ForumGarden

I'll throw in my two cents...(even though this thread is two months old)

Tables are nice, but were never intended to be used the way they have been (i.e., graphics layouts, etc.) Future web standards will disallow the use of tables in this manner, so it would behoove any aspiring web designers out to start learning CSS (as well as XML and XHTML....but that's for a different thread).

Besides, changing a few lines of CSS is a whole lot easier than having to edit every file of your site if you wish to make a layout change!

it's a case of what suits you best isnt it?

obviously, dont go making turbular data stuffs with css, however, if you are able to grasp css, imo css is the way forth. the look is more consistent in different browsers and it is much much easier to edit.

with nest tables within tables to create a desired layout, it often gets too confusing for the designer, let alone others who are trying to understand it.

orangutan wrote: it's a case of what suits you best isnt it?

obviously, dont go making turbular data stuffs with css, however, if you are able to grasp css, imo css is the way forth. the look is more consistent in different browsers and it is much much easier to edit.

with nest tables within tables to create a desired layout, it often gets too confusing for the designer, let alone others who are trying to understand it.


I would think that it is a question of what the customer wants for his site. If depends on the number of pages and what is on the pages. Each site has its own dynamic. Some want every page to have a different theme. This excludes css from being used as the predominant feature of changing the site without having to do every page individually.

I'm going to reactivate this thread as well.

I've ended up using table layouts for my sites and saving them as templates with one or two editable regions. I can change the entire site by just changing the template.

What I'm undecided on is whether or not templates are better than frames.

L4DD13;459316 wrote: Lol u cn do that with DIVs with better customisation.

Tables shouldnt be used for layouts IMHO.


I'm not all that conversant with CSS at this point. I've learned basic html and then have Dreamweaver do the rest. I tried setting up their premade templates and it ended in disaster.

What's the deal with frames? A friend of mine calls it "nasty and horrid". I used them once and found it kind of fun.

L4DD13;459316 wrote: Tables shouldnt be used for layouts IMHO.Would you like to explain this in terms of your earlier "I prefer to use tables for graphical layouts and use div tags for simple informative websites"? Is there something specific about graphics?

So, to summarise the advice so far and add slightly to it, we're recommending:

• A single CSS file covering the entire site to dictate layout and general appearanceA template (if we're in an environment like DreamWeaver) to carry at least a portion of the metatags, the client-side and server-side programming functions, standardised webpage header or footer requirementsDIV-wrapped HTML content ordered not by layout considerations but perhaps by the meat-first links-and-fripperies-later needs of, for example, screen-reader software, and simplified maintenanceSites like http://www.csszengarden.com/ give a good indication of why to at least try. Goodness knows people put enough effort into learning layout tricks when tables and frames were the sole option, it's an effort of will to leave that investment behind and start afresh with the current paradigm. It's not that tables won't or can't, so much as the flexibility which comes from adopting the new syntaxes for layout and reverting tables to their original role of tabulation.
  
  Quite how someone who wants to get into constructing their own website is meant to begin, these days, I'm not sure. The learning curve is immense. If it were just a matter of these initial constructs then it would be manageable but that's only fine for sites whose content is fully known at the time they're written. Any page content which is only determined at the moment of use requires a programming language as well. If the fresh content is derived solely from the user (or client) then the programming can run on the user's computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-side_scripting discusses the two most common, Javascript and VBScript. If the fresh content is derived from the host server then languages like php, VBScript (again) or perl are common. If the server-side fresh content is to be stored and updated there, then a database engine is a likely addition.
  
  Possibly - just possibly - there are pre-coded functions and routines which will do exactly what's needed and the constructor can copy/paste that into their page. Possibly they'll walk away and install a package instead, hoping to tailor the appearance to conform to their original design. What they'll not easily do is master the entire set of tools that are needed to construct a dynamic site from scratch, especially against a time constraint.
  
  Go on, Michael, let's depress them a bit more shall we?

CSS Rules! 'nuff said.