I'm glad to see you advocating for Firefox. IE6 is the pits.
You might want to try installing the YSlow plugin for information on what could be slowing your pages down:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
Specifying a height for every img tag may help the page render more quickly. I'm curious if the JavaScript StumbleUpon and BuzzUp buttons could be causing any trouble?
I also kind of wonder if the 1,701 HTML errors (wow) could be slowing your page rendering down as the browser tries to make sense of your markup.
"Pages that I’ve built with tables all retained their layouts/formatting [on mobile browsers]"
That's exactly what you DO NOT want on most mobile devices. This is why we use CSS positioning! So we can display the same content in different visual formats tuned to the relevant media (devices). Separation of content and presentation, like Demian said.
Having to scroll a web page in both the horizontal and the vertical on a tiny screen sucks the big potatoes! Your page layout that makes sense on a desktop with a huge screen doesn't make any fricken sense on my phone running opera mini.
(Unless of course you've got something like an iPhone that has magic zooming business. And because the iPhone can do this, it honors screen media styles instead of handheld media styles.)
And even if you foolishly want your website to have the same layout on mobile phones and desktop browsers, there's nothing stopping you from doing this with CSS positioning.
You just named 3 ways that CSS is better than tables. You claim because it is only "slightly" better it isn't worth doing. I find your position to be untenable.
As for your point about only having to edit one template... with CSS redesigns you don't have to create a new template. I think you miss the point. See: http://csszengarden.com/
As for your point about "all the browser hacks for CSS" ... that's just your inexperience with CSS positioning speaking. Remember all the little issues with table layouts to figure out when we were all first doing those once they became available? I promise you, work with CSS layouts as long as you have with tables, and it'll become second nature.
I have done table layouts from 1995-2002. I have done CSS layouts from 2002-2008. Are you sure you have enough experience with CSS layouts to be making the claims you are making?
Do you know how to run a successful website / business? Yes. Clearly. I'm not disputing that. Can you run a successful / profitable website that has a table based layout. Yes. Of course. Does this mean table based layouts are the best web development technology? No.
As for your point about SEO, I agree that it isn't strictly about CSS positioning vs table positioning. However, semantic markup really does make a difference, as do numerous other best practices. I think many people who are still using tables to do their layouts are not up to date on web best practices. I guess you are.
As for your claim that there is no standard application of CSS, that's just FUD. I could redesign your site for IE6, IE7, Firefox, and Safari with a single template and style sheet. No problem.
I am thinking about future browsers. Are you?
How does your little wooden bridge handle mobile phone users and blind users? Maybe you think you don't care because that is such a tiny fragment of your audience. But if your template was CSS positioned you could support them with no extra work.
Carl,
IE7 does adhere very well to standards. IE8 will even more so. Microsoft is on board... finally. I'm seeing IE6 usage that is down 50% from where it was, too.
Artifex,
My post was actually very moderate. I agree with most peoples' points. I didn't say you have to validate every single page. I didn't say every website must be CSS positioned. However, table layouts have the same fate as did the dinosaurs. If I'm wrong, are there web conferences and web experts dedicated to the subject of CSS layouts sucking and table layouts being the future? I'm happy to hear what they have to say.
In conclusion,
Web Business != Web Marketing != Web Communications != Web Usability != Web Accessibility != Web Programming != Web Design != Web Markup/CSS Coding... We can't all be good at everything. I know that all of you must be good at some part of that list, and probably some more I left out. I just don't know why you are so threatened by the fact that maybe you aren't an expert on Web Markup/CSS Coding. And I don't know why you refuse to accept what the experts have to say. I'm not trying to tell you how to write your copy or how to run your business. I'm just trying to open your eyes to a better way to do your markup. You don't care? Fine, but that doesn't make you right.
Maybe you are a writer, or an artist, or you make cars, or you write software -- and you want to market yourself on the web. So you go and get Dreamweaver, or you copy and paste some table based layouts from 1995 into a text editor, and you make yourself a website. Good for you. That's great. It is fine if professional web development isn't your thing. I can understand where you are coming from.
You can be a hobbyist web developer, just like I can be a hobbyist bridge maker. I can build a little wooden bridge over the creek in my backyard. That works for me. But you know what? I'm not going to tell somebody who knows how to build a concrete and steel freeway bridge over a river that wood is a better bridge building material just because I can build my wooden bridge faster and cheaper. I'm not going to tell them that 99.9% of people who use the bridge could care less about the chemical properties of concrete. I'm not going to call a REAL bridge engineer a "holier-than-thou, loudmouthed wanker" just because I don't have to worry about whether semi tractor trailers can make it across my little wooden bridge safely.
So maybe your hobbyist table based web design works great for you. Maybe 99.9% of your visitors don't notice or don't care. But that's your website. That's not a professional website.
And maybe there's a bunch of users coming to your website on a mobile phone, and they can't use your site because you chose tables instead of CSS layouts.
And maybe Google bot comes to your site, and wants to build a smart list of keywords, but it can't because you aren't using semantic tags.
And maybe, oh I dunno, a blind person comes to your website because they want to buy your product or read your article. But guess what? Their screen reader doesn't work worth a damn because you are using tables instead of CSS layouts. Did you know Target is in a class action lawsuit right now because their website is inaccessible to the blind?
I bet 90% of you folks defending your use of tables don't know about semantic markup. I bet you've never seen a label tag in your life. I bet you don't give your images alt attributes. Those validation errors are there for a reason.
If you are still using tables, you are doing twice as much work, with half the return. And that might be generous. If you ever were a web professional, you aren't anymore.
And yes, again, I concede that tables vs CSS doesn't matter for your personal blog, or any other website that nobody cares about. But if you fancy yourself a major web player, if your website is a major piece of your business, then hire a real web professional who can give you a website design with semantic markup using CSS layouts.
And if you have a job as a web developer, and you code using tables, keep your mouth shut. Stop talking about things you know nothing about. Stay as far under the radar as you can, and hope that the next 20-something employee at your company doesn't expose you for the fraud that you are.
I know it is the Queen's English and all, but how do you know this phrase isn't of American origins? If it is, well... Jelly is *jelly* here, not Jell-O(R). Maybe you call it jam? Whatever. The point is, it'd be nigh impossible to nail it to a wall... far more difficult than the relatively solid in comparison Jell-O(R).
I'm glad to see you advocating for Firefox. IE6 is the pits.
You might want to try installing the YSlow plugin for information on what could be slowing your pages down:
http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
Specifying a height for every img tag may help the page render more quickly. I'm curious if the JavaScript StumbleUpon and BuzzUp buttons could be causing any trouble?
I also kind of wonder if the 1,701 HTML errors (wow) could be slowing your page rendering down as the browser tries to make sense of your markup.
"Pages that I’ve built with tables all retained their layouts/formatting [on mobile browsers]"
That's exactly what you DO NOT want on most mobile devices. This is why we use CSS positioning! So we can display the same content in different visual formats tuned to the relevant media (devices). Separation of content and presentation, like Demian said.
Having to scroll a web page in both the horizontal and the vertical on a tiny screen sucks the big potatoes! Your page layout that makes sense on a desktop with a huge screen doesn't make any fricken sense on my phone running opera mini.
(Unless of course you've got something like an iPhone that has magic zooming business. And because the iPhone can do this, it honors screen media styles instead of handheld media styles.)
And even if you foolishly want your website to have the same layout on mobile phones and desktop browsers, there's nothing stopping you from doing this with CSS positioning.
You just named 3 ways that CSS is better than tables. You claim because it is only "slightly" better it isn't worth doing. I find your position to be untenable.
As for your point about only having to edit one template... with CSS redesigns you don't have to create a new template. I think you miss the point. See: http://csszengarden.com/
As for your point about "all the browser hacks for CSS" ... that's just your inexperience with CSS positioning speaking. Remember all the little issues with table layouts to figure out when we were all first doing those once they became available? I promise you, work with CSS layouts as long as you have with tables, and it'll become second nature.
I have done table layouts from 1995-2002. I have done CSS layouts from 2002-2008. Are you sure you have enough experience with CSS layouts to be making the claims you are making?
Do you know how to run a successful website / business? Yes. Clearly. I'm not disputing that. Can you run a successful / profitable website that has a table based layout. Yes. Of course. Does this mean table based layouts are the best web development technology? No.
As for your point about SEO, I agree that it isn't strictly about CSS positioning vs table positioning. However, semantic markup really does make a difference, as do numerous other best practices. I think many people who are still using tables to do their layouts are not up to date on web best practices. I guess you are.
As for your claim that there is no standard application of CSS, that's just FUD. I could redesign your site for IE6, IE7, Firefox, and Safari with a single template and style sheet. No problem.
I am thinking about future browsers. Are you?
How does your little wooden bridge handle mobile phone users and blind users? Maybe you think you don't care because that is such a tiny fragment of your audience. But if your template was CSS positioned you could support them with no extra work.
Carl,
IE7 does adhere very well to standards. IE8 will even more so. Microsoft is on board... finally. I'm seeing IE6 usage that is down 50% from where it was, too.
Artifex,
My post was actually very moderate. I agree with most peoples' points. I didn't say you have to validate every single page. I didn't say every website must be CSS positioned. However, table layouts have the same fate as did the dinosaurs. If I'm wrong, are there web conferences and web experts dedicated to the subject of CSS layouts sucking and table layouts being the future? I'm happy to hear what they have to say.
In conclusion,
Web Business != Web Marketing != Web Communications != Web Usability != Web Accessibility != Web Programming != Web Design != Web Markup/CSS Coding... We can't all be good at everything. I know that all of you must be good at some part of that list, and probably some more I left out. I just don't know why you are so threatened by the fact that maybe you aren't an expert on Web Markup/CSS Coding. And I don't know why you refuse to accept what the experts have to say. I'm not trying to tell you how to write your copy or how to run your business. I'm just trying to open your eyes to a better way to do your markup. You don't care? Fine, but that doesn't make you right.
You can be a hobbyist web developer, just like I can be a hobbyist bridge maker. I can build a little wooden bridge over the creek in my backyard. That works for me. But you know what? I'm not going to tell somebody who knows how to build a concrete and steel freeway bridge over a river that wood is a better bridge building material just because I can build my wooden bridge faster and cheaper. I'm not going to tell them that 99.9% of people who use the bridge could care less about the chemical properties of concrete. I'm not going to call a REAL bridge engineer a "holier-than-thou, loudmouthed wanker" just because I don't have to worry about whether semi tractor trailers can make it across my little wooden bridge safely.
So maybe your hobbyist table based web design works great for you. Maybe 99.9% of your visitors don't notice or don't care. But that's your website. That's not a professional website.
And maybe there's a bunch of users coming to your website on a mobile phone, and they can't use your site because you chose tables instead of CSS layouts.
And maybe Google bot comes to your site, and wants to build a smart list of keywords, but it can't because you aren't using semantic tags.
And maybe, oh I dunno, a blind person comes to your website because they want to buy your product or read your article. But guess what? Their screen reader doesn't work worth a damn because you are using tables instead of CSS layouts. Did you know Target is in a class action lawsuit right now because their website is inaccessible to the blind?
I bet 90% of you folks defending your use of tables don't know about semantic markup. I bet you've never seen a label tag in your life. I bet you don't give your images alt attributes. Those validation errors are there for a reason.
If you are still using tables, you are doing twice as much work, with half the return. And that might be generous. If you ever were a web professional, you aren't anymore.
And yes, again, I concede that tables vs CSS doesn't matter for your personal blog, or any other website that nobody cares about. But if you fancy yourself a major web player, if your website is a major piece of your business, then hire a real web professional who can give you a website design with semantic markup using CSS layouts.
And if you have a job as a web developer, and you code using tables, keep your mouth shut. Stop talking about things you know nothing about. Stay as far under the radar as you can, and hope that the next 20-something employee at your company doesn't expose you for the fraud that you are.
I know it is the Queen's English and all, but how do you know this phrase isn't of American origins? If it is, well... Jelly is *jelly* here, not Jell-O(R). Maybe you call it jam? Whatever. The point is, it'd be nigh impossible to nail it to a wall... far more difficult than the relatively solid in comparison Jell-O(R).