Re: Converting Centered Table Rows to Divs/CSS

by "talk2perry" <talk2perry(at)oaktreeweb.com>

 Date:  Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:59:00 -0500
 To:  "Rod Hutson" <rbhutson(at)ieee.org>,
<hwg-style(at)hwg.org>
 Cc:  <davida51(at)swbell.net>
 References:  pcrbhh swbell pcrbhh2 ibm23gg279 pcrbhh3
  todo: View Thread, Original
Thanks for your comments.  I must devote more time to being "up to date"
than "out of date."  After thinking about your comments I recall that there
are a number of cross browser table issues as well.  So, better to use a
designer's tool for its intended purpose.

Again, thanks for your very right on comments.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Hutson" <rbhutson(at)ieee.org>
To: <hwg-style(at)hwg.org>
Cc: <davida51(at)swbell.net>; "talk2perry" <talk2perry(at)oaktreeweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Converting Centered Table Rows to Divs/CSS


> talk2perry,
>
> I can appreciate your uncertainty over an effort to replace a perfectly
> useful and easy to understand method of placing elements on a page, using
> tables, with something "new" like CSS - its like jumping out of a
perfectly
> good airplane and hoping your newly packed 'chute opens before you hit the
> ground.
>
> >From my perspective, tables are great - they've allowed me to "get the
job
> done" for the past five years of webpage buildling - but they don't allow
me
> to efficiently and practically place an object just anywhere on a
screen...
> I'm limited to the grid size of the table, and my stamina in designing and
> maintaining them.
>
> Tables don't address the problem of presentation using new options to
screen
> display: audio, braille, WAP, and so on.  This is no big deal today, but
> later this year, its going to be a HUGE deal for government-funded
> web-masters in the USA.  Accessibility is about to become a major driving
> force on the 'Net.
>
> Tables are complex and easily get out of hand on a complicated (ie current
> vogue) layout page - if you don't obsessively document table rows and
> columns, sometimes down to the cell level, it can be like maintaining the
> spaghetti code of old BASIC programs a few months later... even the author
> of the original HTML will struggle with adding a new element or
re-locating
> an existing one.
>
> Tables in some versions of Netscape don't inherit their styles (fonts,
> colors, etc) as they're supposed to, adding to the maintenence complexity
in
> requiring that each cell have its style re-defined individually, making
your
> code lengthy and ugly and REALLY cluttered.  Subsequent changes to
preferred
> font or colors forces a lot of rework at the page level.
>
> But my main argument for not using tables to enable layout is that they're
> tables, not layout tools.  They were intended to provide a means of
> presenting tabluar data via the web, back when the web was a scientist's
> communication medium.  Their use as a layout tool was a subsequent hack to
> provide restless designers a little control over element positioning in
the
> old top-to-bottom oriented HTML.  They were a stopgap when there were no
> other options.  I can use a hammer to cut wood if necessary, but after
> somebody gives me a saw, I quickly figure out that the hammer was pretty
> crude and slow - it still works, but I prefer the saw.
>
> And this, I believe is the crux of the issue.  Today's current
> standards-compliant (well, almost compliant) browser versions no longer
> require this hack - the proper means of laying out your page is finally
> available, allowing you to position an element ANYWHERE on (or off) the
page
> that you want, with far more accuracy and deliberation than tables ever
> could.  Its time to abandon the hack and get back to coding with the
proper
> tools instead of spending all afternoon trying to force-fit a layout into
a
> tabular arrangement.
>
> Yeah, I know - Homesite and other HTML coding tools provide extremely
> powerful search-and-replace engines, including decent grep/AWK/SED -like
> macro languages.  But wouldn't you rather work on just one style sheet for
> your whole website, than worry about if the search-replace effort caught
all
> the pages in all the subdirectories, and "do I have to spend all night
> spot-checking the entire website for snafu's"?
>
> You can start using CSS now, or you can do it later.  If you are a
> web-professional, I'd recommend you start learning now, because in two
years
> you'll be disadvantaged compared to those who have by then mastered CSS
and
> are working on other tools that will be optimized for integration into
> CSS-based pages.
>
> I prefer to start changing now, so I can "get the job done" today, and get
> it done again in six months when the design has been modified.  And I'll
> continue to use tables to present tabular data as necessary.  At least,
> that's how I see this issue...
> Rod
>
>
>

HWG hwg-style mailing list archives, maintained by Web Professional Association - IWA