haku Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Forgot to mention, thanks for calling me a guru! I'm really just an amateur, but its nice to know someone else thinks I know what I'm talking about, even if they don't agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 okay - Site that only uses tables - (it is a mess!) ww-p.org - This is my school site. The developers make over $300,000 to update and maintain the website, and if you look in the source code you should puke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phpQuestioner Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Now did I cover all you opinions? You will not win this argument with me; it just ain't going to happen guy. There is no such thing as winning an internet argument. No one ever changes their opinion - it just gives those reading different points to think about. You don't thinks that tables cache - are you for real - do you not think they had caches in browser back in the hay day of tables. If you have two tables on two pages, they are hard coded into the page. They have to download on each page. If you re-visit a page, sure the table is cached. But if you visit a different page, the tables on that page download with the html on that page. Styling an <a> element has nothing to do with layout design. Not with layout, you are right. But its a point for CSS. CSS Stylesheets Just Creates A Template For Your Layout; If You Design You Site's Layout with Tables; You Done The Exact Same Thing; You Created A Template. Tis true, I can't argue with that one. If you are using external templates for your tables, then its essentially the same thing. Actually tables are pretty much cross browser compatible; where a good bit of css is not. Either it does not work the same way and you have to hack your way around it with even more css or it just does not work at all. If your structure if valid, conditional comments are few. Hacks should never be used. Tables on the other hand render differently across browsers and need to have sizes and styles etc applied to them - essentially what you are doing with CSS. The actual page loads first and the css is applied sometimes after images load; because it's takes up more memory, hence longer load times, hence stylesheets my stall when loading. Got any examples of this? Can't say I've ever seen it, but I have to admit that just because I've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Finally, some points that you didn't get into: CSS being better for accessibility, and for precision of layout. Any thoughts on these? Now did I cover all you opinions? You will not win this argument with me; it just ain't going to happen guy. Sorry - I am the debating king and I don't give up! (I can say it too) Of course there is a winner and you believe so too or you wouldn't keep reposting your comments to this thread. The layout is most likely going to be the same on ever page; atleast the structures of it; so it will be cached. Your point about link style was invalid; that was not the topic of this debate; it was css layouts verses table layouts. Tables are the same across browsers; the may vary slightly, but css will vary dramatically sometimes, depending on the extent of the layout diversity. Don't have an example of hand of images loading before all the css; but I have seen it happen - can't prove it - but I now it does happen. Forgot to mention, thanks for calling me a guru! I'm really just an amateur, but its nice to know someone else thinks I know what I'm talking about, even if they don't agree! Actually I called your a "wanna be" css guru - lol. okay - Site that only uses tables - (it is a mess!) ww-p.org - This is my school site. The developers make over $300,000 to update and maintain the website, and if you look in the source code you should puke. Not my faught; it's the designers fault - the same thing could happen with CSS layouts; if their not coded accurately. Anyway, it looks like bad CSS styling; the tables may be layout wrong, but someone did a horrible job coding the CSS. Sounds like the developer knew what he was doing; if he is making $300,000 to update and maintain the site - wish I had site like that - lol. And for the final time I am not saying one is better then the other; I still think it is personal preference due to current application of said layout. But since you wanted to make it a debate; I just took table layouts to argue for and let you have css layouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phpQuestioner Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Also, TheFilmGod; the only page of the site that really looks bad to me is the "Home" page. The rest of the site's pages looks ok; granted I have only viewed them in FF, but all-in-all; they look ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Also, TheFilmGod; the only page of the site that really looks bad to me is the "Home" page. The rest of the site's pages looks ok; granted I have only viewed them in FF, but all-in-all; they look ok. ha ha - did you look at the source code? - Trying turning off javascript. And remember, this is a public school district website, so it should be 100% accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phpQuestioner Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Also, TheFilmGod; the only page of the site that really looks bad to me is the "Home" page. The rest of the site's pages looks ok; granted I have only viewed them in FF, but all-in-all; they look ok. ha ha - did you look at the source code? - Trying turning off javascript. And remember, this is a public school district website, so it should be 100% accessible. Whether the site was designed to be only functional with JavaScript or is a completely different topic; we were discussing table layout vs. css div layouts - remember? ??? Also; you understand what your taking about is a Vetical DHMTL Menu - right? DHTML is a combination of CSS and JavaScript; so JavaScript has to be enabled for users to view that menu. I am assuming that the designer understands that the vast majority of internet users today; have JavaScript enabled on their browsers, but again this is a totally different topic then what we were previously discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Also, TheFilmGod; the only page of the site that really looks bad to me is the "Home" page. The rest of the site's pages looks ok; granted I have only viewed them in FF, but all-in-all; they look ok. ha ha - did you look at the source code? - Trying turning off javascript. And remember, this is a public school district website, so it should be 100% accessible. Whether the site was designed to be only functional with JavaScript or is a completely different topic; we were discussing table layout vs. css div layouts - remember? ??? Also; you understand what your taking about is a Vetical DHMTL Menu - right? DHTML is a combination of CSS and JavaScript; so JavaScript has to be enabled for users to view that menu. I am assuming that the designer understands that the vast majority of internet users today; have JavaScript enabled on their browsers, but again this is a totally different topic then what we were previously discussing. You think I'm stupid or something? I know it's dhtml and that more than 80% of users have javascript enabled, but the fact that its a school site, a public school site, deems it necessary for it to be 100% accessible. Even if <noscript></noscript> have to be used - which they aren't. And my original reason for posting the link to that site shows what of a mess a table layout creates. Yes, it is up to the web developer to choose whether or not he will use css. It is also up to the developer to choose if he wants to be smart and efficient or if he wants to be a fool and use tables. I'm done argueing, I might as well use my time for something wiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phpQuestioner Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Also, TheFilmGod; the only page of the site that really looks bad to me is the "Home" page. The rest of the site's pages looks ok; granted I have only viewed them in FF, but all-in-all; they look ok. ha ha - did you look at the source code? - Trying turning off javascript. And remember, this is a public school district website, so it should be 100% accessible. Whether the site was designed to be only functional with JavaScript or is a completely different topic; we were discussing table layout vs. css div layouts - remember? ??? Also; you understand what your taking about is a Vetical DHMTL Menu - right? DHTML is a combination of CSS and JavaScript; so JavaScript has to be enabled for users to view that menu. I am assuming that the designer understands that the vast majority of internet users today; have JavaScript enabled on their browsers, but again this is a totally different topic then what we were previously discussing. You think I'm stupid or something? I know it's dhtml and that more than 80% of users have javascript enabled, but the fact that its a school site, a public school site, deems it necessary for it to be 100% accessible. Even if <noscript></noscript> have to be used - which they aren't. And my original reason for posting the link to that site shows what of a mess a table layout creates. Yes, it is up to the web developer to choose whether or not he will use css. It is also up to the developer to choose if he wants to be smart and efficient or if he wants to be a fool and use tables. I'm done argueing, I might as well use my time for something wiser. Well I didn't call you stupid; but your references to that issue; sure didn't impress me. You have a right to your opinion; but as I stated only one page of your supposed example of how designing with table is so awful, could be used to prove your point and I think a large amount of that issue steamed from poor CSS layout/structural coding. Although your point is fruitless to me; that's your opinion. People will continue to choose their layouts as the deem fit and neither you or me will influence them either way. The point of this huge post was to prove the point of "personal preference" and I think I have done just that and if you don't like that; well guess what - that's just to bad for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian-Mage Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I would STRONGLY advise that you learn XHTML as soon as you can, and get away from tables, which are going to start failing in new browsers like Firefox 3. I never use tables. Ever. You could use them for tabular data, but I prefer divs. Divs and CSS are the way to go, along with XHTML 1.1. It almost ensures cross-browser/cross-platform compatibility. It is a must with fully dynamic sites also. Tables get to bulky, and too complicated too quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFilmGod Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I would STRONGLY advise that you learn XHTML as soon as you can, and get away from tables, which are going to start failing in new browsers like Firefox 3. I never use tables. Ever. You could use them for tabular data, but I prefer divs. Divs and CSS are the way to go, along with XHTML 1.1. It almost ensures cross-browser/cross-platform compatibility. It is a must with fully dynamic sites also. Tables get to bulky, and too complicated too quickly. words of wisidom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phpQuestioner Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I would STRONGLY advise that you learn XHTML as soon as you can, and get away from tables, which are going to start failing in new browsers like Firefox 3. I never use tables. Ever. You could use them for tabular data, but I prefer divs. Divs and CSS are the way to go, along with XHTML 1.1. It almost ensures cross-browser/cross-platform compatibility. It is a must with fully dynamic sites also. Tables get to bulky, and too complicated too quickly. XHTML is the same things as HTML; it's just a more strict mark-up. Show me where that is documented - that html tables are going to be de-appericiated in any browser; I do what I do and you can do what you do - again; your another one of those people who doesn't get the point of this post - "personal preference". Maybe you should read the previous points I made in this thread. PS:This thread was already dead; you keep replying with witty comment and so will I - debate king here - you will not beat me on this - I guarantee it - so let it go. Your personal preference is not everyone else's personal preference. words of wisidom That's just in your wisdom book; not mine or everyone else's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 You will not win this argument with me; it just ain't going to happen guy. Sorry - I am the debating king and I don't give up! I could understand that position if you were right. Unfortunately ... This thread appears to have served whatever purpose it might have had. I'm closing it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts