On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 01:52 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 09:15 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 10:48 +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 02:25 -0400, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:25:42PM -0400, PJ wrote: > > > > > > > > > I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP > > > > > issue, > > > > > but... > > > > > I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with > > > > > CSS > > > > > and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my > > > > > time > > > > > as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise. I've > > > > > managed to do some pages with CSS, but I feel like I am shooting > > > > > myself > > > > > in the foot or somewhere... > > > > > Perhaps I am too demanding. I know that with tables, the formatting is > > > > > ridiculously fast. > > > > > Any thoughts, observations or recommendations? > > > > > > > > I think it's pretty telling that on a list of professionals who create > > > > websites constantly, the overwhelming concensus is that for forms, > > > > tables are the preferred solution. > > > > > > > > I liken this sort of discussion to the dichotomy between movie critics > > > > and people who actually go and see movies. The critics inevitably have > > > > all sorts of snobby things to say about the movies which are best > > > > attended. I'm not sure why anyone listens to any critic on any subject. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Paul M. Foster > > > > > > > I think the argument of tables vs css can go a little deeper too. These > > > days, sites should not only be developed with good clean code that > > > validates, but semantic markup. If your client doesn't like/know what > > > this is, just give it to them in terms of seo! > > > > FWIW, everything I've read indicates that tables don't affect SEO. > > > > Cheers, > > Rob. > > -- > > http://www.interjinn.com > > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > > > > SEO is not the be and end all. Accessibility is a legal thing in many > countries; UK and Australia especially (they are the two most prominent > I know) so there's no excuse for shoddy coding. I'm not saying that > using tables inevitably leads to that, but more often than not, tables > are used in such a way that the reading of a page is wrong because the > elements appear in the code in the wrong order, even though they > visually appear correct. It's not the responsibility of the > speech/Braille browsers to interpret code designed for a seeing user. > They should only have to interpret semantics. > > Rob; sorry, this isn't a pop at you, I just wanted to explain to anyone > who got hooked too much onto the SEO line you mentioned. I agree with > you in that respect though, I've never seen any evidence for tables > having any impact on SEO, and I've done a lot of SEO research!
You know, I'm not advocating tables in general, I'm just saying there are edge cases, that I certainly don't have the resources to flesh out into pure table-less designs. In general I advocate clean validating markup, with proper use of semantic tagging. I am very aware of accessibility guidelines, and have had to follow the Canadian Government's CLF2 guidelines often enough. However, the W3C guidelines say not to use tables when appropriate CSS exist, unfortunately the appropriate CSS is not widespread enough in some environments due to a certain monopolostic company dragging it's feet. As such, the W3C makes allowances for tables but tempers that with the expectation that they linearize properly so that accessibility is still retained. In my use of tables for the occasional layout, actually my MUD website was the first time in a long time, I did ensure that linearization was maintained. This being a hobby site, I'm sure many wouldn't even care :) Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php