4 ms·

Though I too enjoy boring people with the "Tables are bad for anything"-pedantry it would be easy to give a few reasons where a simple three-column layout can t

Though I too enjoy boring people with the "Tables are bad for anything"-pedantry it would be easy to give a few reasons where a simple three-column layout can turn into a problem. 1) You colspan the header image. Since the table "encapsulates" the columns, for user-agents with a browser width smaller than the header image, content will be less accessible. 2) Screenreaders will have trouble reading the content inside the layout in its intended order. You are presenting the screenreader with a table, so its expects tabular data. You can't content stack your page elements (and place the most relevant important information at the top). 3) No progressive page loading. It will not always take longer to render tables, over divs, but the loading will be a lot clunkier. Internet Explorer might wait till it has the entire table contents, before it renders the table, giving the user a blank screen. These are some actual user (agent) specific problems, on top of many other problems with using tables for layout, maintenance being a particular excruciating one.

Travis 16y ago
All very valid points. But compared to using CSS for layouts, where the downside is that I get so frustrated I have to stop working, these "downsides" aren't that bad. I value my sanity most. And, 1) in some minute percentage of my users, there's a chance my content won't show up fine. Whatever. I care about getting products launched faster, not about catering to 99% rather than 95% of my audience (premature optimization, really) 2) I have to suspect screen readers are somewhat smart about tables. For the past 15 years, most websites have been table based. Hell, Apple's store was totally table based when I last checked (1-2 years ago). 3) This is an optimization. I find it interesting, in a startup community that values pareto principle, low hanging fruit, etc., that there is such a strong contingent of supporters who cry "CSS is simple!" I consider myself a very strong programmer, and CSS has caused me more problems than it has solved (again, only WRT layout, not styling). In short, I use tables because I can accomplish my goals faster, and with less frustration, than CSS layouts. It prevents premature optimization, and it keeps me happier. Like anything, YMMV, but I really am sick of people who insist "CSS is so simple, take 10 minutes and you'll be fine". It's just not.

Travis 16y ago

All very valid points. But compared to using CSS for layouts, where the downside is that I get so frustrated I have to stop working, these "downsides" aren't that bad. I value my sanity most. And, 1) in some minute percentage of my users, there's a chance my content won't show up fine. Whatever. I care about getting products launched faster, not about catering to 99% rather than 95% of my audience (premature optimization, really) 2) I have to suspect screen readers are somewhat smart about tables. For the past 15 years, most websites have been table based. Hell, Apple's store was totally table based when I last checked (1-2 years ago). 3) This is an optimization. I find it interesting, in a startup community that values pareto principle, low hanging fruit, etc., that there is such a strong contingent of supporters who cry "CSS is simple!" I consider myself a very strong programmer, and CSS has caused me more problems than it has solved (again, only WRT layout, not styling). In short, I use tables because I can accomplish my goals faster, and with less frustration, than CSS layouts. It prevents premature optimization, and it keeps me happier. Like anything, YMMV, but I really am sick of people who insist "CSS is so simple, take 10 minutes and you'll be fine". It's just not.