Slashdot Mirror

Decloak did in this wonderful piece and it bears reading. There are a lot of myths about CSS divs vs. tables and this tests them out to a not so predictable conclusion. http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_01.aspx

And BTW, why do I want my code to be more legible? So someone else can copy it easier?!?! Screw 'em....let them work for it like I did.

A collection of pages of Why CSS:

http://www.decloak.com/Dev/CSSTables/CSS_Tables_16 .aspx

"I pretty much want to kick whoever invented CSS in the nuts."

1. For some layouts, CSS just can't cut it the same way that tables can. Not all layouts, just some layouts.

Maybe I'm just an unusual exception, but it's been years since I've resorted to table layouts. Netscape 4 was the last reason to hang onto them as far as I'm concerned. Maybe it's different if you are making "arty" websites, but for websites that just want to present information in an attractive way (i.e. every website I can think of outside of graphic design), I really don't see any need.

2. CSS syntax, behavior, and debugging are arcane and unintutive.

I agree. But I think exactly the same thing about table layouts. I think the only reason people call them "intuitive" is because they've been doing them for years. I once watched somebody (with a lot of experience) build a website that had tables nested about a dozen deep. I then went in and deleted more than half of them - without adding any CSS or anything - and the layout remained exactly the same. I've seen similar people get completely tied in knots trying to keep track of how deep they are and how many rowspans they need. I've seen bugs relating to table layouts where one half of a submit button was clickable and the other half wasn't. Things like that wouldn't happen if table layouts were intuitive.

3. CSS advocates are often times really snotty, mean, and religious about CSS.

You can say that about any technology really (table layout bigot example), if you use that as a reason to avoid CSS, then you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That's what this page has been saying all along.

Tables versus Full CSS Integration

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/Nested Templates/TablesOrLayers.aspx

(i.e. replacing all tags with tags and CSS positioning)

Before you guys at Slashdot consider going to a full CSS design, you should really think twice.

$3,650 USD! Are you really going to save that much per year. First, you have so much bandwidth that you already paid for, you most likely will not be able to drop down to the next level.

Second, the CSS example was only the home page...what about all the other pages?

Third, bandwidth is getting cheaper and what is the real R.O.I. for this change? And is anyone going to really have time to read huge articles on their PDA, not to mention getting EYE strain while you are reading it.

Fourth, the bandwidth saving stated should be PROVEN to work on different browswers. CSS-P needs a LOT of workarounds to get this all done just for a single browser. So by the time you get it all to work, the bandwidth saving are mute.

Here is a link you should look at

TABLES VERSUS FULL CSS INTEGRATION
(i.e. replacing all those table tags with div tags and CSS positioning)

.....It's millions of times cheaper and faster to have a single programmer update a popular screen reader or non-visual browser to look for that ID attribute in the tag instead of having millions of web designers in the entire world do a complete redesign the entire web site.....

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/Nested Templates/TablesOrLayers.aspx

Somewhere around REBUTTAL #7 .....It's millions of times cheaper and faster to have a single programmer update a popular screen reader or non-visual browser to look for that ID attribute in the tag instead of having millions of web designers in the entire world do a complete redesign the entire web site.....

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/Nested Templates/TablesOrLayers.aspx