Web-Mastery Webmaster Forum
SEO Services
Home >> Webmaster Forums >> Are tables bad for alignment ??????
Carpetpaul said: "I'm still very new to web site design, and I have not ventured much further than basic html (infact even some of that I'm still working on) I'm working on a new homepage, and I'd like to have a similar layout to that of many of the webistes I see on the net. I'd like to split the screen onto several small blocks to house images, text and navigation. People keep on telling me that tables are the wrong thing to use, that they are only really for making actual tables of numbers or whatever and should not be used for layout. When I looked on the net, I find that almost all the sites I can see do use the table method, and I have no idea of any other methods that can be used that are as easy to master. Did someone mentions styles or .css ? - I've only briefly read about these and don't understand how they are applied to control layout. If I decide not to use tables, will I be able to master an alternative technique for layout of this type, and is the other method capable of using fixed size for certain aspect whilst adjusting the remainder of the page to cope with screen resolution / size, or browser window differences ? If you can point me towards a site that does a tutorial on this type of alignment or layout, please do Or if you think that these alternative methods wil be beyond my abilities at this stage, please let me know Edited:- P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
Home >> Webmaster Forums >> Are tables bad for alignment ??????
Are tables bad for alignment ??????
Carpetpaul said: "I'm still very new to web site design, and I have not ventured much further than basic html (infact even some of that I'm still working on) I'm working on a new homepage, and I'd like to have a similar layout to that of many of the webistes I see on the net. I'd like to split the screen onto several small blocks to house images, text and navigation. People keep on telling me that tables are the wrong thing to use, that they are only really for making actual tables of numbers or whatever and should not be used for layout. When I looked on the net, I find that almost all the sites I can see do use the table method, and I have no idea of any other methods that can be used that are as easy to master. Did someone mentions styles or .css ? - I've only briefly read about these and don't understand how they are applied to control layout. If I decide not to use tables, will I be able to master an alternative technique for layout of this type, and is the other method capable of using fixed size for certain aspect whilst adjusting the remainder of the page to cope with screen resolution / size, or browser window differences ? If you can point me towards a site that does a tutorial on this type of alignment or layout, please do Or if you think that these alternative methods wil be beyond my abilities at this stage, please let me know Edited:- P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
.....no idea what a
is, but I'm off to find out......
thanks, as always - Paul"
DodgeCroft said: "Seems that many people are moving toward CSS. It's brilliant for SEO which you'll have to consider at sometime or the other. You create your basic html and add a CSS layer after that. Have a look at[URL=http://www.csszengarden.com]CSS Zen Garden[/URL] , there you can see what different people have done with the same Html but created their own Css layer. After everything that I've read and beginning to see there's a strong possiblity that many people will follow this route. For good tutorials on anything Webdesign go to [url]www.w3schools.com[/url] if that's not right just search for it. Hope that helps"
Darksat said: "Tables arnt bad though, they are the most common way for aligning content on a site but sometimes they can generate a lot of code."
Neutron2k said: "I still use tables to layout my sites, and I will do for a long time to come. The main problem with tables is that if they are not structured correctly, they can severley hinder loading times as the browser has to redraw the table everytime it has to resize itself. Thats why I work with fixed table sizes. That just my preference tho :)"
htmlmaster said: "Tables + alignment = bad. Use CSS (I perfer divs and spans), it looks so much better, gives you control, and its valid XHTML."
Neutron2k said: "Out of curiosty, why do you says tables + alignment = bad. Do you have any justification? its not immensly that bad. CSS hasnt always been around and even now its not totally upto scratch and/or supported. Tables have been the main way to layout pages for many years so it cant be all that bad. The only reasons i know their bad is because of the resizing issue affecting loading times. Is there anything im missing?"
<h1> said: "the people that say tables are bad for alignment are the people that get confused on how to use tables for alignment ;) IMO divs and span are better for the simple fact of beiing css driven which essentially means nice clean code mmmm clean code :) this is my first move from tables to divs : [url]www.richardwdesigns.com/template[/url] see how clean the code is.. only thing im still stuck on is relative positioning but ill cross that bridge when i get there one day.. I still use tables though...that template was an experiment. peace, Rich"
edwin said: "i like clean code too. nothing broken in the browser etc. plus css is easier than tables."
Neutron2k said: "...unless you need cross browser compatibility in which case you need to do a bit more work to get things looking right. I started doing my first CSS layout last night and it took me 5 mins to get a decent layout. Until i looked at it in firefox because i didnt realise the text-wrap in a div was an IE feature and not a W3C specification! doh! alls well now tho. Will have to show u all my first result when i finish it :D which should be somtime tonight :)"
<h1> said: "[QUOTE=Carpetpaul] P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
DodgeCroft said: "Seems that many people are moving toward CSS. It's brilliant for SEO which you'll have to consider at sometime or the other. You create your basic html and add a CSS layer after that. Have a look at[URL=http://www.csszengarden.com]CSS Zen Garden[/URL] , there you can see what different people have done with the same Html but created their own Css layer. After everything that I've read and beginning to see there's a strong possiblity that many people will follow this route. For good tutorials on anything Webdesign go to [url]www.w3schools.com[/url] if that's not right just search for it. Hope that helps"
Darksat said: "Tables arnt bad though, they are the most common way for aligning content on a site but sometimes they can generate a lot of code."
Neutron2k said: "I still use tables to layout my sites, and I will do for a long time to come. The main problem with tables is that if they are not structured correctly, they can severley hinder loading times as the browser has to redraw the table everytime it has to resize itself. Thats why I work with fixed table sizes. That just my preference tho :)"
htmlmaster said: "Tables + alignment = bad. Use CSS (I perfer divs and spans), it looks so much better, gives you control, and its valid XHTML."
Neutron2k said: "Out of curiosty, why do you says tables + alignment = bad. Do you have any justification? its not immensly that bad. CSS hasnt always been around and even now its not totally upto scratch and/or supported. Tables have been the main way to layout pages for many years so it cant be all that bad. The only reasons i know their bad is because of the resizing issue affecting loading times. Is there anything im missing?"
<h1> said: "the people that say tables are bad for alignment are the people that get confused on how to use tables for alignment ;) IMO divs and span are better for the simple fact of beiing css driven which essentially means nice clean code mmmm clean code :) this is my first move from tables to divs : [url]www.richardwdesigns.com/template[/url] see how clean the code is.. only thing im still stuck on is relative positioning but ill cross that bridge when i get there one day.. I still use tables though...that template was an experiment. peace, Rich"
edwin said: "i like clean code too. nothing broken in the browser etc. plus css is easier than tables."
Neutron2k said: "...unless you need cross browser compatibility in which case you need to do a bit more work to get things looking right. I started doing my first CSS layout last night and it took me 5 mins to get a decent layout. Until i looked at it in firefox because i didnt realise the text-wrap in a div was an IE feature and not a W3C specification! doh! alls well now tho. Will have to show u all my first result when i finish it :D which should be somtime tonight :)"
<h1> said: "[QUOTE=Carpetpaul] P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
.....no idea what a
is, but I'm off to find out......
[/QUOTE]
i do not know the textbook version but basically a
is a html element that contains data and can be completely css driven. div's are used to positions bits of code in a certain area of the webpage. So instead of using tables to align up the code where u want it to display, a div can do this much easier with a lot less code. You can position as aboslute and relative. Absolute = specified position (eg left:200px;top:100px) Relative = position relative to the parent element. So with a combination of divs within divs can give you infinate ways to use divs to position the html..
thats what i use divs for..
you wouldnt have though this little code
can generate an entire graphical menu...ahh yes im seeing now...mmmm css :cool:
peace, Rich"
iaf46 said: "yeah tables was used in html"
Neutron2k said: "wtf? i swear u either dont read the postings or just cant speak english."
reciprocal_link said: "I develop a lot w/ just tables. I can see after reading up more on css that tables are just another thing in the past. Lol all these changes in coding I swear some people just don't have anything better to do."
Neutron2k said: "CSS is a good replacment for tables. The W3C is constantly releasing new guidlines to help clean up the web as a lot of sites use lazy and invalid code where people simply cannot be bothered to learn structuring."
<h1> said: "[QUOTE=Carpetpaul] Edited:- P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
iaf46 said: "yeah tables was used in html"
Neutron2k said: "wtf? i swear u either dont read the postings or just cant speak english."
reciprocal_link said: "I develop a lot w/ just tables. I can see after reading up more on css that tables are just another thing in the past. Lol all these changes in coding I swear some people just don't have anything better to do."
Neutron2k said: "CSS is a good replacment for tables. The W3C is constantly releasing new guidlines to help clean up the web as a lot of sites use lazy and invalid code where people simply cannot be bothered to learn structuring."
<h1> said: "[QUOTE=Carpetpaul] Edited:- P.S - after I wrote the above, I've been looking on a site which discusses the various layout options and the code that makes up that page is all
.....no idea what a
is, but I'm off to find out......
thanks, as always - Paul[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html]this is also a cool site to learn about divs[/URL]
peace,
Rich"
Neutron2k said: "that artical aggrivated me by stating using tables is stupid lol. Its been a mainstayer for a long time to use tables, and if their used properly their great. It makes a lot of good points tho :) I noticed how it didnt state the problems with using css layouts tho ;) like browser compatibility!"
DonEc said: "If you were around then you will remember that there were a lot of problems with tables when they were new."
Neutron2k said: "the problems that are mainstay with tables is if you dont set them up correctly size wise, everytime the table needs to resize itself it hinders page loading times. Thats the main drawback as far as im concerned. The other downfall is of course, source-code length. but the main benefit over css is still that they are supported in every browser you can find! altough not all properties are supported by each one, the basics are all there. Where as with css there is still issues with crossbrowser support. I started using css to layout my pages a few weeks ago and i do find it more interesting and fun to use. I just dont like the fact that the artical gives u all the pros of css but none of the cons."
<h1> said: "hey im sorry for not posting the perfect article :rolleyes: it was afterall directed to CarpetPaul to help him learn to methods of div positioning.. peace, Rich"
Neutron2k said: "i wasnt complaining at you dude! lol i was just stating what I thought about the artical. sorry! :("
bytech said: "Go with tables. There are too many layout issues to consider with CSS. If you are just starting out, you will need to learn tables well before you can try CSS. Don't get me wrong, CSS does not depend on tables. But any code you'll get from anyone will likely be based on tables. Be it an affiliate code, or a utilty that you wish to use on your site. You will need to know how to make tables if you are doing a lot of webdesign. It won't be long before that knowledge pays for itself through saved time. :)"
Neutron2k said: "Tables are the best bet when your starting out but you should make the switch to CSS as soon as you feel ready to tackle it. Its not that difficult to learn and Id say learning css is more important that learning javascript or other languages. In book book, tables are ok but I do see their down falls, such as having to redraw the page everytime they are resized."
SiteExpress said: "I think that since you are just starting out, you should go with good ole fashion html and tables. You can do anything you want with them, and as long as you do them correctly, they wont hurt alignment. As far as CSS. Yes it is a great alternative to using tables, and probably the best option. however, if you don't know html yet, then why try to learn something completely new. learn html, and build a couple of sites with it, then venture into CSS. CSS will make a lot more sense to you once you understand html."
Neutron2k said: "that artical aggrivated me by stating using tables is stupid lol. Its been a mainstayer for a long time to use tables, and if their used properly their great. It makes a lot of good points tho :) I noticed how it didnt state the problems with using css layouts tho ;) like browser compatibility!"
DonEc said: "If you were around then you will remember that there were a lot of problems with tables when they were new."
Neutron2k said: "the problems that are mainstay with tables is if you dont set them up correctly size wise, everytime the table needs to resize itself it hinders page loading times. Thats the main drawback as far as im concerned. The other downfall is of course, source-code length. but the main benefit over css is still that they are supported in every browser you can find! altough not all properties are supported by each one, the basics are all there. Where as with css there is still issues with crossbrowser support. I started using css to layout my pages a few weeks ago and i do find it more interesting and fun to use. I just dont like the fact that the artical gives u all the pros of css but none of the cons."
<h1> said: "hey im sorry for not posting the perfect article :rolleyes: it was afterall directed to CarpetPaul to help him learn to methods of div positioning.. peace, Rich"
Neutron2k said: "i wasnt complaining at you dude! lol i was just stating what I thought about the artical. sorry! :("
bytech said: "Go with tables. There are too many layout issues to consider with CSS. If you are just starting out, you will need to learn tables well before you can try CSS. Don't get me wrong, CSS does not depend on tables. But any code you'll get from anyone will likely be based on tables. Be it an affiliate code, or a utilty that you wish to use on your site. You will need to know how to make tables if you are doing a lot of webdesign. It won't be long before that knowledge pays for itself through saved time. :)"
Neutron2k said: "Tables are the best bet when your starting out but you should make the switch to CSS as soon as you feel ready to tackle it. Its not that difficult to learn and Id say learning css is more important that learning javascript or other languages. In book book, tables are ok but I do see their down falls, such as having to redraw the page everytime they are resized."
SiteExpress said: "I think that since you are just starting out, you should go with good ole fashion html and tables. You can do anything you want with them, and as long as you do them correctly, they wont hurt alignment. As far as CSS. Yes it is a great alternative to using tables, and probably the best option. however, if you don't know html yet, then why try to learn something completely new. learn html, and build a couple of sites with it, then venture into CSS. CSS will make a lot more sense to you once you understand html."