Discussions
css or tables in blog design, and why?
Posted by ladynada • 9/13/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blog design, css, skins, tables, themes
If you designed your own blog, did you use css only or tables only or a combo and why?
User Comments
-
All CSS.
Tables are so-o-o 20th century. ;-} -
css is alway or should be the backbone of any design
With dreameweaver you can edit it to fit your style.
and a few firefox plugin like collorzilla web developer
Pierre -
I made my first theme with css because I followed a 16 part tutorial on
www.wpdesigner.com/2007/02/19/so-you-want-to-create-wordpress-themes-huh/
after that, I made my themes with tables. I like tables better, because I can control putting things side by side better with my skills, than I can with divs and css. Also I want my themes to be fluid with no scrollbar on 800x600 as much as possible.
what are your thoughts on the issue?
nada -
My old template was a combination of both. Tables because they were easier for major layout elements and CSS because it was easier to fine tune elements without major edits. -
In web design in general I prefer a combination of both. If I'm planning on anything fancy I use tables because CSS higher functions aren't universally supported the way I'd like. Keep ending up with overlapping blocks and other mishaps.
CSS is good for site-wide definitions like background color and such, but I'm still a little iffy about some of its layout uses. -
to me, tables are easier to modify a theme to a new look, just but cutting out whole sections or by inserting whole sections. for example, after I added a tag plugin I could add a tr to /tr section to show the tags, with a quick cut and paste... with css I would have had to change the code in the file significantly and change the style.css
I do not understand why the world is convinced css only is the way to go?
I read many articles about it, back when I was deciding which way I wanted to go, and I was not convinced by the css only crowd.
nada -
some links to css only info from that new search engine I have been hyping
www.blogdino.com/tag/en/%22css+only%22.html
nada -
I encourage you to learn more CSS. It's amazing what you can do with it once you get the hang of it. Some good learning resources are:
www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp
www.cssbasics.com/ -
I agree with you brigid on the layout issues with css. I admit that I am not good at it, nor does HOW to do it, even come to me easily, not like it does with tables. With tables, if I have an idea for a design I can immediately start coding it.
nada -
ok but why is it that the css-only crowd like to make it sound like if you use tables you are 'wrong'?
its almost like a religion!
nada-
lafrance has the right of it ... it'll load MUCH faster, if you learn to code well. and, learning CSS isn't really that hard, not any harder than learning HTML.
on the other hand, if someone builds a hack-site with css, without really learning what CSS is, you can make your stylesheet so long and over-detailed that the site still takes forever to load. for example, the dot com that i used to work for had a single stylesheet for the entire site ... and it was 30 printed pages long! we were just in the middle of re-structuring that when the owner decided to sell and lay us all off, but i'm sure we would have greatly improved our load time.
besides, the code will be MUCH easier to sift thru once you move to css. trying to dig thru all the tr and td of a complicated table is a pain. the css way makes it a LOT easier.
-
-
css can be compress making a page load up to 80 % faster that why css is a must to learn if you want to expand your orizon
Pierre -
pierre
just now I need to add a blurb to my wpmu home page to put my support forum link.. so I cut and paste
The Outer Court SUPPORT FORUM
its done
nada
p.s. code doesnt show up but it was just tr and td stuff -
CSS
www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/viewissue.php?id=3&issue=142&format=html
this is the sitepoint newsletter which addresses HTML vs. CSS -
I didn't design my own blog theme. I did hand code the static parts of my site and they are table-less. Even pages of thumbnails are laid out with CSS.
www.mydandelionpatch.com/dc.html
It can be done. And should be. -
In theory, in a perfect world, formatting should be all CSS, and tables used exclusively for tabular data. I've read zealous, passionate, articles and posts on this.
In practice, CSS seems to be less than perfectly supported when it comes to placement of page elements.
Since I often use page layouts that go beyond a single column, it's very important for me to be sure that elements don't overlap. So far, CSS hasn't been able to reliably position elements for me in more than a few browsers at a time.
Since I don't have unlimited time to tweak and experiment, and am not committed to the purity of tables, I use tables for most of my layout needs.
I still hope that CSS will come to be more widely supported, but in the meantime, I will continue to use a method that works, however inelegant it is.-
The only thing that I find difficult about designing with CSS is getting it to look right in IE. That's a browser issue, not a problem with CSS. IE sucks. Yes, I'm repeating myself from another thread but from a user perspective and a design perspective, IE sucks.
-
IE should have been taken out back and shot years ago
-
It's true. I've had to learn a handful of hacks and tweaks to make things display properly in IE -- and especially the older versions. Grrrr.
-
That's a browser issue, but since IE is a very, very commonly used browser, I can't ignore it.
I approve of CSS, in theory.
In practice, I have to use what works. At this time, that's using tables for the sort of basic positioning I do. -
I think I may see two approaches to design here.
I'll call one approach the "Get the Job Done" approach. it's the one I use.
I'm primarily interested in getting a presentable, relatively consistent, display in front of viewers. I also have a limited amount of time to work with.
Although in theory, CSS will accomplish wonders of formating and positioning, in practice I can expect to spend large amounts of time to get marginally satisfactory results.
Or, I can use tables (which were, and by rights should be, used exclusively for tabular data) to position page elements. Using tables is relatively quick, efficient, and: most importantly, it works.
I'll call the other approach the "Achieve Ideal Results" approach. I wish I had time and resources for this.
Following this approach, I'd pore over CSS code, and maintain a lab full of the top dozen or so combinations of hardware and software that people commonly use to browse. I would use tables exclusively for presenting tabular data.
That is an elegant, and admirable, approach, and appeals to the geek in me.
I'm not saying that one approach or another is "better" in terms of having intrinsic value. It's just that I can't afford to sacrifice time and viewer experience in order to conform to the ideals of CSS formating. -
What Norksi said.
Tables can be quite flexible, and if you want the element widths to conform to the window size you just have to set the cell width to a percentage.
CSS is handy. I've used it for some basic definitions like background and fonts, but it really has been a tad iffy when it comes to overall layout. -
Brigid, you can design for fluid widths with CSS, too, using the same principle of % instead of a certain number of pixels, etc.
-
-
ladynada, you had a straightforward question: "If you designed your own blog, did you use css only or tables only or a combo and why?"
As you have seen, there are many, and conflicting, answers.
Best wishes with your blog! -
thanks!
I like the get the job done approach.
I like the fluid width too, because although I never max out my browser on my 1440x900 I still think about the folks who do and want the sidebars to be static, and the blog entry to widen.
nada-
Fluid width?
No problem
Tables can be set to fill a percentage of the available space.
Instead of using pixels, or other specific dimensions to define height and width, you assign a percentage value for table width and height.
Specifics about coding should be easy to find - if not, ask me, or other html-savvy BlogCatalogers.
-
-
In my most recent personal page design, I went with just CSS. I figured that that would be easier to work with across several pages, and I figured modifications would be easier. Also, I just felt like it.
But I haven't put that experience to use lately. I've stuck to Blogger templates for the time being, because I don't have the time or inclination to design a blog template from scratch at the moment. -
CSS!! bromohv.blogspot.com -
Stay away from tables. Always use CSS and ladynada you can get "fluid" widths using CSS-
Good advice for the tablephobic.
However, using 'percent' values to define table width and/or height gives "fluid" results, too.
-
-
I used to use tables as backbone to my page layout but decided to take the plunge and learn CSS.
I do find working with CSS more difficult than with tables, but I was able to achieve the same result in my template.
I have tested it on Opera 9.0+, Firefox 2.0+ and IE 6.0+ and have found no issues with CSS.
There are problems with CSS in older browsers, which a few visitors to my blog might be using, but I'll stick with CSS.
The choice in the end is up to you as now visitor really cares about what you use to layout your site, as long as they can find the information they are looking for.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
