I can understand why people dislike frames. I understand why PHP isn't used more (it needs to be installed on the server in order to work). But CSS appears to have more compatibility issues than tables do. So why is CSS preferred over tables?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why do so many people dislike tables?
- Thread starter DVW86
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
why do people hate frames?
i dunno, its just one of those questions...if people wanna use them, people use them...
i dunno, its just one of those questions...if people wanna use them, people use them...
Here are my rants about tables and frames...
Tables-
There is nothing wrong with using tables appropriately, i.e. displaying tabular data. It's using them to create page layouts that is frowned upon nowadays. Here are a few reasons why:
- adds considerably to page weight - CSS styles allow you to position markup much more efficiently
- linearizes content - table cells will be read one after another across a row by screen readers and alternative browsing devices
- it's semantically wrong - use the right code for the right kind of content
Frames-
There is nothing inherently wrong with frames, but their implementations are often done poorly and lead to several design problems:
- small areas with scrollbars - PITA for users
- accessibility nightmare - unlabeled frames are impossible to navigate for users with text/voice browsers except by trial and error
- bookmarking - framesets (usually) hide the content page making it impossible to bookmark a site's sub-pages
That's all for now.
PS. Not sure why you don't think PHP is widely used either...
Tables-
There is nothing wrong with using tables appropriately, i.e. displaying tabular data. It's using them to create page layouts that is frowned upon nowadays. Here are a few reasons why:
- adds considerably to page weight - CSS styles allow you to position markup much more efficiently
- linearizes content - table cells will be read one after another across a row by screen readers and alternative browsing devices
- it's semantically wrong - use the right code for the right kind of content
Frames-
There is nothing inherently wrong with frames, but their implementations are often done poorly and lead to several design problems:
- small areas with scrollbars - PITA for users
- accessibility nightmare - unlabeled frames are impossible to navigate for users with text/voice browsers except by trial and error
- bookmarking - framesets (usually) hide the content page making it impossible to bookmark a site's sub-pages
That's all for now.
PS. Not sure why you don't think PHP is widely used either...
Rower_CPU said:
Thanks for the reply Rower. I understand the issues with frames, but I wasn't aware of the issues with tables. I didn't say that PHP wasn't widely used, I was just referring to it's limitations. Many people's servers don't have PHP installed so they can't make use of it. For instance the web site I did for a local church doesn't offer PHP, and a local small business asked me to help them on a site and PHP isn't available there either.
So using tables is more of a "grammatical no-no"? How much "weight" do tables add? Does having tables increase the page load time?
OK, I took your "used more" to mean widely used. You're right that it's not available everywhere, but most hosting services make it available these days.DVW86 said:
A common figure tossed around by web standards folks is a 50% reduction in code size, which means a 50% reduction in page file size, which means a 50% reduction in bandwidth usage. Keep in mind these are ballparks figures. Some sites will be more, some less. Load times are dependent partly on page and linked file size and also on page complexity - in either case, you should see load time improvements, too.DVW86 said:
Rower_CPU said:
Hey thanks. That's exactly what I was wondering. So where's a good place to learn CSS? I just downloaded Simple CSS from Hostm.com. I looks fairly straight forward, but I have already noticed that some changes don't take effect in Safari.
I dunno...
I don't see a reduction in text code size as being that big a deal. Even on a dialup modem, the HTML defining even a complex page is not going to be significant - it's less than even one small jpeg image from the page in most cases. For example, if your page code is 5K bytes, and you reduce it to 2.5K bytes by not using tables (and even that's hard to believe, unless you have absolutely no content on the page in question), but you've got 100K bytes of images - your bandwidth reduction is a paltry 2%.
Having said that: CSS is advantageous (in addition to what's already been said) because it'll let you do things that HTML w/tables doesn't do well or at all in terms of layout, element padding, etc. Also using CSS will let you more quickly redesign existing pages - just change the CSS file and everything is updated across your entire site.
I don't see a reduction in text code size as being that big a deal.
Even on a dialup modem, the HTML defining even a complex page is not going to be significant - it's less than even one small jpeg image from the page in most cases. For example, if your page code is 5K bytes, and you reduce it to 2.5K bytes by not using tables (and even that's hard to believe, unless you have absolutely no content on the page in question), but you've got 100K bytes of images - your bandwidth reduction is a paltry 2%.Having said that: CSS is advantageous (in addition to what's already been said) because it'll let you do things that HTML w/tables doesn't do well or at all in terms of layout, element padding, etc. Also using CSS will let you more quickly redesign existing pages - just change the CSS file and everything is updated across your entire site.
DVW86-
A couple good books to start with are "Eric Meyer on CSS" and "Designing with Web Standards"; you can also check out the authors' webpages, http://meyerweb.com and http://zeldman.com, respectively.
There are tons of good online resources out there. Webmonkey is gone now, but another good one is http://www.w3schools.com/.
Westside guy-
Saving 2.5K adds up fast for sites with heavy traffic. 1,000 hits/day "costs" an extra 2.5 megs of transfer with a heavier page; 1,000,000 hits "costs" 2.5 gigs. For smaller sites you probably wont see as much savings, but it's still a very real business justification for replacing layout tables for CSS.
When you add caching of the external stylesheet across the whole site, the benefit grows even further.
A couple good books to start with are "Eric Meyer on CSS" and "Designing with Web Standards"; you can also check out the authors' webpages, http://meyerweb.com and http://zeldman.com, respectively.
There are tons of good online resources out there. Webmonkey is gone now, but another good one is http://www.w3schools.com/.
Westside guy-
Saving 2.5K adds up fast for sites with heavy traffic. 1,000 hits/day "costs" an extra 2.5 megs of transfer with a heavier page; 1,000,000 hits "costs" 2.5 gigs. For smaller sites you probably wont see as much savings, but it's still a very real business justification for replacing layout tables for CSS.
When you add caching of the external stylesheet across the whole site, the benefit grows even further.
Been using tables so long, I don't quite know if I could live without them for page layouts. Sounds like something I'd like to try.
Anybody have stats on what percent of browsers currently in use, use what percent of CSS correctly?
I know that it's not difficult to find out that 72% of the web uses IE6, but what does the other 28% of the world look like? Any specific program or website that can show me what my page will render like without having to install 10 browsers?
Anybody have stats on what percent of browsers currently in use, use what percent of CSS correctly?
I know that it's not difficult to find out that 72% of the web uses IE6, but what does the other 28% of the world look like? Any specific program or website that can show me what my page will render like without having to install 10 browsers?
You can find many charts with a Google search for "css browser support". Some are more complete than others, but between them all, you should be able to piece together a decent snapshot of the current state of CSS support.
Speaking of snapshots, here's a service that allows you to see your design on many different browsers:
http://www.browsercam.com/
Personally, I don't mind installing a bunch of browsers to test designs on.
Speaking of snapshots, here's a service that allows you to see your design on many different browsers:
http://www.browsercam.com/
Personally, I don't mind installing a bunch of browsers to test designs on.
Multiple IE Browsers are available for Windows.
I always enjoyed installing multiple netscapes with ease, but I found nearly impossible to have multiple versions of IE for Windows. But I found a resource that actually let's you use different versions of IE as stand alones.
http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/000094.php
I always enjoyed installing multiple netscapes with ease, but I found nearly impossible to have multiple versions of IE for Windows. But I found a resource that actually let's you use different versions of IE as stand alones.
http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/000094.php
lind0834 said:
Yup, I remember when that came out last fall. It's made a huge difference in my browser testing.
i just hate writing tables in code. they are such a pain in the ars. that and they are usually implemented in a dirty hack way.
frames on the other hand just anger me. it's so hard to link to certain pages within framesets. that, and if you really wanted to, you can get around it with using fixed positioning in CSS... even though IE needs a hack (just like every other standard that IE doesn't follow)
frames on the other hand just anger me. it's so hard to link to certain pages within framesets. that, and if you really wanted to, you can get around it with using fixed positioning in CSS... even though IE needs a hack (just like every other standard that IE doesn't follow)
brianellisrules said:
Thanks for pointing that one out. I misspoke when I said they're gone - their content just won't change anymore and who knows how long it'll be up.
i want to ask a question, does anyone else here use textedit to make thier html code? i learned it in school, and we used textedit. is there a better free way that could maybe be more powerful? i want to get more advanced in it.
Because content isn't presented properly on mobile devices and pda's.
It's very annoying when you become a part of the group that can't access certain parts of important websites.
It's very annoying when you become a part of the group that can't access certain parts of important websites.
