What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
53 Comments
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> I've read a few studies that CSS renders a good deal faster than tables.
That depends on what you are doing. Putting the whole page in a table will make the whole thing slow, yes, but in a general sense, I don't believe what you say is true. Do you have any links to these studies?
> Designers should know this already.
True, they *should*. But It's extremely rare to find designers that use tables with things like summaries and captions. It's not even easy to find people using TH instead of TD+FONT+B.
> I have a huge HTML table that has 365 cols, and 100 rows. It renders very slow with Firefox and IE. Should i try to use CSS for this?
No. It's a table. Using CSS for tabular data is just as bad as using a table for non-tabular data.
> Anyone know of good tutorials that lead you step by step through the process of designing a CSS layout?
It's not really a tutorial, but there's a general layout technique that's fairly simple and reliable here:
http://positioniseverything.net/articles/onetruelayout/
It's probably the best starting point for somebody having difficulty with CSS layouts. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm an engineer. I'm not a webdesigner. Tables work fine for layout for me. Could I learn to replace most of it with CSS layout? Sure. But do I want to spend weeks or months figuring out why my very complex design isn't working properly across the board in every browser my users visit with? Hell no. CSS still sucks for complex layouts. Just getting the CSS to properly center a "page" inside of a browser is a bitch and a half and then you have to make sure you write alternatives so that they will work despite Firefox's screw-ups and that they'll work despite MSIE's screw ups... and then there's Safari and Opera...
I'll stick with tables until someone decides to volunteer and be my web designer. Until then, I'm just an engineer who does what works on the designer end. I don't have enough time for all the code, much less the damn web design. :) - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> To use CSS, don't you have to rely on a LOT of absolute positioning?
No, not at all. You don't have to use absolute positioning, floats are fine. In the case of a navigation bar, you usually just use UL, LI and A, apply display: block to them, tweak margin and padding, then float it to the left and set a width. - ovidius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both CSS and tables have their place for layout - I'm sure given enough time a CSS "zealot" could figure out how to do the same layout using tables, and a table "zealot" could do the same with CSS. I'll admit that tables for layout is a hard habit to break, but frankly I don't see my CSS-only pages serving any faster than my table-based pages. I pick and choose whatever works for me, which I expect most other "professionals" do...
- jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yo headzoo, tables are for presenting tabular data which is exactly what the writer states. Using tables for layout isn't the intended purpose but using tables for data is exactly what they're made for.
- ompalaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> you can do lots of things with tables that you cant do with CSS.
It might be easier to do something with tables, but you can still create the same effect using CSS. - diggity_dank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you are using tables for layout you are using XHTML wrong and you should not be getting paid to do it. It was a hard transition for me too, but I want to do thing the right way because I am a professional and that is what I am paid to do. Learn CSS and XHTML, use it properly and stop whining. CSS does not "suck" for layout... you suck at doing layout with CSS because you are lazy.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dunno, I've read a few studies that CSS renders a good deal faster than tables. So if you have huge amounts of information to represent in table form, you should use CSS, not tables.
- jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0actually, this is a great article
- kanenas.net, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Learning TABLES is a MUST!!! If you want to use HTML...
- hotwaterham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Designers should know this already. Marked as "common sense."
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@jiminoc - it's a good thing I never said anything about using tables for layouts. I said when large amounts of information need to be presented in table form, CSS renders faster.
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice beginner write-up on HTML tables.
- khaled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good article, digg :)
- TwentyXD6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a great article for those of use moving from the realm of hobbyist to professional in the web design world. Usually when learning html for fun you don't bother learning the fiddly bits that don't seem to actually 'do' anything, but they are important for making sites accessible to text browsers and audio browsers.
- jamesburton1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good tutorial.
+Digg. - alanmarchman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice. Dugg like a mofo.
- Osmanthus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0---I dunno, I've read a few studies that CSS renders a good deal faster than tables---
Tables can be faster. Reason: all the data is embedded in one 'get', where usually CSS requires multiple gets. Rendering time in the browser is insignifcant compared to a get. Also this keeps down load on the server. - TechnoPops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good article, if only because there are still "professional" Web designers out there that still use tables for layout, when they could use CSS just as easily, if not easier.
- tarqua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sure s1m0n give it a try.. add your fidings in another comment
- snowthrower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tables are essential to web design, you can do lots of things with tables that you cant do with CSS.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great info. I consider myself well versed in HTML but I hadn't heard of the "scope" attributes before. Digg++;
- rc55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hotwaterham: It's still very insightful. I personally didn't know about the caption markup.
Great stuff! - S1m0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uhm.. what do you Digg users think: I have a huge HTML table that has 365 cols, and 100 rows. It renders very slow with Firefox and IE. Should i try to use CSS for this? I know CSS is not made for this type of thing, but in this particular case it may be faster. Should I try?
- ReyBrujo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, using CSS tables for layout is better than plain HTML tables. Just learn what the "display" property is, and what are the "table", "table-row" and "table-cell".
Any design that needs tables for layout is a bad design. - chime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I never knew I could do so much with tables. Good digg.
- Stormen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with the guys saying CSS sucks for layout.. Of course, none of the guys criticizing tables are actual designers - which explains the case. For sites like Digg.com, CSS is absolutely fantastic - but for more complex stuff, it's a nightmare.
- forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use tables for layout and my sites aren't slow. The only speed bottleneck has to do with the fact that they are being hosted on my own computer, which is a desktop workstation/webserver/gaming pc all in one. That's why my sites are a little slower.
- troublemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You should avoid using tables for layout"
Why? Because it renders nicely on old browsers? - MrBester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why do you feel the need to support old (and you really mean "ancient") browsers? Just getting it to render out the text without all the fancy alignment stuff is enough. I don't support Netscape 4 and lower, IE 4 and lower (sometimes not even 5). I now don't support IE5.2 for Mac as Microsoft doesn't either. Browse to a page I make in those programs and you get what Google / Lynx would see along with any images. Don't like what you see? Tough. The blind don't have a problem with it and they are more of a priority to me in my job than you are.
- dismorfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good!!! the things we need @ digg
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Tables can be faster. Reason: all the data is embedded in one 'get', where usually CSS requires multiple gets.
When you use external stylesheets, it's true that there's an extra request *on the first page load*. However subsequent page loads don't need to make that extra request, and what's more, the pages themselves are smaller, so as long as your visitors view more than one page, CSS is better.
Also, you have the option of including the styles in the pages themselves, in which case there's no extra request, and the pages are still usually smaller because you can style multiple elements at once.
Summing it up as "two requests are slower than one" is oversimplifying things to the point of it being the opposite of the truth. Except in unusual circumstances, CSS is faster when it comes to data transfer.
> Also this keeps down load on the server.
In addition to what I've said above, external stylesheets are independently cachable, which means that the load on your server goes down further for a variety of reasons. - ipunchstrangers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I knew about all this before I knew people even used tables to make layouts. back then I had frames plastered everywhere, it was a mess.
- cpr0721, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"CSS zealots are the same class of people that think IE is "broken". Stupid people."
If I wrote a program for viewing excel spreadsheets that didn't recognize certain formulas, wouldn't you call it broken? - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> I decided to try and convert my site to CSS, and it's a pain in the ass because of browser inconsistencies. At least everything looks the same with tables.
Tables are inconsistent too. It's just people have already got used to the inconsistencies and their workarounds. For instance, since version 6, Netscape has aligned images to the baseline, whereas the traditional model aligned them to the bottom of the table cell. Internet Explorer 6.0 brought differences with centring nested tables. And some of the optional end tags aren't so optional in some browsers. That's just the inconsistencies off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more. - Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good article, great website, but dang this is over a year old.
No Digg. - theevilshiftkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What if I'm arranging data that *isn't* content? For example, a complicated nagivation bar/header? I can see the advantages to CSS for arranging textual data, but what is best for images? To use CSS, don't you have to rely on a LOT of absolute positioning? I'm new to using CSS for anything but styles. :)
- theendlessnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AFAIK, tables were primarily used for layout.
Also, it is well known that the ancient engine used by MSIE is horrible at rendering tables. Table rendering can be quite fast, but it gets a bad rap BECAUSE of MSIE.
The problem is with MSIE and NOT with tables. - kali25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have to disagree. I think CSS sucks for layout. Tables are fool-proof for layout. If you use CSS for layout the text can push out of the boxes. This looks bad. Maybe I have just not researched CSS layout that much so I might be just doing it wrong. And I am not a noob, I have been doing HTML for 10 years and for living for 8 years. I might just be the"can't teach a old dog new tricks" but I like to make pages work at any resolution and browser, but like to use XHTML.
- troublemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"To change a layout like this that has been used over a 200 page website is going to take a long time. If the design was to use CSS, then you could simply alter one file and the changes would affect all 200 pages."
I think it's OK to use tables if you know what you're doing. If you have 200 pages, use a PHP to pull datas from MySQL and insert them into sections from a loaded template. It's not hard at all.
I'm no "table zealot", I love CSS and use it extensivly every day in my job. But when it comes to ancient browsers which doesn't support CSS (like old browsers on exotic systems, think Amiga, old Netscape versions etc), you *need* tables to align text with images etc. - blankman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0tables are still the best for a main layout. They're must more compatible than divs. Like with tables, the text doesn't get cut off if the window is re-sized too much. I see no advantage to using a div for a main layout. They're good for individual things inside the table though.
- Nerina85, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0tables, tables, tables - I've hated them in the past.. but there's no way you can go without tables. This is good for beginners - you have to know how to create tables, but not only that, you also have to know how to use them properly. They used to be such a pain for creating websites for me, I've learned to like them. It's a love-hate relationship hehe
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, I'm one of the people who think that the blind/deaf browsers should be smarter then they probably are. I don't need to design my site to meet their need, their application needs to adapt to learn more problems like this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'll admit that tables for layout is a hard habit to break, but frankly I don't see my CSS-only pages serving any faster than my table-based pages. I pick and choose whatever works for me, which I expect most other "professionals" do..."
I concur completely. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And to the person who thinks that tables render slower than CSS, that's complete *****.
- evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you code reasonably well in CSS, you don't have to worry about the problems that several people have mentioned. I'm getting deeper into CSS and i'm finding that it's so much better for layouts in general. There's so much more you can do with it, and with more elegance, too.
Those of you who disregard CSS are simply unwilling to learn a superior technology which was MADE to produce layouts. A table is NOT meant for layouts and should not be used as such. If you still use tables for layouts, you shouldn't be doing professional web design. It's been years since CSS has been widely supported as well as tables are/have been.
This is a good example of the old addage "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - jnorris441, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Who gives a ***** about blind and deaf people?
Just kidding, good article. - ephekt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"CSS zealots are the same class of people that think IE is "broken". Stupid people."
I find it funny that the same ***** developers who think tables are good for design are the same fools who think IE is a good browser. IE doesn’t even support the box model without substantial hacking and hand holding; it’s a broken browser by many measures. Amateurs who are still holding on to tables for design, which was a hack, are broken developers. :p The two seem to fit nicely together. - rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How about this, some people actually care about the future of the web, and we promote the standards so that one day it will be easy to code websites.
And then there are loosers who have no clue about the technology you're using, and how to use it properly.
CSS is important because it seperates the style from the content, this means that you can switch between styles without altering the content, it gives you the upmost power to control every element of a semantic document without any drawbacks (not counting IE, because its broken).
Table based layouts however, introduce elements of the design into the markup. For example, in a three column layout, the first column will always be on the right of the browser, and the first entry in the code, while the second (probably the main content), will always be in the center, and the last column will always be on the right.
To change a layout like this that has been used over a 200 page website is going to take a long time. If the design was to use CSS, then you could simply alter one file and the changes would affect all 200 pages.
People who are unwilling to use CSS, write semantic HTML and accessible and usable design methods simply shouldn't bother, as doing so just holds the web back a little longer.
Get a clue or get a new job. - saywhatUwant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0you can create the same effect using CSS, but the bottom line is that there is a place for everything. Tables have their own place and so does CSS. Both can reside on the same website and it can still work. It is just a matter of you knowing when to use which one.
As far as "webmasters should already know this" you are right - they should But the fact is that many don't, and even if they do it is good to get a reminder.
-----------------------------
http://www.saywhatYOUwant.org -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is