G'day
we have created an expectation of how a design will *visually* render
in a browser.
Quick reality check.... What do most people use when visiting a
website? What do clients who pay the bill want?
The whole concept of using tables for layout is flawed
...
adds unneccessary weight to the design
On those sites that use tables nested to the nth degree you're
absolutely right. But a simple 1 row, two (or three or ... column
table with solid background colours (via CSS) is likely a lot lighter
than multiple divs, background images, hacks, conditional comments,
javascript etc.
It's not that CSS is hard, it's that the implementation is buggy in a lot of browsers.
And since we live in the real world, where real people use those buggy
browsers, we do what works best. Sometimes that means a table. I
agree tables SHOULD not be used for layout but it's not a crime to use
one occasionally especially if the non table approach "adds unnecessary
weight to the design".
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
******************************************************
