Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:39, Al Sparber wrote: From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout? Well, no.. float right through.. I doubt, but they would at the very least minimise the chance of broken markup. The mess that is tables - and here I mean a bunch of tables for layout - can easily lead to broken markup, especially when you have to go back a re-jig something, whether is easier than CSS/P doesn't matter, the fact remains. The problem is that browsers happily render busted table markup quite well - they have to otherwise the web would just simply break - the up and coming developer never finds out about the missing /td or that invalid attribute. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
G'day This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things in this context. And we are. Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to use even one table for layout? 3.3. of which says: Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. A table's presentation can be controlled with CSS. No need for bgcolor, background, border etc in the (x)html. 5.3 of which says: Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized See that word unless? The CSS is religious thing is a straw man. The way some people preach against using ANY table for layout as they are evil sure makes it look like a religious obsession. But maybe it's politics rather than religion. Right wing or left wing? Can't sit on the fence or keep changing camps based on our needs, or can we... From the get go the tables for layout approach was a hack Call it a hack if you like. CSS layouts are usually full of them too. HTML (and CSS) did not and do not (and may never) have anything that will just as reliably give all people the layout they want and need in the browsers that most people use. Horses for courses. History teaches us that such things, regardless of their present usefulness, we usually come to regret. I am sure history has plenty of examples of quite the opposite too :-) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things in this context. And we are.Where in the standard does it say we are not *allowed* to use even one table for layout? Tables should not be used to position elements graphically. Tables used in this way, known as layout tables, do not observe the implication of tabular data inherent in the term table, and can create particular accessibility problems as described in the techniques that follow. Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables Unless of course you would argue the difference between should not and not allowed, in which case I guess you would win. From the get go the tables for layout approach was a hack Call it a hack if you like.CSS layouts are usually full of them too. Atleast then it's presentational hacks in the presentational layer.
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Dead Table Sketch The cast: MR. PRALINE John Cleese SHOP OWNER Michael Palin The sketch: A customer enters a web development shop. Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (The owner does not respond.) Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss? Owner: What do you mean miss? Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint! Owner: We're closin' for lunch. Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this table what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique. Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead table when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable table, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful background! Mr. Praline: The background don't enter into it. It's stone dead. Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! Mr. Praline: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) 'Ello, Mister Valid Table! I've got a lovely fresh border for you if you show... (owner hits the cage) Owner: There, he moved! Mr. Praline: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage! Owner: I never!! Mr. Praline: Yes, you did! Owner: I never, never did anything... Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead table. Owner: No, no.No, 'e's stunned! Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!? Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major. Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That table is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged rendering. Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for Netscape 3.5. Mr. Praline: PININ' for Netscape 3.5?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable construct, id'nit, squire? Lovely background! Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that table when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on the left margin in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. (pause) Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that table down, it would have nuzzled up to those links, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee! Mr. Praline: VOOM?!? Mate, this table wouldn't voom if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised! Owner: No no! 'E's pining! Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This tabe is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the page 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-TABLE!! (pause) Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of Tables. Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture. Owner: I got a list. (pause) Mr. Praline: Pray, does it talk? Owner: Nnnnot really. Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!? Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
At 11:37 PM 9/6/2005, Chris Blown wrote: The mess that is tables - and here I mean a bunch of tables for layout - can easily lead to broken markup, especially when you have to go back a re-jig something, whether is easier than CSS/P doesn't matter, the fact remains. The problem is that browsers happily render busted table markup quite well - they have to otherwise the web would just simply break - the up and coming developer never finds out about the missing /td or that invalid attribute. Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se that leads one to err more frequently. Yes, browsers tolerate missing /td and /tr tags because the original HTML spec didn't require them, but they'll also tolerate missing /li and /p tags for the same reason. Layout tables are not hugely complex. A basic table is only one degree more complicated than a list, and today we routinely multiply-nest lists up the wazoo to create nav menus, site maps, etc. I don't think it's the complexity of the markup that makes the difference between sloppy table-based pages and tidy semantic pages -- I suspect it's that developers who strive for semantic markup care more about whether their tags are closed and nested properly, even those that don't affect rendering, and use tools to catch errors in markup. When I was still using tables to lay out my pages I strove for valid markup, but being a hand-coder I made my share of typos, sometimes with table tags and sometimes with others. I keep my nose clean today with the W3C HTML validator which I could be using to equal effect if I were still forcing layout with tables. If I didn't have the validator to lean on I'm sure I'd be making markup mistakes at about the same rate, even after my shift to CSS layout. Sloppy coders are sloppy coders, and the CSS arena has its fair share. A correctly marked up table is valid XHTML even if it's being used for layout, and there are tons of careful coders who still use tables that way. I sympathize with the desire to link table-based layout to sloppy coding practices and it wouldn't surprise me if there were a perceptible correlation, however I don't believe that one leads to the other but rather that they're both more likely to co-occur in the pre- or non-CSS web developer than in those who strive for semantically meaningful markup. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but I'm trying to make the point that using tables for layout does not lead a developer to code more sloppily. There are strong arguments against using tables for layout, but that's not one of them. Regards, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
G'day again :-) http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables unless of course you would argue the difference between should not and not allowed, in which case I guess you would win. It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard and you're right. I used to work as a QA Auditor (ISO9001). In standards parlance, should not has a different meaning than must not or shall not. Still, if you want to use that document *Generally*, display technologies such as [CSS2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#CSS2 can achieve the desired layout effect with improved accessibility. Generally? Meaning there are exceptions? However, *when it is necessary to use a table for layout*, the table must linearize in a readable order. So there are times when it is *necessary* to use a table for layout? Keep reading... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS*. I rest my case. -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Paul, Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se that leads one to err more frequently. on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is. I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with table code). I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this debate. Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I reported a strong factual correlation between tabled based pages and invalid pages in research I am doing. From then on its been largely handwaving and opinions. The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about 100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the errors in table based sites have been almost invariably associated with the table markup. The correlation is strong. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Bert, It's a working draft, not a recommendation or a standard Oh come on. This is precisely MS's ludicrous argument for not supporting CSS2.1 (a subset of 2.0) and you're right. I used to work as a QA Auditor (ISO9001). In standards parlance, should not has a different meaning than must not or shall not. Still, if you want to use that document Well what else. The current standards as quoted (that the draft of the next version is STRICTER than the existing would suggest the intent and the direction they are heading in). *Generally*, display technologies such as [CSS2] http:// www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#CSS2 can achieve the desired layout effect with improved accessibility. Generally? Meaning there are exceptions? Yes. We cannot foresee every circumstance, or we have to account for one contributors particular obsession so we buy him or her off with generally./ However, *when it is necessary to use a table for layout*, the table must linearize in a readable order. So there are times when it is *necessary* to use a table for layout? Keep reading... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML- TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid No, they are considering it may be unavoidable in some circumstances. It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS*. I rest my case. Look, you can find all the justification you want in the fine print of the standards. But their intent is very very clear. Finding justification for the use of Tables for layout in the standards is essentially an act of desperation. This really is flat earth stuff. It is time to let it go john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On 9/7/05 1:19 AM John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about 100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the errors in table based sites have been almost invariably associated with the table markup. Umm, so folks who do tables for layout don't care about W3C validation. This is a revelation? Best, Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al, With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout? That's quite a spin, John :-) This is based on research into the web sites of dozens of the biggest companies, govt depts and no for profits in Australia. I am talking about the correlation of invalid HTML and table based designs. N ot one of the table based designs validates. Very few of the others do either, but not a ingle table based on does. I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. I have yet to be convinced that clearly breaking the spirit and letter of a number of web standards, and all the attendant other costs associated with Table based designs is justified by anything other than a designers penchant for that technique. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
This thread is getting longer by the minute, but I enjoy the debate :-) I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with table code). OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the right conclusion? 1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor? 2. How many were generated by some sort of server side script? 3. How recently had they been updated? 4. Were they nested tables rule! types (which I hate too)? It's a bit like statistics - they can be used to prove almost anything, depending on how you interpret them :-) Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with table code). I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this debate. Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I reported a strong factual correlation between tabled based pages and invalid pages in research I am doing. From then on its been largely handwaving and opinions. The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about 100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the errors in table based sites have been almost invariably associated with the table markup. One factor that may be (partly) a reason why errors are correlated with tables-based mark-up is that tables have been very extensively used under the ethos anyone can create a website these days and websites for some companies may have been created by less technical authors with common desktop software. In these cases, errors may not be caught. Agreed, this is bad practice for any company but am sure it happens. I am not sure that tables per se are the only root cause, rather that the commonality of websites is part of the reason. At present, CSS-based layouts are probably more difficult for less technical authors, and CSS layouts are the domain of the designer/developer (CMS tools notwithstanding). Therefore, better coding. Clive Walker CVW Web Design http://www.cvwdesign.co.uk/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Bert, OK, you found a strong correlation, but are you drawing the right conclusion? 1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor? Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right? 2. How many were generated by some sort of server side script? So script writers can;t get tables right either? 3. How recently had they been updated? Why would that be in any way relevant? 4. Were they nested tables rule! types (which I hate too)? Some. So now some tables based layouts are good and some not? Which ones are they? Why? It's a bit like statistics - they can be used to prove almost anything, depending on how you interpret them :-) Or rhetoric, which can be used to convince oneself of just about anything. John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
At 01:19 AM 9/7/2005, John Allsopp wrote: Paul, Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se that leads one to err more frequently. on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is. I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with table code). John, It's not the correlation I'm questioning, it's the implied causality. I hope you'll make a distinction between them in your article. If using tables for layout promoted sloppy coding, then it stands to reason that if I were to move back to table-based layout today then my markup would suffer accordingly. However, I know that would not occur, in part because having learned to use XHTML-CSS-semantic markup has raised my consciousness but largely because I use validation tools today to ensure that my markup finishes cleanly. I suspect that the reason for the correlation you're revealing goes something more like this: that table-based layout is what most web developers learn first; that it's possible for someone with primitive HTML skills to hack out a relatively stable page using tables; that being able to produce table-based pages will enable a developer to stick around and move ahead in an organization, especially a huge governmental bureaucracy or corporation in which insight into the technical issues around page development is dim and anyone who can craft a web page quickly and cheaply has a fair chance of survival promotion without necessarily having to radically hone their skills. In other words, rather than the use of tables for layout causing sloppy coding, the two behaviors are correlative, both able to survive, in individuals working in a sheltered environment. Just because they predominantly occur together doesn't mean that one causes the other. Hummingbirds' long beaks didn't cause their ability to hover nor the other way around, but instead the two traits co-evolved. It's a small but crucial distinction. And not merely academic: I think one reason your remarks raised such a flurry of irritated response was your implication that the use of layout tables leads to untidy coding -- them's fightin' words to any careful coder who still uses tables that way. If you drop the element of causality you'll still have an interesting powerful correlation to discuss. Warm regards, Paul I guess that's what is one of the many annoying things about this debate. Its very subjective. This particular thread started when I reported a strong factual correlation between tabled based pages and invalid pages in research I am doing. From then on its been largely handwaving and opinions. The simple fact remains, that in my research into some of the biggest and most popular Australian web sites, not a single site out of about 100 I have surveyed, which is table based has been valid. And the errors in table based sites have been almost invariably associated with the table markup. The correlation is strong. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Paul, It's not the correlation I'm questioning, it's the implied causality. I hope you'll make a distinction between them in your article. I might be wrong, but I did not at any point argue that Tables cause invalid documents. Not to say I couldn't, see below :-) I said there was a strong correlation. I pointed out that in not a single layout based on tables, in presumably some of the most well funded sites in Australia does the HTML validate. What is also extremely important is that the errors in validity very largely are directly associated with the table elements in those documents. Now these errors fall into a number of oft repeated categories. Forms and Tables Missing close tags inside tables Invalid attributes used willy nilly on tr and td elements being among the most common. So not only is there a strong correlation between table based layouts and malformed documents, but the malformations occur precisely because of tables. This is a correlation that is starting to look pretty causative. Does this mean all table based layouts must be invalid? Of course not. But the correlation is overwhelming in the real world. If using tables for layout promoted sloppy coding, then it stands to reason that if I were to move back to table-based layout today then my markup would suffer accordingly. Not at all. But I would be prepared to wager your validation errors during development increased. However, I know that would not occur, in part because having learned to use XHTML-CSS-semantic markup has raised my consciousness but largely because I use validation tools today to ensure that my markup finishes cleanly See above. In essence, you would have to do more work. I have little trouble asserting this based on my experience, the experience of many others, and my research into real world pages. Tables lead to inherently more complex code, and so, directly, to the increased chance of coding error. .I suspect that the reason for the correlation you're revealing goes something more like this: that table-based layout is what most web developers learn first; that it's possible for someone with primitive HTML skills to hack out a relatively stable page using tables; that being able to produce table-based pages will enable a developer to stick around and move ahead in an organization, especially a huge governmental bureaucracy or corporation in which insight into the technical issues around page development is dim and anyone who can craft a web page quickly and cheaply has a fair chance of survival promotion without necessarily having to radically hone their skills. This is not the first such suggestion along these lines. But applying occams razor, is there a simpler explanation? Keep in mind that these are all very very major companies and organizations we are talking about. Also, all but one of the sites uses CSS, further suggesting developers with non trivial skill sets. In other words, rather than the use of tables for layout causing sloppy coding, the two behaviors are correlative, both able to survive, in individuals working in a sheltered environment. Such as the biggest companies in Australia? Or the web development companies who develop their sites? Just because they predominantly occur together doesn't mean that one causes the other. Hummingbirds' long beaks didn't cause their ability to hover nor the other way around, but instead the two traits co-evolved. It's a small but crucial distinction. There has been a lot of reasoning by analogy in this discussion. And a lot of attempts to explain away an extremely strong correlation. Why are people so afraid of the conclusion? And not merely academic: I think one reason your remarks raised such a flurry of irritated response was your implication that the use of layout tables leads to untidy coding -- them's fightin' words to any careful coder who still uses tables that way. Let's suppose for a moment I am arguing that their is a causative relationship between using tables and invalid code (which I haven't been but which I believe and which argument I will make in a moment), that does not mean you cannot and will not produce valid documents with table based layouts. But the implication would be, all things being equal, that you'd require more effort (thereby shortchanging either yourself, your client/employer, or both by using this approach). The experience of everyone I know or who has written on this issue is that after some reasonable period of time, they are more efficient developers. If you drop the element of causality you'll still have an interesting powerful correlation to discuss. At this point I'll return to the causation :-) For those of us with a background in Software Engineering, we will be aware of the painful lessons learned in the 60s and 70s particularly, (sometimes referred to as
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
And a spot on 2c it is too! Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk Seona Bellamy wrote: [snip] Standards / semantic code / CSS-P layouts / whatever else you want to call them are just a tool. Tables for layout are another tool. The mark of a good craftsman is understanding all the tools at their disposal, how to use them properly, and how to select the best one for the job. Just my 2c on this. Cheers, Seona. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
G'day 1. How many were generated with a WYSIWYG editor? Why would that matter. Not even the tools can get tables right? If a large portion of the sites' developers used a flawed tool, it explains partly why a large portion of them had the same problems. That's why it matters. 2. How many were generated by some sort of server side script? So script writers can;t get tables right either? Well, what does your research show? I have seen plenty of script driven sites that do not validate, whether they use tables or not. 3. How recently had they been updated? Why would that be in any way relevant? If a site is 3-5 years old, do you expect it to be written in the new way? 4. Were they nested tables rule! types (which I hate too)? Some. So now some tables based layouts are good and some not? Which ones are they? Why? Conversely, are all div based layouts good? Why? I'd rather see a simple, clean two or three column table than a page suffering from divitis and classitis (like the Barclays home page mentioned in another thread). It's a bit like statistics - they can be used to prove almost anything, depending on how you interpret them :-) Or rhetoric, which can be used to convince oneself of just about anything. I've seen plenty of evidence of that in this debate, from both camps. So here's a little more of it. In the end it is a matter of choice. A matter of what Standards based design means to the individual web developer. In your case it seems to mean never use a single table for page layout. In my case it means only use a table for layout if the alternative is proving too difficult Tables are only as complex as you make them and yes, I have seen plenty of astoundingly complex table based layouts. I have also seen awfully complex css based designs. Anyway, I've said enough. I'm happy to dwell in the middle ground, doing what I can with what I know. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
How about letting the table/div thread die? The debate is getting rather tiring and it doesn't look like the argument will be resolved any time soon. How about we agree to disagree for now? Julie Romanowski State Farm Insurance Company J2EE Engagement Team phone: 309-735-5248 cell: 309-532-4027 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 19:01 +0800, Bert Doorn wrote: 3. How recently had they been updated? Why would that be in any way relevant? If a site is 3-5 years old, do you expect it to be written in the new way? I'm just going to pick on this point, because it's relatively open to attack and I've got enough to write about it alone, anyway. What exactly is the new way? Validation is nothing new. The specs have been around for quite some time --- certainly for longer than 5 years. This is 2005: if it were 1998, tag soup with table-based layout would be normal (hence vaguely acceptable), but it's not. And you recognise that. So, clearly, the new way is better. But what's the new way? Tables that validate? Internet Explorer 4 introduced some degree of CSS support that was somewhere near usable (though probably not for pure semantic layout), and that was back in 1997. We recognise semantics. We recognise that tags are created with meaning. We recognise hacks are just that: hacks. Web standards (recommendations) exist to encourage a semantic web, not to compromise to now-elapsed practises. Accusations of divititis and similar use of the class attribute are in some senses perfectly invalid: neither of these tags carries any implicit semantic weight. Simply from a parsing perspective, this makes them vastly superior. Tables are inherently resistant to linearisation (though appropriate markup can make this possible), and present challenges to the longevity of information thus marked, if it does not fit the purpose exactly. This is a regularly heard argument for the semantic web: it will be around, it will be able to be parsed, understood, in fifteen, twenty years time. More, even. Table-based layout is _irrational_ for visual modelling, _especially_ when we have at our disposal browsers that do a decent job of separation of content, presentation and behaviour. Even IE. We enjoy whining about lack of browser support for standards, but the reality is the biggest changes still to come aren't in the realm of presentation, but in that of behaviour, as developers realise the potential of the web for applications, and vendors enhance their clients to meet these new demands. Style, I believe, will follow the requirements this establishes. The CSS specifications are relatively mature. The building blocks are there. We can build nigh on any table-based layout with what resources are afforded us by the W3C, and more. _This_ is the new way. Think about web applications with table-based layout. You _can_ do AJAX, but it's harder to grab an individual cell from a table and make it play how you want it to. This is but one example of the many things we will see emerge in the future, further relegating tables for layout purposes to irrelevance. There is a need for semantic markup now more than ever. Rich applications, arguably the future of the web, depend upon it. Data longevity depends upon it. This new way, ironically, is not new at all. It's actually a reversion to the state of HTML pre- vendor-specific enhancements of the 1990's browser wars. HTML, as with SGML (and now XML) inherently bears a requirement of solid, semantic formation. This doesn't just mean well formed markup, either: it extends to appropriate use of tags. If you still believe this semantic paradigm is something new, take a look at this article written in 1997. Yes, 1997. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s1.people.html As developers who understand the importance of standards, we are well and truly out of excuses. There are exceptions to every rule, but these are becoming increasingly sparse: perhaps the only valid (haha) excuse remaining is that of a target audience consisting largely of pre-version 5 user agents. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] G'day again :-) Keep reading... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS*. I rest my case. That was obviously written in a reluctant fit of pragmatism. But you are correct, that is the essence of the matter - but I'm afraid the rigid ones will not rest :-) Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. I have yet to be convinced that clearly breaking the spirit and letter of a number of web standards, and all the attendant other costs associated with Table based designs is justified by anything other than a designers penchant for that technique. I'm not saying that table layout should be the first choice - only that it's sometimes the better choice. Given my read of the industry, anything else (from either side) is extremism or opportunism. What I am saying is that tables and valid code are not mututally exclusive. I learned a long time ago that the best way to advance an argument is to focus on the positive points of one's own view, rather than the negatives of your opponent's :-) It's easy to lead people to believe that table layout means nested tables, spacers, pervasive deprecated attributes, and on and on and on - while table-less layout is always squeaky clean and perfectly efficient. That's simply not true. The CSS inspirational sites are full of nested DIVs, SPANs, [enter name her] Image Replacement, Filter hacks, and my favorite- using non-breaking spaces to create curved boxes. They are also full of very elegant designs, some of which are efficient and well-coded, while others are not. The same, and nothing less, can be said of table layouts. Yes, this is a standards mailing list. It's not a platform for scaring people away from using a table when that is the only means to meet a project goal. The only example of purely efficient structural markup I've seen in the past few years is this: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/articles/css/div_less/ Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Joshua, thank you for the link, I have been looking for this article for several years (having read it all those years ago) John If you still believe this semantic paradigm is something new, take a look at this article written in 1997. Yes, 1997. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s1.people.html John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
John Allsopp wrote: Paul, Hang on now. There's nothing about the use of table markup per se that leads one to err more frequently. on the contrary, actual research suggests very strongly that there is. I have found a very high correlation between malformed documents and the use of tables (with the errors occurring in direct association with table code). I'd say that people who rely heavily on tables are the ones who obviously do not care about standards. So, IMHO, the correlation between malformed documents and table layouts only shows that these authors do not care for the quality of their markup. If I had to create and publish a complex table tomorrow, it would be *clean*; not because I know what I'm doing, but because I validate my pages... I think it'd be interesting to find out about the ratio table/table-less layouts among documents submitted to the Validator. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Bert Doorn wrote: G'day again :-) Keep reading... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS*. *unless the desired effect...* Why fighting the medium? If that *desire effect* is purely visual, then I think there is a problem... Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
- Original Message - From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:09 AM Keep reading... http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050630/#layouttables-avoid It is *recommended* that authors not use the |table| element for layout purposes *unless the desired effect absolutely cannot be achieved using CSS*. Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Most things can be achieved with CSS, especially if you use various hacks and scripts etc. However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to the complexity of the hacks and scripts. I like this list in that people are so willing to debate the issues, as that is how we learn and understand what is best, but I think we should not blindly use CSS. We must use it wisely and examine how we are using it so we don't make new mistakes. Stephen -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 07/09/2005 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Stevio wrote: However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to the complexity of the hacks and scripts. I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of the presentational layer. It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove its table markup. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stevio wrote: However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to the complexity of the hacks and scripts. I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of the presentational layer. It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove its table markup. These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and that is really sad. The open-minded, pragmatic approach is simply to allow that in some cases, perhaps very rare cases, a simple layout table might be the better solution. I guess pragmatism is simply incompatible with certain mindsets in this business :-) Oh well. Back to more productive endeavors! Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al Sparber wrote: I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of the presentational layer. It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove its table markup. These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and that is really sad. The open-minded, pragmatic approach is simply to allow that in some cases, perhaps very rare cases, a simple layout table might be the better solution. I guess pragmatism is simply incompatible with certain mindsets in this business :-) FWIW, the post you replied to was not discussing layout, but maintenance... Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't agree. As Kenny said, the presentational hacks are part of the presentational layer. It is easier to detach a Styles Sheet from a document than to remove its table markup. These debates always sink into a tables versus CSS mentality and that is really sad. The open-minded, pragmatic approach is simply to allow that in some cases, perhaps very rare cases, a simple layout table might be the better solution. I guess pragmatism is simply incompatible with certain mindsets in this business :-) FWIW, the post you replied to was not discussing layout, but maintenance... Thanks, Thierry - but I knew what I was responding to. -- Al ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Most things can be achieved with CSS, especially if you use various hacks and scripts etc. However, at what point do we say, we are better doing this layout in tables rather than using complex CSS with various hacks? In terms of future maintenance, the CSS solution will be more difficult due to the complexity of the hacks and scripts. Sure, there may be issues maintaining the CSS, but at least the integrity of the content is preserved. It is painful removing presentational tables while preserving data tables, where as it is trivial to replace a CSS file. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
*unless the desired effect...* Why fighting the medium? If that *desire effect* is purely visual, then I think there is a problem... Yep, they're called 'Clients' :) Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
I'd say that people who rely heavily on tables are the ones who obviously do not care about standards. Or they just DON'T KNOW. I work in an organisation where our only other coder hasn't been formally trained, was thrown into intranet work out of necessity and has learnt 'web stuff' by trial and error. Her technical savvy is pretty good but limited and she is quite terrified by change. Getting her to throw away her precious tables for divs is an ongoing challenge, but it's not a case of her 'not caring'. We need to take great care when evangelising standards that it doesn't become a guilt-trip or pseudo-religious debate. Evangelise the benefits, and be patient - not everyone has been exposed to the paradigm-shift that is standards compliant design. Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Stephen, I like this list in that people are so willing to debate the issues, as that is how we learn and understand what is best, but I think we should not blindly use CSS. We must use it wisely and examine how we are using it so we don't make new mistakes. using CSS is not a blind or unreasoned choice. It is a technology expressly designed for this purpose. That simply isn't true of using tables. I guess what keeps me coming back back to this pointless and frustrating discussion is certainly not for my sake. I could care less that people choose to continue using tables for layout. But when people advocate it as a sensible, reasonable alternative to CSS in any circumstance, then I feel it my weary duty for the sake of people who might be mislead by this to take up the cudgels. Statements like its horses for courses (in terms of whether to use tables for layout or CS for layout), perpetuate the erroneous idea that there is some equivalence between the two techniques. There is not. To be clear, one is an entirely outmoded hack that was necessary to create certain types of layout coming up on a decade ago. It has persisted because as much as anything, people continue to build these kinds of layouts, and because developers are in many ways sensibly reluctant to abandon the skills they have acquired. On the other hand, CSS is an entire technology, developed over more than a decade, by very smart sensible people, with much peer review and collaboration, to solve precisely problems of layout in a much more sophisticated, systematic and general way, also taking into account issues of accessibility as fundamental aspects of the technology. to afford the two equal footing when it comes to choosing a valid layout technology is literally absurd. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon - THREAD CLOSED
THREAD CLOSED The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been interesting and informative, it has definitely moved away from open discussion into strongly held views and lines of demarcation. Please do not reply to this thread or comment on the thread closure to the list. If you have a problem with the closing of this thread, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
The only example of purely efficient structural markup I've seen inthe past few years is this: http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/articles/css/div_less/ You want to explain this one? *ul*li*pThis page is laid out using heading, paragraph, and list tags. Neither SPANs nor DIVs have been used./ p */li*/ul Now, that's a nice page, other than that silliness with the one item list, it's a great example of div-orexia and span-defficiency. But what's no joke, is that XHTML 2.0 won't have the IMG tag, and it will actually promote using lots of *section and *line. You can read more here: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/wa-xhtml/
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess what keeps me coming back back to this pointless and frustrating discussion is certainly not for my sake. I could care less that people choose to continue using tables for layout. But when people advocate it as a sensible, reasonable alternative to CSS in any circumstance, then I feel it my weary duty for the sake of people who might be mislead by this to take up the cudgels. And wat keep me in discussions like this is that I believe it is people like you who are misleading. You make it sound to the novice as if CSS and Tables were competing technologies. You should know better. If anyone would like accurate information, feel free to contact me offlist. This has gotten way out of hand and I can't imagine your motives. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon - THREAD CLOSED
From: russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Web Standards Group wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon - THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED The reason for the closure of this thread is that while it had been interesting and informative, it has definitely moved away from open discussion into strongly held views and lines of demarcation. Please do not reply to this thread or comment on the thread closure to the list. If you have a problem with the closing of this thread, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry, Russ. I read and replied to John's mail before I read this. Smart move and I agree wholeheartedly. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Bert, So you used to be an ISO9001 auditor - I still am one. Tell me, HOW DID YOU ESCAPE ??? John ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. This mindset also tends to treat HTML with disdain, and the vast majority of designers/developers under this umbrella fall into 1 of 3 categories: 1. Hacks who have been asked to produce websites for their company/department in the absence of a qualified professional; 2. Old skool warriors whose hard-earned table-based hacks are just too entrenched to let go of; 3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. The practical upshot of this is that they don't care, or know enough to care, that their markup is invalid, and will always argue that it works. I think the key here - and I know this was the case for me - is getting them to understand the semantic value of their markup, more so than the simple binary opposition of tables vs css. Being inspired to strip away all the crap is the natural and inevitable result of the semantics light bulb coming on in someone's head. Then they realise that it's not an arbitrary debate about style or best practise, but about efficient and effective information architecture and delivery. Hope all that made sense! Kevin On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
-Original Message- From: Kevin Futter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:02 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. Completely agree with Kevin on this point. I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Who can blame them, really? They grew up in time where each browser was going its own way, standards were little supported and it didn't really matter if you wrote semantically correct code or not. You forgot to close a tag, so what? The browsers were forgiving enough to let it slip. If you have developed websites in such an environment for a long time it is hard to suddenly change your mind and follow a set of standards. And the current browsers are still forgiving, so many members of the old school probably don't see a reason to change. Let's flip the idea that John suggested: if any follower of web standards would go back to using tables for whatever reasons, do you really think they would suddenly start missing end tags or writing invalid documents? Once you see the value of valid HTML, I don't think you will go back to writing invalid code, be it with tables or without. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Andreas, I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Whatever the reason, if you see a table based design, the chances of it being invalid are raised monumentally. And we are talking about companies and organizations with billion dollar turnovers, multi billion dollar market caps. I think in part you are right that it is mindset. But I'd also argue that the simple use of tables increases the complexity of code, and with it the chances of error. This is a lesson hard learned in Software Engineering - complex languages and constructs, and syntactic complexity raise the chances of error among all developers. The last 30 years of development of programming languages and software engineering approaches has been one of simplifying, and managing complexity (you might argue that it hasn't worked all that well, at least in the wild) Moonshots famously missed the moon due to the complexity of fortran. These were smart people, smarter than I ever was or will be. We tend to learn these lessons in web development slowly, painfully and fitfully if at all. So not only is it *who* is using the technique, it is the technique itself which is problematic. john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. In my world I am starting to win the battle with developers. For us the fundamental change was to move the ASP.NET developers away from the use of Grid layout and use more of a flow view. Yes this will not fix the problem of invalid documents entirely. But it makes that seperation of the presentation layer that much more clear and distinct Matthew Barben | Piggles Web Development Phone: 0419 206 112 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.piggles.net Quoting Kevin Futter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would posit that this association of poor markup and table-based design has more to do with a certain approach to web development than merely a raised risk of error in using table-based design. What I mean by that is that most designers/developers who are entrenched in the table-based approach are old skool, knowing nothing of standards-based approaches, or dismissing them as unnecessary. This mindset also tends to treat HTML with disdain, and the vast majority of designers/developers under this umbrella fall into 1 of 3 categories: 1. Hacks who have been asked to produce websites for their company/department in the absence of a qualified professional; 2. Old skool warriors whose hard-earned table-based hacks are just too entrenched to let go of; 3. Programmers, who almost unanimously seem to treat the inevitable HTML output of their web apps with contempt, or at best, as an afterthought. The practical upshot of this is that they don't care, or know enough to care, that their markup is invalid, and will always argue that it works. I think the key here - and I know this was the case for me - is getting them to understand the semantic value of their markup, more so than the simple binary opposition of tables vs css. Being inspired to strip away all the crap is the natural and inevitable result of the semantics light bulb coming on in someone's head. Then they realise that it's not an arbitrary debate about style or best practise, but about efficient and effective information architecture and delivery. Hope all that made sense! Kevin On 7/9/05 10:24 AM, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the location of the overwhelming percentage of these malformations is in and around tables. So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
-Original Message- From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:41 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon Andreas, I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. I think in part you are right that it is mindset. But I'd also argue that the simple use of tables increases the complexity of code, and with it the chances of error. This is a lesson hard learned in Software Engineering - complex languages and constructs, and syntactic complexity raise the chances of error among all developers. Yeah, I see what you mean. So maybe we should agree to blame the complexity of tables and the stubbornness of people who use them. Hooraay! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Not that I'm into me too posts but here's my 2 cents. I don't think using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents as John suggested, but rather people that use tables have got an old-fashioned mindset. Until a few years ago, I used tables for layout, exclusively. However, I made sure my pages validated to html 4.01 strict or xhtml 1.0 strict. Table based designs are not the cause of the errors, nor is it more difficult to make them valid than documents without tables. John: using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. I agree that most sites that have invalid markup use tables (or even frames) for layout. That makes sense, since people who know how to design without tables would more than likely understand the importance of validation. But I don't agree with John's conclusion which seems to reverse that thought. In *many* cases sites that are full of validation errors are either produced a WYSIWYG editor or by some server side script. Indeed, many scripted sites are littered with nested tables and validation errors. So Using programmers is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents?Nah! Anyway, ICSS is not a religion to me and I will use a simple layout table if it helps me achieve what I need to achieve :-) And yes, it will validate! Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the use of tables appears to be associated strongly with invalid documents (and not only through poorly formed documents, but also through the use of invalid attributes associated with td and tr elements). In short, using tables is a very good way of raising the risk of invalid documents. With all due respect, that is not very good logic. So, someone inexperienced enough to make an invalid table layout is going to float right through the process of making a CSS-positioned layout? That's quite a spin, John :-) I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? While I acknowledge that, if you understand the process, you *can* create valid table-based layouts, I don't believe you *should*. In my opinion, a significant contribution to the correlation that John's identified is the sort of cut-and-paste style of page building that allies an incomplete understanding and an eagerness for results. I've seen this often in software and web development - snippets of code are borrowed and used verbatim without the borrower necessarily understanding what they are doing. If the results *seem* OK then that's good enough. It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. Cheers Peter -- Peter Asquith http://www.wasabicube.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
From: Peter Asquith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? A questionable technique? Would that be because people who make their livings (or try to make a living) evangelizing standards have deemed table layouts dubious. Hmm :-) A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? Ah. So web design is elevated to science. And all this time I thought it was a skilled trade. Sheesh. While I acknowledge that, if you understand the process, you *can* create valid table-based layouts, I don't believe you *should*. Interesting. In my opinion, a significant contribution to the correlation that John's identified is the sort of cut-and-paste style of page building that allies an incomplete understanding and an eagerness for results. It is quite evident to me that this type of cut-and-paste technique is just as ubiquitous in the CSS positioning arena - if not more so. We too teach CSS layout - but keep it non-religious. We have tens of thousands of customers and a massive support burden in fixing pages that were built from poorly devised or overly complex tutorials and articles popular in the standards ring of blogs and online magazines. We don't get a fee for that, sadly. It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. I think perhaps who are mistaken. A table-layout can be just as valid, usable, and accessible as anything else. The key is what is optimal for the project. Using tables on the rare occasion is not a hall pass to skip knowing how to mark up a table - or understand the structure. The problem, in my opinion, is that the same people who devised ridiculous nested table constructs to make web pages look like magazine pages are the very same people who are now condemning tables. Perhaps if they'd taught folks how to make clean table layouts, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
On 07/09/2005, at 1:50 PM, Peter Asquith wrote: Al Sparber wrote: I'm not evangelizing table-based layouts, although for real-world clients they sometimes are the right choice. Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? No, but if, for example, you are creating a site to run on a corporate intranet and you know for a fact that many or even some of the company's employees are stuck on Netscape 4 with no hope of upgrade (usually due to company policy or some such silliness), then should you still create a lovely, semantically-correct CSS-P layout that none of these people will ever get to see? Or should you create a simple, clean table that at least puts the content into the desired columns so that they don't just get everything in one long list down the page? It's one thing to discount such outdated browsers when designing for the internet, because they are now such a small percentage and those users are so used to having a crappy browsing experience nowadays that they'll be happy as long as they can get your content (usually). But intranets are a different story, and when there's a sizable percentage of your target audience stuck with a browser that doesn't do CSS very well, you really ought to at least _try_ to give them a decent browsing experience. Standards / semantic code / CSS-P layouts / whatever else you want to call them are just a tool. Tables for layout are another tool. The mark of a good craftsman is understanding all the tools at their disposal, how to use them properly, and how to select the best one for the job. Just my 2c on this. Cheers, Seona. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Tables and divs and soon
Al, Peter wrote, Presumably, in this case, the right choice is the choice that limits the up-front cost and training required to get to market? Surely promoting a questionable technique because it's easier to learn and gives almost instant gratification is a dubious one? Al wrote A questionable technique? Would that be because people who make their livings (or try to make a living) evangelizing standards have deemed table layouts dubious. Hmm :-) This is called the web standards group. I imagine that those here essentially adhere to the value of web standards, and discuss things in this context. The World Wide Web is the province of the World Wide Web Consortium. Like it or not. It does not so much as try to make a living evangelizing standards as lead[s] the web to its full potential And it is founded and run by the guy who quite literally invented the World Wide Web. One of its many initiatives (along with, you know, simple stuff like PNG, HTML, XHTML, CSS, SVG) is the Web Accessibility Guidelines 3.3. of which says: Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. 5.3 of which says: Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized A bit like deciding that micro-surgery classes at medical school are a waste of time because once you've got a handle on amputation it'll solve most problems far quicker and under budget! Why bother getting bogged down and stressed with the finer points? Ah. So web design is elevated to science. And all this time I thought it was a skilled trade. Sheesh. No, it is a science, at its fundamental level. It is part of computer science/informatics, which teaches us many lessons from history and theory. Most of which we seem very slow to pick up. It is quite evident to me that this type of cut-and-paste technique is just as ubiquitous in the CSS positioning arena - if not more so. We too teach CSS layout - but keep it non-religious. We have tens of thousands of customers and a massive support burden in fixing pages that were built from poorly devised or overly complex tutorials and articles popular in the standards ring of blogs and online magazines. We don't get a fee for that, sadly. The CSS is religious thing is a straw man. In what way is adhering to best practices as recommended by tremendously experienced (and not just in web page development, but in many related branches of computer science) and thoughtful people in a peer reviewed environment religious? Sure I wrote an article called A dao of web design once, but I was hardly arguing that by developing for the web in that way you'll become a daoist :-) It's far easier to try to get to grips with a page of mark-up with everything in one convenient HTML page than to have to understand the abstraction of separating the content from the presentation. Hey presto! A lovely table-based web page that IE in quirks mode renders as intended! Welcome to inner sanctum of web development. I think perhaps who are mistaken. A table-layout can be just as valid, usable, and accessible as anything else. You can validate pages that use tables for layout. Based on my pretty extensive research it will take more effort than non table based layouts. They can probably be as usable, but according to people who have done an awful lot of work on the issue they won't be as accessible. The key is what is optimal for the project. Using tables on the rare occasion is not a hall pass to skip knowing how to mark up a table - or understand the structure. The problem, in my opinion, is that the same people who devised ridiculous nested table constructs to make web pages look like magazine pages are the very same people who are now condemning tables. Perhaps if they'd taught folks how to make clean table layouts, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is simply ridiculous. Dave Segal? Tod Farhner? I don't see too many articles by them of late :-) The people who have been strong advocates for table free design are in my reasonably well informed opinion a new generation, starting with people like Eric Meyer, and typified perhaps by young bloods like Dave Shea and Douglas Bowman. From the get go the tables for layout approach was a hack - the use of a technology for a purpose for which it was not intended because it works in some narrowly defined set of circumstances. History teaches us that such things, regardless of their present usefulness, we usually come to regret. Y2K anyone? john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
