Sweet - Designers vs. SEO's!

Might not be a noticeable ROI right away...but its better than being sued: http://www.out-law.com/page-7285

Ok. First off, at least I personally never said "redo your entire 5 billion or whatever page site and dont add your own content and blah blah blah". But, from a designers point of view, tables are being phased out for more customizable and controllable methods of layouts and design.

Sure, all the big guys use tables. Big deal. These "big guys" have been on the web for many years, and of course with hundreds upon hundreds of pages it makes it difficult to change to CSS.

ROI? That can be measured in many ways. Since code is so much easier to work with when the site is designed in CSS, would it not save time (therefore saving money) for the designers? I'm sure there'll be a nice three paragraph argument for that, but it doesn't get any more tangible than that. Easier Code = Less Time = Less Cost. Correct?

There have been claims of "the big guys still using tables." Works well when you throw in examples. How about Yahoo? Here's an old version of their site (using tables), and then look at their current site. OMG! CSS and DIVs! Thats HORRIBLE!

Oh. Google too. Old Site.

So, yeah, a bunch of big guys using tables. Too bad those guys at Google don't know anything.

Google uses tables for their search results. I would consider that TABULAR data, which I've already said is an acceptable use. Didnt check yahoo, they probably do too.

While thinking about the semantic aspect of HTML I would not choose source ordering.
While tabledesign doesn´t make much sense, CSS is a powerful playground to design websites.

Why is tabledesign still used by big agencies? 
The answer is simple, many developers are not interested in new techn. any longer and have forgotten that learning is a life-long job.

MarkCCDC wrote:

Sweet - Designers vs. SEO's!

.

Actually it's Designers V Business Owners.....  I own a web development firm and have these arguments with our staffers as well..... I am taking the side of the business owner in the debate.... SEO don't enter into it....

So, like I said, if it makes sense great... but let's not poo poo tables simply for the sake of it. I want a measurable ROI... by the time table-less designs are all but mandatory, most of our clients will be OUT OF BUSINESS as some 90% go under in the first 5 years....

I care about how they spend their $$$ as I know very few business owners where cost is NO OBJECT....

urm... k, im biting again. Css is like anything that advances... it is still young and i hate to say it but  it would be daft not to get used to the idea now. When companies come out with new - more fuel efficient engines do all the companies dump there vehicles and make the purchase? ye know.. long term benefits and all that into account? no they dont, but chances are an emerging company will take that route. The older company will probably wait until their vehicles are completely obsolete before the switch or "revamp".

I dont think "converting" would be a very cost effective solution at all, but, one day - many/ perhaps just a few years from now, im sure most emerging companies will go with the css option... maybe if your client wanted to start from scratch he would to.

MarkCCDC wrote:

Sweet - Designers vs. SEO's!

Might not be a noticeable ROI right away...but its better than being sued: http://www.out-law.com/page-7285

Uuhh.. that's accessibility... I doubt anyone is getting sued for using tables.... ha ha ha ha

Ryan_steyn wrote:

I dont think "converting" would be a very cost effective solution at all, but, one day - many/ perhaps just a few years from now, im sure most emerging companies will go with the css option... maybe if your client wanted to start from scratch he would to.

This is my point... I stated that if it's a fairly static site, being built from scratch I would certainly advocate it....

1. I just don't want folks thinking they HAVE TO - the original poster said

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

... a freakin SIN no less... a little strong

2. I just LOVE getting the web developers going... remember me picking a fight last week? I love this stuff as we have these debates around Verve..... just look at this thread growing... weeeeeeeeee

rant

Sued for WAH!!! Bugger that, i would beat the daft sumb###h who tried to sue me for not building an accessible site with his own stick and then feed his dog! !! or lock him in a round room and tell him to follow the passage to court - what im trying to say is, that is a rediculous concept and should be thrown into the "Get over it and look somewhere else box"

/rant

Ah shucks Dave, now i feel like a passifier, blocking the rage and all... bugger - i will be more considerate next time

Two things. One, I've agreed that tables for tabular data is perfectly acceptable. I use them for this purpose. Tables for LAYOUT is being phased out. I never said a site that uses tables for layout will make no money and will wither up and die. As you've shown, plenty of profitable sites use tables for layouts.

Two, the problem isnt with your clients. Unless you plan to be out of business in the next few years, getting on top of the most current methods of design isn't a bad idea. Sooner or later CSS will dominate the marketplace. Why not start preparing now?

Look, I'm not here for an argument and we can go at this forever. You won't be happy until you see positive ROI. I wont be happy until....who knows.

Anyways, CSS is the new thing. It takes time for new things to become practice - look at the advent of the shopping cart. If you know the story, you'll see that shopping carts were not used for some time even after they were available. People don't like change, which is exactly what CSS is. A change from the past.

That's a fact of life. Whether you are a designer, SEO, business owner, or whatever. It is well worth it to know CSS. It is well worth it to start designing with CSS as soon as you can. Doesn't have to be a current, well-off site thats making money.

Now we are in ageeance brother Mark - I think folks most certainly should look at it as an option. I think it ROCKs from a developer perspective. I agree that it is 'the way of the future'. I agree that web designers better learn it or die..... I agree that in some cases (repurposing of large sites or off-the-shelf applications) it makes no financial sense...

I simply wanted to put some perspective on it.

MarkCCDC wrote:

Two, the problem isnt with your clients. Unless you plan to be out of business in the next few years, getting on top of the most current methods of design isn't a bad idea. Sooner or later CSS will dominate the marketplace. Why not start preparing now?

... like I said our staff developers are heavy avocates of the whole table-less 'design' (not tabular data) thang... I am simply paid to make people money.... in many case switching to CSS doesn't effect that... so I am an advocate for my clients.

TheGypsy wrote:

MarkCCDC wrote:

Sweet - Designers vs. SEO's!

Might not be a noticeable ROI right away...but its better than being sued: http://www.out-law.com/page-7285

Uuhh.. that's accessibility... I doubt anyone is getting sued for using tables.... ha ha ha ha

CSS plays a part in accessibility. Yes, the lawsuit was about accessibility. CSS and accessibility go hand in hand nowadays. Designers should know CSS, W3C standards, and accessibility. A little of topic, but if Target had designers that understood this, the lawsuit would hold no water....

TheGypsy wrote:

... like I said our staff developers are heavy avocates of the whole table-less 'design' (not tabular data) thang... I am simply paid to make people money.... in many case switching to CSS doesn't effect that... so I am an advocate for my clients.

Respectable. For most sites, big or small, a well-thought-out plan for switching to CSS could be cost-effective. Not an overnight change, but a long-term change.

We never know what tomorrow brings, but better to prepare for it now, than later.

MarkCCDC wrote:

TheGypsy wrote:

... like I said our staff developers are heavy avocates of the whole table-less 'design' (not tabular data) thang... I am simply paid to make people money.... in many case switching to CSS doesn't effect that... so I am an advocate for my clients.

Respectable. For most sites, big or small, a well-thought-out plan for switching to CSS could be cost-effective. Not an overnight change, but a long-term change.

We never know what tomorrow brings, but better to prepare for it now, than later.

Potentially. Unfortunately most of our clients are small business and though I'd hate to break it to them, statistics show that most will be gone in the first 3 years (60% ) and nearly ALL ( 90%) in the first 5 years - they may not be around to recoup the expense, depending on the level of conversion required.

I simply seek to do what I can do ensure that their $$$ is well spent.

MarkCCDC wrote:

We never know what tomorrow brings, but better to prepare for it now, than later.

Were U in the business back in 1999 when Java was going to be the way of the future??? We've been at it since 1998 or so and have seen a TON of things that were going to change the web ( can U say FLASH back in 2002?) .....  I am simply cautious .... preparing in the worng ways can be a waste of precious capital

... once again... I am sure CSS/Table-less design will prevail.... I am simply trying to keep some perspective ( and mess wid ya'll)

TheGypsy wrote:

Potentially. Unfortunately most of our clients are small business and though I'd hate to break it to them, statistics show that most will be gone in the first 3 years (60% ) and nearly ALL ( 90%) in the first 5 years - they may not be around to recoup the expense, depending on the level of conversion required.

I simply seek to do what I can do ensure that their $$$ is well spent.

Were U in the business back in 1999 when Java was going to be the way of the future??? We've been at it since 1998 or so and have seen a TON of things that were going to change the web ( can U say FLASH back in 2002?) .....  I am simply cautious ....

... once again... I am sure CSS/Table-less design will prevail.... I am simply trying to keep some perspective ( and mess wid ya'll)

Yeah, cant argue with statistics.

HAHAHAHA Java and Flash. One downfall to those - file sizes. CSS reduces file sizes, whereas Java (not Javascript, even though it increases file sizes as well) and Flash increase (most of the time anyways) file sizes.

Not a great argument, but all in all that about did it for those. Its still used, of course, but nowadays most people have high-speed connections, not 28.8k or 56k modems. Hard to load a couple of megs over a phone line

I suppose CSS could increase file sizes, but in all my past and current usage, it hasn't. But I'm sure there's an example of this somewhere. The exception that disproves the rule

css shrinks file sizes... unless you are an all out die hard and insist on "onpage" css, i only use one external style sheet  which will only need to load once

SEO is an important factor these days and is getting more important because of the growing competition.
An SEO expert must´nt be a designer-expert and a designer-expert does not have to be a developer.
Teamwork is (very difficult and?) more expensive.

nybc wrote:

SEO is an important factor these days and is getting more important because of the growing competition.
An SEO expert must´nt be a designer-expert and a designer-expert does not have to be a developer.
Teamwork is (very difficult and?) more expensive.

I disagree. One, an SEO expert certainly can also be a design expert. And a designer IS a developer in most cases, depending on your definition of a developer.

nybc wrote:

SEO is an important factor these days and is getting more important because of the growing competition.
An SEO expert must´nt be a designer-expert and a designer-expert does not have to be a developer.
Teamwork is (very difficult and?) more expensive.

Huh? out of curiosity.... why not? i aspire to being both, or for the most  part i prefer the term enthusiast as opposed to expert... i find the word expert implies that i have completed my studies.... an unlikely scenario in this business wouldnt you agree? Regardless, i aspire to being an "expert" in design, seo and programming....  why is that a bad thing?

Well... it is often VERY difficult working with developers IMO - I have SEO projects that aren't managed my our development company. It can be like banging my head against a wall. Not just SEO but markeitng and conversions in general is important for developers to understand... or at least understand they should mess with anything without consulting them first.


I do think developers make good SEO folks though... the advantages are obvious. Do they always make great marketers? Well, not so much.....

MarkCCDC wrote:

nybc wrote:

SEO is an important factor these days and is getting more important because of the growing competition.
An SEO expert must´nt be a designer-expert and a designer-expert does not have to be a developer.
Teamwork is (very difficult and?) more expensive.

I disagree. One, an SEO expert certainly can also be a design expert. And a designer IS a developer in most cases, depending on your definition of a developer.

Designers design and developers can code IMO .... that's my basic definition... a designer can make a pretty template and have Photoshop cut and export it... it doesn't make them a developer.....

TheGypsy wrote:

]
Designers design and developers can code IMO .... that's my basic definition... a designer can make a pretty template and have Photoshop cut and export it... it doesn't make them a developer.....

True. But, alot of "designers" are also "developers". I would consider myself both, but I call myself a developer. I can make pretty stuff in Photoshop, but I also can code.

But yes, thats pretty much the standard definition.

hmmm how about ...

Programmer + Designer = Developer

Lol......