What is Digg?380 Comments
- Chritto, on 11/17/2007, -5/+178At least they load faster than the useless flashy stuff that most pages use these days...
- wwater, on 11/17/2007, -4/+138Tables are like Flash, you just have to know what is appropriate use.
- Scynet, on 11/17/2007, -4/+113I find it ironic that the guy preaching about code correctness can't type a single sentence in the summary right. It's like he doesn't CARE if the grammar is correct as long as people understand it. I suppose that's the problem with webmasters too...as long as it works. Right?
- meman2, on 11/17/2007, -16/+104There are advantages to tables over css and I've seen several articles that say the performance is about the same despite what some say. Tables may be old school but they are easier to deal with for those of us dinosaurs who have been coding sites by hand for 10+ years.
- michaelothomas, on 11/17/2007, -12/+100I'm so sick and tired of hearing people bitch about tables. Anyone who's ever made a truly complicated web layout knows that they're necessary. All these web 2.0 evangelists just don't know what they're talking about. It's easy to make a blog with CSS. Try to make a youtube page with just CSS, and make it work on a dozen different browsers. And then do it in less code than the table version.
- hyankov, on 11/17/2007, -3/+88And you are using English 0.9a
- etnu, on 11/17/2007, -3/+76Having worked at several of the biggest sites on that list, I'll tell you exactly why tables are being used instead of CSS:
Nobody gives a *****.
No, seriously -- the companies don't care. There are some people internally who'd like to change things from table based layouts to CSS, but they're fighting inertia. People don't want to change what they're comfortable with.
I was at Yahoo when they finally started transitioning from tables to CSS (around 2 years ago). They had a great team that was really pushing things forward, but this was after years and years of resistance to change, hollow arguments about legacy browsers, and other equally nonsensical answers.
The case for other big sites (Google, MySpace, etc.) is primarily the fact that the engineers who are writing the code that generates the HTML are much more concerned with their Java / C++ / PHP / whatever code than they are with the html that they're outputting.
There's no conscious decision to "keep" using tables so much as there simply isn't enough incentive to change things. If Google spends 6 months redesigning all of their sites to eliminate the tag soup, are they going to make a lot more money? The answer is no, so why should they waste 6 figure engineers on the project and risk screwing something up for a significant portion of users and actually losing market share?
Radical redesigns might cause some of the bigger sites to move away from the tag soup mess that they're using (even if you think tables make layout easier for certain things, surely you can't be advocating spacer gifs and the like, right?), but radical designs are usually only done by sites that are having trouble.
Note carefully: Yahoo, MSN, AOL are all using relatively clean CSS layouts, while market leaders (in terms of mindshare, if not necessarily revenues) like Google, MySpace, and Facebook aren't. If Google falls behind yahoo and msn in the near future, I'm sure someone will suddenly decide that a redesign using the latest CSS is called for.
There's nothing wrong with CSS in and of itself (other than some browsers being slow to adopt). Anyone who claims that there is has no idea what they're talking about. The only advantage that tables have over CSS is for grid type layouts (and even then, only because of limitations in IE's support for certain advanced CSS). Because of this, I'll occasionally accept that tables are useful for complex grid layouts. On the other hand, Yahoo.com's front page and http://www.sitepoint.com/ both demonstrate that you can achieve those types of layouts without much effort at all. Anyone claiming that there's a valid reason for using spacer gifs and tag soup on a relatively modern website (i.e. not one targeting version 5 and older browsers) is probably not a very good developer / designer. - an0n1m0us, on 11/17/2007, -7/+72I've believed the pro-CSS and standards movement for at least three years. I've often thought my skills might just be lacking because I don't completely 'get' a couple of things like position: relative.
I no longer think this way.
I design XHTML 1.0 Strict fluid accessible layouts and I'm going to do more of them based on some element of tables for layout from now on.
Why?
CSS layout sucks balls. It's is absolutely fundamentally flawed.
To simply get a 'box' side-by-side with another at equal height involves trickery that would make anyone use a table in a second. Float one div around another? Falsify the 'margin' and clear the div beneath both of them? That still doesn't work as the two 'column' 'boxes' are of unequal height. What's the next hack you recommend CSS-for-layout freaks? Oh yeah, a vertically repeated background image to create the illusion of equal heights.
Pathetic!
To achieve such a simple layout is so full of hacks and such a PITA with CSS-as-tables that it's a joke. Using a 'margin' to get the second div to have the same starting point as the first is a HACK. Margins are meant for separating boxes aesthetically, not structure! Same thing with padding.
I can't go on, stress for is work. I'm going back to tables where it makes sense. Evangelists can ***** off and/or run my sites against the validator and when it comes back green, kiss my arse! - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -7/+71Can you believed?
Who the ***** cares. It is sad that people think that just becuase something is old it is bad. Most of hte sites listed work perfectly fine. No reason to change. Chaging just to change is idiotic. - geminitojanus, on 11/17/2007, -1/+58As most of the internet is still using HTML4 Transitional, it's not that surprising everything still uses tables; there are still a lot of web browsers with old or improper DOMs and with virtually no support for Javascript or CSS at all. Google, for instance, will render on anything that even /looks/ like a Web browser.
It's not a "design flaw" if it's intentionally so. You can still browse Google in elinks and have it be 100% effective. - Markpdotcom, on 11/17/2007, -2/+44To be honest, as a designer under pressure of deadlines, I go with what ever is quickest. It may not please the CSS heads all the time, but if it saves me thirty minutes moving a box around with relative positioning then I'm going to use tables. I don't get the snobbery that surrounds tables. Yes, I get it a table SHOULD be used to hold tabulated data, but it CAN do other things, so if its easier and fits the job, why jerk around all afternoon with CSS?
- Kavok, on 11/17/2007, -6/+47What a pretentious *****, tables are still part of the W3C standards and valid to use in many circumstances.
- Roagie, on 11/17/2007, -3/+41Sometimes, for really fancy stuff (especially fluid designs) a base skeleton table layout is the only way to go. You can do a CSS layout, but it will take you hours doing all the hacks to ensure all the browsers render it as desired. With a base table layout you're done in 10 minutes. Sometimes it IS still valid (read: real world business, time constraints, maintenance) to use a table for basic layout. Once you have your table though, you should use divs for all inner styling.
Anyone who says, "get with the times", etc is just a silly CSS fanboy who has never faced real-world situations where a table is the more logical way to go for the reasons listed above. - spyd3rweb, on 11/17/2007, -5/+42Don't fix it if it ain't broken.
- zeptobyte, on 11/17/2007, -5/+42Tables for layout =/= tables for tables.
- Spuy767, on 11/17/2007, -7/+43This article is dumb. PHP generated table structures are an extremely effecient way to serve up web pages. Just because CSS exists doesn't mean we should use a garden rake to comb our hair.
- pooptaster, on 11/17/2007, -0/+33It's also number 2 on the list.
- DukeRev, on 11/17/2007, -3/+36It's hard to mess up a layout using tables to position elements. However, with CSS you're always fiddling around, hacking your code to make it cross browser. I agree, for small simple layouts, CSS works fine with out lots of bugs. If you ever make complex designs with lots of elements, CSS adds a lot of variables to the pot. With tables, they're more sturdy and trust worthy. Tables have been supported since the mid 90's.
In theory you can make any site tabless, but if you mess up one little thing with your CSS it throws everything off. Which makes you spend more time trouble shooting. Not worth the time if you're being paid by the hour or paying other people by the hour. So all you hobby web designers should face reality. - geekchic, on 11/17/2007, -2/+33It may shock some people, but not everyone is using the latest sexiest web browsers. I still get hits on my websites from people using Netscape 4.x and I don't see why the poster is so "offended" by the use of tables. So long as the page works and loads in a sensible timeframe, why does it matter what is "under the bonnet" of the webcode.
- abyss478, on 11/17/2007, -10/+41...i don't believed it!
- fLUx1337, on 11/17/2007, -4/+35Only non-web developers think tables shouldn't be used. But web devs always think of the best way of doing something - if the best way is to use a table, you god damn use a table!
SAME with iframes. And non-css style attributes. - Takuro, on 11/17/2007, -8/+38Tables are still the best element to use when making the body of a web page. Try getting DIV layers in CSS to scale down an entire webpage without some javascript. "Height = 100%" provides quirky results.
I like web 2.0, but sometimes it isn't worth messing around with 50 different CSS attributes when a table provides the same results, and in a simpler way. Of course, I'm not advocating using tables for the entirety of a web page with marquees and animated gifs dancing side to side... - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -4/+33But is it web 0.8889 Beta?
- eliburford, on 11/17/2007, -5/+34Well, pretty much all forum software such as vBulletin uses tables, but it all depends on what the tables are being used for, if they're being used for actual table/tabulated data then that's fine. But I don't think the right use of tables is being the structure for a whole website.
And how exactly are we still in web 0.8889? Hasn't the web improved in 10 years? - stupidStan, on 11/17/2007, -8/+35Obviously this guy hasn't done much demanding web design.
Often the code to tables is much cleaner than achieving the same look in pure CSS. Often times it is preferred or even required that tables be used for displaying content.
Just because it has become 'cool' to go table-less and all the 'web 2.0' (god I hate that definitionless term) blogs you read tell you that tables=bad, a real designer realizes when they are needed and doesn't put down sites that use them with exactly ZERO justification on why they are 'bad'. - PleaseJustDie, on 11/17/2007, -1/+26How about when you want a quick layout tool that works on every browser without having to create different rules and you work for a company that wants it done NOW. I don't really care what morons who refuse to use tables for something they are exceedingly good at think. I use CSS when CSS will be more advantageous, but when I need to break a page into some base groups and I'm not working from a premade template and I'm told I have to get this done NOW, then damnit I'm using a table because I don't have time to deal with this *****.
As long as the code validates and the page renders correctly I could care less if someone says "Oh no you didn't! You used a table to make a layout!" and waves their hands around like a spastic fourth grader with turrets. - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -5/+30spare us the bitter slashdot mentality.
tables are a tool. - whuddafugger, on 11/17/2007, -1/+25People don't visit websites to see how they're designed. People are interested in the CONTENT. Content is still king. Web designers are like TV repairmen. Most people don't care how the damn thing works, how it doesn't work, what the problem is or how you fixed it. Nobody gives a *****. Just fix the damn thing so we can catch that last episode of American Idol. Same goes for the Internet. Where's the porn?
- jjalsop, on 11/17/2007, -3/+25Dugg because I lol'd at poor grammar.
- MalDON, on 11/17/2007, -1/+23Yes, it is very possible to design very complex sites without tables. However, it is harder to make the site look the same across browsers. This is why a lot of designers (and developers) get fed up and use tables.
- dojonz, on 11/17/2007, -3/+24English *****, they do not speak it.
- emehrkay, on 11/17/2007, -0/+21What does PHP had to do with this? PHP just writes the HTML, be it tables or divs & spans.
- Matt2k, on 11/17/2007, -12/+33Let me share a snippet of some CSS-P that a web designer recently gave me:
<div class="main">
<div class="row"><img src="images/top.jpg" width="1024" height="41" alt=""></div>
<div class="row">
<div class="cell"><img src="images/left.jpg" width="59" height="494" alt=""></div>
<div class="cell">
Amazing. And once it started taking real-world user supplied content, text would overlap on elements, background images broke, and I had to spend hours reworking the template to function.
I'm sorry, when have I EVER wanted text to flow outside its boundary, or how often do you want elements to overlap? But this is the sort of thing you end up dealing with constantly.
1. Semantic web is nonsense. Putting a headline inside a H1 makes you feel nice. I get it. I also don't care. I also punch hungry kittens in the face.
2. Search engines can read inside a TD as easily as they can a DIV. Do you really believe what you're saying?
3. Mobile browsers and accessibility - Alright, quick show of hands of everyone who has actually tested their site on a mobile browser. You're solving a problem that _doesn't exist_. Mobile browsers render your site just fine.
4. CSS-P was never made for columnar layouts. The fact that years later we're still struggling with it proves that. Use what works for you, and CSS for styling
5. You never ever ever will be able to easily edit a complex CSS file "and rework the total display of your site" in just minutes. I have something similar that works even better. It's called a template. It involves real programming. - MalDON, on 11/17/2007, -2/+23I don't think tables should be barred from design use. I don't care for them as they tend to get messy, but I have seen many tableless designs that use more divs than needed and a table would have saved a lot of time. Lets face it, until all browsers can show tableless designs properly, major sites are not going to switch.
- logic, on 11/17/2007, -7/+27You LOSE!
- zeptobyte, on 11/17/2007, -2/+20Touché.
- tobybuk, on 11/17/2007, -0/+18Correct. We've tried many times to make table-less pages but always find them creeping back in. HTML/CSS is just not all its cracked up to be for anything but the simplest of pages. We're, for all sorts of reasons, going down the XAML/Microsoft route.
- hmunkey, on 11/17/2007, -0/+17I prefer clean and pretty looking tables (Eg. Yahoo, Google, Youtube) over obnoxious flash. Most people do too,
- botvis, on 11/17/2007, -0/+17And flash still sucks worse. Imagine that.
- zetsurin, on 11/17/2007, -5/+22I'd like to see a top 10 web sites using CSS and no tables hall of shame, because I ***** hate overuse of CSS. This goes both ways. What a stupid article acting like tables are something to be ashamed of or something. Obviously this kind of nonsense is bread from the types of people who's idea of programming is knocking together some basic server-side web script. And besides, if the page is lean and renders reliably, WHO ***** CARES what it's been made up of!
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/17/2007, -0/+14Speaking of H1, Google awards bonus points to keywords inside the H1 tag.
- uzair21, on 11/17/2007, -6/+20Hahaha..... web2.0flow.com speaking of we 0.8889
- ihaveplans, on 11/17/2007, -14/+28What does coding "by hand" have to do with anything? My guess is that all the Frontpage and Dreamweaver users are responsible for tables while most good designers using clean markup and CSS are only hand-coding.
- riah, on 11/17/2007, -0/+13The "snobbery" is based around the movement to seperate structure from content as much as possible. That's why we don't use font tags or center tags anymore. The goal is to have the markup do it's best to semantically describe the content without defining a set structure. This also has the advantage of making redesigns much easier. If your code was abstracted enough, you wouldn't have to touch any of the markup. Using a table for layout pourposes breaks this methodology.
I actually find designing with CSS to be easier than tables. I'd say after doing several layouts you should be comfortable enough with it to reach that conclusion. - thailand1972, on 11/17/2007, -2/+15Nice thread. Looks like tables finally got re-accepted again. For the last year or so, tables got laughed at on Digg. Funny how attitudes change!
- Carburetor, on 11/17/2007, -1/+14Dude, you made me laugh so bad i almost pissed myself. :)
- tdowling, on 11/17/2007, -0/+12You know, it's like when there are ten thousand spoons and all you need is a knife.
- Meep3D, on 11/17/2007, -7/+19http://www.csszengarden.com - That should be all thats needed to be said.
- DarkDx, on 11/17/2007, -2/+14…………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
……………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
…………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
………,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
…….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
……..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
……...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
……….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)
………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.
………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...
……….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,
……….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
……...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………
……….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..
………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………
................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,………. - digitalarcanum, on 11/17/2007, -2/+14http://*****.com/
-
Show 51 - 100 of 376 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is