What is Digg?Sponsored by adult swim
Amateur Surgeon Christmas view!
games.adultswim.com - Can you save Santa? Adult Swim Games present Amateur Surgeon Christmas Edition. Get it now FREE for iPhone.
55 Comments
- merr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Use CSS for layout. Use tables for tabular data. Argument over.
- hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21It also means "violated" in French, as the OP was hinting.
- Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19you guys arguing for tables are retarded. Browsers pre-render the content in tables so they are a lot slower. They also have sizing issues in different browsers. It is not difficult at all to emulate any number of cells with css if you know what you are doing...lurk moar interwebs.
I agree bonexaw, this is kinda lame and uninteresting. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Good to know this is a "Complete Set" of CSS Faux Column layouts. Now I just need to find that complete set of all real numbers and I'll be done with my collection.
- KillerJ59J, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Huh.. isn't a Viola a musical instrument similar to a Violin?
- FiP0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Not bad indeed.
Author keep saying "and viola", probably meaning "and voila".
'viola' means something quite different in french :) - bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16No, its a good one. Tables are VERY resource intensive. Also they won't load until all of the html is downloading. CSS div based stuff will load as it gets to the browser.
Still, this just isn't Digg-worthy... I'm a web designer and it's not that I already know how to do this, or that it isn't good examples. It's just not impressive. Not new, and not something that I wouldn't have found within 30 seconds of googling WHEN I WANTED TO FIND IT. I'm not working when on Digg. I'm looking for interesting things to look at. This is not interesting, original, or new. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Digg it down, but anyone who thinks using tables to do site layouts is good and fast is ***** retarded and should find another job. Perhaps at McDonalds, where you could easily deep fry everything and call yourself a cook as well.
- jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17These arent even that good. Just bury it you can find better ***** using google without all the ads.
- DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The old dudes who pioneered web design started off with tables and pushed them as far as they could go. They were proud of their accomplishments and developed a work flow that suited them for at least ten years. Then these young punk CSS kids come in and take everything over with their web 2.0 buzzwords and san-serif-logos-with-reflections. With unparalleled smugness they remind the old dudes that it's theoretically impossible to build websites with tables, despite the fact that the old dudes have been doing it since the CSS crowd was in middle school.
What the old dudes, myself included for some time, seem to overlook in this designer snobfest showdown is that the new kids are on to something with their standards compliant code and exact positioning. And that maybe, just maybe, when you look past the hype the new way is better, (potentially) easier and it's the future of web design. Sadly many old dogs are too stubborn (my way works, so why change?) and the new guys are too arrogant (bwahahaha! you use DreamWeaver and tables. Noob.) to find a common ground.
The only thing that is certain is that this article will be posted again in one form or another and I'll get the chance to recycle this comment. - delvach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Faux column, five column, six column, where does it end?!?
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Tables are great for uh... tables, not for layout hacking. It may not matter to the average browser, but it certainly matters to anyone sight-impaired using a screen reader, for instance.
- Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm a web designer, and I'm not a snob, but tables are a pure headache.
After working with HTML for 5 years, CSS has been a breath of fresh air, and I dare say the same for anyone else out there that loves designing more than they love coding. It's easy, flexible, fast and infinitely more browser friendly than tables were/are.
Tables were never meant for design, they were meant for data, and got lost along the way. CSS is the way things should have been from the start.
Jimzip :D - MttPrrish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Man, there's a lot more than FAUX layouts on here! There's like...FAUXTY FAUX or FIFTY! ...sorry.
- lowridah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow this almost certainly doesn't exist as a placeholder for a lot of adsense ads...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I didn't get into the business until about 2003, so. I can't imagine doing it as tables it takes forever. You have to do like 10 times the code.
- GavinZac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4jesus christ, no
html is for markup
css is for display
javascript is for action
sticking a chunk of horrible proprietary code into your documents is just plain bad coding. if you must, do it with php or something. by doing this "for" internet explorer though, you giving them an excuse not to improve their browser - Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mscrip.. I don't know why you are being dugg down..
Anyway, yeah there's logic in both your points. I think mscrip is correct, we all used tables (Oh how I laugh at my ignorance!! Hahahaha - ok I'm done) because that's what was done back then. But now that CSS is more widely used and so effective, there's no reason for people not to use it.
Jimzip :D - yikiad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5the only useful thing I got from this is who to block...
- dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, 4 years ago, it was acceptable, even preferable to do table based layouts. When the vast majority of browsers started supporting XHTML 1.0/Transitional rendering, even IE was mostly standards compliant. At that time, tables became antiquated for layout. They are still valid for displaying data, but there is a lot of merit in giving up the ghost and moving on to proper coding practices. It's not a holier than thou stance. I was resistant at first until I saw how elegant and simple the actual HTML is, which simplifies so much elsewhere. You put the brunt of the layout on the CSS and it ensures more forward mobility for your markup than if you made your markup too dependent on your layout. In addition, it also makes mobile devices and screen readers much happier.
- GamerzCorner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't understand how tables are quick and easier...
maybe it is just me...
I find CSS way eaiser than tables
You have more options with css and come on how hard is css honestly...
Personaly tables are more confusing to me than CSS. Tables are a pain in the @ss to get them to do what you want and if you are editing code at all by freehand (not using dreamweaver...or even worse frontpage) they are just a pain...bottom line...USE CSS a 5th grader can learn it... - indyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow - try changing the text size on some of these - they break easily. Dugg down ...
- dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There hasn't been a big push for div+css layouts because it's semantically correct and gives us all big web dev chubbys to pull it off. Ditching tables is a good thing because in addition to accessibility friendly layouts, you also get MUCH more mobile friendly layouts. Pull up a proper XHTML+CSS site on a mobile device of your choosing and disable the CSS if you have to. The site is inifintely easier to read and if you use the right tags for the right things, you even get a level of formatting that makes sense. (i.e. putting navigations in unsorted list elements makes them more identifiable.)
Tables create a level of rigid layout that is hardened and can only be displayed as a table. Well thought out CSS+XHTML is easy to repurpose for any platform. There are also good CSS workarounds for equal height columns that don't require a tiled background (though that is an equally valid solution, IMHO). - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997 ... Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted “to mark up tabular material or for layout purposes.” Web designers who used tables for page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of sin .... The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it contains tables used for layout'
Joe Clark, 2002, 'Building Accessible Websites' - Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Honestly? If you google it you should be able to find a solution.. Every browser is subtly different in the way it renders pages. For designers, it's a damned headache, but usually they just pick the lesser of two evils. i.e the design that looks the least out of place.. Like said, it's a pain in the backside, but that's the reality of it.
Jimzip :D - dDuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing that this has had over 600 diggs. I used to use tables a lot, and I especially used the 'export slices' feature in Photoshop CS (before that ImageReady). I would of course edit the slices so that not every cell had a jpeg in it to save on loading time, but it was a dog to do and it took ages. The code was also incredibly ugly and complex. The sites looked good enough though, but were slow to load, graphically intense and completely non-accessible. It was only about 2 years ago that I took the plunge into CSS coding, and though it did have a learning curve, there is no way on earth I would ever use tables today because CSS is just so much easier to code. One CSS file to rule them all, the graphics, the text and the layout of an entire website (with some forward thinking!). This can save hours, if not days on having to do the slightest edits on a website, and I couldn't live without it today. It's also somewhat gratifying to see the green 'valid transitional' message on the W3C site, although of course it is no guarantee of complete accessibility.
There is one exception for using tables though, and that's when you need it to design a website like this http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/main.htm - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Could be font related. Are you using px positioning or ems?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How is my edit time up already, I just posted that. But I wanted to add:
"Use CSS for layout. Use tables for tabular data. Argument over."
Point blank. There is no further argument for it. If you can't do things the current way, LEARN. This is as ridiculous as refusing to use a vehicle and instead get around on a horse and carriage. If you want to be a dinosaur be one, just don't think you're as good as the rest of us. - DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used tables from 1995 through at least most of 2006. I was a late adopter however I'd been using CSS ever since it came around. Tables were only used for the column layout of the site. I guess this was a hybrid method. Anyway, I fully abolished tables (except for some legacy PHP apps) as of this year. I love the new method because while it is challenging it's also rewarding. My sliced designs have gone from complicated patchwork to a few big chunks which tend to be replaced by pure CSS except where images are absolutely required.
The only problem I'm facing is the management of the 50+ sites I still update which are table-based. Moving to CSS is a hard sell to a client without a redesign and it's tough to go back and forth between the two schools of thought. - mtlmeijer, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1
Those have uneven length columns, the article has faux columns to keep them the same length.
The bottom of layoutgala says
"No graphics was used in the examples, but if you'll feel the need, you may want to apply techniques such as Faux Columns and Sliding Faux Columns." - dDuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe I should have checked the source before I tore this site apart, I just went on earlier comments that these were table based layouts!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.code-sucks.com%2Fcss%2520layouts%2Ffaux-css-layouts%2F2-column-css-layouts%2Ffaux-8-2-col%2F
At least it validates, however it's just a background image and columns. Not a technique I would use, especially for such simple layouts. There are easier ways to achieve these simple layouts without needing faux layout techniques. - imagesplace, on 06/22/2009, -0/+0it means perfect or done, right?
http://www.design2work.net - lokendra1989, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0I like it it's too good
http://xboxdesign.com
http://www.zeniltuo.com/
http://www.iconlook.com/
http://www.pixellogo.com/
lokendra
(web designer) - MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I keep getting dugg down above, but I want to comment anyway...
You used tables before, and only took the plunge to CSS about 2 years ago. Now, before you switched to CSS, did you ever feel bad for using tables? Or did you just use them because that's all you knew? Did you even know there was a better way?
I used tables too, for about 8 years. I recently switched to CSS. It's great! I understand why CSS is better. But, I can't forget that tables were used in the past. Every site used table for many years. Every time people scream "tables are not for layout" I remember the web before CSS.
I learned HTML by looking at sites that I liked. And now I'm learning CSS the same way. I'm glad CSS exists, and I'm looking forward to the next 10 years of web design. - ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Instead of writing an article on something that has been bludgeoned to death by many other articles, tell me why something will render differently on Firefox on a Mac than it does on Firefox on a PC.
/*sarcasm Tell me how to fix my 2 pixel margin errors between platforms and then I'll digg. sarcasm*--/. - akeating, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's faux because there aren't actually columns/rows there with different backgrounds. The appearance of rows/columns comes from the background image, not the real things themselves.
- markowl, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10For all the table-haters:
Tables display before loading if you use 'col' tags in your table definition and 'table-layout: fixed;' in your CSS. - ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It is "faux" because the columns are faked. There is a background image used to give the look of 3 columns because heights need to be faked.
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3> "I can't imagine doing it as tables it takes forever. You have to do like 10 times the code."
Thank you! Yeah it was definitely a different time. But, you just took it a step at a time. I started learning HTML in 1995 as a freshman in college. I had purchased an HTML book in 1996, but I learned more from "View Source" of big corporate websites of the day.
Tables were all I knew... I was doing exactly what every other website was doing.
I'm glad CSS is where it is today! It's so much easier managing an external CSS file that defines every page of your site. But, I can't forget the old way of doing it. Back in the mid-90s, we were pioneers of the web! - MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0> "I think mscrip is correct, we all used tables (Oh how I laugh at my ignorance!! Hahahaha"
Why do you think you were ignorant? Tables were the only game in town. If there was a better way, we would have used it. But, it wasn't until about 2002 or 2003 until CSS became more mainstream, and most importantly, browsers finally caught up.
People seem to forget that there was a web from 1995-2002. And we used whatever method worked at the time.
While CSS Level 3 was started in 1998... no one was using it until much later. Go back to 1999, tell a designer that "tables are not for layout" and see what happens. In fact, I think the first CSS book wasn't even published until 2002.
If you learn anything about web design today, you'd learn CSS right from the start. But, you can't go back to the "dark ages" of the web and unlearn the methods of that time. - serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1These suck. If you want some truly great CSS layouts, try this:
http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/ - MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Read my above post too.
Tables are harder... that is true. But, in the early days of the web, there was no CSS. Back in the day, you put everything in a 600 width table. It was normal. Yeah, back then 800x600 was the standard resolution. I'm talking 8-10 years ago. Then browsers got better, CSS got more capable, and here we are today.
CSS is great. I agree. But the you can't forget that, historically, using tables for layout were normal. Go to http://www.archive.org/, type in your favorite website, and see websites from 1996 to about 2003. Tables were everywhere. You can't deny that. So, the argument, "tables are not for layout" is moot, since every website for about 7 years used tables. - MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Just curious... What did you do before CSS matured to where it is today? Let's say from 1996-2002?
Even the great CSS Zen Garden didn't start until 2003... and I bet all these pretty CSS designs of today would NOT work in Netscape 3, IE 4, etc...
So... did you use tables at one time?
I agree that NOW you should use CSS. Firefox, IE6 & 7 with hacks, they will all display CSS well. But, there was a time when tables were the norm! You even said, "if you can't do things the 'current' way, LEARN!" Which proves that people must have used tables in the past. ESPN.com switched 'to' CSS in 2003... so what do you think they used before that??? Tables!
I started learning how to build websites in 1995 by looking at sites of the day. Way before CSS, pastel colors, rounded corners, etc. And what I saw were tables. You can't go back in time and pretend table layout never existed.
I like your horse and carriage analogy... but you forget, back when there were only horses and carriages, that's what you had to use!
I love CSS, it's great to separate content from layout, it loads fast, it's easy to maintain, etc. I'm using it NOW. But, I cannot forget the path that got me here. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4Not bad... you should use IE Conditional staements in your code though
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10Haha, trust me.. I've designed plenty o sites.
While it sounds like a good theory on paper, it's just not practical. I gave up the whole "pure CSS-div" thing eons ago when I was spending more time ***** around trying to reside or center ***** with horrid workarounds than if I were to just slap a table in there.
If you need columns and rows, use a table.
If your site has that much ***** on it to where it loads slow because of you using tables, then your content needs re-evaulation. - bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4So tired of CSS ***** on Digg.. esp when it's not that impressive.
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Why is it "Faux"
What is the real way to do it then? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Don't tell the designer snobs the right way to do things, you'll just get modded down.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Tables
- markowl, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6Agree. The hoops you have to jump through with CSS to get a so-called 'elegant' solution for three simple columns is just stupid. Here's a hint: tables have columns - use them.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
