Arguments for CSS against TABLES

  • Thread starter Thread starter ~J~
  • Start date Start date
Point your employer to http://www.csszengarden.com, pointing out every design uses the same html code.

Since 1st October 1999, it has been the responsibility of service providers such as your company to ensure they change any practices that could make it unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of those services. Nested tables can confuse the hell out of software that reads out content for the visually impaired, never mind the way they screw up sites for those of us that can see :P

Afaik the EU minimum standard for commercial web accessibility is the WC3 Priority 2 checklist (although any reputable firm would already be implementing Priority 1). Item 3.3 is "3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation."

Your company may well be in breach of UK and EU law on minimum standards of accessibility, which I guess could be construed as providing a product that is not fit for purpose.

Admittedly its been a few years since I was in web design, but those were the sort of pitfalls we were told about.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that's probably the most persuasive and powerful point of all, UncleBob :)

Pointing out the very real threat of litigation as a result of a lack of accessibility provision will ***** up a boss' ears like nothing else.
 
Fantastic post UncleBob and because some of our clients are relatively high profile, Im sure this is an excellent point to use in leverage towards using CSS.

Again, my sincere thanks and to everyone for some really good, constructive and pretty straight forward/common sense arguments.

:)
 
One point to make is he wouldn't get a job at any decent web agency should he find himself out of work and looking for a new job.

Not as constructive but very true now :)

Remember it's not just about using CSS, he should using HTML properly, i.e. semantic HTML, use a header tag for headers not a div with a class of header....etc etc.
 
I can knock up pretty decent sites from blank PSDs to CSS-built/W3C valid sites, but in the grand scheme of things I know *nothing* about web design compared to pros.

Despite this I can't believe tabular layouts are still used in the professional/paying world! Reminds me of making GTA1 fan sites on AOL homepages when I was 10 with flashing gifs.

There really is no argument - it's the standard and if he has a problem there'll be a dozen more talented guys ready to take his place, especially in this climate.

Would you let him do his designs in MS Paint? :p
 
[...] use a header tag for headers not a div with a class of header....etc etc.
Y'know, I'd fashioned a reply along the lines of "whoa - slow down there, fella", and thought I'd check current HTML 5 browser support to make sure.

And by crikey, it apears to be totally feasible [with the usual IE and work-in-progress caveats] :eek:

Ta, Mr p :D
 
And by crikey, it apears to be totally feasible [with the usual IE and work-in-progress caveats] :eek:

Yes, though I know very very few people actually using it now.
No point really using stuff like <header>, <nav>, etc. etc. when you have to rely on javascript to get it to play nice with IE.

IMO, it's only currently feasible to use it for experimental or personal sites. It would be crazy to use it for a paying client.


To clarify though, I believe that probedb was stating that h tags should be used instead of just styling a div to appear as such.
 
Last edited:
[...] To clarify though, I believe that probedb was stating that h tags should be used instead of just styling a div to appear as such.
Ah yes... in the cold light of day's re-read it would appear that you're right :D

Agree entirely with your 'paying client' point, too. It's just that in my case my next client is me, so it was a pleasant surprise to discover that finally I can design something that looks forward rather than back :)
 
Show him this website - http://www.csszengarden.com/ Check the links on the right. Every single page has exactly the same HTML, it's the CSS that makes it look completely different.

As per the points above, CSS is easier and QUICKER (time = money) to update and make site-wide style/layout changes, there is less code so it's faster to load and better for SEO. Even if he thinks these things are not important, this sort of thing shouldn't be a value-add for clients these days, it should be a given.
 
I also can't believe people still use tables for styling. I had a friend a few years ago that had the same mindset. He created websites for businesses but they were all done in tables and it would take him hours to even do a simple change. I asked him one day why he doesn't use CSS and he too was just stuck in his ways and he used frontpage. I find there is a correlation between most fronpage users and using tables :P He even asked me do do some work for him but I refused because I don't want to be wasting time on using tables.

As some have said CSS was created for styling and tables are for displaying tabular data. It's in the names.

Time and money is the main concern. Once he gets relativly good at using CSS the time it takes to create and maintain websites will be reduced. CSS is also easily reused eg you can have basic ready made HTML and CSS which could be reused for every client eg the popular cenetered layout or dynamic width layouts and the reset style sheets etc. Therefore when a client requests a certain type of site you can pick one template and build upon it for the clients specific needs.

I don't know how that guy handles JavaScript with all those tables and no CSS it must be a nightmare.

It's 2009 and by using tables the company is behind the times. Get the guy to pick up CSS now or it can will get worse to maintain websites in the future.
 
Its easier and quicker to use CSS then tables. If your worried about time to lern it it took me about 1 day, just look up the holy grail CSS.

Far more future proof too.

If you work on any public sector sites, you cant use table layouts as its not accessible for disabled. Screenreaders use tables for highlighting infomation, not for layout. Heck you cant even use bold lol (strong :p).
 
The screenreader argument might carry some leverage since you really need to make sites equally accessible to users with visual impairments and if you're using tables then it's possible that this won't be the case.
 
*Update*

He's just done his first CSS based paged and said "Yeah it's actually quite good, saves me having to splice up all my images but still say tables are quicker"

I'm making progress :D
 
*Update*

He's just done his first CSS based paged and said "Yeah it's actually quite good, saves me having to splice up all my images but still say tables are quicker"

I'm making progress :D

haha.
That would be like me just learning how to ride a bike but exclaiming that walking is faster just because I haven't got the hang of it yet. Sure, walking may be faster for me at the moment but certainly won't be once I learn how to ride the bike.
 
As well as the browser consistency, accessibility and maintenance issues, table-based layouts also produce a lot more code and tend to be more processor-intensive to render. Both of those lead to a poor experience for people browsing on mobile/3G connections and with devices with limited processing power like iPhones or netbooks. And the number of people browsing in this way is only going to grow.

In my opinion, if you're using tabular design in 2009 then you're not a competent web developer. He may well be a really good designer, but he's not good at development. He's not using his own time properly, and worse, he's creating a nightmare for anyone else who needs to maintain the page.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom