Chris Ovenden wrote:
http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html
I'm not going to argue with that at all. It's completely true.
Generally, there is wisdom in the pseudo-religious standards-compliance
of CSS gurus, but I have always felt that the case against tables was
exceptionally weak.
Apart from
Have you ever used a screen reader to navigate a nested table page? I have,
and the experience is nightmarish. Have you ever had to maintain the look
and feel of a table-based site? I have, and the experience is nightmarish
and a waste of time and money. Not to mention the fact that when you use
I'm sorry - is it now passe to have the navigation after the content?
I thought screen reader users (not to mention search engine spiders)
hated wading though the navigation to get to the content? This
certainly appeared to be the case last year when I was trying to get
www.five.tv through level 2
This is how I build sites:
1. Start by creating the xhtml structure, which forces me (and hopefully the
client) to look at the structural and semantic organisation of the CONTENT.
2. Once I have that, I can then assign the relevant divs to each part of the
layout, with names that identify the
http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html
--
Chris Ovenden
http://thepeer.blogspot.com
Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information
No mention or understanding of accessibility, ease of maintenance or
semantics then...
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
