I just read the article from the newsletter and apparently it is a cardinal sin to use tables in web design.

As someone who's self taught, I've never come across this before, so could someone please explain.

Thanks in advance.

Mike

Got me.... I could care less either way.... as long as the site renders in major browsers and is indexable by search spiders... I am a happy guy....

I am sure some of the purest web developer types will give you reasons soon tho... ha ha ha ha.....

Many of the top sites on the web use tables.... so I guess it is still ok.... I am just sooooo Web 1.0 I guess

Tables are just that - for tabular data. Tables are fine if used for its purpose. The problem is when websites are designed using tables for the layout. Although it is certainly possible to create a website using tables for layout, they can get messy.

I, too, am self taught and previously I've used tables for my layouts. From an SEO standpoint, as long as you code it correctly, tables won't affect your SERPS. From a design standpoint, it would be like coming up with a kick-ass new mode of transportation - horse and buggy!

Ok, humor aside, tables have been replaced by CSS, or Cascading Style Sheets. A good place to learn about CSS is here: http://www.w3schools.com . I've found that site useful and use it often. There are also many more around.

CSS is pretty easy to learn. From experience, I'll tell you that once you see what it can do and how you can control everything you'll see why it has become the replacement.

Not only does it help with the design, it also makes sorting your code alot easier, All beautifying of the page is done by a separate file, and if you get in to PHP you can have a website with the code so easy to read you can pretty much see what it will look like in a browser by just looking at the code.

You need to read Why Tables For Layout Is Stupid

Yeah and I am gonna write -- Who gives a crap, Just go make Money



Oh and some of the benefits stated in that article of yours is

get you better search engine results

- ha ha ha ha ha

and

lower your hosting costs

-- get a life.. not really a measurable difference to worry about

and

make your sites more accessible to all viewers and user agents

- like I said..as long as it renders

and

and give you a competitive edge

bite me... it's BS

TheGypsy wrote:

Yeah and I am gonna write -- Who gives a crap, Just go make Money

Agreed, go ahead and build websites that millions of people will have trouble with because they are inaccessible to them. The handicapped are used to people being selfish and not caring. Make your millions and sit back.

Of course the money to be made can come faster by having your website accessible to a few more million people.

TheGypsy wrote:

Many of the top sites on the web use tables

This is true but again this is very one sided.

Hey listen, I think pure CSS stuff is great..... but ya know what? Teling people tables are dead or that they simply must have them is web designer BS.....

Once again, most if not all of the worlds top sites and a ton of applications ( CMS, Forums bla bla bla) are NOT using it YET.....

So great if some one wants to.. but let's get off the high Web 2.0 horses here.. it is BY NO MEANS a requirement for success on the web IN ANY WAY....

... that's just a fact of life.....  web designers can cry about that fact until they are blue.... waaaahhhh.... it won't change it.

Great to do if so inclined..... go for it

BUT if some web designer wants X number of $$$ to convert yer site.... spend it on something more usefull... like getting TRAFFIC.....


RIDDLE ME THIS my web design friends.. my site is built on Joomla... give me a price to recode everything in CSS and then send a report on exactly HOW I will recoup that investment...... This is how a REAL business is run. Not because some whiny wb designer says I should 'because' of whatever freakin reason....

Tell me the Cost
Show me the money ( ROI)

Jeynesey,

Take a review of these posts;
http://forums.site-reference.com/viewtopic.php?id=2985
http://forums.site-reference.com/viewtopic.php?id=3059
http://forums.site-reference.com/topic/ … esibility/

The web is slowly changing to the use of no tables. The accessibility factor is a growing concern worldwide. If you are going to start out why would you want to start with something that is fading out?

Now if you choose to use tables, that is OK, just don't forget about the accessibility factor. Yes we all want to make money. That is the name of the game. We can still accomplish this without the who cares, and forget certain people  attitude.

Yes, most people may never notice that you have taken the time to insure your website is accessible. Make a note of it on your website bringing it to their attention.

I am pretty sure everyone on here knows someone who is handicapped in one way or another. Visit with them and ask what their biggest problem in using the WWW is.

To purposely build a website that is not accessible is just dumb.

BAAAAAHHHAHAHAH HUMBUG, Tables are good............ but............. css is better, if you can work with all the hacks to make it accessible to everybody. Tables are supported in a similar fashion across browsers... more so in comparison to how browsers like to fuddle up css designs......... but.......... websites made with css are prettier, they give you the ability to rearrange your content to be where "you" want it to be, in tables you are forced to fight to get your content to the top depending on your layout, some browsers will mess up the properties of tables as they do css... basically it is better to build your new site in css and use tables when you actually have a "table" to display.

If you go and build your site with a table layout from the get go you will probably kick yourself needlessly in the nuts for days on end simply because they are being phased out. kind of. 

get you better search engine results

no, that is explained wrong!! that is why it is wrong. Simply, google indexes your pages and reads through your content to determine relevancy and all that crap (Jump in if im wrong here)... if your content is hidden within mounds of tables (pushed further down the code) you stand the risk of the g-bot losing interest and just following your links (which if you have a left hand menu in a table layout.. the links will be above your content), so you will get indexed but dont be shocked to find only the top three sentences of your content determining the relevancy to whatever your site is about. In css, your content is right at the top and your menu can be just below... your header can be right at the bottom... its up to you - plus you can switch the order in which everything loads. (content first - pics last)

Then again dont take my word for gold, this is simply the theory that clarifies the mess for me and makes the most logical sense - thus there must be "some" even if not stax of search engine value. Just to prove how much nicer the code looks - look at the source of this page http://www.lalibela.co.za (current lalibela site - not created by me - tables) and this page http://www.africasbig5.com/test/index.php (soon to be new lalibela site - all created by me - no tuning about the lack of meta stuff... it aint finished yet)

Let that decide what you want your site to be made out of, its like buying a car, some people like the shiny mercedes, others like the vw citi golf (these people get hit with sticks... by me). But despite consequences (like getting hit with a stick) it is essentially what makes you happy that counts... It is always nice to learn how to drive the real car first though - for you and people who have to look at you

(PS: never forget... people can make crap sites with tables or css, just like people can make great site with tables or css) Im also self taught, so please for the love of everything thats meant to be hairy and everything thats not keep the entire discussion in mind and work it out from there... i was stuck thinking tables were evil for months until someone here told me they werent all that bad and probably wouldnt send my site into a flaming ball of supplemental hell.


edit again.... The "cheaper hosting" simply means that for all your layouts your server only loads "one" css file, with tables it has to load em for each page... not much of a difference unless you have a few thousand webpages really

TheGypsy wrote:

get you better search engine results

- ha ha ha ha ha

I've had a measurable SERPs improvement with CSS source ordering

TheGypsy wrote:

lower your hosting costs

-- get a life.. not really a measurable difference to worry about

Microsoft could save a terrabyte of bandwidth/month just if their home page was de-tabled and CSSed [that report is quite old, but you get the point]. If you have a high traffic site, this is very measurable.

TheGypsy wrote:

make your sites more accessible to all viewers and user agents

- like I said..as long as it renders

No, not as long as it renders. Screen readers, text browsers, etc etc - I'm sure CE will ahve more for you on this

TheGypsy wrote:

and give you a competitive edge

bite me... it's BS

IMO - it's one of may things that can give you a competitive edge; doing all of them puts you streets ahead of the rest

Well put... i have edited my novel about 8 times...

Oi, if only i had the slills of "atwhatcost", im sure i could pump these novels out faster

Ha ha ha ha… I just love messing with you developers…

Ok, North, I expect better from ya… but ya’r still a developer at heart huh?

Once again,  I am a proponent of CSS layouts, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE…. If it is a new development great… but to spend $$ on a site redevelopment simply because of the points made at this point, I want to see ROI for the $$$

I've had a measurable SERPs improvement with CSS source ordering

SHOCKED… total crap man… that’s as bad as saying text-to-code ratios are a ranking mechanism. It is simply false. Think about it man, U ever hear the gang at Syndk8 telling folks to set up their content generators with CSS cause it rocks the SERPs? It’s simply NOT true….  It is CERTAINLY not part of a SEO program… bleah.
I have read search patents from PageRank to PaIR.. NO SUCH RANKING MECHANISM.... find me an actual techincal document to support this.. and I shall believe U

Microsoft could save a terrabyte of bandwidth/month just if their home page was de-tabled and CSSed [that report is quite old, but you get the point]. If you have a high traffic site, this is very measurable.

..uh huh, while true there is a minimal saving, converting an entire site would still need to ‘how long’ this ROI would take.. on an average site, methinks a very long time. Minor consideration.

No, not as long as it renders. Screen readers, text browsers, etc etc - I'm sure CE will ahve more for you on this

Once again not for the average site. WTF?? Who sells via those at this point? ANYONE on this board??? ANYONE???  Yesterday folks were complaining not much really SELLs on the web and today I am worried about making sales from sreen readers and text browsers?????? WTF is wrong with U people…? One day no $$ and today we should spend $$ converting a site to CSS to MAKE SALES????? Whacked….

IMO - it's one of may things that can give you a competitive edge; doing all of them puts you streets ahead of the rest

Ok, well you’d better go tell Amazon about that then…. Or maybe if I started a competitor site with CSS I should be able to kick their butt right? Somehow I don’t think so. It’s simply NOT a competitive edge.



TEST TIME –

Again, no one has told me the cost of converting my entire CMS over… How about my bud Tim’s site (cBeach around here)???
We are gonna rock the world with CancunMx.com and part of that is a complete overhaul of the site…. So tell me -

How much to redo this entire site in CSS ( as opposed to putting it in a CMS – Joomla)? We’re talking 100+ pages here …



A. Tell me the Cost for redeveloping the entire site + maintenance fees ( no CMS with yer route, so he would need a ‘webmaster’ now to add pages)??

B. Tell me again, no BS from the points above ( hosting one is fine) how we are going to recoup this cost ??



Your suggestion means he can’t even add his own pages and needs YOU to do so each time he adds content (quite frequently). This is gonna cost now ain’t it? Each and every week.

How would one justify this?? I am really interested boys…. Ya’ll sound great on paper, but I want to know where ROI is… because wasting $$$ is NOT a ‘competitive advantage’ it is really a hindrance….


...and North... don't be such a fishing wanker and go validate some sites would ya... ha ha h aha ha..... /jk

ColoEagle wrote:

Now if you choose to use tables, that is OK, just don't forget about the accessibility factor. Yes we all want to make money. That is the name of the game. We can still accomplish this without the who cares, and forget certain people  attitude.

Uh oh.... sounds like we're getting sensitive around here again.... toughen up man.. this is business!!!  Besides, I am having fun with ya... I figured you'd know me by now man..... I get paid to be a PitBull for my clients and make them $$$... so it is simply my 'take no prisoners' attitude... yeeeesh....

I wouldn't re-do an established site in CSS if it was in tables - as you state ROI and all that

I'd go for market saturation and build another site; in CSS

And, in my experiance, the new CSS sites outrank the old tables sites within 3 months

As far as patents are concerned, i seem to remember you peddling the same crap I'm about to - patents and algos are not synonymous. A patent may just be released to stop the competition implementing it. Exact technical specifications for googles algorithm??  oooh, yes please [but what's the point]

I come from a background of science; where if the truth is unknown then theories are developed by experimenting and observing the results. I have done this and can report that CSS source ordering works when making MFA sites. As for the syndk8 lot - they don't do SEO they do SE manipulation - they always get caught sooner or later and good practice SEO is not a concern for them [inbound links, cloak, spam - rinse and repeat]

TheGypsy wrote:

ColoEagle wrote:

Now if you choose to use tables, that is OK, just don't forget about the accessibility factor. Yes we all want to make money. That is the name of the game. We can still accomplish this without the who cares, and forget certain people  attitude.

Uh oh.... sounds like we're getting sensitive around here again.... toughen up man.. this is business!!!  Besides, I am having fun with ya... I figured you'd know me by now man..... I get paid to be a PitBull for my clients and make them $$$... so it is simply my 'take no prisoners' attitude... yeeeesh....

Yeah, business leaders may want to toughen up but the customers are still pansy arsed little sh*ts who will complain to the BBB or equivalent and smear your name for not being accessible enough

TEST TIME –

Again, no one has told me the cost of converting my entire CMS over… How about my bud Tim’s site (cBeach around here)???
We are gonna rock the world with CancunMx.com and part of that is a complete overhaul of the site…. So tell me -

How much to redo this entire site in CSS ( as opposed to putting it in a CMS – Joomla)? We’re talking 100+ pages here …



A. Tell me the Cost for redeveloping the entire site + maintenance fees ( no CMS with yer route, so he would need a ‘webmaster’ now to add pages)??

B. Tell me again, no BS from the points above ( hosting one is fine) how we are going to recoup this cost ??

A: Learn how to do it yourself... it aint rocket science, get off yer lazy arse and google it....

B: You did it yourself? what costs are you trying to recoup...


HAHAHAHAHAH

Northie wrote:

I wouldn't re-do an established site in CSS if it was in tables - as you state ROI and all that

I'd go for market saturation and build another site; in CSS

And, in my experiance, the new CSS sites outrank the old tables sites within 3 months

As far as patents are concerned, i seem to remember you peddling the same crap I'm about to - patents and algos are not synonymous. A patent may just be released to stop the competition implementing it. Exact technical specifications for googles algorithm??  oooh, yes please [but what's the point]

I come from a background of science; where if the truth is unknown then theories are developed by experimenting and observing the results. I have done this and can report that CSS source ordering works when making MFA sites. As for the syndk8 lot - they don't do SEO they do SE manipulation - they always get caught sooner or later and good practice SEO is not a concern for them [inbound links, cloak, spam - rinse and repeat]

Dood, what has been said is; just because it is in a patent, don't mean they use it....

BUT ... every existing ranking mechanism IS in a patent somewhere.... I have never seen ANY mention ANYWERE on source code ordering or text being high on a page as a ranking mechanism..... simply hypothetical statements on the web.. no hard evidence.....


We agree at least that it should be done 'Where it makes Sense' --- which is not in every case.

So, should CancunMX skip the whole CMS route and hire a CSS guru to redevelop the site page by freakin page and then pay them for each additional page that needs to be added? No one has said???

Show me the money!!! Spell it out.... how will this increase profits/show an ROI....


I am pretty sure we'll rock the SERPs and increase conversions without it... and save him money over the CSS route.... so where is the motivation?

Ryan_steyn wrote:

TEST TIME –

Again, no one has told me the cost of converting my entire CMS over… How about my bud Tim’s site (cBeach around here)???
We are gonna rock the world with CancunMx.com and part of that is a complete overhaul of the site…. So tell me -

How much to redo this entire site in CSS ( as opposed to putting it in a CMS – Joomla)? We’re talking 100+ pages here …



A. Tell me the Cost for redeveloping the entire site + maintenance fees ( no CMS with yer route, so he would need a ‘webmaster’ now to add pages)??

B. Tell me again, no BS from the points above ( hosting one is fine) how we are going to recoup this cost ??

A: Learn how to do it yourself... it aint rocket science, get off yer lazy arse and google it....

B: You did it yourself? what costs are you trying to recoup...


HAHAHAHAHAH

Well, he doesn't know squat about CSS and is paying some one to take care of the site bacause his mother has Alzehiemers and he doesn't have the time....

So how is that an answer in this case??? Most of our clients run businesses - that's why they hire us.... so we have to justify the cost outlay..... just like any business....

The CSS route over the one we are currently taking would cost MORE on an ongoing basis..... that is not our objective.... which is to increase their profitability....

hmmm... in that case, run a test. Two sites on the same server, run number one for two months (table layouts) then run number two (css) for two months. See how each is indexed. Make it a site about Wacky Willys Gonad, shouldnt be to much competition so the results will be clearer

Show the results to your client, even make a mock up page on the internet with numbers... then again, you could just keep doin things the same way you always have? If you think about it though, you could use this to make extra cash, if you can make it work for you and incorporate it into Joomla you could offer the client two options with two varying prices... its not hard to get someone to pay more for better results.... 

(personally i couldnt be bothered with the test... i like the cleaner "general" appearance of css and the designs one can make with em... It still boils down, do what works for you - no complications)

I checked Amazon earlier ( using tables still) and now a random eBay page -

http://cgi.ebay.com/1912-GAMBLING-Slots … dZViewItem

Maybe a page from Shopping.com - http://shopping.com/xDN-Clothing--ap_gender_age_women


Plenty O tables there..... so it this is such a profit BOON.... why don't the big boys switch over???

How about Google???

Random search -- http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=na … timization

...hmmmmm more tables......

Can some one show me a full functioning / extendable CMS that uses pure CSS??? Static web pages aren't a reality for many sites....

On and On and On and On..... if this was such a profitable route and a competitive advantage.... why don't these folks switch their systems over? I am thinking COST....