Azu

THAT wouldn't make it easier for screen readers, but it is more semantically correct to use a list rather than a table. You will benefit from being able to change the way it looks easier though. I'm guessing for your emphasis on 'that' that this is not the best way to do it? What is the best way? So that it will make it easier for screen readers? And how can I keep it aligned when I use divs?

We also want you to understand... but you don't. Screen readers don't display anything as layout -- they just need to extract the content. That's more difficult when tables are used for non-tabular information. If you have your site laid out with tables (e.g. nav in the left TD, content in the middle, ads on the right), that really isn't a table row, now, is it? It's not like a "typical" table, where you have different values corresponding to equivalent column headings in each table cell. If that's not clear enough, I don't know what is. And just because you don't know how to make a tableless page "flow", that doesn't mean anything at all for their utility. There have been 50+ posts describing all of the tech. differences & advantages. LAYOUT vs. CONTENT -- that's it. Plain & simple -- no analogies. So all the stuff about screwdrivers and spoons aren't analogies? And you still haven't really answered my question.. The way I have my navigation now is like this <table><tr><td>Link 1</td><td>Link 2</td>etc...</tr><tr><td>Link 3</td><td>Link 4</td>etc..</tr></table> I like it like this because it is aligned.. Now the non-table version would be like this <div><ul><li>Link 1</li><li>Link 2</li>etc...</il><il><li>Link 3</li><td>Link 4</li>etc..</il></div> How exactly does this make it easier for screen readers and stuff like you keep saying? I want to understand how/why it does.. because even after all you have said, I still don't get this.. and also how do I make it align if I use divs?

Sorry I wasn't trying to ask about which way would be easier for me to make though. I just want to understand what it is about the divs that can make it better for screen readers and stuff.. and once I understand that, maybe I can find a way to make it work for tables also.. because I don't know how to make it aligned if I use divs.. And please stop with the analogies.. they aren't helping me understand at all.. I just want to know exactly what, from a purely technical/logical standpoint, it is in divs that make a site easier for screen readers and spiders and stuff..

I understood about being able to modify it faster. That's not what I am asking though. I don't care at all which one is easier/takes less time to do. I just want to know which one is BETTER and why. Sorry if I worded my question wrong x_x

Thank you, but I still don't understand what the benefit will be if I do this.. x_x I mean besides "you are supposed to do it this way, this is how it is meant to be, it is better".. I'm just looking for like what exactly the benefit will be.. I mean I know tables "aren't supposed to be used this way", but my question still isn't answered I think.. :-/ What EXACTLY will the benefits be of me just replacing the tables with the divs? Like if there is a certain screen reader that this will make it work in that it wouldn't work in with tables, for example, then what is it called? Etc.. P.S. and how will I make sure that it will stay lined up with the divs like it does with the tables?

I'm going to lock this thread very soon... Azu, you haven't taken in any of what all of the contributers to this thread have shared with you. If you really can't see the power of CSS, don't use it... but don't try and claim that it isn't very powerful. Bottom line -- if you're not displaying tabular data, don't use tables. THE END. Separating content from layout is the reason that there are dynamic, database-driven web sites -- CSS is just one more layer. Think long and hard before responding... I really don't understand what you are trying to say sorry. I think I might have explained something wrong. I'll try again. Right now I am using tables, and CSS (which I like A LOT) and a little bit of javascript. I'm considering using divs instead of tables since a lot of people say that tables are bad. I am just trying to ask exactly what benefits I will get if I just replace all instances of "<table>" with "<div>", and replace all "<tr>" with "<ul>", and all "<td>" and with "<li>". This is all that I am trying to ask. And I can't find any straight answers to this question.. I'm sorry if it was answered but I can't find the answer.. And why do you keep saying that I am saying that "CSS is bad"? I never said that.. I love CSS!

Okay but I still don't see any differance of the actual results. All I'm hearing is "It's easier to make stuff without tables" and "If you use tables you will do stupid things that will mess up your site" and "CSS rox0rz your box0rz".. I still can't think of any way that a website will be changed by doing a search and replace to replace all "div" with "table", "ul" with "tr", and "li" with "td", other then it making stuff be aligned. If there is another differance that this will make please explain. The only other differance I can think of is that putting table instead of div uses 2 more bytes of code. I download that page and did a search and replace to replace all "div" with "table", "ul" with "tr", and "li" with "td" and it works fine. With tables. So please explain.. And what do you mean "what about people without Javascript"? You don't need javascript enabled for tables..

Why can't I put my Javascript and CSS in external files if I am using tables? Why can't I style my website with CSS if I am using tables? Why can't I use CSS hover effects if I am using tables?

You mean because <table> is two letters longer then <div>?

Thanks guys! I think I understand now ^^ It's much easier to update and modify the layout if you use divs instead of tables. With tables you have to change all of the HTML and with divs you just have to modify the CSS a little? I think I'm just going to stick with the table for this part then since I like it how it is and don't plan on changing it a bunch and I don't think it can be aligned if I use div.

Thanks! I'm sorry if I sounded rude.. I didn't mean to me.. I am just trying to find out why it is bad to use tables for layout like this the way I am right now in the example that I gave.. sorry.. x_x; And why am I using CSS poorly? I still don't understand why the CSS wouldn't be the same for tables as for divs.. The only difference that I know of is that tables align and divs don't.. in all of the examples that you are all giving me of times when tables are bad, you always show the tables being used differently then the divs.. I want to know why it would be bad to use them the same.. as in just replacing the divs with tables, the uls with trs, and the lis with tds.. and even with all of the information you have all given me, I still can't understand why it would be bad to do this.. I do understand that there are bad ways to use tables yes, but this doesn't mean anything. There are bad ways to use everything.. And also I thought one of the good things about CSS is that you can use it on any element you want to.. so why wouldn't you use the same CSS with tables as with divs? I still don't understand. And if I haven't done a good job explaining what I mean.. okay.. let's say you add this CSS to your website; div,ul,li{display:table} How would this mess up the accessibility and bloat the code and stuff? Did I ask my question right this way? Or am I still not being clear? *confused*

It seems noone is reading this so here it is again.. As a matter of interest, did you read anything from the links I posted?Yes. And I don't understand any of the points mentioned in them. They seem to me to all be false.

As a matter of interest, did you read anything from the links I posted?Yes. And I don't understand any of the points mentioned in them. They seem to me to all be false.

Can somebody please explain to me why tables would need more code and/or differant code? I really just don't get it. How would replace div with table, ul with tr, and li with td make your code bloated? I don't understand at all You all keep saying that it makes it more bloated and less readable blah blah blah but can someone please explain WHY? I'm confused.. A real example would be greatly appreciated.. Like for example How is <table><tr><td>Link 1</td><td>Link 2</td><td>Link 3</td></tr><tr><td>Link 4</td><td>Link 5</td><td>Link 6</td></tr></table> Worse then <div><ul><li>Link 1</li><li>Link 2</li><li>Link 3</li></ul><ul><li>Link 4</li><li>Link 5</li><li>Link 6</li></ul></div> ? Please somebody explain IN DETAIL... PS: about the "divs show up before the page finished loading but tables don't"; all of my output is buffered (gzip compression) anyways.. so I think that everything will always show up at the same time anyways regardless of which layout I use.. PPS: and why does everyone keep saying that it is CSS or tables? I am asking about divs vs tables not CSS vs tables. I am going to be using the exact same CSS whether I use divs or tables.

? I don't know. I write everything in notepad or Firefox.

Is there any good way to (that won't be slow)?

So uh.. could somebody please explain? Because I really don't understand the difference besides on way makes stuff align and one way doesn't. I don't understand how accessibility and such are effected..

Bump <.<

Errors out just from a simple ampersand.

Try changing the frm_owners to frm_owners[]

Thank you but when I try that it gives me this error =/ And also I can't find that function in php.net.. it says it cannot find it.. is it a real function?

Hello I've tried all of the functions in PHP, and a lot of custom functions, and I can't find ANY that work right for UTF8. They either don't display the trademark (™) sign right, or don't display common accented letters such (é) right. What is a function for UTF8 that will display them all right?

I'm not sure if I understood this right or not but... are you saying that every three seconds, EVERYONE in the chatroom downloads EVERYTHING in the chat room all over again? If this is the case then it can be sped up dramatically by only download new messages.

Oops... I used varchar x_x;; Thanks anyways... I guess I won't be getting it back lol..

display:table;