Okay, CSS again!

[Ben]

Well I just found my old CSS 2 book which I bought a few months ago and I lost it sometime ago and I have found it so I'm giving CSS 2 ago now . Do you know CSS?

[DPS Computing]

Vaguely. I know the basics and am actually studying CSS at the moment at University.

Even with only knowing the basics at the moment I can say one comment - "Thank god for CSS". I don't know how we managed before it existed!! .

But seriously, it is a god send and makes development a lot easier and the way it was originally intended - formatting and content seperated! I use CSS on my website and it makes things a lot easier. I would recommend to anyway to avoid the depreacted tags in HTML and use CSS where possible.

Have you given up with the Java then?

[flesso]

I know quite a but of CSS, since I have been studying the 'CSS, DHTML & AJAX' book. I did know a bit of CSS before. I think thee are a few setbacks with CSS, one of them being that it is a bit more complicated to implement than bog standard tables.

As DPS said, it does make your development life alot more easier, I have started using CSS on my own website, but have stuck with tables for a couple of client websites just so I could get them done quicker, but they still look good.

I'm currently studying the 'PHP and MySQL For Dynamic Sites' book, it makes a very good read, and so far I've managed to implement a couple of advanved PHP settings - makes me feel special.

[Morledge]

Originally Posted by flesso

it is a bit more complicated to implement than bog standard tables.

Ah' men to that

I learnt HTML at a young age and used tables for years, now I use CSS and there are certainly times where I wish I could just put it all in tables, but usually I try to avoid that.

Don't get me wrong, I do love CSS and certainly see the benefits (smaller page sizes for a start)

Good luck with your book. I am sure there are plenty of people here to help if you get stuck with anything.

[Ben]

Thanks all for your comments. To answer DPS' question, no I haven't gave up with JAVA but I will be learning CSS first because it is quicker to understand. HTML tables are not Google-friendly I believe and so it is best to use CSS especially for tags that have been deprecated with W3C. Thanks for your support everyone and should I need help I will certainly post here.

[TaintedWoods]

got to disagree that its harder to implement websites in css than in tables, the ache i have on a weekly basis having to work on table based websites with millions of individual images to make sure the whole thing fitted together properly.

the great thing about css is that its so flexable and the amount of code needed is drastically reduced, once you get the hang of floats it takes minutes to create a reasonable layout that is pretty much fit for any purpose.

i think the best parts of correct xhtml and css are yet to come, in 12-18 months when your client wants a redesign it will be a massive time saver, moving the same content around but within a different design layout using only a stylesheet and the odd div change without having to start again from scratch with a new constrained table design.

[DPS Computing]

Yes, with if I used tables on my website it would take forever to update. There is literally hundreds of pages and changing little things like the styles of menus and headers and text can be done in a minute as well as stuff like layout in CSS. Plus there is also the fact that tables are meant for tabular data and not layout purposes!

If it was all in seperate tables on seperate pages I would need to change every table in every one of the few hundred pages to change a little thing which would take ages. Good luck with the CSS and later on the Java! Look forward to seeing your new site!

[Morledge]

I agree, CSS is a god send when it comes to design. I just find it easier to implement drop shadows using tables (and of course images) then in CSS.

I should have been more specific when slateing CSS

Roll on CSS3 which includes drop shadows as standard

[DPS Computing]

Thanks for clarifying that Morledge, I understand fully now. I thought you meant CSS in a more general sense.

Yes roll on CSS3 - it will be more to learn but will be worth it for the new features!

[TaintedWoods]

good luck with the java as well, I did java at university and thought it was an extremely good way to learn object orientated programming. It's a 'professional' language but not as fiddly as C# as a first language, I've found moving to other languages so much easier from the solid base Java gave.

My only concern with Java? I've never once used it outside of uni projects that specifically required its use, I've always found PHP and C# plenty good enough for web use. It'd be interesting to see some suggestions on where its application would be of better use... only thing I can think of is OS independance for non web applications.

[esnail]

It is simple enough to add drop shadows in CSS - just use background images on your containing DIV.
There is no area where tables are better than CSS for layout. Tables were designed for tabular data and were incorrectly used as a design/layout aid - which in fairness made the web more interesting. I, like all web designers used tables when it was the defacto standard to layout web websites but with the advent of CSS and particularly CSS 2.0, tables have been resigned to their appropriate function - tabular data.

If you continue to use tables for layout, they will have accessibility issues for the visually impaired - screen-readers won't read accurately, search engines won't search properly - and this will of course affect your page rankings and in a modern web that should be accessible to all web devices - i.e. ****** phones, PDA's and the like, a tabled website would need significant alterations in order to display properly.

A semantically structured , standards compliant HTML file with external style sheet to handle ALL the styling elements is the best and most efficient way to design web pages. Limited use of DIVs too can make your website more efficient, bandwidth friendly and search engine friendly. All HTML tags can be styled with CSS and all blocklevel HTML elements should be styled without a containing DIV where possible. This will ensure a page that is accessible to all special user needs, and can be styled according to the device it's being displayed on - or printer it is sent to.

When styling a well structured HTML page the freedom for creativity far outweighs anything that was dreamt of in the days of using tables for layout - and the fact that a CSS file need only be called once for an entire website - unlike a tabled website where the tables need to be redrawn every time a page is loaded, makes it far more efficient.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by esnail

It is simple enough to add drop shadows in CSS - just use background images on your containing DIV.
There is no area where tables are better than CSS for layout. Tables were designed for tabular data and were incorrectly used as a design/layout aid - which in fairness made the web more interesting. I, like all web designers used tables when it was the defacto standard to layout web websites but with the advent of CSS and particularly CSS 2.0, tables have been resigned to their appropriate function - tabular data.

If you continue to use tables for layout, they will have accessibility issues for the visually impaired - screen-readers won't read accurately, search engines won't search properly - and this will of course affect your page rankings and in a modern web that should be accessible to all web devices - i.e. ****** phones, PDA's and the like, a tabled website would need significant alterations in order to display properly.

A semantically structured , standards compliant HTML file with external style sheet to handle ALL the styling elements is the best and most efficient way to design web pages. Limited use of DIVs too can make your website more efficient, bandwidth friendly and search engine friendly. All HTML tags can be styled with CSS and all blocklevel HTML elements should be styled without a containing DIV where possible. This will ensure a page that is accessible to all special user needs, and can be styled according to the device it's being displayed on - or printer it is sent to.

When styling a well structured HTML page the freedom for creativity far outweighs anything that was dreamt of in the days of using tables for layout - and the fact that a CSS file need only be called once for an entire website - unlike a tabled website where the tables need to be redrawn every time a page is loaded, makes it far more efficient.

Wow, long post and interesting to read.

True about tables and it is the same problem with frames on websites as search engines can't get onto your website and crawl it. CSS is the future for web standards although HTML structural tags would still be needed but CSS would make more websites accessible in web browsers and most definitely save bandwidth. And I have just skipped a few chapters in my book to see what CSS offers and I couldn't believe how much stuff you can do with CSS. I am currently on chapter 2, page 21. I haven't been reading it much but I am starting to get going on this CSS book.

[WelshTom]

Tables do not affect the way search engines rank or view your website. Only frames get this sort of problem as the content isn't included within the primary source.

You should be using CSS to make the website, to make it more accessible, but at the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with a table layout if it is needed.

Although tables should only be used to display data.

[TaintedWoods]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Tables do not affect the way search engines rank or view your website.

From my understanding table nesting can do due to the way the spider navigates around the tabled content, I'm sure I read that somewhere in .Net magazine. Also a quick google found the link below.

Originally Posted by http://www.digital-web.com/articles/seo_and_your_web_site/

From a technical perspective, search engine spiders can read tables, and even embedded tables, but once a design gets to be more than about three tables deep, most spiders run into problems. Either it’s simply too much code for them to keep track of, or the search engine thinks you placed that content deep in the page because it’s not important, and so the engine gives it little or no value.

I mean, it's on the web it must be true!

That said, a quick look around suggests its something of a debated topic. Regardless there's very little reason to use tables for layout, doing so will only generate more work for yourself in the future and more oppurtunity for CSS based companies to move in

[WelshTom]

No body said anything about nesting tables? Anyway, nesting elements does not comform to XHTML standards, which by now most people should validate to.

[DPS Computing]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Tables do not affect the way search engines rank or view your website. Only frames get this sort of problem as the content isn't included within the primary source.

You should be using CSS to make the website, to make it more accessible, but at the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with a table layout if it is needed.

Although tables should only be used to display data.

As far as I was aware some search engines do penalise you for using tables in an incorrect manner as it makes accessibility problems for people with screen readers as well as the fact the tables are being used inproperly.

Sorry, got to disagree with the fact that it is OK to use tables for layout.

As was once famously said to me "Tables are for tabular data not layout!".

Plus why would you want to design a website by old standards and technology when you have CSS. I dragged my heels for a while and didnt want to use CSS but using CSS was the best choice of my life!. It is so much easier to use and redesigning your entire website (which for me is hundreds of pages) it makes it a lot easier.

CSS is in and tables are so, most definitely, out (apart from data that should be in tables) .

[newYounes]

It's not OK to use tables for layout.

Tables are not for layouts but are for tabular data !".
So I just have to disagree too. Plus, DPS computing is absolutely right.

So I suggest you listen to him.

[DPS Computing]

That is correct - most people these days do use CSS for a variety of reasons - complying with W3C standards, complying with the definition of what a table should and shouldn't be used for etc. Plus CSS does layout so cleanly there is no reason not to use it.

Name one disadvantage of CSS for layout?

[paul]

Originally Posted by DPS Computing

Name one disadvantage of CSS for layout?

Obviously Web standards is one of the essential part of your project, only single disadvantage you can experience that the older browsers, may not render the design in its full grandeur.

[DPS Computing]

Originally Posted by paul

Obviously Web standards is one of the essential part of your project, only single disadvantage you can experience that the older browsers, may not render the design in its full grandeur.

Yes, but most people upgrade their browsers these days - even if its not the latest version of a browser people normally have the one before that.