> > Stop trying to hold onto tables. You're only harming yourself... and your > clients... and your visitors. :-)
Amen On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Larry Garfield <[email protected]>wrote: > I had already long-since abandoned table-based layout as an unmaintainable > mess by the time jQuery came about. Certainly manipulating the page at > runtime will be easier if you have semantically useful markup rather than > presentational markup. That way you can vary the presentation by just > flipping some CSS settings rather than screwing with the DOM (which is > harder, more error prone, takes more code, and makes the browser work harder > which results in slower pages). > > Really. Stop trying to hold onto tables. You're only harming yourself... > and your clients... and your visitors. :-) > > --Larry Garfield > > On 5/2/11 6:47 PM, Warren Vail wrote: > >> Larry, >> >> I Did a little more research that generated a new question, would love >> to get your input. >> >> I did find several sites designed for mobile devices that are being used >> successfully with tables so that bit may have been speculation, but I >> did discover, I think, two modules within Drupal that might not work >> well with Tabled layout, jQuery and RDF. jQuery alone is probably worth >> my learning CSS layout, just to be able to crank out all the possible >> features there now and in the future. RDF, unless I miss-read something, >> seems to be designed to make the search engine job easier by providing a >> mechanism for you to tell the search engine the entire story of a page, >> something normal text scanning could (and does) occasionally miss. My >> only reservation about RDF is the potential for abuse, but then I >> probably will find they’ve fixed that when I read a bit more on the >> subject. >> >> Is it true that jQuery has problems with tabled layout? >> >> /*/Warren Vail/*/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*[email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Larry Garfield >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 01, 2011 10:45 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [development] Tables in Themes in Drupal 7 >> >> Table-based markup: >> >> 1) Is worse for search engines. Search engines handle semantic markup >> better, because they can extract useful information about the page from >> the markup. Tables confuse them and they cannot rank the data on the >> page as well. >> >> 2) Is more verbose. While your eyes may have grown accustomed to it, >> that makes the page load more slowly. With the proliferation of the >> wireless web (back to dialup speeds we go!), that is a significant >> problem. The usual example I use here is Slashdot, which switched from >> table-based to pure-CSS layout back in the early '00s and saved multiple >> *gigabytes* of data transfer per month. That translates into $$$, as >> well as a faster user experience. >> >> 3) Is harder to maintain. Really. Even in a CMS. >> >> 4) Is not accessible. By "accessible" I mean "makes sense to something >> other than a pair of human eyeballs". Screen readers, search engines, >> assitive technology (for people that are partially disabled), etc. all >> work better with intelligent, semantic markup than with purely visual >> markup. >> >> 5) Is harder to build. Really. Especially in a dynamic system like >> Drupal, table-based layout makes it harder to build a flexible page. >> >> 6) Doesn't scale down to mobile browsers. Mobile browsers will be the >> majority of web traffic within 2 years or so by some estimates. In some >> parts of the world it already is. Good semantic designs scale down to 4" >> screens far more easily than tables. I'd go as far as saying that >> "adaptive design" (where the layout changes depending on the size of the >> screen automatically) is simply impossible with tables. >> >> 7) Doesn't offer anywhere near the expressive power of CSS. If you're >> trying to get a visual effect fancier than three columns with fixed >> rectangular color regions, you need to use CSS for styling. Tables just >> can't do that. >> >> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if all you're thinking about is >> "a good looking theme", use Photoshop, not the web. Building a web page >> is about far far far more than simply painting a picture, and if you >> want to do more than paint a picture that has columns in it you need to >> use CSS-based layout. >> >> "Personal preference" is not even on the table (no pun intended) for why >> CSS-based design is better than table-based. It's not a "prejudice of >> the lazy". It's a prejudice for using the right tools for the job they >> were intended for, and using them properly. That's not a subjective >> statement, nor one simply based on which one learned first. >> >> Yes, it's time for you to learn CSS. Fortunately, it's much easier than >> it used to be since modern browsers finally support CSS properly (now >> that IE 6 is a virtually non-existent player in most markets). >> >> --Larry Garfield >> >> On 05/02/2011 12:07 AM, Warren Vail wrote: >> >> I was just getting ready to tackle my first theme in Drupal 7, and is my >> practice, looking through the themes to find for one to hack into being >> mine, when I found that none of them used tables for layout. Now I have >> heard many people voice the opinion that tabled layouts (which I’ve been >> quite successful with) are bad, and CSS (which I am less prepared to >> deal with) are good. And in my ages of experience I have, up until now, >> assumed that the expressed choice between good and bad was based on (as >> it often is) what people had learned vs what they had not, and did not >> want to have to bother to learn, so I said nothing until now >> >> Now I see that Drupal 7 (a product I have some respect for) seems to >> have none, in those that I have looked into, at least. Did what I had >> perceived to be merely a prejudice of the lazy make it’s way all the way >> into the D7 Platform, or is there some legitimate reason for abandoning >> tabled layouts that I have missed (must I finally buckle down to my own >> laziness and tackle CSS to that depth)? >> >> Why are Tables BAD and CSS GOOD (keep in mind, I’m after a good looking >> theme, and not good looking code, necessarily, since none of my end >> users will ever look at the code). I am looking for some reason other >> than good looking code (or someone’s vision of correctness) to get >> behind CSS for my themes, and believe me “being easier” won’t convince >> me much either. I’m guessing there must be some other good reason I’ve >> missed. >> >> What would that be? >> >> /*/Warren Vail/*/ >> >>
