Related
This is a question of how to perform the best practice of storing data from a webpage. Like texts/image-urls/links etc.
I have an CMS were you can create web pages. Here you can edit texts/upload images. In the future it would also be nice to "add new elements", add links to a-tags etc.
I need to have a robust and flexible solution that also have good performance. In both getting/recieving this data.
Lets consider I have 1000 pages with each around 25 elements on each page that can be updated and stored in the database.
Alternative 1)
Create a table and 1 column for each element on these pages for example columns like:
title_1, title_2,image_1,image_2.
Here we have a set of columns that we can update, these we can use on the web page.
Alternative 2)
Create 1 table with the columns (id, namespace, page_id, data)
And for each element on the page I add the namespace in association with the page_id to make the data output unique. In the data I can add any kind of information; text, links etc.
What do you suggest as a good solution for this issue? I'm ofcourse also open for other alternatives.
Thanks!
I would recommend option two, with the addition of a column identifying the element id/or type, if indeed the element id is somehow comparable. That is to say, if anchor text (say) is always stored as element id = 4, then you might want an element id = 4 so that you could compare anchor texts across multiple documents.
If, on the other hand (and this is the scenario I imagine is more likely), you may have 1-25 elements on a page and each of them could be different (eg document one has three anchor texts and four images, document two has one anchor text and no images, etc) it would make sense to add an element_type_id table that stores a bit of information about the element types. This is assuming that you ever have any interest in comparing (say) images across multiple documents, or anchor texts across multiple documents, etc.
Another thing to consider: if you are likely to see the same element over and over again, it actually makes more sense to effectively parameterize those elements by way of a lookup table. So basically store each (say) unique anchor text in one table and reference its id in your actual data table.
If I may add one additional thing: SO may not be the best place for the particular question you are asking. I'm not totally sure of that and maybe I'm wrong... but I would poke around the Stack Exchange network and see if other forums more closely deal with the type of question you asking. In the very least, I'd observe that your question is fairly vague and the goal of achieving a "robust and flexible solution that also {has} good performance. In both getting/recieving this data." is not likely to be accomplished simply by asking for advice on SO. There is a LOT that goes into data architecture, and certainly many of the details I would consider important in designing this myself are not present in your questions. And if you're not sure what those details are, I am not sure if SO is really the best place to set about learning them. I think https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ may be a better fit for this question.
Just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Either way, I would consider learning a bit about database normal forms (http://www.bkent.net/Doc/simple5.htm or Google it) as well as do a little research on the types of design considerations that go into building a database (an old but still good SO article on that is here: What are the most important considerations when designing a database?)
The following is a fairly typical layout for admin pages (e.g. searching in a database and doing something with the results):
action dropdown
table header row with column names
second table header row with search filters for columns
result rows with a checkbox
search button
The user can set all sorts of filters, search, select some of the results with the checkboxes, then select an action from the dropdown, and the action and the selected row ids will be submitted to some processing script.
There are some basic expectations for such a control:
GET for searches, POST for actions
use the auto-sizing features of HTML tables so that columns can be narrow or wide depending on the content
reasonably cross-browser
I have been looking for a nice technique to achieve this, but everything I can think of seems to have serious disadvantages:
the simplest would be having two forms (a GET form for the search controls and a POST for the checkboxes), but the HTML4 DTD makes that impossible: I can either wrap the whole table in a single form or put separate forms inside every table cell (which is pretty useless).
alternately, I could use a different table element for every row and group them freely into forms, but then the column widths would not match and I would have to set fixed widths. (CSS3 table-* display types lack adequate support.)
HTML5 allows us to place input elements outside forms, and connect them with the form attribute, but that has even less support.
There is an ugly hack involving invalid HTML with forms directly wrapping tr elements, which seems to work but messes up the DOM, confuses Javascript libraries and is not exactly future-safe.
I can wrap the whole table in a single form, and change its method and action dynamically depending on which button was pressed, but that makes me dependent on Javascript; also, I don't want to submit search controls in the POST request and vice versa, it is unnecessary traffic. Also, when there are a lot of result rows, the search request might surpass the URL size limitations (just a few thousand characters in IE) because of all the checkboxes.
I could do the same but disable the unnecessary fields when the user submits the form. Beyond being horribly overcomplicated for such a simple task, this has various usability problems when the request is somehow stopped (e.g. user pressing ESC) and the user is left with a bunch if disabled form fields.
Is there a better solution I am not aware of?
Use AJAX. It allows you to define your own get/post data that is not form-dependent.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
I am developing a "modern" website, and I'm having a lot of trouble getting the CSS to make everything line up properly. I feel like they layout would be a lot easier if I just used a table, but I've been avoiding <table> tags, because I've been told that they are "old-fashioned" and not the right way to do things.
Is it okay to use tables? How do I decide when a table is appropriate, and when I should use CSS instead? Do I just do whatever is easier?
The answer is yes, it's fine to use tables. The general rule of thumb is that if you are displaying tabular data, a table is probably a good way to go. You should generally try to style your table with css as much as you can though.
Also, this pie graph might help you:
alt text http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/7292/0/Time_Breakdown_of_Modern_Web_Design.ashx
EDIT: Tables are fine. For displaying data. Just like my second sentence stated. The question was "is it ok to use tables". The answer is - yes, it is ok to use tables. It is not illegal.
Since even though it's implied to use tables for data in my general rule of thumb, apparently I must also state that the corollary is that it's not ok to use tables for anything else, even though the poster already seemed to grasp this concept. So, for the record, the general rule of thumb is to not use tables for laying out your site.
Tables should be used to represent tabular data. CSS should be used for presentation and layout.
This question has also been exhaustively answered here:
Why not use tables for layout in HTML?
Essentially - if you have tabular data, then use a table. There's really no need now to use tables for layout - sure, they were often considered 'easier' but semantically the page is horrid, they were often considered inaccessible.
See some discussion:
css-discuss
and a particularly comical URL - shouldiusetablesforlayout.com
In the 'modern' approach of tables it is not about using table tags or div tags, but about using the right tag for the right purpose.
The table tag is used for tabular data. There is nothing wrong with using it for that!
For using CSS, there are a lot of tutorials and guides (good and bad) around. Indicators of a bad tutorial are: lot of use of blocks (divs) that only make sense for the layout and not for the content. Good signs are the ones that advise to use the right tags for the right content and teach you how to make up that tags.
Tables are only appropriate for tabular data. Imagine you have to add some spreadsheet like data, where you have clear row/column headers, and some data inside those rows.
A product comparison, for example, is also a valid table item.
I believe that tables are OK for display of rectilinear data of arbitrary rows and/or columns. That's about it. Tables should not be used for layout purposes anymore.
In general, HTML markup should describe the structure and content of a web page—it should not be used to control presentational aspects such as layout and styling (that's what CSS is for). A <table> tag, like most have already said, should represent tabular data—something that would appear as a table of information.
The reason why people rag on tables so much is that in the old days, there was no such thing as CSS—all page layout was done directly in HTML. Tags were not thought of as describing content—all anyone really cared about was how a tag would make things look in a web browser. As a result of this, people figured that, since they could organize things into rows and columns, tables must be good for laying out elements of a web page. This became a really popular technique—in fact, I'd wager that using tables was considered the preferred method of laying out web pages for quite some time.
So when people tell you that tables are "old-fashioned," they are specifically referring to this abuse of the <table> tag that was so popular back in the old days. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with HTML tables themselves, but using them for web page layout just doesn't make sense nowadays.
(Plus, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, layouts done with HTML tables are very inflexible and hard to maintain.)
its ok to use tables when you are showing data in a grid / tabular format. however, for general structure of the site, its highly recommended that you use css driven div, ul, li elements to give you more lucid website.
If you anyways decide to work with tables, you must consider the following cons :
they are not SEO friendly
they are quite rigid in terms of their structure and at times difficult to maintain as well
you may be spending little extra time on div based website, but its worth every minute spent.
The whole "anti-Table" movement is a reaction to a time when deeply nested tables were the only method to layout pages, leading to HTML that was very hard to understand.
Tables are a valid method for tabular (data) layout, and if a table is the easiest way to implement a layout, then by any means use a table.
Table is always the right choice when you have the need to present data in a grid.
Quoting Sitepoints's book HTML Utopia: Designing Without Tables using CSS
If you have tabular data and the appearance of that data is less important than its appropriate display in connection with other portions of the same data set, then a table is in order. If you have information that would best be displayed in a spreadsheet such as Excel, you have tabular data.
I would say no for using tables to construct your layout. Tables make sense only for actual tabular data you need to represent. If you spend enough time figuring the CSS out you will find its easier then using tables for a layout. Just remember: Tables for displaying data. CSS for page layouts.
Tables are just that: Tables.
They are frowned upon because they should not be used for layout, as has been the fashionable thing to do before browsers could position stuff properly.
If what you want to markup is, in fact, a table, then use a table. Other than that, try to stay away.
One small thing: Aligning two parts of text to the exact same line that won't move apart (think, username and post date). There using a table is IMHO an option.
First get it working. Then get it perfect.
Get the layout done in some way before making it perfect or better.
How many people per day will go to the page you are working on? A million? or 20 ?
How much time are you going to spend on CSS issues instead of other issues? Does your boss want you to spend this much time on the issue? Does he/she know what you are doing?
Absolutely. I don't know where CSS zealots invented the idea that tables are not naturally used for "layout". Tables have been used for laying things out since their invention, whether those things be numbers, words, or pretty pictures. That's what they do. Moreover, table is part of all versions of (X)HTML so there are no deprecation concerns.
Absolutely.
All that HTML offers was originally intended for you to define the markup of your page. In my book, absolute and relative positions of elements on a page belong to markup. So both divs and tables are very much suited for this task. Pick up what works best for your particular need.
CSS adds many styling possibilities and also layout tricks but it complements HTML options not replaces them.
There is actually a very fine line between seeing something as a markup or styling issue. CSS proponents would say that with CSS you can relocate and reshuffle completely all big and little pieces of a page. I cannot however imagine putting header below, footer above and making things appear in reverse order.
Take an example. You design a notebook. You know where to place major components, mainboard, cooling system, keyboard, display and ports. You may certainly wish to rearrange a little bit port connectors, on whic side and in which sequence they appear, but you don't really expect to put display where the keyboard is, put keyboard on the lid, make fans blow to your face and have all connectors on the botom to be reached through holes on your desk.
Using tables can make it slightly difficult to rearrange elements on a page. This might be true. However, in most cases you know in advance how approximately your page should look like and you would not want to change everything drastically. if you can't say it before your begin your work you probably have no clear idea what you are doing and what for.
Moreover, only tables possess elastic properties, which allows the to stretch to the width/height of their content. Nothing else of HTML/CSS can be used to do that.
CSS design on one side allows you to create quite adjustable designs. On the other hand, it locks you out from designing a page adjustable to its content. Both wins and losses.
Table is also the only tool to make very complex and precise interfaces. For example, the page SO is very simple. It probably can be done with pure CSS. In the meantime, have you seen any enterprise-class software like CRMs, SRMs etc? That multitude of buttons, text field, check boxes, dropdownlists all precisely located on a screen? Good luck achieving that kind of complexity with just CSS. And these layouts migrate from desktop applications into web each day (keyword: software-as-a-service).
So choose what suits best your current need and don't trust those CSS lovers. Actually don't trust any fanatics at all.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why not use tables for layout in HTML?
Under what conditions should you choose tables instead of DIVs in HTML coding?
The whole "Tables vs Divs" thing just barely misses the mark. It's not "table" or "div". It's about using semantic html.
Even the div tag plays only a small part in a well laid out page. Don't overuse it. You shouldn't need that many if you put your html together correctly. Things like lists, field sets, legends, labels, paragraphs, etc can replace much of what a div or span is often used to accomplish. Div should be used primarily when it makes sense to indicate a logical division, and only appropriated for extra layout when absolutely necessary. The same is true for table; use it when you have tabular data, but not otherwise.
Then you have a more semantic page and you don't need quite as many classes defined in your CSS; you can target the tags directly instead. Possibly most importantly, you have a page that will score much better with Google (anecdotally) than the equivalent table or div-heavy page. Most of all it will help you better connect with a portion of your audience.
So if we go back and look at it in terms of table vs div, it's my opinion that we've actually come to the point where div is over-used and table is under-used. Why? Because when you really think about it, there are a lot of things out there that fall into the category of "tabular data" that tend to be overlooked. Answers and comments on this very web page, for example. They consist of multiple records, each with the same set of fields. They're even stored in a sql server table, for crying out loud. This is the exact definition of tabular data. This means an html table tag would absolutely be a good semantic choice to layout something like the posts here on Stack Overflow. The same principle applies to many other things as well. It may not be a good idea to use a table tag to set up a three column layout, but it's certainly just fine to use it for grids and lists... except, of course, when you can actually use the ol or ul (list) tags.
When the data I am presenting is, indeed, tabular.
I find it ridiculous that some web designers used divs on tabular data on some sites.
One other use I would have for it would be forms, particularly label : textbox pairs. This could technically be done in div boxes, but it's much, much easier to do this in tables, and one can argue that label:textbox pairs are in fact tabular in nature.
I used to do pure CSS but I abandoned that pursuit in favor of hybrid table/css approach as the most pragmatic approach. Ironically, it's also because of accessibility. Ever try doing CSS on Sidekick? What a nightmare! Ever seen how CSS-based websites are rendered on new browsers? Elements would overlap or just don't display correctly that I had to turn off the CSS. Ever try resizing CSS-based websites? They look awful and often detrimental to the blind if they use zooming features in the browser! If you do that with tables, they scale much better. When people talk about accessibility, I find that many have no clue and it annoys me because I am disabled and they aren't. Have they really worked with the blind? The deaf? If accessibility is a main concern, why the hell are 99% of videos not closed captioned? Many CSS purists use AJAX but fail to realize that AJAX often makes content inaccessible.
Pragmatically, it's ok to use a single table as a main layout as LONG as you provide the information in a logical flow if the cells are stacked (something you'd see on mobiles). The CSS theory sounds great but partially workable in real life with too many hacks, something that is against the ideals of "purity."
Since using the CSS with tables approach, I've saved so much time designing a website and maintanance is much easier. Fewer hacks, more intuitive. I get fewer calls from people saying "I inserted a DIV and now it looks all screwed up!" And even more importantly, absolutely NO accessibility issues.
Usually whenever you're not using the table to provide a layout.
Tables -> data
Divs -> layout
(mainly)
Note: At the time the question was asked, there were practical reasons for using tables for some layout purposes. This is not necessary anymore due to browser improvements, so I have updated the answer.
HTML <table>-elements should be used when the data logically has a two dimensional structure. If the data can be structured in rows and columns and you can meaningfully apply headers to both rows and columns, then you probably have tabular data.
I you only have a single row or single column of data, then it is not tabular data - it is just linear content. You need at least two rows and two columns before it can be considered tabular data.
Some examples:
Using tables for placing sidebars and page headers/footers. This is not tabular data but page layout. Something like css grid or flexbox is more appropriate.
Using tables for newspaper-style columns. This is not tabular data - you would still read it linearly. Something like css columns is more appropriate.
I would make a distinction between HTML for public websites (tables no-no-no, divs yes-yes-yes) and HTML for semi-public or private web applications, where I tend to prefer tables even for page layout.
Most of the respectable reasons why "Tables are bad" are usually an issue only for public websites, but not so much of a problem with webapps. If I can get the same layout and have a more consistent look across browsers by using a TABLE than a complicated CSS+DIV, then I usually go ahead and aprove the TABLE.
As many posters have already mentioned, you should use tables to display for tabular data.
Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 here is the relevant paragraph from the spec on their usage:
[tables] can be used to markup tabular material or for layout purposes...
Agree with Thomas -- the general rule of thumb is if it makes sense on a spreedsheet, you can use a table. Otherwise not.
Just don't use tables as your layout for the page, that's the main problem people have with them.
I can see the argument for tables for forms, but there is a nicer alternative... you just have to roll up your sleeves and learn CSS.
for example:
<fieldset>
<legend>New Blog Post</legend>
<label for="title">Title:</label>
<input type="text" name="title" />
<label for="body">Body:</label>
<textarea name="body" rows="6" cols="40">
</textarea>
</fieldset>
You can take that html and layout the form either side-by-side labels, or labels on top of the textboxes (which is easier). Having the flexibility really helps. It's also less HTML than the table equivalent of either.
For some excellent examples of CSS forms, check out these excellent examples:
http://jeffhowden.com/code/css/forms/
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/fancy-form-design-css/
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2006/11/11/css-based-forms-modern-solutions/
I will usually opt for tables to display form-type information (First Name, Last Name, Address, etc.) where lining labels and fields across multiple rows is important. DIVs I use for layout.
Of course the table is wrapped in a DIV :)
Tables were designed for tabular content, not for layout.
So, don't ever feel bad if you use them to display data.
I use tables in two cases:
1) Tabular data
2) Any time I want my layout to dynamically size itself to its contents
If your data can be laid out in a two-dimensional grid, use <table>. If it can't, don't. Using <table> for anything else is a hack (though frequently not one with proper alternatives, especially when it comes to compatibility with older browsers). Not using <table> for something that clearly should be one is equally bad. <div> and <span> aren't for everything; in fact, being completely meaningless on a semantic level, they are to be avoided at all costs in favor of more semantic alternatives.
On this subject, I thought this site was pretty funny.
1) For displaying tabular data. A calendar is one example of tabular data that isn't always obvious at first.
2) I work for a medical billing company, and nearly all of the layout for our internal work is done using CSS. However, from time to time we get paper forms from insurance companies that our billers have to use, and a program will convert them to an html format that they can fill out and print via the intranet. To make sure the forms are accepted they need to match the original paper version very closely. For these it's just simple to fall back to tables.
Tables are used for tabular data. If it makes sense to put it in a spreadsheet then use a table. Otherwise there is a better tag for you to be using such as div, span, ul, etc.
I believe just tabular content. For example, if you printed out a database table or spreadsheet-like data to HTML.
If you would like to have semantically correct HTML, then you should use tables only for tabular data.
Otherwise you use tables for everything you want, but there probably is a way to do the same thing using divs and CSS.
#Marius:
Is the layout tabular data? No, while it was standard a few years ago it's not now :-)
One other use I would have for it would be forms, particularly label : textbox pairs. This could technically be done in div boxes, but it's much, much easier to do this in tables, and one can argue that label:textbox pairs are in fact tabular in nature.
I tend to give the label a fixed width, or display it on the line above.
#Jon Limjap
For label : textbox, neither divs nor tables are appropriate: <dl>s are
One other use I would have for it
would be forms, particularly label :
textbox pairs. This could technically
be done in div boxes, but it's much,
much easier to do this in tables, and
one can argue that label:textbox pairs
are in fact tabular in nature.
I see that a fair amount, especially among MS developers. And I've done it a fair amount in the past. It works, but it ignores some accessibility and best-practice factors. You should use labels, inputs, fieldsets, legends, and CSS to layout your forms. Why? Because that's what they are for, it's more efficient, and I think accessibility is important. But that's just my personal preference. I think everyone should try it that way first before condemning it. It's quick, easy, and clean.
When ever a page containg tables is loaded by any browser it takes more time for the browser to render properly the tag. Where as if the div is used ,the browser takes less time as it is lighter. And more over we can apply the css to make the divs appear as table,
The tables are normally heavy wieght and div are light weight.
It is clear that the DIV are used for Layout but It happened to me to being "forced" to use spreadsheets to do a grid layout within a div structure for this reasons:
the addition of percentage values did not allow a proper alignment with the div, while the same values expressed on cells of tables gave the expected result.
So I think that tables are still useful not only for data, but also for the situation above, on top of that, tables are still W3C compliant browser and alternative browsers (for the disabled for example) interpret theirs correctly.
Divs are simple divisions, they are mean't to be used to group sections of the page that are in a semantic sense linked. They carry no implicit meaning other than that.
Tables were originally intended to display scientific data, such as lab results on screen. Dave Raggett certainly didn't intend them to become used to implement layout.
I find it keeps it fairly clear in your mind if you remember the above, if its something you would normally expect to read in a table, then that's the appropriate tag, if its pure layout, then use something else to accomplish your needs.
I converted my company's calendar to XSL and changed all the tables to divs. It worked pretty well, but I had a lot of 8 day week bugs to work out initially owing to precarious cross-browser spacing issues. But I was reading another post regarding when to use tables v. divs and the consensus seemed to be that you should only use divs for true divisions between parts of the webpage, and only use tables for tabular data.
I'm not sure I could even have used tables with XSL but I wanted to follow up that discussion of Divs and Tables with a discussion of the ideal way to make a web calendars and maybe a union of the two.
A calendar is the perfect reason to use a table! Calendars inherently present tabular data and HTML tables are good at presenting tabular data. And HTML table markup provides nearly all the CSS hooks you need to associate CSS selectors with various parts of the table to dress it up.
I'm all for using DIVs for layout--but stick with tables for tabular data.
Here is a cool article on how to dress up tables with CSS:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/08/13/top-10-css-table-designs
I would say that a calendar is a table, therefore making the table the proper markup for its representation.
Edit: Definition 11 for "table" from answers.com says:
An orderly arrangement of data, especially one in which the data are arranged in columns and rows in an essentially rectangular form.
I think this is definitely a case for using tables. The biggest issue when using divs would be box height for each individual day. If you're styling each box with a border, they could look off if the content for one day is longer than another. The additional markup to make it look right would be more than it would take to create it with a table, so I don't think divs are worth the extra effort in this case.
It makes sense to use tables, but if you were to look at Google Calender, they seem to be using div tags. It is possible that using div tags lowers the file size, so in an enterprise environment it might be worth the 'trouble'.
Do it up in a table.
Also don't think of it as "divs vs. tables" Think of it as tables vs. a proper semantic tag with meaning. When I author pages I try to use divs as little as possible, in a lot of cases you could be using a paragraph, a list item, etc.
You might also consider an ordered list (weeks) of ordered lists (days), or simply one ordered list (days).
There are others who agree that the list approach is a good one.
Others prefer tables.
Just came across this thread after posing the same question elsewhere. While I completely agree a calendar is more of a tabular representation of data, I think there's truth in the prolific "it depends" answers. For example, I want to show a floating DIV popup when each day in the calendar is moused over. Using a table, the popup flickers as the cursor moves across the calendar since the popup is only active on the cell border and the day number in the cell itself. Using DIVs, the popup is solid (no flicker) the entire time the cursor mouses over the calendar cell.
Tables are for displaying tabular data. So I would say <table> is ideal.