21 ms·

Nothing. Look at the source to amazon.com, netflix.com, google.com, bing.com. It's hard to find any big site that doesn't use tables for at least some layout

Nothing. Look at the source to amazon.com, netflix.com, google.com, bing.com. It's hard to find any big site that doesn't use tables for at least some layout tasks. CSS is a really, really shitty method of doing layout. Fanboys will come out of the woodwork to try and prove that statement wrong, but in my opinion, it's true. I'm not sure how we ended up with such a terrible tool. There are times when I have spent 10 hours trying to do some trivial bit of layout done with CSS, and finally resorting to a little table got it done instantly. There are entire classes of things that you can't do with CSS, or you have to resort to bizarre hacks to get done (negative padding, etc). I'm not claiming that tables solve every problem, but presented with the choice of spending hours figuring out some css hack and testing it in the dozens of browsers / mobile browsers that are out there now, and just making a table, I will just make the table and move on. Edit: You should use CSS 90% of the time. Tables often let you do something easily that CSS has lots of trouble with, and I recommend resorting to them at that point.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
BS. Like what? I've yet to hear a compelling argument for misusing the table tag that CSS can't do just as elegantly.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Amazon.com and Google.com (at least) don't even serve valid pages. Amazon doesn't declare a doctype or character encoding. They have 7 blocks of inline CSS, there page is a dog to load. They have nested tables for non-tabular data, the don't encode entities (&, etc), they use non-existent (in spec) attribute values, don't declare all script types, don't add all alt attributes, they use a mixture of XHTML and HTML (mixed use of self-closing tags and unclosed tags), etc., etc.. So I guess big sites just don't care about web standards. I can't imagine how insane it would drive you trying to navigate Amazon's site with a screenreader.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

BS. Like what? I've yet to hear a compelling argument for misusing the table tag that CSS can't do just as elegantly.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

Amazon.com and Google.com (at least) don't even serve valid pages. Amazon doesn't declare a doctype or character encoding. They have 7 blocks of inline CSS, there page is a dog to load. They have nested tables for non-tabular data, the don't encode entities (&, etc), they use non-existent (in spec) attribute values, don't declare all script types, don't add all alt attributes, they use a mixture of XHTML and HTML (mixed use of self-closing tags and unclosed tags), etc., etc.. So I guess big sites just don't care about web standards. I can't imagine how insane it would drive you trying to navigate Amazon's site with a screenreader.