Usability and the Law?

[Larke]

I was directed at this article today after scoffing about how using tables in design is 'illegal'.

I have been slowly moving to designing with divs over tables.. but I still design with tables, over all.

This is the article:
http://www.lasa.org.uk/knowledgebase...ccesslaw.shtml

How seriously should I be about learning to design solely with divs? Especially when it comes to designing for businesses?

[WSC-Will]

Originally Posted by Larke

How seriously should I be about learning to design solely with divs? Especially when it comes to designing for businesses?

I think you should be really serious about being able to design without relying on tables for layout if you're building for businesses. Think of it as an extra skill or service to offer... Something that can help elevate your proposition above many other designers.

Commerically, it makes good sense to be able to offer your clients accessible websites as people become more aware of accessibility issues.

[Larke]

thank you for the reply :)

I have indeed been doing my homework when it comes to divs. I've been learning a lot. Switching from tables to divs is hard! lol

Again, thank you for the reply.

[Faglork]

We are living in a transitional time. CSS gives a lot of possibilities to compliant browsers, but CSS support by the most used browser on earth (no names here) is still bad. So what to do?

I'd say it depends. If you can convince your customer to liquid design, go for pure CSS. This means to abandon a lot of conceptions about how a website should behave on different viewing systems: adaptability is needed, and this wreaks havoc on "standard" designs. All-out liquid designs can be as attractive as their "fixed" brothers, but they require different thinking from ground up.

If your customer *demands* a pixel-perfect solution, go for a simple table to anchor the parts of your design and fine-tune with CSS. This type of print-oriented design cannot be done - or if, only with comparably high costs - with today's browser support for CSS (did I mention the one browser that ...? Ok. )

There should be no dogmas - in this world of imperfect CSS support many solutions have to be compromises. Who is to say which compromise is better?

As long as you don't use that million-nested-table design of stone-age HTML, it is okay. There are no 'illegal' tables.

On the other side, creating a "DIV soup" is no real improvement ...

Perhaps the decision should be based on simplicity.


Just my thoughts,
Alex

[greeneagle]

Alex,

Looks like IE7 is going to be introduced very soon. Here is a new Site listing many of the advances including several CSS2 and some CSS3 issues, as well as security and more:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/overview/

If it "stands up" to the "rumors of war", then they are going escalate the combat with a serious salvo. It might even be strong enough to help restore public opinion and detract "eyes" from alternate browsers.

Just like GOOGLE, they have to stay ahead of the game, it's more critical than ever now, after launching the new MSNBot, quietly doubling and tripling SERPs categorically in the last 2 months...

An orchestrated 1-2-3 Punch, the "Big Boy" may be ready to "play" hard!

Ken

[greeneagle]

Alex:
"As long as you don't use that million-nested-table design of stone-age HTML, it is okay. There are no 'illegal' tables."

Forgive me for posting twice in a row, but I've walked in "late" here.

I have seen similar statements concerning tables "20 fathoms deep" in several "Major" CSS Site articles and even in "Top Ranked" CSS guides in the last couple of days.

I am currently in full transition between tables and CSS positioning. Everything we produce now is completely "transitional" with a shell table and CSS for everything else possible, and W3C validated. (Yes, I am still stumbling over there), part of the issue is though the associated need to code more "strict".

But, I have never designed a client's Site more than 2 tables deep and that is rare. Never saw the need, maybe I am just "shallow", but there is a certain elegance to a strong information presentation with minimal clean code. There are still remaining CSS2 positioning issues with different browsers. IMO - I know it's coming, but right now, with minimal "table code" and CSS combined, we are not out of the BandWidth "BallPark", the code validates, most cross-browser and cross-platform issues are adequately addressed, and it's faster and easier. There is even a <content> tag that should be used with tables.

The introduction of IE7 (soon) will push the need for developers to go ahead and "walk through that door".

Ken

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

(...) But, I have never designed a client's Site more than 2 tables deep and that is rare. (...)

I've redesigned a number of sites with several levels of nesting. Worst case was a site where I could reduce the code by 90% (!!) mostly by throwing out tables. They had used tables for each and everything just to position it in a certain way.

I actually got the job by printing out the former code and my new code and laying the paper sheets out on the table just to demonstrate the sheer amount of reduction ... they were quite impressed, lol.

BTW: If you need a example for bad nesting, look at any site which uses an older PHP Nuke version. The standard templates and the CMS codes as well feature tables in abundance.



Alex

The introduction of IE7 (soon) will push the need for developers to go ahead and "walk through that door".

why? is IE7 going to stop supporting tables? No.

I will be surprised if its CSS compliance is as good as
the avaialable now latest versions of opera or FF.

Is it going to become widespread enough so we can stop coding or 5, 5.5 or 6? Not for several years.

<content> tag

a what?