Your opinions on Tables

@Kelley_PoulosMar 25.2003

I’ve seen (heard?) several folks voicing distaste for tables. What’s up with that?

to post a comment

43 Comments(s) _↴

@VladdyMar 25.2003 — #Depends what you are using them for.

Tables are meant for presentation of tabular data. Using them for page layout is like using a screwdriver to drive a nail in...

@Tim158Mar 25.2003 — #In general, using tables is not a bad thing. Using tables for layout IS a bad thing.

HTML should be used to define the structure of a web page. The layout of the web page is concerned with style - so style sheets should be used for layout - Use CSS instead of HTML to create layout.

There is nothing that you cannot do with CSS that you can do with tables - in fact CSS can do more.

For more info on positioning using CSS:

http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_positioning.asp

Tim.

@nkaisareMar 25.2003 — #

1. Tables for layout was a [b]hack from the old times[/b] when HTML did not give authors enough control on positioning various elements on a page. Its still a [b]hack[/b] and should rather not be (ab)used when other options are available.

2. Tables [b]bloat up the page size[/b]. You have the unnecessary <tr><td> tags with bgcolors, widths etc.

3. Often tables need to be nested, causing confusion. They are also more [b]difficult to debug[/b].

4. HTML is a markup language... so [b]HTML markup should make structural sense[/b], not just visual sense. Using CSS for layout allows you to do that, by separating content from layout.

Of course, your page's layout and content are not independant of one another. What "separating content and layout" means is that you let your [b]content have a structure[/b] and let [b]CSS position it to give visual effect[/b].

5. Finally, the oft cited reason: Tables do not make sense if you have a non-visual browser. Yeah, I dont care about non-IE/NS/Opera users, you'd say. Well, what about [b]search engines[/b]? What about PDAs that may not be capable of laying out a page like PC... you wouldn't want to create wholly different site for them, when you can use a different CSS for the same HTML. If webdeveloping is your profession, you may want to think about [b]accessibility[/b] issues with webpages before someone "slams the hammer".

@khakiMar 25.2003 — #[B]Kelly wrote: [/B][I]I've seen (heard?) several folks voicing distaste for tables. What's up with that?[/I][/QUOTE]Hi Kelly...

Yeah... I think that you heard some of that from [I]me[/I] in a very recent thread by dmason165 (Centering text vertically??).

But I was referring only to positioning.

I primarily work with data - and therefore I work with a lot of tables.

I love data... and I love tables! But I will never (again... although I used to) nest tables for positioning.

I use CSS to position all my tables now, and I am able to spend more time working with the data now that I don't have to waste time trying to figure out why my nested tables are not behaving as expected.

Tables (just like <br> and <p> - and who knows what other hacks) [I]can[/I] be used for positioning... but they just [I]shouldn't[/I] (CSS saves us from that now).

And nkaisare is right: tables do cause bloat ([I]especially nested tables[/I]). But tables used with CSS (for bg-color, font formatting, widths, alignment, etc) really help to cut-down on some of that bloat.

So... tables are good... when used for the proper purpose (and when hard-coded. WYSIWYG tables are [I]always[/I] confusing and bloated headaches! sorry.... tossed some heavy-handed opinion in there. lol)

probably over-explained things to avoid appearing anti-table...

k

@SeGamysaMar 25.2003 — #lol @ kahki nice description there.

?

I'm just curious as to why call it a hack

I beilive it to be more an exploit more then anything else.

although I am guilty of using the tables for alignment thingy.

@nkaisareMar 25.2003 — #Its called a hack because tables are meant for tabular data. Navigation bar on the left of the main contents is NOT tabular data. Its hacking table capabilities to get a specific layout.

Tables are here to be used... and they should be used for tabular data. Most often, its clear whether certain data is tabular or not (eg Name, email, phone # kind info is tabular, navigation bars is not). Also, a table should be accompanied with a summary attribute, that summarizes contents of a table for browsers that may not display a table.

Eg:

<table border="0" summary="Contact information of users of webdeveloper forum">

Does your data fit that kind of description? If yes, its probably tabular data.

@Phil_KarrasMar 25.2003 — #Boy do I ever agree with the points against using tables for positioning.

Using one table may be fine, but I had a dickens of a time cleaning up a web site created by a company that used at least three layers of tables sometimes four in order to position things.

It's taken me a year to finally get rid of two of those layers (sometimes three) of tables so that now we're down to just one, or at most two.

The main problem I had with them was that whenever we needed to make a change I could get it working correctly in one browser or another but not in both browsers (various versions) at the same time.

So, if CSS will work with this (guess another book is in order?) I may be able to get rid of all tables on that site!

At least now I can make changes & additions without screwing up one or the other browser.

Thanks for the good information! Do you know a good place to learn more about css? I've only used it a bit and what you're talking about is more involved than anything I've done with it or even knew could be done with it.

@khakiMar 25.2003 — #[I][B]SeGamysa wrote:[/B] I'm just curious as to why call it a hack I beilive it to be more an exploit more then anything else.[/I][/QUOTE]Well... okay... that's a matter of semantics, I suppose.

<p> and <br> tags are often [I]mis-used[/I] for positioning, but yes... they are necessary for page layout of [I]text[/I].

I think everyone has seen a page at one time or another with the following in it:[B]

<p>

<p>

<p>

<p>[/B]

Such use of the <p> tag was [I]not[/I] being used for anything [I]except as a hack[/I] for influencing page layout/position of objects.

An [I]accepted[/I] hack (?) is the use of transparent GIFS ([I]spacers[/I]) that aid in positioning:

<img src="spacer.gif" width=125px height=1px>

It can be argued that this is an [I]exploit[/I]... but realistically it is a (effective!) hack which eliminates the need to go to greater lengths to do it a [I]proper[/I] way.

[B]BUT...[/B] before anyone gets the impression that I consider myself to be some kind of inflexible and intolerant web compliance defender... I'm definitely not!

I learned web development a few years ago (self-taught, as well... so you [I]know[/I] that is trouble!), and I only learned CSS a few months ago.

Therefore I know and use so many hack solutions (even to this day) in my work that I'm almost embarrassed to speak on this subject. But...

My point (originally) was [I][B]don't use (or learn to use) tables/nested tables for positioning[/B][/I].

But... if you want to do it.. do it. Just remember though.... the headache will be [I]yours[/I]. My point was to save people the headaches that I have had to endure. But I also know that some people need to feel the pain before they beleive that it exists. Fair enough.

For the rest of you. I suggest learning a little CSS (which is easier that you might think) and liberate yourself from some of the more painful positioning/page layout woes that exist.

WHEW! Can I talk or what!

Sorry :rolleyes:

doesn't understand the concept of pithy comments...

k

@VladdyMar 25.2003 — #There is so much more you can do with CSS that is impossible with tables...

@khakiMar 25.2003 — #and now... while i feel [I]really[/I] stupid for carrying on and on...

Here is the book that I use Phil:

DHTML and CSS For the Wide World Web

(Visual Quickstart Guide)

Authored by Jason Cranford Teague

On the web at:

www.webbedenvironments.com/dhtml/

... i'll shut up about this now :rolleyes:

surely unable to keep quiet for too long...

k

[I]EDIT[/I]: Hey... don't blame me... blame Kelly! She started this! LOL ?

@DaveSWMar 25.2003 — #Tim's link near the top of this thread is quite good.

@nkaisareMar 25.2003 — #Couple more links... just on CSS for layout

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html

http://www.glish.com/css/

A nice site I'd like you guys to look at is

http://www.rickbull.co.uk/

Rick was, like most of us here, just getting started with HTML when he started visiting this forum. Now, he has moved on to build a real nice site using HTML and CSS (and no tables ?).

Hey Rick (if u r listening),

I hope its OK with you if I mention your site... I just draw a lot of inspiration from your work ?

@khakiMar 25.2003 — #Hey nkaisare...

GREAT LINKS!

(see... i coudn't even keep quiet for a half-hour! :rolleyes: )

thenoodleincident is excellent. What a great way to cheat and steal! (errr... borrow)

I had found Glish from a blogger link a while ago (before I had the patience to learn CSS). He's always had a good site and I've swiped stuff (errrr... borrowed stuff) from him in the past.

I didn't realize that our own RickBull had such an informative site (you can even learn to play the guitar! lol).

Nice job nkaisare!

Thanks for the great links...

? k

@nkaisareMar 25.2003 — #If you can't stop talking, then neither can I ?

Yeah, I was almost on an "exile" from this forum for about 8 months. When I returned, I got a PM from Rick. Thats when I saw his site. I remember one of the first discussions with Rick was about text sizes in tables. Stefan would go on and on, in his own inimitable (is that word right here?) style, on why we shouldn't use tables. I didn't think much of his advice to begin with, until I did some serious HTML/CGI job for a conference website. Thats why, when people keep using tables for navigation links, I call it "a burden of history".

Anyway, visit http://www.thenoodleincident.com using NS4.7 (or if you have Opera, use View >> Style >> "User Mode". It displays an image with "update browser" message. Even in text browsers like lynx, the site looks good. I really liked thenoddleincident site.

Feeling nostalgic rite now.

Cheers

Niket

@Kelley_PoulosauthorMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by khaki [/i]

[B][I]EDIT[/I]: Hey... don't blame me... blame Kelly! She started this! LOL ? [/B][/QUOTE]

And I'm glad I did. Thanks for the links all.

To summarize what I read above:

- Most agree that tables are not to be avoided completely, just in cases where CSS can do the job better.

- Tables, especially nested, can cause headaches for those destined to support the pages.

- CSS helps reduce code-bloat in comparison to tables.

Thanks all for the well thought out discussion.

kelley

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #I still hand code my own tables and I am not alone. There are millions of sites out there using tables including some very well known companies.

This forum uses tables. Many of them use a WYSIWUG Editor.

Others have pages with a mixture of CSS and HTML and use HTML tables. CSS is not yet 100% compatible to all Browsers. There are also javascript tables. I see a lot of pages with the text on top of other text because of using CSS.

Still others do their code in WYSIWYG Editors like MSPublisher, Front Page, and the like. I believe they might use some CSS or Style. But you have to learn all over again to hand code one of those pages.

To me that is why the idea to set a standard for the code using CSS was needed. Not a properly coded table.

Oh Well!

This is what bothers me most. If someone wants to use tables, and asks to solve a problem with a table. Why can't they get the answer to ask without being discouraged. Maybe they can't learn CSS, or don't want to learn it. We all have different levels, This forum has levels from the very bottom to the hightest. Somehow the higher the level the more confusing the answer can be to a beginner.

? ? ?

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #Tables are [b]not[/b] a [b]solution[/b] to layout problems. Their use [for layout] is discouraged by W3C.

WYSI!WYG editors were initially designed before browsers implemented CSS and back at the time when web was accessed using desktop PCs. These editors are not being updated to generate CSS code because they have no future. As web browsing moves to all kind of devices from cell phones to WebTV, the whole WYSIWYG concept becomes extinct. You can no longer anticipate what device will be used to access the web site.

W3C standards were created so that web can be accessed by any media. That is why you have separation of content from presentation: content goes in HTML presentation in CSS. No HTML element should be used for presentation purposes, just to logically divide the content.

Those who still use tables (and god forbid frames) for layout are designing for the past not for the future, setting themselves up for doing the same job twice.

@Robert_WellockMar 26.2003 — #Yes, Rick Bull is busy in his new job that is why he doesn't visit much now, he learnt quite a lot about CSS, but mostly XHTML from myself a few years back.

Honestly CSS layout is very simple and one taught myself CSS-P three years back (browsers like Micro$oft that are riddled with bugs are what make it hard to apply successfully).

The place where I apply CSS-P most: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/worthvalley/ the additional problems with using the <table> element are many voice browsers will have difficulty interpreting the data.

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media.

Again nesting of the <table> element is illegal in "XHTML Basic 1.0" but remember many older browsers have poor support for CSS-P.

Albeit a semantically marked up website in XHTML 1.1 and CSS-P should degrade gracefully even when CSS rendering is disabled.

Typically the average web author would be using tables for layout for various reasons, however we have now reached 2003 where the browsers like Mozilla, which is fairly capable at rendering CSS-P are being used by more than just hardcore web-developers. Thus it becomes more practical to use CSS-P.

Many people looked at my stupidly a few years back when I mentioned that I used CSS-P.

It's really only this year that some of the major corporates have started to wake-up to the idea of XHTML and CSS-P which as been around several years, you'd have thought they had invented it themselves by all the fuss they've made.

I would give a table solution to a question on the <table> element assuming that it was semantically appropriate in the context of structural markup, or I knew the seeker of knowledge had minimalist familiarity with CSS, learning things correctly the first time, saves time in the long run.

@lora_3677Mar 26.2003 — #First... I want to admit that I'm guilty of using tables for pretty much everything and anything... so i'm not giving out my site here because i don't want slammed. ha ha.

However, once reviewing your comments and weighing the alternatives... I'm happy to announce that I will now alter my web lifestyle and begin to learn CSS and whatever else is out there. I'm a new web developer (less than 3 years) and I'm don't want to be accused of being prehistoric before i'm matured. hee hee ?

Gonna have to check out those sites and get some books!! Any books you all would recommend as excellent resources??

@SeGamysaMar 26.2003 — #i hit chapetrs after work yesterday.

I'm glad this thread came up.

considering I'm only an intern I want to learn all that I possibly can.

@nkaisareMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jdavia [/i][/quote]
[B]I still hand code my own tables and I am not alone.[/B]

Thats why I am begining to develop an opinion that viewing source code is not the best way to learn HTML anymore. Look at Amazon website... so much of their HTML is a bunch of crap. They nest 4 tables to get the round border. I mean come on, 4 nested tables where <div style="border:" would do (of course it wont give rounded borders, not yet though.

[b]This forum uses tables.[/b]

Some people can argue that the forum data is quasi-tabular. <div float> also works for this forum. Anyway, situations like these, we may choose one over the other.

[b]CSS is not yet 100% compatible to all Browsers.[/b]

CSS is compatible enough with all browsers IE5/NS6 onwards. There are minor issues, but then amazon.com doesn't look exactly same on NS, IE and opera.

[b]I see a lot of pages with the text on top of other text because of using CSS.[/b]

Almost invariably its misunderstanding of position: absolute. As of now, mixing position absolute and relative is ill advised. Show me example of a website where you saw this (NS4.7 does that all the time, but that browser is probably the worst browser---with respect to CSS---ever to hit the market.

[b]This is what bothers me most. If someone wants to use tables, and asks to solve a problem with a table. Why can't they get the answer to ask without being discouraged. Maybe they can't learn CSS, or don't want to learn it.[/b]

I held similar opinions an year back. But now I realize that its no more difficult to learn CSS (at least the basics to get you going) that to learn HTML. For a large part, the questions asked on the forum were such that WYSIWYG alone couldn't solve them. People HAD to read the source and modify it.

Again, a mistake people do is to use all the possible CSS properties on their tags. C'mon, why do you need line-heights, and font-stretch when you are trying to learn what position: absolute/relative/static/fixed does?

:confused: :confused: :confused:[/QUOTE]
Well, lets agree to disagree then. Which is good, because if people hear both sides of the story, they will be able to make an informed decision. Atleast thats what I hope.

Peace!

Niket

@khakiMar 26.2003 — #[I][B]Lora wrote:[/B] Any books you all would recommend as excellent resources?[/I][/QUOTE]Well... I realize (and I am told numerous times... sorry :rolleyes: ) that I write [I]so[/I] much, that people just [I]stop reading[/I] (I really need to correct that... [I]I know[/I] ... but I just don't know how ? ).

But... I [I]did[/I] suggest a good book Lora...

[B]DHTML and CSS For the Wide World Web[/B]

(Visual Quickstart Guide)

Authored by Jason Cranford Teague

On the web at:

www.webbedenvironments.com/dhtml/

It's my only [I]printed[/I] CSS resource, and it has helped me understand the technology pretty well. The online part of it is good for samples and stuff, but the book explains things really well (it costs $22 - American - but I would buy it again if I lost it or something... so it's worth it).

(ugh. "if I lost it [I]or something[/I]"? What is wrong with me? I don't even know what that means... and yet... I wrote it. yikes! :rolleyes: ).

Anyway... that's my suggestion (by the way... we're the same age. You are 16 days older than me. Summer babys! Just thought I'd mention that - although once again... I don't know why). [COLOR=GREEN][I]EDIT: oh boy... no. I'm thinking of someone else from another thread. :rolleyes: It looks like it's gonna be one of [B]those days[/B] for me. never mind ? .[/I][/COLOR]

feeling good today... and not feeling the need to apologize for it...

k

@pyroMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by lora_3677 [/i]

[B]Any books you all would recommend as excellent resources?? [/B][/QUOTE]Core CSS by Keith Schengili-Roberts is a good book, if you are looking for a reference book on CSS. It's not a tutorial book, but is very handy to have around as a reference to the various CSS properties.

@nkaisareMar 26.2003 — #Eric Meyer's book is good too.

BTW, I learnt all my CSS from (in order of their use):

http://forums.webdeveloper.com

http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html

http://www.glish.com/css/

@lora_3677Mar 26.2003 — #Awesome!! Thank you all for your input. Truly appreciated!! ?

I'm going to check out the sites

Lora

_________________________________________
(Web Developer Guru WannaBe) <--A girl has to have goals!

PS Khaki: sorry for not reading the whole post....

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #This is a good time for me to ask a question now that I have everyone's attention. I am using tables and frames to build these pages. (God forbid.

I have a need for some pages to show my own version of Karoke. Instead of highlighting the text, I want it to scroll automatically in time to the music keeping the portion on the screen that is being read, with a stationary background, and an embeded sond (This is solved and working).

I must also have at the top, visible all the time, a menu that is displayed for all pages that does not scroll.

So I designed the pages in borderless frames with no scrollbars. Using a small frame at the top with a four column table menu, and a large frame at the bottom with a table for the scrolling words. (This is also solved and working).

I know frames and tables are not the favorites of most on this forum, si I ask!

Does anyone have an easier, or better way of making these pages. If so I could use your help.

@pyroMar 26.2003 — #jdavia-

Post a link where we can see the page that you are talking about.

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by pyro [/i]

[B]jdavia-

Post a link where we can see the page that you are talking about. [/B][/QUOTE]
It is not uploaded yet. But I will zip a sample soon.

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #See the site I'm working on now for an example of "as fluid as it gets" ? layout that does not use any frames to achieve the desired result: http://www.klproductions.com/home.html

@nkaisareMar 26.2003 — #<table id="tnc">

<tr><td>

<table id="tnit1"><tr><td id="tnit1l" class="tabside"></td><td id="tnit1c" class="tabtext"><a href="wdservices.html" class="tablink">Web Design</a></td><td id="tnit1r" class="tabside"></td></tr></table>

</td><td>

<table>...[/quote]
Vladdy, you [i]still[/i] use nested tables for top navigation links, why not use 'em for entire page?

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #First, there are some IE bugs with inline elements rendering that I have not found the work-around for.

Second, the page is still under construction and I am working on making the layout table-free - just needed a quick fix for the interim.

Third, look at the big picture instead of picking at irrelevant details, then you understand why the shown layout and related features will only work with CSS.

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jdavia [/i]

[B]It is not uploaded yet. But I will zip a sample soon. [/B][/QUOTE]
Here it is. It is a sample page and needs more work.

VLADDY I tried to open your site and got locked up . I was using NS4.7. I have NS7.2 but the post wiindow is too small.

[upl-file uuid=f750a495-0f8d-4559-ad13-54adb9ce617b size=42kB]blackmoney1.zip[/upl-file]

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jdavia [/i]

[B]It is not uploaded yet. But I will zip a sample soon. [/B][/QUOTE]
It was too large to post at one time. So I had to delete the music from it. It was a wav file and too large also.

Why a wav? It is needed to convert to a filename extention for karaoke.

You should get what I am up to from the other file

@nkaisareMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Vladdy [/i][/QUOTE]
I wasn't nitpicking, and these aren't irrelevant details. If it were from someone asking for help/advise etc, I wouldn't have used the tone I did. You claim your site to be "an example of as fluid as it gets"hence I aksed abt the tables. Anyway, I didn't intend to sound mean or rude, just made an observation.

jdavia, you may want to start a new thread with your question. Some people who aren't interested in CSS/Tables discussion may miss your post.

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jdavia [/i]

[B] I was using NS4.7. I have NS7.2 but the post wiindow is too small. [/B][/QUOTE]
It's time you did the uninstall on your NS4.7 - it does not support anything.

Not sure what you mean by too small of a post window in NS7.2...

@nkaisareMar 26.2003 — #http://klproductions.com:8080/wdscp.html

Doesn't display right with Opera 7.01, NS7. And whats up with that do not copy my client-side scripts notice?

I hope I am not rubbing you the wrong way.

Also, to workaround NS4.7 crap, you may want to create a dummy stylesheet that "@import"s the real stylesheet. (See stylesheets of http://www.thenoodleincident.com to understand what I mean)

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #nkaisare,

It is just one element on my site that temporary uses tables, because of IE bugs. It does not impact the fluidity of the page that adjusts to the browser window and allows user to pick one of the three (more coming) stylesheets to chose presentation (first time visitor gets the stylesheet that is most suitable for his/her browser window size). When the window gets too small the scrolling mechanism for navigation is introduced.

If you know of the site that has does more than what I demonstrate to fit itself in the browser window, please post a link.

Also, how many times do I have to say that it is work in progress? The page you referenced has a script that has not been finished yet.

Opera 7. does not support DOM features that are utilized in this script and there are a few issues with NS7.0 that are still being worked on.

As far as N4.7 and other stylesheets it is all planned down the line. I'm very well aware of the possible techniques as far as how to introcude them.

As far as my notice goes, if you want to view the page, agree not to copy my intellectual property ?

?

@jdaviaMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by Vladdy [/i]

[B]It's time you did the uninstall on your NS4.7 - it does not support anything.

Not sure what you mean by too small of a post window in NS7.2... [/B][/QUOTE]
No it is not time to get rid of NS4.7. I as well as many others use it to check compatibllity of code. The Browser still is in use today. Maybe you need to write for compatibiity.

I checked your site with the three Browsers mentioned above. Here are the differences I got.

NS4.7 crashed

IE6 showed almost a plain text page.

NS7.2 Showed a well constructed page that I must say I admire.

But is is not compatible with a late Browser like IE6. So is it time to get rid of that too? I think your code is a bit ahead of some late Browser's.

I explained the message window size in previous posts. The source code in this forum showed different sizes. NS4.7 size was 50px, IE6 size was 70 and NS7.2 size was 40.

@VladdyMar 26.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by jdavia [/i]

[B]No it is not time to get rid of NS4.7. I as well as many others use it to check compatibllity of code. The Browser still is in use today. Maybe you need to write for compatibiity.

I checked your site with the three Browsers mentioned above. Here are the differences I got.

NS4.7 crashed

IE6 showed almost a plain text page.

NS7.2 Showed a well constructed page that I must say I admire.

But is is not compatible with a late Browser like IE6. So is it time to get rid of that too? I think your code is a bit ahead of some late Browser's.

[/B][/QUOTE]

While developers keep supporting NS4.7 users will be in no rush to upgrade therefore developers are to blame themselves for thier headaches with NS4.7.

Do you have JavaScript enabled in your IE6.0?

My page should display fine in IE5+, and all Gecko based browsers with JS Enabled. It will degrade to pretty much plane text in all others.

I develop to the standards (with a few workarounds for IE bugs and deficiences). Making the page look the same in ALL browsers is not worth it. As long as the page is still accessible which it is even in Lynx, I'm happy.

It crashes in NS4.7 because I'm currently playing with a "midway" stylesheet for it...

@khakiMar 26.2003 — #[I][B]Vladdy wrote:[/B] While developers keep supporting NS4.7 users will be in no rush to upgrade therefore developers are to blame themselves for thier headaches with NS4.7.[/I][/QUOTE] That's my theory too!

Keep up... or get left behind.

(it's not like there isn't an option available to do so).

But... that same comment has already ignited a firestorm in a previous post, so I guess I'll brace for another battle.

one warning: don't mess with a gung-ho Marine Corps brat when she is already all stoked-up...

k

@nkaisareApr 03.2003 — #Reviving this thread after a week. May be just a way to vent my frustration.

Well, my bank just changed their website for "improved user satisfaction" crap. It requires IE5+ or NS6+ browser only. Opera doesn't work (even when used as "identify as IE6").

OK, so you'd think that now atleast they can use CSS. Hell No! They use 4 levels of nested tables!

And the HTML... its freaking 112KB. I am begining to HATE Javascript. I can't do any serious browsing from my home anymore (56.6 modem). Even if images are turned off, it takes 20 seconds to load each page.

@VladdyApr 03.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by nkaisare [/i]

[B]I am begining to HATE Javascript.[/B][/QUOTE]
... guns do not kill people, people with guns do...

@jdaviaApr 03.2003 — #[i]Originally posted by nkaisare [/i]

[B][size=-4]Well, my bank just changed their website for "improved user satisfaction" crap. It requires IE5+ or NS6+ browser only. Opera doesn't work (even when used as "identify as IE6").

OK, so you'd think that now atleast they can use CSS. Hell No! They use 4levels of nested tables!

And the HTML... its freaking 112KB. I am begining to HATE Javascript. I can't do any serious browsing from my home anymore (56.6 modem). Even if images are turned off, it takes 20 seconds to load each page.[/size][/B][/QUOTE]
Probably because the webmaster is using an editor that controls the format instead of him. Like a publisher, or word processing application. It has nothing to do with the standards of code. It has to do with the webmasters unconcern for maximum visibility in some browsers.

That means somewhere about 40% will have problems with the site in one way or another, acording to these figures. Which has nothing to do with tables.

My stats show

IE6+ 56.7%

IE5+ 16%

NS4+ 13.3%

NS7+ 6.7%

Mozila 6.7+

________________

Operating Systems

Win 98 36.7%

Win XP 33.3%

Win ME 20%

Win 2000 6.7%

Mac OS 3.3%

Also in #HTML _↴

Sending Text to My Computer/Email Want a big pic as my background Spacing between two rows - No whitespaces seems to be intorduced.

Success!

Help @Kelley_Poulos spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This

Your opinions on Tables

43 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴

Success!

Social

Version

Your opinions on Tables

43 Comments(s) ↴

Also in #HTML ↴

Success!

The web is an endless sea of information. Don't miss the boat... Subscribe!

Social

Version

43 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴