According to others if I do a search on Google I should see nothing but W3C compliant and table-less designed websites. I have asked Maria to do some searching and post the information here on the forum when she finishes.
It is reckognized by most Web Masters that HTML was wrong from the very beginning, mixing content and styling. CSS driven sites separates content from presentation and it is much simpler to reuse.
- Make it in pure HTML and use tables for design overall. How many Mb's will that site be?
- Make the same site in CSS, with a single site-wide stylesheet that is loaded into memory once. Use <li> for links.
- Compare results.
P.S. Which site is easiest to update?
In the short run it may cost more (increased investments in human capital). In the long run it will save you money.
Competence in short term memory are almost useless. Competence in long time memory is gold. Read, reread, repeat, repeat until the skills are drilled into long term memory.
I go for XML. In sum efficiency and minimalism.
Good news, I leave now. Bad news, I may return. It is weekend.
SEO is not the only reason for tableless. There are other reasons. Including and not limited to:
1. Ability to reduce code on the page, allowing for improved page load times and server load and performance.
2. Ability to semantically layout your content to allow for easier interaction with various mediums including print, screen readers, mobile browsers and more.
3. Ability to easily update and change the visual appearance and layout of the site through a single file, allowing for much easier conversions of the site from a visual perspective.
These are just a few of the things that you can do when moving to CSS and Tableless designs. Of course, most people don't want to think through these types of benefits when developing a site. Everyone is much more concerned about the initial effort it will take to develop a quality site based on CSS and no tables, versus seeing what the long term benefit can be outside of the SEO positives.
I think that too many people want to be on the extremes of the discussion, either on the "it doesn't matter at all" side as you are Janeth, or the "tables are the devil" side from you Webnauts. I think that we need to realize that SEO isn't the only reason to change a site to tableless and there are numerous reasons and benefits to such an endeavor.
Tables would take far longer to load, as BJ has pointed out, increasing the bandwidth usage.
If anything, I can create an accessible website in CSS/XHTML far more quickly than I could when I built websites in just tables controlled by CSS. So my labour expenses are less.
Should I start correcting you too buddy? No, no. I am far beyond that level.
As I am concerned about my bandwidth and of the search engines too, my sites are table-less and additionally I use HTTP-Conditionals, as Google requires and as I explained previously in this thread.
John, it was a joke, funny misspelling.
If you should start to correct my English, you would have to have more than 24 hours a day and night.
I should have left long time ago.
P.S. Day and night="Døgn" in Norwegian. Any single English word for day and night?
Isn't the ability to rearrange content within the code a benefit from an SEO standpoint? As you are able to move the most relevant content to the top of your code?