PDA

View Full Version : Who has converted their website from tables to CSS - If you have not, why not?


syka786
22-02-2006, 03:33 PM
Hi everyone,

I have been listening to Boagworld podcasts which are great and they have expressed many times how important it is to create a website using CSS now instead of tables. Also to make sure your website is validated (validate using http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/).

I have spent a lot of time looking into this and I must agree that CSS is definitely the way forward. I知 not an expert and this is just my opinion. I知 sure many people may disagree

I am just wondering who has managed to or had time to convert their website to CSS and if you have not is there a reason you haven稚.

Lastly I知 very interested from hearing from anyone who has built a ecommerce website using CSS and integrated a third party shopping cart. Have you validated your website and passed? This is what I am hoping to do so any help will be much appreciated.

Please note I知 not looking for any web design services at the moment as I would like to try to do this myself.

Tahir

Bugsy
22-02-2006, 03:40 PM
I have never used CSS before i still use tables. If you have got a spare minute could you explain the differences between the both?

Cheers

Over and Out!

kinster
22-02-2006, 03:42 PM
isn't CSS just stylesheets for colours, fonts bladdy blah?

Bugsy
22-02-2006, 03:47 PM
I have never used CSS before i still use tables. If you have got a spare minute could you explain the differences between the both?

Cheers

Over and Out!

syka786
22-02-2006, 03:55 PM
Hi,
CSS stands for cascading style sheets. I am still quite new to it but have learnt quite a bit using tutorials from magazine and online.

You basically use Div tags or layers instead of tables.
You set a style to each div and can hold all the styles in an external CSS file. All font attributes are set in the external CSS file as well. Therefore if you want to change something in the design you just change the CSS file and everything will be changed automatically.

Another benefit of having the external CSS file is that it makes your web page file size much smaller hence a faster download speed when someone visits your site.

You can change the entire look a website by changing the CSS file. Have a look at www.csszengarden.com to see this in action. Basically the html on this site is always the same but only the external CSS file is changed therefore changing the entire look of the website.

After seeing this you must agree that a table built website can not compete with the design features of CSS.

If I知 wrong about anything please correct me as I am still in the learning process

Tahir

syka786
22-02-2006, 03:59 PM
If you need any more help with CSS I recommend buying the Practical Web Design magazine as this has helped me a lot. Also listen to Boagworld podcasts which are available on iTunes and also come with the above mentioned magazine.

There are also hundreds of CSS tutorials online just search using google as there are too many for me to list here.

Tahir

openmind
22-02-2006, 03:59 PM
Unfortunately it's not quote as simple as a lot of people think to completely eradicate tables.

As a working experiment I have created a dynamic, database driven directory site without using a single table and it's enough to make you want to pull your hair out!: http://www.searchwebby.com

Yes I agree that using css is the ideal way to create a site these days however if the site is built using tables and validates this does not make it a bad site to be condemned and burnt at the stake ;)

syka786
22-02-2006, 04:05 PM
Hi openmind.

I agree with you that a site made with tables and validated with errors doesnt mean its a bad website. I validated ebay and they have hundreds of errors.

Sorry If I came across as insulting peoples websites which are built using tables. This is not the case.

Just wanted to know if anyone has been succesful so far using only CSS.

Has anyone had their design on www.csszengarden.com because that would be quite an acheivement in my eyes.

Tahir

syka786
22-02-2006, 04:10 PM
just checked out your website openmind and the design is great considering you havent used a single table. The site is very eye friendly with some simple but effective colours and actualy makes you want to browse.

How long did it take because I have to say I am really impressed.

Tahir

openmind
22-02-2006, 04:27 PM
Well the template took about two hours, it's the dynamics behind it that got me for a while.

It's easy creating a static css site, start using server side language to generate the code is where it gets much more fun! :D

peekaboo
22-02-2006, 04:30 PM
Well thought I would post as im quitre pleased with myself for completeing a clients site recently completely tableless, im in the process of moving everyone over to this, but takes time!! Getting there though :)

the site - www.all4property.net

Regards
Brett White

annablackaby
22-02-2006, 04:33 PM
I've never heard of validating before, and just checked my own website on the W3 validator, and it comes up with quite a few errors such as no background colour for some lines.

Can any explain simply what this means in concrete terms? Is it to do with how the page is seen in different browsers?

Anna

syka786
22-02-2006, 04:40 PM
Hey Brett nice design. I like the floating box look. Good job.

Anna You can check the errors and try fix them by just editing the HTML. But do not change anything if you didnt design the page yourself as I do not want to be the cause of ruining your website.

Tahir

JustOneUK
22-02-2006, 05:06 PM
i dislike CSS ...especially for layout

... it's OK for things like hyperlink styling and setting styles for TABLES...but not for irradicating tables.

CSS works wonders if you have a site that remains static forever, but as soon as you want to make layout or design changes...you have to rewrite your whole site ...and the CSS.

openmind
22-02-2006, 05:11 PM
Not strictly true I'm afraid ;)

That's the whole point of using css for layouts, if you want to change the entire layout you just change the css file...

syka786
22-02-2006, 05:14 PM
Hi JustoneUK as openmind just said and as I mentioned before you can change the entire layout by just changing the css file. Visit he website I mentioned before for some great examples of this.

Tahir

JustOneUK
22-02-2006, 06:43 PM
hi syka
I have seen that site a few times and if I remember rightly...csszengarden does NOT validate, :D
(they need to work on it a little more) ;)

openmind... I appreciate what you are saying, however CSS only works well with a static design that never changes. Therefore it does have benefits to certain website designs.
As I said I find it useful for controlling tables styles and hyperlinks...but that's about it.

With regards to replacing tables.... that's just great...until you need to add some tables to your design ;)
Trying to achieve a nested design in CSS is not worth the time of day....all IMHO of course.

James

shamrocker
22-02-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by JustOneUK

openmind... I appreciate what you are saying, however CSS only works well with a static design that never changes.

What's the point of having CSS if the site never changes. Surely the whole point about having CSS is that a site can be changed quickly and easily without having to alter each and every page on the site. If the site is static and never changes then how does CSS play an useful role?


While we're on the topic, what happens when a site is not 100% valid? I do a bit of web design as a hobby using Dreamweaver and there's always code errors, but the sites look fine in IE 5 or 6 in different screen resolutions so I'm happy with this. Even with other browsers they seem ok.

syka786
22-02-2006, 08:04 PM
Hi James,

Regarding zengarden at the bottom of each design is a dirct link to validate each page and they always seem to pass. When did you last visit the site.

I find it easier to change a design with css because you can position things where you want them to be. For example you can change position of the side navigation from the left side to the right side of the screen with just one line of code in the css sheet.

Also why would you need to add tables to a site made entirely of CSS. You would add more DIVs to create what you need instead of the tables.

Shamrocker even if your web page is static I am sure that you will eventually make changes to the design one day and the quickest way would be to change the css sheet.

Also Shamrocker one feature I find usefull is that you can have background images in the CSS sheet and therefore the html file size will be smaller therefore a faster running website.

I know many people are still using tables and I think tables are very useful but IMHO i think CSS is still better even though there is a lot more work involved.

check out webmasterworld.com it has a great forum about CSS and you learn quite a bit. Also I asked Paul from Boagworld about using tables instead of CSS and this was his reply.

"As for the comment about rows and columns, I would use DIVS and not tables in that situation...It can be done without tables though. Check out:

http://www.headscape.co.uk/gallery/6/portfolio.html

Not a table in sight."

Tahir, thanks for the response everyone and I hope people have fun using and trying out CSS

Im off to watch Chelsea vs Barca

CHELSEA ALL DA WAY!!!!!!!!
My prediction Chelsea 3 - Barca 1

peekaboo
22-02-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by JustOneUK

openmind... I appreciate what you are saying, however CSS only works well with a static design that never changes. Therefore it does have benefits to certain website designs.
As I said I find it useful for controlling tables styles and hyperlinks...but that's about it.

With regards to replacing tables.... that's just great...until you need to add some tables to your design ;)
Trying to achieve a nested design in CSS is not worth the time of day....all IMHO of course.

James

Im sorry James but that is Rubbish!!!! I could spend the next hour giving reasons why!! But I really don't need to!! I find it hard that people can state things that to be honest they have no knowledge off! Sorry if sounds harsh mate, not intended, just wanted to make it clear!!

Brett White

juvanescence
22-02-2006, 10:08 PM
Recently updated my site to be completely tableless.. it even validates. :)

As a creative I felt that I needed to move with the times.

slinky19820
22-02-2006, 11:09 PM
I am re-designing my site using entirely css and learning to hand code at the same time. I am having great fun and really enjoying it.

The thing I find very frustrating with css is the the lack of consistent support across browsers. I am finding layouts and positioning difficult to code so that it looks good in both IE and Mozilla. I have designed mine to look good in IE, as that is what 80-90% of people use, and it's all over the place in Mozilla!

I would like to think that designing with web standards and CSS is the way forward, and eventually browser support will be consistent.

Anyway, just my opinion. I'm not an expert.

syka786
23-02-2006, 12:10 AM
Thats great to Jonathon. Good to hear more and more people are moving on.

Also Laura regarding Mozilla users. A lot more people are using firefox now so it is worth while making sure your website looks right in firefox.

This is a good place to start. It teaches you CSS from scratch and might have something you missed out Laura.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/livedesign/

Tahir

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by marginex
Im sorry James but that is Rubbish!!!! I could spend the next hour giving reasons why!! But I really don't need to!! I find it hard that people can state things that to be honest they have no knowledge off! Sorry if sounds harsh mate, not intended, just wanted to make it clear!!

Brett White

If you say so Brett. :)


I have happily proved before that css can be a waste of time. Not in all instances of course, but a few.

Keep your hair on mate.

James

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by syka786
Hi James,

Regarding zengarden at the bottom of each design is a dirct link to validate each page and they always seem to pass. When did you last visit the site.



26 Nov 2005....Well at least it validates now :)

another of the issues with css zengarden and all of the examples they showcase is that if you select "Text Size">"Larger" in Internet Explorer the text does not resize...as it would explode the beautifully CSS'ed layout. .......this is of course against the w3 protocols of website accessibility.

Deny this at will.

I wish people who know nothing about these things would stop throwing their toys out of their prams when it comes to defending CSS...which as i said before...has limited usefulness.


CSS is great if you have a website that is a white page with 4 lines of text....that never changes.

James
(In the CSS know)

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 01:27 AM
Hi James,

Again sorry about being over the top, but again you fail to backup your arguement, surely you can understand this is frustrating?!?!?

Throw anything at me that proves your arguement, I will eat my own hat, but as you can tell, im feeling confident!

I suppose I could throw in the fact that a couple of "sites" such as Yahoo.co.uk and tiscali.co.uk use tableless layouts, and they have content updated hourly on there website, but I guess this can pass for content that never changes?!?!?

Regards
Brett White

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by marginex
Hi James,

Throw anything at me that proves your arguement, I will eat my own hat, but as you can tell, im feeling confident!

Regards
Brett White

sure if you really want to waste your time.....I will set something up.

I am sure you will try to talk your way round it... but that's life.

I have done it before so i guess i will do it again. I will post the link here tomorrow sometime.

James

syka786
23-02-2006, 01:41 AM
I know I am not a expert on webdesign as I stated before but in my experience I just find using CSS better as it give more freedom in my designs. When I use tables I have to keep spliting and merging cells which is quite annoying.

Regarding CSS zengarden that is a valid point about IE which I did not notice since I use firefox. But I will definately look into that.

But saying CSS is only good for a white page and 4 lines I definately do not agree with. Brett gives a good example why. We will have to see in the future what happens with tables and CSS because most people I speak to seem to agree with CSS being the way forward.

I understand you have created your websites with tables and they are great websites. Have you tried to convert them to CSS or are you 100% sure tables is a better option?

Tahir

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by syka786
are you 100% sure tables is a better option?

Tahir

yep.

tables AND css work well together...going that extra mile to have a fluid css layout is just a waste of time.
Sometimes even CSS for the content is a waste of time...apparently i have to prove that...that's the easy bit...you watch the squirming that will occur...and the excuses ...seen it before{shrug}

your thread is titled
Who has converted their website from tables to CSS - If you have not, why not?

Because it is not worth it.

James

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
sure if you really want to waste your time.....I will set something up.

I am sure you will try to talk your way round it... but that's life.

I have done it before so i guess i will do it again. I will post the link here tomorrow sometime.

James

James,

Im not attacking what you saying, please don't take it at that, and I will not try and talk my way round anything, im just stating facts and with those 2 website examples I fell I have justified it, you have yet to do anything to even show let alone prove what your saying, thats my arguement!

I look forward to reading your post explaining why myself, Yahoo, Tisali, and W3C (the people who set the standard for the internet) are wrong in what we are saying :)

Regards
Brett White

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by marginex

Im not attacking what you saying, please don't take it at that, and I will not try and talk my way round anything

Regards
Brett White

my mistake, i thought you said....
"Im sorry James but that is Rubbish!!!! I could spend the next hour giving reasons why!! But I really don't need to!! I find it hard that people can state things that to be honest they have no knowledge off!"

I will post something very easy... it's from one of my sites...if CSS is so great then you can take the test... actually do it... show how easy CSS is...then reap the plaudits..I will make it simple.

no problem with me. I am not the one defending CSS here.

James

Facevault
23-02-2006, 02:25 AM
i have to agree with brett, ultimatly css is the "better" way to design, it gives you alot more freedom in terms of accessablity...it also allows you to compleatly change the entire site by changing one file, id very much like to see that done with tables.

it does take time but it is deffinatly time well spent, as a year donw the line when you want to change the look of your site, you dont want to have to been compleatly rebuilding it from the ground up.

Basically if your making a site thats going to be around for any length of time css is the better option, as changes will need to be made at some point, and css makes that alot easyer

as far as css only being good for static non changing sites, my most recent project allows users to have their own profile, and change the look of it to however they want it, this would have been near impossible withiut css....and that site is most deffinatly not static non changing content.

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
my mistake, i thought you said....
"Im sorry James but that is Rubbish!!!! I could spend the next hour giving reasons why!! But I really don't need to!! I find it hard that people can state things that to be honest they have no knowledge off!"

I will post something very easy... it's from one of my sites...if CSS is so great then you can take the test... actually do it... show how easy CSS is...then reap the plaudits..I will make it simple.

no problem with me. I am not the one defending CSS here.

James
Ok im not attacking you personelly, better? I dont need to take a test to prove why me and the rest of the professional web designers think you (a non web designer) is wrong, tell you what you send an email to Yahoo etc asking why they are taking the silly option for doing a pure CSS website.

Ill leave you with this quote from the W3C website on the about page
:
"To lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web."

Regards
Brett White

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by marginex
I dont need to take a test to prove why me and the rest of the professional web designers think you (a non web designer) is wrong, tell you what you send an email to Yahoo etc asking why they are taking the silly option for doing a pure CSS website.

Regards
Brett White

Originally posted by JustOneUK
you watch the squirming that will occur...and the excuses ...seen it before{shrug}

and now...seen it again.

(although quicker than expected this time)

...email Yahoo, LOL :) good one.

syka786
23-02-2006, 03:03 AM
Hi James
Are yu a actual web designer? Or do you just make websites for yourself. I admire you for sticking with your arguement that tables are better than CSS but surely as Brett has stated you can not know more than the designers of Yahoo
Or maybe you do and then I apologise.

Tahir

Facevault
23-02-2006, 05:03 AM
I think 99.9% of the experianced devleopers from this forum and from the rest of the net will agree with brett, css is the new way to do things, and it makes things a hell of alot easyer, both for the developer and for the sites users (in terms of accessability etc) For people that can be bothered to learn how to do it.

shamrocker
23-02-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
26 Nov 2005....Well at least it validates now :)

another of the issues with css zengarden and all of the examples they showcase is that if you select "Text Size">"Larger" in Internet Explorer the text does not resize...as it would explode the beautifully CSS'ed layout. .......this is of course against the w3 protocols of website accessibility.

Deny this at will.

I wish people who know nothing about these things would stop throwing their toys out of their prams when it comes to defending CSS...which as i said before...has limited usefulness.


CSS is great if you have a website that is a white page with 4 lines of text....that never changes.

James
(In the CSS know)


James,

You don't really seem to be backing up your side of the argument very well. You give us the impression that you have a competent and practival knowledge of CSS and it uses, however you haven't even strung together a decent defence for your stance on the issue. I am not a web designer or coder but I have been led to believe the way forward with the design of web sites, especially larger ones, is with the use of CSS. Seriously, if this is not the case and CSS is actually a whole load of hyped up cr@p then I'd like to hear why so that I can hopefully form a balanced and informed opinion on the issue myself. Brett has been a contributing member of this forum for quite some time and he doesn't usually broadcast an opinion without a sound basis so in this instance I would tend to believe what he is saying. I am very interested to see what more you can add to this topic that might make me change my mind.

rockable
23-02-2006, 11:10 AM
CSS is great if you have a website that is a white page with 4 lines of text....that never changes.


eh??

So if you have a site of 100 pages, and you suddenly decide you want the background image for 1 section of your site to change, or you want to make a column longer but thinner, you would have to go throught every page and table and change each indiviually.....with css...just change 1 file

Trust me....i used to wate too many hours fixing tables on huge sites!

Dave

openmind
23-02-2006, 11:44 AM
OK first of all everyone is welcome to their own opinion whether CSS only sites are better than table based ones or not but I wanted to make a couple of quick points.

As a professional web designer (I use the term professional simply as this is what I and others, such as Brett, do for a living) we are obliged, not only to our clients but also to the "Internet Community" as a whole, to make reasonable efforts to use new technologies wherever appropriate.

Using CSS to layout and construct sites is rapidly becoming a de-facto standard. Tables can still be used but should only be used for the layout of tabular data (despite the fact that this can also be achieved with CSS)

After having a quick look at your sites James, and I'm only singling you out as you are the only one so far to really balk against the idea of using CSS for layouts ;), you have a mixture of CSS and tables to create the pages. There are nested div's in there to control positioning, styles used within the html tags which could easily be replaced with CSS and the code overall is only to a medium standard.

You would actually benefit tremendously by learning CSS to layout your site as it's not an overly complex design. Your site would be faster, it would validate to a much higher standard than you currently have, it would be more accessible to screen readers and those with disabilities, the list is endless...

I will gladly hold my hands up and say that a lot if not all my clients sites are laid out with tables and not CSS. The difference being is that even one of my eCommerce sites which may hold several thousand products still only has a total of about 10-15 files as they are powered by databases. This means if I want to make a change across all pages, the time it will take is almost as quick as if I use CSS.

If those pages were static html files it would be a complete nightmare to make even the smallest layout change.

That's precisely the reason why I built www.searchwebby.com as an exercise to create a 100% table-less design that validates to XHTML Strict, the highest possible level of validation, excluding accessibility validation, that you can currently obtain.

NB: Yes I know that XHTML Strict is being superceded but it's not mainstream browser supported yet ;)

Over time I will move all my clients sites over to this type of layout purely for the reasons I have laid out above.

At the end of the day, the method you choose for the construction of your site is indeed completely up to you, however, using the argument that CSS is a waste of time purely as you haven't implemented the technology to it's full extent is flawed simply as you won't know until you try. :)

InnoCreate
23-02-2006, 12:16 PM
Ok while we're on the subject i think it seems every one except James (not me!!) agrees CSS is the way forward!

Anyway what i want to know is what in everyones opinion is on the best webstandards to use to acheive the greatest compatability with the browsers such as IE, Safari, Firefox, netscape and for both early and new versions. Would any one recommend HTML 4.1 and CSS v1.

I assume XHTML isn;t supported by most of the older browsers along with CSS v2.

Also what about mobile phones and PDA's etc - what's the best versions for them - i know each device will vary depending how old it is etc but i want to know the best standards to use to acheive the greatest compatability with everything.
Cheers

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 02:01 PM
Woohoo...it's becoming a witch hunt :D

Do I have to drown or float, I forget which one makes me a witch.

Originally posted by syka786
Hi James
Are yu a actual web designer? Or do you just make websites for yourself. I admire you for sticking with your arguement that tables are better than CSS but surely as Brett has stated you can not know more than the designers of Yahoo
Or maybe you do and then I apologise.

Tahir

I make websites for customers and myself.
Do they care if it's a fluid CSS design without tables? ...NO
Do the google results? ..NO

Yes Yahoo has gone to a tableless design, and I would probably do the same once my website gets 100+ million hits per day. However that is not likely to happen this week.
BTW.. go have a look at the source code for Yahoo.com, the first 200+ lines is all the styling..is that want you to be dealing with and have your customers dealing with on a daily basis? most of the "webdesigners" here couldn't handle Yahoo's page design even if you paid them to do it. Most of them struggle with their own sites.

Yes I do know how to use CSS I simply do not choose to sit around trying to get every single punctuation mark written in CSS. There is no value in doing it other than posting in a forum "look at my tableless design" as if it warrants some kind of recognition amongst the 400 million websites on the internet that do use tables.
CSS does have its advantages especially in aiding the control of TABLES, there is certainly no need to remove tables all together.
It is a web designers obligation to build what the customer wants, not go off on some ego trip because they can make a 10 page website in CSS.

As I said, I can lay on a quick test to prove what a pain CSS really is, but no one wants to step up to the plate....no worries.

In terms of bandwidth and page load times: with the momentum of broadband growth and bandwidth costs coming down, a few lines of html or php is hardly going to make a difference when people can easily afford to have streaming video clips and huge flash files knocking about on their websites.

Let me clarify:
I am not against people wanting to go with a tableless design..that's their choice...my arguement is that it is a totally unnecessary waste of time...and probably your customers money.

James

openmind
23-02-2006, 02:14 PM
Woohoo...it's becoming a witch hunt
No it's a discussion ;)
It is a web designers obligation to build what the customer wants, not go off on some ego trip because they can make a 10 page website in CSS
It is a web designers obligation to build a compliant, validating site that functions as per the clients specification. I can assure that the pro designers on here don't do this to inflate their ego, they do it because they can, and I seriously doubt they charge more for doing so.
am not against people wanting to go with a tableless design..that's their choice...my argument is that it is a totally unnecessary waste of time...and probably your customers money.

OK so please explain why the standard has been introduced by the W3C? As for it being a waste of your customers money, I see no reason why a designer would charge more for a css design then a table one.

TBH I would not be totally surprised in the near future(3-5 years) that tables will become unsupported by browsers just as other tags have become deprecated.

As I said, I can lay on a quick test to prove what a pain CSS really is, but no one wants to step up to the plate....no worries.
If you want to issue a sensible, achievable challenge then I'm up for it...

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by openmind
TBH I would not be totally surprised in the near future(3-5 years) that tables will become unsupported by browsers just as other tags have become deprecated.

I agree, I see it happening that way too and also progress with new tags and the way css functions and is applied, they will call it css+.
It would be a pretty bold step to make browsers that do not support tables... especially as they are good for holding tabular data :)

I have yet to see a website built entirely in CSS that doesn't look like it might as well have been made with a few tables. Apart from of course csszengarden, (which currently fails accessibility protocols)

just kidding about the witch hunt thing...I am man enough ;)

James

openmind
23-02-2006, 02:25 PM
okey doke so how about that challenge? :D

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by openmind
okey doke so how about that challenge? :D

justoneuk.com/SouthEast/Crawley/csstest.htm

enjoy

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 04:09 PM
Im not sure how that is a test??

I can tell you now that is easily possible in CSS and really you should know that, also we have all agreed CSS websites are more time consuming apart from that im not sure what else it is your trying to prove?

If it the the whole time constraints thing, then surely if you design your clients sites now in tables to save time, and you have admitted in a few years browsers wont support them etc then surely by not making them CSS now your only going to have to redo them in the next couple of years, doubling the time and cost to you and your clients??

Regards
Brett White

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 04:17 PM
so you're not going to do the test, huh?

LOL :)... thought not.
(It was a bit tricky involving a WHOLE table)

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 04:29 PM
lol sarcasim quite good actually!!!

I will take the test as long as you can tell me first the purpose of it??

vigo
23-02-2006, 04:30 PM
http://vigo.org.uk/csstest/

Took me 25 minutes.

This version is far more flexible (to make it horizontal would take about 5 seconds), easier to change, smaller page weight and more accessible to alternative technologies (such as screenreaders) and search engines (like our friend googlebot).

Compliant web development saves money upfront, it saves money down the line and provides a much better value to the customer. Don't have a paddy just because you can't work out how to do it.

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 04:40 PM
Stunning Nathan!!!! :)

Regards
Brett White

vigo
23-02-2006, 04:41 PM
Thanks Brett, we aim to please :)

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 05:00 PM
nice job Nathan, it's a little out of kilter...shame no one else has your skill set...

(it's all talk in the ol' boys network.)

i know you were keen to get a look at part two...so...and for the sake of all the other "webdesigners"...here it is.



Good luck with it.

justoneuk.com/SouthEast/Crawley/css-told-you-it-sucks.htm

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
nice job Nathan, it's a little out of kilter...shame no one else has your skill set...

(it's all talk in the ol' boys network.)

i know you were keen to get a look at part two...so...and for the sake of all the other "webdesigners"...here it is.



Good luck with it.

justoneuk.com/SouthEast/Crawley/css-told-you-it-sucks.htm
I know your trying you best to wind us up, bless but it ain't working.

So after your looking at your "test 2" I can see your whole argument on the factor that CSS is rubbish becuase it takes a little more time, pathetic!!

After all this, i wouldnt have bothered!! I think my clients like the fact I put time and effort in there websites, and again your missing the whole point, it may be quicker to build "1" page with tables but if you had 50 pages with those tables and decided to change the layout slightly, im pretty sure I know which would win between tables and CSS layouts :)

Facevault
23-02-2006, 05:41 PM
JustOneUK, i just have to say, you make websties for other people, and further up i read something along the lines of do my clients care.....thats absolutly discusting as a designer, they probarbly would care if they understood, and its your responcibility as their designer to make sure they do understand, and that they receive a good quality end product, there not there for you to make money from them as quickly as possible and providing them with the bear minimum.

openmind
23-02-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
nice job Nathan, it's a little out of kilter...shame no one else has your skill set...

(it's all talk in the ol' boys network.)

i know you were keen to get a look at part two...so...and for the sake of all the other "webdesigners"...here it is.



Good luck with it.

justoneuk.com/SouthEast/Crawley/css-told-you-it-sucks.htm

James. If you can't make subjective comments that are relevant to the thread that don't set out to deliberately wind people up then please don't bother at all.

Failing that I'll have no alternative but to edit your posts and issue a warning. This is in my capacity as a Shell moderator, nothing else...

Back to the thread...

As far as I can see, Nathan took your "test" and passed with flying colours. The second part of your test has become pretty irrelevant as all you have asked is for minor changes to the existing table which you claim took you minutes.

The point you are missing, as Brett pointed out, is that this is not a discussion orientating around one single table, the point you are missing entirely is that it is easier and quicker to make changes on a global scale using css.

If you would like to prove that statement wrong I would certainly be interested as to how you would achieve that.

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by marginex

So after your looking at your "test 2" I can see your whole argument on the factor that CSS is rubbish becuase it takes a little more time, pathetic!!


If you say so marginex, after all you're the "webdesigner" here.
However at least some people will read this thread and realise just how much smoke you are blowing.

once again Kudos@ Nathan for at least taking 25 mins out of his day.

Breeze It... I discuss the customers needs... I tell them the options and they decide...and give them what they want.
It's not rocket science and I am not trying to build the next yahoo or msn.

you try explaining to the owner of this Crawley Carpet Cleaning (http://www.crawleycarpetcleaning.co.uk) company that his site needs to be built only using CSS and he would probably give you a slap.

gotta scoot........


Regards to all.
James

Facevault
23-02-2006, 05:57 PM
"Breeze It... I discuss the customers needs... I tell them the options and they decide...and give them what they want.
It's not rocket science and I am not trying to build the next yahoo or msn."

Im sure if you outlined the advantages of css based sites they would want those, and im sure they would go elsewhere when they found out that it wont cost them anymore to have a site like that, that meets the latest standards, that's accessable...thats built using the same technology as the big sites like yahoo....you seriously think they would stick with you and your tables given the choice for the same price?

InnoCreate
23-02-2006, 07:01 PM
Maybe James is protesting so much because he just doesn't have the skills to do CSS.

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by openmind

The point you are missing, as Brett pointed out, is that this is not a discussion orientating around one single table, the point you are missing entirely is that it is easier and quicker to make changes on a global scale using css.

If you would like to prove that statement wrong I would certainly be interested as to how you would achieve that.
I think i am entirely focused on the point.
I agree that making sitewide changes with CSS is a benefit, it's doing it without the need for tables that is the issue.

Just getting one table created in CSS seems to be an issue, the fact that Yahoo have done it is a pointless argument, Yell will probably do it seeing as they have a turnover of 1.4 Billion.
I know someone that builds sites completely in flash... so?

Making websites for the masses without tables is like using a fire extinguisher to put out a match

If you have a website where you may occasionally change content (daily perhaps) without making sweeping sitewide changes, then CSS can sometimes not be your friend..with tables OR without.


Originally posted by openmind

I see no reason why a designer would charge more for a css design then a table one.
Originally posted by marginex

also we have all agreed CSS websites are more time consuming
So a "webdesigner" needs to spend more time for no extra money...
that sounds like a good way to do business.

I thought time was money, and if you can't manage your time....

InnoCreate
I am fully aware of CSS, I use it on my sites for various parts, I just choose to use tables with it and can still make those sweeping sitewide changes if I find it necessary...even with tables. :)

James

peekaboo
23-02-2006, 07:52 PM
James,

I fully agree with you in that I to hope people read this thread, becuase then they will see im not blowing smoke but instead read your sarcastic and silly attempts at trying to wind people up.

Also have you tried hand coding html and CSS, theres not alot in it when it comes to timing, and becuase I said CSS can be more time consuming who is to say I would charge more for it???

Regards
Brett White

openmind
23-02-2006, 08:08 PM
We seem to be going round in circles here so this will be my last post on the subject...

You have raised the point between what you see as two contradicting statements by Brett and myself with regards to charging.

Designers who are using CSS for layouts and have been for some time will most likely create a layout quicker than one who uses tables and vice versa. That's no reason to pass the costs onto the client, it's the designers weapon of choice.

I charge more for a database driven site than I do for a static one even if there are the same number of files present simply as creating the code to interact with a database takes more time. Hence the method used to create the layout is irrelevant.

You really should give CSS a fair crack of the whip and I think that once you have taken the time to really understand the possibilities then you will appreciate it far more.

One last point, and this may seem trivial and I apologise in advance if I'm wrong, but every time you have quoted Brett in one of your posts you have enclosed the word web designer in quotation marks. I honestly hope that this is not been done to indicate that Brett is anything less than a very competent and professional web designer in every sense of the word. I have worked with him on several occasions and have found his work to be of a very high standard.

As I said, if I've got the wrong end of the stick, I will apologise now...

JustOneUK
23-02-2006, 08:30 PM
Brett also stands for what he believes, I have no problem with that.

I don't think that there is any high ground on the subject of
Tables/No tables.... unless necessity dictates.

When someone wants a pat on the back for a tableless design..they won't get it from me.
When they hit 1 Million uniques/day...they will.


James

</participation>

syka786
23-02-2006, 08:49 PM
Hi everyone I didnt realise that so many people agree that CSS is the way forward as I am quite new to the whole web design world. I would not say I am a web designer but I do enjoy web designing. But more importantly Everyone seems to have missed the most important part of my question which was

"Lastly I知 very interested from hearing from anyone who has built a ecommerce website using only CSS and integrated a third party shopping cart. Have you validated your website and passed? This is what I am hoping to do so any help will be much appreciated."

Thanks for any help guys.

Tahir

openmind
23-02-2006, 08:51 PM
Short answer, no not yet ;)

kinster
23-02-2006, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by syka786
Hi everyone I didnt realise that so many people agree that CSS is the way forward

it's been like that for years

shamrocker
23-02-2006, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by JustOneUK
Brett also stands for what he believes, I have no problem with that.

I don't think that there is any high ground on the subject of
Tables/No tables.... unless necessity dictates.

When someone wants a pat on the back for a tableless design..they won't get it from me.
When they hit 1 Million uniques/day...they will.


James

</participation>

You've changed your slant on the discussion. Earlier you stated that CSS was a waste of time and was only useful on a site that never changed. Now you've gone on a childish rant about tables. You did the same when your business ideas were responed to in a manner that you could not accept. It's becoming quite clear that you aren't particularly mature and will develop the reputation of a spoilt brat on these message boards. Just my opinion, not doubt you'll make a huge fuss over this statement too.

JustOneUK
24-02-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by shamrocker
Earlier you stated that CSS was a waste of time and was only useful on a site that never changed. Now you've gone on a childish rant about tables.

the thread is entitled

"Who has converted their website from tables to CSS - If you have not, why not?"

...it is about tables, which is why I am talking about tables.

If the BBC can use tables in their pages...so can I.

I currently have nothing more to say on the subject of tables and CSS at this point.

James

chriso
27-02-2006, 04:52 PM
CSS is great if you have a website that is a white page with 4 lines of text....that never changes.

James
(In the CSS know)

Hi James,

All our sites and our client sites are database driven and are designed using CSS and no tables at all and display perfectly well in firefox and IE.

They do take a lot more work than just tables initially but are so much simpler to change and control once they're in place, and it's much easier to create new pages using CSS rather than coding the whole thing by hand as you used to have to with tables, which could be awfully cumbersome.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of CSS - I think you get a much better quality of site using CSS than you did using tables and it's much more flexible too.

Regards,
Sarah

XS Developments
27-02-2006, 05:49 PM
Hello,

I've read this thread with much interest, but it does seem that people have taken rather polarised stances in the debate.

The decision to use CSS or tables in your pages should rely more on your design and content - rather than which technique is currently in vogue.

Much of the web design industry press take a view that professional designers should use CSS wherever possible ... however, I would say, use what is appropriate to what you are displaying:

For design-intensive or abstract layouts, CSS usually works more favourably. Often, to get the layout control that you need on your page using tables, you need reams of table definition tags ... often with nested tables, and spanned rows and columns. This can be bad because it can be fiddly to decipher, and means that your HTML is larger than it needs to be.

With CSS, you can specify a div tag and float it to the exact position on the page that you require (for example, maybe having a text box positioned accurately over an image).


Conversly, where information is tabular by nature ... use a table! :-

Frequently, the output of database-generated pages is repetative and structured (e.g. products in an e-commerce listing), so the use of tables is appropriate (if not preferable).

Finally, there are some minor issues aligning items when using CSS ... tables give you full control to align left and right and vertically within a cell - css divs do not. But this is nothing which is not insurmountable.


Jim

P.S. Thank god nobody is having arguments over whether frames are a good thing or not .. that finally seems to have died off ;-) ;-)

XS Developments
27-02-2006, 06:23 PM
Something that I should have added, is that certain tools push you down a certain path.

Web "design" tools such as dreamweaver or golive lend themselves strongly to css-based design.

Web "development" tools such as asp.net lend themselves to tabular-based construction.

For example, in asp.net there are controls such as the "datagrid". This is a powerful tool used to display the output from things such as database queries. As a developer, you are abstracted away from the html and can interact with it programatically (i.e. "I want to display the following columns:" ) .... I don't need to get involved in the nitty gritty of the actually html - as this "control" automatically generates the markup that you require.

Because this sort of tool generates tables natively, I won't be turning my back on tables for quite some time yet - even though I generally use CSS for most of my "design" work.

I find CSS and div layers are more analogous with desktop publishing tools such as indesign or quark - that are far more layout-specific.

Jim

syka786
27-02-2006, 09:52 PM
Hi, Jim thanks for the very informative response.
Regarding your response about ecommerce sites using tables. Would you recommend a site is designed completely out of css but having 1 main div containing a table for where all products are going to be displayed.

Fot example I would create a site using css and have a centre div for the products. I would then use a shopping cart system such as Xcart and place the products table in that div. Therefore If I wanted to change the layout of the site because I have used CSS for the actual design it would be easier. But because the way the products are displayed is going to displayed is a simple table format the table is easily changed as well.

Hope this example makes sense and please let me know if anyone has done this succesfuly.

Tahir

XS Developments
28-02-2006, 01:18 AM
Tahir, glad to be of help.

I would stress that CSS is not synonymous with "Layers" (DIV tag layouts). CSS is applied to most HTML elements on a page - *including tables.* (i.e. you can control the look of your tables from a central stylesheet).

CSS and tables are not opposing techniques! (the discussion previously was more about using "layers" versus tables)

When people talk about using CSS for layout, they usually mean defining the positional information for a div tag, in a (separate) stylesheet. The benefit of this is to be able to re-use elements (such a navigation panel being the same on every page by simply adding a div with the appropriate label)

-------------

Anyway, in response to your question, I understand exactly what you are saying. I can see nothing wrong with what you have suggested, and to be honest, I'm guessing that you have no choice but to accept tabular ourput from x-cart anyway (although I must admit, I don't know how x-cart integrates with a page ... so I'll cut short rather than talk about something I don't know)

What I would question is why you want to use css. I get the impression that you're doing it because you've been told that it's the right thing. Do you follow?

Use CSS layout because it makes your page better - and do so because you understand why that is. So, if by using CSS, you make your page faster to load, more robust on different browsers, capable of displaying correctly at different resolutions, and made it easier for you to design you page - then you've done a good job.

If however, it goes all over the place when you resize your browser, where a simple placeholding table would have sufficed, then that's not right either.

It goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier - use what is appropriate for the effect that you are trying to achieve. In most cases this means "use tables to display only tables"

So, for example on my own website, CSS and DIVs where 100% the correct technique to use, because I have bits floating all over the place. Ignoring issues such as performance and code elegance (which I need to shape up) - to achieve the same effect with tables would have been a nightmare.


Jim

JustOneUK
05-03-2006, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by openmind
You really should give CSS a fair crack of the whip and I think that once you have taken the time to really understand the possibilities then you will appreciate it far more.


Well I put my money where my mouth is and rebuilt one of my sites.

It contains some 'naughty words' so don't look if you are easily offended. ROTFLMAO (http://www.rotflmao.co.uk) is not only made in CSS-P but is also valid XHTML 1.0 Strict (2 things I have never bothered with before, CSS-P and Validating pages) the only page that I cannot validate is the
Submit page (http://www.rotflmao.co.uk/submit.htm) which contains a form.. and I haven't had time to look into that yet.

I have to be honest, It's a bit basic, I have given it a go, and I do not like it.
I feel I could build a page in tables 10 times faster with far better layout, styling and a lot less hassle, but I wanted to at least give it the benefit of the doubt. (no point in calling the pot black until you have seen the kettle)

James

VLAHAKISA
06-03-2006, 05:34 PM
Well, I'm impressed by your open minded attitude and willingness to properly consider the opinions of others ........it's a great life skill most people don't have :)

It just feels harder to design this way because you aren't used to doing it, the more you did it, the quicker and easier it would get, I'm sure you must realise this.


Best Wishes

Amanda

syka786
07-03-2006, 01:21 AM
Firstly XS thanks for the advice again. I want to use CSS because I want to be able to change the layout of website easily if I need to so just thought CSS would be the right way to go. I have only started learning to design websites 3 months ago so I thought I would just concentrate on learning CSS.

Hey James your CSS based website is pretty good in terms of layout and Im sure you could make it look much better very easily if you wanted to.

If there is anyone that wants to try out CSS i have found 2 good tutorials from DIGG which were great starting me off and teaching the basics.

http://www.subcide.com/tutorials/csslayout/

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/livedesign/

Also check out www.boagworld.com

Paul Boag who runs the website has some great advice and has a great podcast aswell

Tahir

ps. My 1st website should be live soon. I cant wait :-)