DON'T buy a mac...Quote:
Originally Posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
really.
Don't.
I have one, and I have a pc too... I must say, I like my mac a lot. But still, I like my pc better... :D
Printable View
DON'T buy a mac...Quote:
Originally Posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
really.
Don't.
I have one, and I have a pc too... I must say, I like my mac a lot. But still, I like my pc better... :D
Well, I’d taken that into consideration at one point, because it seemed logical to me — you have two columns of data and any number of rows, the left column describes the data that you should input in the corresponding field in the right column. If, however, it was a good idea to use tables to lay out your forms, why did the W3C put the FIELDSET, LEGEND, and LABEL tags in the HTML 4.01 specification? It would be just silly for those elements to exist if the W3C wanted us to use TABLEs, wouldn’t it?
The FIELDSET, LEGEND, and LABEL tags do have a purpose, though. They’re there to describe INPUT elements in a form. User agents (browsers) built to cater for special needs understand these HTML elements as form-related objects, so they are handled differently. If you use tables, the user agent may not grasp the idea that the tables are for form data, making the process more difficult for those with disabilities.
yeah, you're right...
Then, I guess I'll give it a try with the css positioning. My problem was aligning the things together. Of course, I had the label and input things, but...
Anyway, I'm sure it'll be a pain on the first form, and then it'll just be a piece of cake.
But, you don't have anything against using tables to display an image gallery, do you ?
I guess those are tabular datas, too... :)
Are they? You have rows and columns, but are image galleries really tabular data? I would think not. It’s more of a list, isn’t it? Yes, you know where I’m going with this... UL’s and LI’s with CSS positioning seem to make more sense to me. Tables have table headers, so unless you’re going to have something like the following, I don’t think tables are applicable.
See where I’m coming from?Code:-------------------------------
| Images of me | Images of Bob|
-------------------------------
| Me_one.jpg | Bob_one.jpg |
| Me_two.jpg | Bob_two.jpg |
-------------------------------
As far as styling forms, you can usually get away with using “float: left” on the LABELs and “float: right” or “clear: right” on the INPUTs. I don’t have an article handy, but you might look around at JuicyStudio or AListApart for some articles. Good luck!
Pshshshshsh! Jona, this the second matter that you've changed my outlook on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jona
I will never look at TABLEs the same way again, without a vow. :p
The first matter you've change my outlook on was regarding the JavaScript eval() function.
It was my favorite function for a long time, until you told me about it's ability to hog system resources and that there is usually a second alternitive.
Extra thanks to Charles for teaching me about the window[string] method as appose to the eval(string) method.
^_^
Now I just have to convince you to write JavaScript that one can read more easily. ;)
If you mean you want me to start using a more public-style format, that ain't gonna happen. :p
...
No matter how you slice it, using tables for layout is wrong.
...
im sorry i must say that there is times when it is inappropriate, some times tables supported by css1 is the way to go, like little things eg, login boxes, forms, and search boxes which are very specific, are more economical due to their coding if we used tables instead of divs layed out by css. also
[qoute]
You can still use tables if you need to, just don't use so many of them
This will give viewers (and bosses) who are bound and determined to use version 4 browsers until the day they die an acceptable approximation of what the rest of the world is seeing.[/qoute ]
qoute, huH! ;)
:p ill fix it... actually i wont i cant be bothered.
Jona, I got the link to the text browser from your original post in this thread. I liked to use it to test my pages and also to look at some other pages occasionally to see how good or bad they looked, kind of as a learning tool. They have now disabled the service unless the site being viewed gives explicit permission by uploading a file to their server. This is fine for looking at my sites, but not at others. Just wondering if you, or anyone else, knew of another site that provides a similar service to view text only.
Wamboid, you can download and run the Lynx browser for Windows and use it to browse the Internet. See <http://lynx.browser.org/>.
I believe that you have worked hard to write that, and it is a good post but don’t you think that it would be rather difficult to use CSS instead of Table for the guys working at corporate websites
No, I don’t think so. In fact, I think it would be easier to use CSS. Support is relatively decent now and I think web sites (and web developers) should start demanding the easiest, fastest, and most efficient way to build, maintain, and use web sites — that is, of course, CSS. If you’re working in a corporate office, the last thing you want is tag soup (obfuscated markup). The CSS design process eliminates the need for enumerous tags that would otherwise be necessary if tables were used. It helps back-end developers program more easily, and the front-end designers perhaps shouldn’t be designing web sites at all if they don’t understand enough CSS to make a web layout. CSS is in the future; tables for layout is obsolete. Corporate companies should be up-to-date enough to realize this and design their sites with CSS. If you compare the benefits and problems of both CSS and tables for layout, you’ll find that the benefits of using CSS far outweigh the benefits of using tables.
And corporate sites often have way more traffic than personnal or small business sites, when you code your page with semantic markup and style it with CSS, your files size will drop a lot -> less bandwidth consumption and faster loading
