Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Tables vs iFrames vs Div

Reply
Thread Tools

Tables vs iFrames vs Div

 
 
PW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004

I read the "dear brucie" thread below ...

I develop the occasional website for friends, I do a little bit of
commercial work, and I use HTML to mark-up web reports at work.

I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always done
everything that I need.

Could someone explain, or provide a link to a discussion as to, the
down-side of using tables ? I can't imagine that theres a load-time
component associated with tables, as its all HTML.

I'd like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about iFrames, and
dispise tables so much. There must be a good reason, because they are the
pro's.

Thanks,
PW




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DU
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
PW wrote:

> I read the "dear brucie" thread below ...
>
> I develop the occasional website for friends, I do a little bit of
> commercial work, and I use HTML to mark-up web reports at work.
>
> I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always done
> everything that I need.
>
> Could someone explain, or provide a link to a discussion as to, the
> down-side of using tables ? I can't imagine that theres a load-time
> component associated with tables, as its all HTML.
>
> I'd like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about iFrames, and
> dispise tables so much. There must be a good reason, because they are the
> pro's.
>


All these reasons were already repeated in this newsgroup many times
before. You're asking others to type everything all over again when a
simple search would fulfill your curiosity.

> Thanks,
> PW
>
>


People use tables and nested tables to position elements on a page. They
don't know how to position elements, how to control the layout, how to
make the rendered layout scalable, etc. So table and table design is the
solution in their mind, not the problem.
If they knew nothing else besides MS-Excel, then they would use it to
post messages, compose emails, reply in newsgroups, etc..
Some people can not figure out how to configure different elements with
precise dimensions, a specific font, etc..; so they do a gif out of
these elements with an image software. The making of the gif is not the
problem; it's the solution from their perspective.
But when you know the defects, usability burden and accessibility
problems these false solutions cause, then you realize they never were
solutions from the beginning.

"Why tables for layout is stupid:
problems defined, solutions offered"
Seybold Seminars, San Francisco 2003
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

MacroMedia has a few tutorials on why+how to avoid table designs.

Look Ma, No Tables.
http://glish.com/css/

900 different CSS Tableless Web Sites
http://www.meryl.net/css/

DU
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PW
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004

"DU" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:buvapi$hu$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Why tables for layout is stupid:
> problems defined, solutions offered"
> Seybold Seminars, San Francisco 2003
> http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
>
> Look Ma, No Tables.
> http://glish.com/css/
>
> 900 different CSS Tableless Web Sites
> http://www.meryl.net/css/
>



Thanks for the links, lots to learn.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
DU wrote:

> PW wrote:


>> I read the "dear brucie" thread below ...
>>
>> I develop the occasional website for friends, I do a little bit of
>> commercial work, and I use HTML to mark-up web reports at work.
>>
>> I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always
>> done everything that I need. Could someone explain, or provide a link to
>>a discussion as to, the down-side of using tables ? I can't imagine that
>>theres a load-time component associated with tables, as its all HTML. I'd
>>like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about iFrames,
>>and dispise tables so much. There must be a good reason, because they
>>are the pro's.


> All these reasons were already repeated in this newsgroup many times
> before. You're asking others to type everything all over again when a
> simple search would fulfill your curiosity.


>> Thanks,
>> PW
>>
>>


> People use tables and nested tables to position elements on a page. They
> don't know how to position elements, how to control the layout, how to
> make the rendered layout scalable, etc. So table and table design is the
> solution in their mind, not the problem.
> If they knew nothing else besides MS-Excel, then they would use it to
> post messages, compose emails, reply in newsgroups, etc..
> Some people can not figure out how to configure different elements with
> precise dimensions, a specific font, etc..; so they do a gif out of
> these elements with an image software. The making of the gif is not the
> problem; it's the solution from their perspective.
> But when you know the defects, usability burden and accessibility
> problems these false solutions cause, then you realize they never were
> solutions from the beginning.


> "Why tables for layout is stupid:
> problems defined, solutions offered"
> Seybold Seminars, San Francisco 2003
> http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/


Nice. But bucks the alt.html convention that rules the use of more than one
# is not kosher.
What the hell is this supposed to be?
function hiveware_enkoder(){var i,j,x,y,x=
"x=\"67x=\\\"\\\\3366=x!P2\\\"=x623d2232383\\\"\\\ \\\\\\\\\3353636366234343"
+




> MacroMedia has a few tutorials on why+how to avoid table designs.


I'll bet they do. After all, they want to promote the use of flash.



> Look Ma, No Tables.
> http://glish.com/css/


While the main page works flawlessly, the others do not.
His 3 column layout is royally screwed. the outer 2 divisions lay over the
center making the center unreadable. Plus the fact the divisions break apart
badly in IE.



> 900 different CSS Tableless Web Sites
> http://www.meryl.net/css/


> DU



 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve R.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
PW wrote in message ...
> I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always done
> everything that I need.


Lots of Website creators still use tables for layout, (including the
company I work in), because they are easy to use, they are reliable, and
work across all browsers.

CSS although supposedly *the* way to do it now, causes many problems for
many people designing websites and also has some browser problems. Just
look at the number of "CSS problem" posts on the HTML newsgroups to see
what I mean.

I iframes are not difficult. Just use the mark-up I've used on the page
below and alter it to suit your needs. Just play with the mark-up till you
get used to how it can place the iframe, alter its size and to enable
scroll bars or not.

http://www.myby.myby.co.uk/image/


 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
In message <buvapi$hu$(E-Mail Removed)>, DU
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>PW wrote:
>
>> I read the "dear brucie" thread below ...
>> I develop the occasional website for friends, I do a little bit of
>> commercial work, and I use HTML to mark-up web reports at work.
>> I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always
>>done
>> everything that I need.
>> Could someone explain, or provide a link to a discussion as to, the
>> down-side of using tables ? I can't imagine that theres a load-time
>> component associated with tables, as its all HTML.
>> I'd like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about
>>iFrames, and
>> dispise tables so much. There must be a good reason, because they are the
>> pro's.
>>

>
>All these reasons were already repeated in this newsgroup many times
>before. You're asking others to type everything all over again when a
>simple search would fulfill your curiosity.
>
>> Thanks,
>> PW
>>

>
>People use tables and nested tables to position elements on a page.
>They don't know how to position elements, how to control the layout,
>how to make the rendered layout scalable, etc. So table and table
>design is the solution in their mind, not the problem.
>If they knew nothing else besides MS-Excel, then they would use it to
>post messages, compose emails, reply in newsgroups, etc..
>Some people can not figure out how to configure different elements with
>precise dimensions, a specific font, etc..; so they do a gif out of
>these elements with an image software. The making of the gif is not the
>problem; it's the solution from their perspective.
>But when you know the defects, usability burden and accessibility
>problems these false solutions cause


What 'accessibility' problems?

>, then you realize they never were solutions from the beginning.
>

[snip]

>900 different CSS Tableless Web Sites
>http://www.meryl.net/css/


Sadly, contains many too many sites that don't allow text to be
re-sized, window to be re-sized, or that don't quite work with IE6 (i.e.
overlapping columns).

Interestingly, they all look pretty much the same: main text column with
a thinner right-side menu column.

....... and not a 'famous' site amongst them

>
>DU


--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
In article <AULQb.9026$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Steve
R." <stevie_ritchie(NOSPAM)@hotmail.com> says...
> > I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always done
> > everything that I need.

> Lots of Website creators still use tables for layout, (including the
> company I work in), because they are easy to use, they are reliable, and
> work across all browsers.


Additionally all the professional graphics programs will slice a picture
up for you AND supplies you with the HTML tables needed to put it all
back together (surprisingly, with absolutely no extra code, only the
table tags and images) Cut/paste into your favorite HTML editor, and
you are on your way.

> CSS although supposedly *the* way to do it now, causes many problems for
> many people designing websites and also has some browser problems. Just
> look at the number of "CSS problem" posts on the HTML newsgroups to see
> what I mean.


The fact that IE support for CSS is unreliable at best(according to the
anti MS people in the group) means that it is unreliable in about 80% or
90% of your visitors. So should you use it?

Now on the other side of the coin, I do like the possibilities of what
you will be able to do with CSS as soon as all the browsers support it.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
PW wrote:
>
> Could someone explain, or provide a link to a discussion as to, the
> down-side of using tables ?


I refer people to this:
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts

And I just found this one:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03/csslayout-howto

> I can't imagine that theres a load-time component associated with
> tables, as its all HTML.


http://www.radionz.co.nz/digitallife...es3/meyer.html

"The other real advantage of course for businesses is the smaller the
file sizes the less bandwidth they consume. If you can reduce the
total byte size of all of your web pages by lets say 33% thatís 33%
off your bandwidth costs."

> I'd like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about
> iFrames,


There are occasional uses for iframe or frames. But to implement them
correctly requires substantially more work. You can reduce your work
by implementing them improperly, but then the site is not easily
spidered by search engines, difficult to print, and difficult to navigate.

> and dispise tables so much.


Perhaps I'm not a HTML veteran, but I happen to like tables. Here are
examples of a couple of tables I've done:

http://www.tsmchughs.com/menus/wine
(I'd ask that you kindly ignore the ugly wine bottle images. They are
there temporarily to fill in space recently created by a minor change
in the page layout; I expect replacement images next week.)

http://www.julietremblay.com/portfolio/catalogue.html

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Thies
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
> > I can't imagine that theres a load-time component associated with
> > tables, as its all HTML.


There certainly is!

Table layouts do not render progressively. Often, everything in that table
will have to load before you see anything.

Jeff


 
Reply With Quote
 
DU
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2004
jake wrote:
> In message <buvapi$hu$(E-Mail Removed)>, DU
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>> PW wrote:
>>
>>> I read the "dear brucie" thread below ...
>>> I develop the occasional website for friends, I do a little bit of
>>> commercial work, and I use HTML to mark-up web reports at work.
>>> I've never ventured into iFrames or <div> because tables have always
>>> done
>>> everything that I need.
>>> Could someone explain, or provide a link to a discussion as to, the
>>> down-side of using tables ? I can't imagine that theres a load-time
>>> component associated with tables, as its all HTML.
>>> I'd like to know why the HTML veterans as so passionate about
>>> iFrames, and
>>> dispise tables so much. There must be a good reason, because they
>>> are the
>>> pro's.
>>>

>>
>> All these reasons were already repeated in this newsgroup many times
>> before. You're asking others to type everything all over again when a
>> simple search would fulfill your curiosity.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> PW
>>>

>>
>> People use tables and nested tables to position elements on a page.
>> They don't know how to position elements, how to control the layout,
>> how to make the rendered layout scalable, etc. So table and table
>> design is the solution in their mind, not the problem.
>> If they knew nothing else besides MS-Excel, then they would use it to
>> post messages, compose emails, reply in newsgroups, etc..
>> Some people can not figure out how to configure different elements
>> with precise dimensions, a specific font, etc..; so they do a gif out
>> of these elements with an image software. The making of the gif is not
>> the problem; it's the solution from their perspective.
>> But when you know the defects, usability burden and accessibility
>> problems these false solutions cause

>
>
> What 'accessibility' problems?
>


If content of a table can not be linearized, then such content will not
be easy to access with applications and devices for people with
disabilities and for applications with small screen like cell phones and
PDAs. Some applications and devices will render a table just like your
hanging-on-the-wall-calendar uses a grid to render tabular data. In a
table, there should be defined column header and row header cells.
Column headers and row headers should mean something in relation with
the content of the table, otherwise you're misusing the table element.


>> , then you realize they never were solutions from the beginning.
>>

> [snip]
>
>> 900 different CSS Tableless Web Sites
>> http://www.meryl.net/css/

>
>
> Sadly, contains many too many sites that don't allow text to be
> re-sized, window to be re-sized, or that don't quite work with IE6 (i.e.
> overlapping columns).


That's another issue. Of course, font-size should be scalable, using
relative length unit which is known to be best for screen media.
Ideally, columns' width should be scalable, resizable in case the window
is resized; most of the time, at least one column should be relying on a
relative value of the browser window viewport.
Finally, note that MSIE 6 for Windows has a long lasting bug on
overflow. overflow:visible is not rendered accordingly to W3C CSS2 rec.
and this might well be the cause of the overlapping columns you mention.

>
> Interestingly, they all look pretty much the same: main text column with
> a thinner right-side menu column.
>


There can not be 50 layout possible when you're looking to build a 2
columns layout or 3 columns layout. These 900 layouts show that you can
be a table free layout, CSS-based, entirely compliant to W3C
recommendations, which will be more widely supported, accessible,
interoperable and device-independent.

> ...... and not a 'famous' site amongst them
>
>>
>> DU

>
>


This site lists urls of website of people who submit urls. At
webstandards.org, I often see new sites which are talked about and
inevitably, tableless design is mentioned. The latest mentioned is
Vancouver-based North Shore Credit Union: the layout is not based on tables.

http://www.webstandards.org/
http://www.nscu.com/

DU
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
<div ... /> and <div ...></div> K Viltersten ASP .Net 4 03-31-2009 07:33 PM
NS/FF don't change div offsetWidth when div innerHTML is added toand div becomes wider mscir Javascript 3 06-26-2005 04:04 PM
Q: Div A inside Div B is larger than Div B Dwayne Madsen Javascript 1 06-01-2005 03:02 PM
<iframes> and <tables> ??? Mel HTML 2 12-20-2004 01:53 PM
Re: Help - iframes / object / div's design Toby A Inkster HTML 0 08-16-2003 07:08 AM



Advertisments