[development] Tables in Themes in Drupal 7

[Carl Wiedemann]

In addition to Larry's comments, also see
http://phrogz.net/css/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_presentation_and_content

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Larry Garfield <larry at garfieldtech.com>wrote:

>  Table-based markup:
>
> 1) Is worse for search engines.  Search engines handle semantic markup
> better, because they can extract useful information about the page from the
> markup.  Tables confuse them and they cannot rank the data on the page as
> well.
>
> 2) Is more verbose. While your eyes may have grown accustomed to it, that
> makes the page load more slowly.  With the proliferation of the wireless web
> (back to dialup speeds we go!), that is a significant problem.  The usual
> example I use here is Slashdot, which switched from table-based to pure-CSS
> layout back in the early '00s and saved multiple *gigabytes* of data
> transfer per month.  That translates into $$$, as well as a faster user
> experience.
>
> 3) Is harder to maintain.  Really.  Even in a CMS.
>
> 4) Is not accessible.  By "accessible" I mean "makes sense to something
> other than a pair of human eyeballs".  Screen readers, search engines,
> assitive technology (for people that are partially disabled), etc. all work
> better with intelligent, semantic markup than with purely visual markup.
>
> 5) Is harder to build.  Really.  Especially in a dynamic system like
> Drupal, table-based layout makes it harder to build a flexible page.
>
> 6) Doesn't scale down to mobile browsers.  Mobile browsers will be the
> majority of web traffic within 2 years or so by some estimates.  In some
> parts of the world it already is.  Good semantic designs scale down to 4"
> screens far more easily than tables.  I'd go as far as saying that "adaptive
> design" (where the layout changes depending on the size of the screen
> automatically) is simply impossible with tables.
>
> 7) Doesn't offer anywhere near the expressive power of CSS.  If you're
> trying to get a visual effect fancier than three columns with fixed
> rectangular color regions, you need to use CSS for styling.  Tables just
> can't do that.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but if all you're thinking about is "a
> good looking theme", use Photoshop, not the web.  Building a web page is
> about far far far more than simply painting a picture, and if you want to do
> more than paint a picture that has columns in it you need to use CSS-based
> layout.
>
> "Personal preference" is not even on the table (no pun intended) for why
> CSS-based design is better than table-based.  It's not a "prejudice of the
> lazy".  It's a prejudice for using the right tools for the job they were
> intended for, and using them properly.  That's not a subjective statement,
> nor one simply based on which one learned first.
>
> Yes, it's time for you to learn CSS.  Fortunately, it's much easier than it
> used to be since modern browsers finally support CSS properly (now that IE 6
> is a virtually non-existent player in most markets).
>
> --Larry Garfield
>
>
> On 05/02/2011 12:07 AM, Warren Vail wrote:
>
>  I was just getting ready to tackle my first theme in Drupal 7, and is my
> practice, looking through the themes to find for one to hack into being
> mine, when I found that none of them used tables for layout.  Now I have
> heard many people voice the opinion that tabled layouts (which I’ve been
> quite successful with) are bad, and CSS (which I am less prepared to deal
> with) are good.  And in my ages of experience I have, up until now, assumed
> that the expressed choice between good and bad was based on (as it often is)
> what people had learned vs what they had not, and did not want to have to
> bother to learn, so I said nothing until now
>
>
>
> Now I see that Drupal 7 (a product I have some respect for) seems to have
> none, in those that I have looked into, at least.  Did what I had perceived
> to be merely a prejudice of the lazy make it’s way all the way into the D7
> Platform, or is there some legitimate reason for abandoning tabled layouts
> that I have missed (must I finally buckle down to my own laziness and tackle
> CSS to that depth)?
>
>
>
> Why are Tables BAD and CSS GOOD (keep in mind, I’m after a good looking
> theme, and not good looking code, necessarily, since none of my end users
> will ever look at the code).  I am looking for some reason other than good
> looking code (or someone’s vision of correctness) to get behind CSS for my
> themes, and believe me “being easier” won’t convince me much either.  I’m
> guessing there must be some other good reason I’ve missed.
>
>
>
> What would that be?
>
>
>
> *Warren Vail*
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20110501/203a8d35/attachment.html