull a lot more stunts than tables.
That being said: As a developer, i abandoned CSS Layout mostly because my Design sucks anyway, so at least it can suck properly :-) But if I would ever hire a Designer, I would let him use whatever his WYSIWYG Editor spits out.
Business reason for CSS layout: You can blow away the customers by saying "our portal is totally customizable/skinnable without writing code!"
Then again, I don't see any evil in designing block elements with tables. By block elements I mean where it doesn't make any sense to break apart the said element in different designs.
So, tabular data would best be presented with tables, of course. Designing major building blocks (such as a menu bar, news ticker, etc.) within their own tables should be OK as well. Just don't rely on tables for the overall page layout and you'll be fine, methinks.
*I would let him use whatever his WYSIWYG Editor spits out
I just threw-up a little...
*ahh hello? You don't think the graphic designer is writing the CSS by hand do you?
Funnily enough I have worked with a few designers and the best among them do hand-tweak their css. The guy I am thinking of actually does all of his design work as an XHTML file with a couple of CSS files and creates graphical elements on the fly as he needs them. He uses Dreamweaver but only really as a navigation tool. (I learned a lot from that guy)
Once you've made an investment to learn purely CSS-based design and have had a little experience (found out where IE sucks [to be fair it's getting better]) it ends up being faster I've found. I worked on Content Management Systems and the application rarely had to change for the designers to come up with a radically different look.
Besides being easily updatable and compliant...
I use to design all table based web sites and I was resistant at first, but little by little I moved to CSS. It did not happen overnight, but it happened and it is something you should do as well.
There have been some nights I wanted to toss my computer out the window because the style I was applying to a div was not doing what I want, but you learn from those obstacles.
As for a business, once you get to designing web sites by CSS down to a science, you can develop processes for each site and even use past web sites and just add a different header graphic, color, etc.
Also, be sure to embed/include all reusable parts of your website: header, sub-header, footer.
Once you get over the hump, it will be all down hill from there. Good luck!
:: nods at palmsey and Jon Galloway ::
I agree with the maintainability factor. It does take me a bit longer to get my initial layouts done (since I'm still a jedi apprentice in the CSS arts) but doing a complete revamp of a 15 page web site just by updating 1 file is heaven.
Some additional reasons why this is good practice:
Accessibility - the web should ideally be
accessible by all
Performance - save
bandwidth and load faster on mobile
devices (these lack bandwidth to some
degree and cannot layout complex
tables quickly). Besides loading fast is always a good thing...
When a screenreader reads a page and sees a table, it'll tell the user it's a table. Hence, if you use a table for layout, it gets very confusing because the user doesn't know that the content of the table is actually the article instead of some other tabular data
This is actually not true; screen readers like JAWS, Window Eyes and HAL ignore layout tables. They work really well at dealing with the real web.
I don't think there is a business reason at all. Technical reason, maybe, even so, barely - it is a huge timesuck the world over, and then you look at it in IE and break down and weep.
i actually can see Tables in Stack Overflow on the user page.
It even has heaps of inline styles...
There definitely is. If you are still striving for it, you are not getting it right.
DIV+CSS layout is actually much easier than table layout in terms of maintainability and productivity. Just keep practicing it before it's too early to say that.
Table layout is good too it's just not meant for layouts and have exceptional drawbacks when it comes to minor tuning.