Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why not use tables for layout in HTML?
I know everyone is all about DIV's and css and against tables now days, I have always used tables because they are so easy for me to visually see what I am doing while building, I am just now ventruing into the DIV world.
So my question are tables completely replaced by div's generally? I notice on the source of stackoverflow it is mostly DIV's but still uses tables as well, so I am guessing that tables must be used sometimes?
Below is an image of something I am trying to accomplish, most of it is coded but some of it is added in on photoshop, so far I have it all done in div's however what I have is only the background cells which are a list item and the photos, what I am missing from my code is all the text areas and it would be super easy for me to position the text areas within a table cell but since like 80% of the object is done with just css and divs I am not sure if I should just try to finsih it with just div's or if a table inside the comment div's would be the way to go.
I noticed on this page that the ansers are a table inside of a DIV
alt text http://img2.pict.com/e0/4e/de/1486585/0/screenshot2b15.png
To be semantically correct, tables should only used for tabular data and not for laying out a page.
David Dorward brought something to my attention in a comment. According to the HTML 4.01 Specification's section on Tables in HTML Documents:
Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.
Theres a lot of fervent zealotry regarding this notion of semantic content, which is fine and all but the only problem is that it's hopelessly naive.
Fact: there are some things that can be done trivially with tables that either can't be done in "pure" CSS, are extremely difficult in "pure" CSS, have some nasty side effects in "pure" CSS or have serious cross-browser issues.
I did my CSS3 Wish List and in compiling that list I realized some things I've been able to do with tables since HTML 3.2 a decade ago I still can't do with divs.
I'm all for having a semantic layout. Nice ideal. But until it can do everything it's trying to replace then the thing it's trying to replace will have valid use cases.
divs are used instead of tables in most of the sites. But you can use tables in some situations where design using div will be complicated in a cross browser way.
For eg vetical aligning contents inside div will be a big problem as compared to that in table cells.
In this page also you can find table tags being used.
Tables will only be rendered to the screen after all the cells are finished processing.
Take a look at the following questions also.
Why not use tables for layout in HTML?
DIV’s vs Tables or CSS vs. Being Stupid
Yet Another Divs vs Tables Question: Forms
I think a lot of people will argue that "tabular" data, or data that can best be expressed in rows and columns, should be kept in a table, but that divs were invented to replace tables as large layout elements. In my personal opinion, tables were always used as layout elements in a way that went beyond their intended purpose. That's not to say that people don't still misuse divs, for example
<div align="center">To replace a <center> tag</div>
I'd say check out A List Apart, specifically Their section on layout for tips on how to use modern compliant css-based design.
edit : My point was that this is the INCORRECT use of a div tag. In this example, you would use a style such as "text-align:center" or apply that style to the tag itself, but in this case there is no reason to wrap your text in a block-level element, because text by default is inline, so you would be better off with something more like this...
<p class="center">This is a centered paragraph</p>
and then in your stylesheet
.center { text-align:center; }
Thus, the following:
<div>Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday | Thursday | Friday</div>
<div>Work | Work | Work | Work | Play</div>
May be compliant but it looks terrible, and you'd be better off doing :
<table>
<th>
<td>Monday</td><td>Tuesday</td><td>Wednesday</td><td>Thursday</td><td>Friday</td>
</th>
<tr>
<td>Work</td><td>Work</td><td>Work</td><td>Work</td><td>Play</td>
</tr>
</table>
Tables are appropriate for tabular data, but divs + CSS is preferred for general page layout.
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TablesVsDivs has many good reasons why, as well as some counter arguments.
Like Korey and Thomas said, it's better to use table to represent tabular data.
If you want to make website layout in pure CSS, you can take a look on these CSS frameworks, which ease the task :
http://elements.projectdesigns.org/
http://960.gs/
http://www.blueprintcss.org/
http://elasticss.com/
http://www.yaml.de/en/
http://bluetrip.org/
http://devkick.com/lab/tripoli/
There are a lot of css frameworks out these, just find the one which fit your needs..
Update : Here is a more complete list of css frameworks.
Tables should only be used for tabular data. To figure out if what I am dealing with is tabular I ask myself "would I put this in Excel or Word if it?"
Bill Merikallio & Adam Pratt wrote a funny and informative article Why tables for layout is stupid. They also detail where tables should be used and when.
Tables as means of describing the structure of tabular data have not been replaced.
Tables as means for describing presentation have been replaced, but not with divs. They have been replaced with stylesheets in associate with whatever element best describes the semantics of the content. A div has no semantics associated with it, so it is used if there is nothing better.
It certainly depends. The Golden Rule you must remember is that the XHTML/HTML document file it's meant to describe content and flow.
Everything that is design should be (whenever it's possible, there are some certainly some case scenarios where we can't control it, like when CMS appear on the game) controlled using a CSS file.
Now, how can we reach the most semantically and pragmatical result? As with everything, it depends. Using XHTML/HTML tag elements instead on just relying on for correct content display it's the recommended way.
Notice that I've said tag elements. DIV is just one of them, but just replacing with whenever a or / tags exists is not enough. In fact, that will push you over "divitis" (the useless employ of divs for everything!) and WILL make your job hard. Try checking most tags and use them whenever seems correct.
Sometimes it's a pretty subjective matter as to what qualifies as a content or another tag. Just in this question someone asked if this content would be considered tabulated data (the one that tables are supposed to be used for), but I think that whatever content you must order and filter (and you can copy and paste on Excel without worries) it's worthy material.
Everythin else, it's mostly always just some interesting layout display that should be worked on with CSS and other tags.
Some people will say it's too much work and not worth it. I disagree. Though learning how to work with CSS/divs nuances it's somewhat different at first, you'll soon learn the twist of it.
Good luck and remember that we are always learning new stuff, so don't worry on question everything.
My recommendation would be to really learn HTML. Use the element that actually relates to the content. If it is a list of items, use one of the list tags. If it is data entry, use a fieldset tag. There aren't that many tags to chose from yet so many are neglected. If you simply replace all your table layout formatting with DIVs, your tag soup might be a little less chunky but you can still choke on it.
In terms of performance side, table(s) will only get rendered once the end tag () is reached, so if it is a table contains 100s of rows, you will see that table appears in the browser little later. This is not true for DIVs.
I posted on meta-SO about their tables: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3110/when-did-so-start-using-tables-for-layout/3547#3547
In short, I think it's fine since it is tabular data.
You should check Elastic CSS Framework you can layout an unlimited combination of columns very easily and position them with its helpers, check out the documentation.
cheers
CSS is great and all, but I mainly use it for styling, not layout. I and countless other developers still use tables every day for building web pages, and will for the foreseeable future.
If you want to use absolute and relative positioning for layouts, go for it. If not, you are not evil or stupid for not doing so. The main thing to look out for when using tables is preventing table nesting hell IMO.
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.
Looking at the source code for Stack Overflow, I noticed they have used tables and inline CSS quite a bit, also something I found odd was use of inline table attribute formatting.
<table width="100%">
I'm just curious if there was any specific reason(s) to why they used tables to structure their template instead of the popular (or used to be popular) DIVs.
As well...the purpose of using CSS includes and using inline CSS on the same page (I know there is probably a great answer/solution(s) for this...I'm just curious to what they are)
I understand there is nothing wrong with using tables for tabular data...but in this case Stack Overflows tables are used for structure.
Tables vs. Divs is a pointless holy war.
There are specific issues with using tables in particular ways for layout that can cause problems. One of these is building an entire site layout in a single table in order to handle margins and placement -- because of the way tables are rendered this frequently means a website will not render progressively by the browser engine as the content downloads, and can only be rendered after the entire thing has been received. For a large page or slow modem user, they may be staring at a blank page for quite a while, which is a "Bad Thing". Never mind a lot of the inconsistencies in table rendering in the mozilla/ie5 generation of browsers that made consistent cross-browser table layouts somewhat painful, especially with images in the cells.
Supporters of the pure div path like to talk about content vs. presentation, because in theory HTML 4.01 is pure content, all of it meaningful. The divs provide meaningful organizational structure in an abstract sense, which is then given presentation exclusively by CSS. In these arguments, tables are valid only if being used to contain actual tabular data. Of course, this ignores the fact that for any sufficiently complex layout, there are almost always quite a few empty divs floating around simply to support the necessary hooks for presentation CSS, breaking the first level of this abstraction. Once this abstraction is broken, there's no law stating that, when your layout simply requires a presentation hook in the HTML that has no meaningful content, a div is somehow more appropriate than a table. If you are stuck with the choice of a meaningless div or a meaningless table in order to make your layout work, choose whichever is easier.
In the end, it's about being aware of the limitations in all methods and using the one that is most appropriate. There are many cases where using a table is simply easier than setting up a pointless (i.e. not-content-meaningful) array of divs, and the table rendering limitations don't apply. If the table is small and represents a minor chunk of the interior content, the rendering delay is not relevant.
Having not been involved in SO development, I only speak generally:
I've found that tables are often easier and more consistent across browsers than CSS-based layouts.
Also, emitting random CSS here and there often happens when trying to get things done. It can be refactored later, I suppose.
With respect to why they chose to set a table's width in HTML instead of CSS, I couldn't say.
I know that SO used a real, honest to goodness designer when they started. I don't know, though, if that designer gave them an image of what the site should look like or actual markup.
Please don't flame me for saying so. We're not all CSS ninjas.
SO was probably written by programmers, not web developers.
Tables are not evil, but certain uses of them (which used to be everywhere) are evil. Namely, using spacers, nested cells, etc, to control margin and padding.
Even though everyone now a days talk about layout with css and divs, the truth of the matter is css is awful when it comes to layout. You can only do so much. Look at some suggested solutions to get 2 or 3 column layouts using css, they all suck. Throwing a <table><tr><td id="left-column"><td id="right-column"></tr></table> is a lot easier.
css is just not suitable for non-trivial layout (and by that, I mean pure div/css)
The table solution I just threw above needs to use css to control width and padding and borders and background images, etc.
Give up and use tables
Because Internet Explorer does not support the display:table CSS property, which is what provides the grid-like layout model (equivalent to how html tables are rendered). The grid-model is the simplest and most flexible way to model many layouts.
So you have three choices, none of them attractive:
sacrifice support for Internet Explorer (all other modern browsers supports display:table property, which have been part of the CSS2 standard for more than a decade)
use cumbersome CSS workarounds which are costly and hard to maintain.
sacrifice semantic purity and use TABLE-elements.
SO chose the last option, probably because they think support for Internet Explorer users is more important than support for disabled users, and because they wanted something that was quick to develop and simple to maintain.
Jeff and his team were getting it done quick and dirty. This was a very quick development cycle, without the time to refactor out much of the clutter.
And face it - unless you are an expert, CSS is time consuming for table structures.
Inline styles and included css are just a sign they were trying to get it done, not worrying (at least for the first iteration) about the "right" way of doing it. The right way was whatever worked and got it done fast.
IE8 will be the last major browser to finally add support for the CSS display: table-* values, so the distinction will go away. Hopefully this will end the whining about how hard CSS is, and people can stop polluting markup with presentation.
I'm a reasonably smart person, not too far below average at least, but I find css layout totally unintuitive. Tables are extremely intuitive. I think one measure of a good technology is how often you have to refer to the manual while reading it. Tables blow CSS out of the water in this way compared to css. Again and again, when using css, I have to dig to figure out how to do something like this
Tables and layout
SO's layout is not based on tables.
At a quick glance, I'd say SO layout is 80% div-based and 20% table-based. Tables are used in the header and on the "badges" box. Table use is appropriate for badges IMHO (it's a list of items, after all), not so good for the header.
Anywhere else, divs are used.
Inline CSS
Again, many inline definitions are used (probably to quickly mockup site's structure), but SO correctly uses also css (to style the divs and to provide print formatting).
"css is too hard" and "tables are quicker and easier" excuses, coupled with some down right misgivings about what's wrong with the use of tables for structural markup.
The question is asking why SO chose to use tables, inline css, etc., to which I think the answer is probably nothing more than that either they aren't familiar with graceful degradation and semantics, or they didn't consider it important enough to devote the time and resources.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing css, but to dismiss semantic markup and the proper use of css just because you don't know it is just WRONG.
To champion that your site looks the same in every browser using tables, while not giving a seconds thought to those that don't use a visual browser smacks of selfishness - that's a strong word, and I apologize for the tone, as I don't intend to insult.
BTW - I take umbrage at the idea that the use of tables for structural markup is a 'holy war'. While some might think that Semantic markup is overly championed, it is not based upon blind faith.
CSS is great and can really simplify your markup, however, sometimes aligning content with tables is just easier and more reliable. Also for code generated dynamically some of the pain points for non-CSS based styling are less bad. Specifically, since you are dynamically, creating the markup you can re-factor the styling elements in the functional code.
As for the in-line styles, I often use these when I'm building a page and then try to re-factor them into an external sheet later. This makes it a little easier for my testing (no need to do a hard refresh) and changes are in one file instead of two.
My thougths would be they went with table because (apart from the argument table vs css)
They needed to get the functionality get out rolled quickly to have an opinion
After all this is just the public beta.
They were experimenting with ASP.NET MVC more and layout issues less
SO is all about programming questions and answers and at the end that what matters.
SO is all about recognizing the contributors by rewarding points and badges which it does quite decently (this may also be a controversial topic).
and so on....
I have no idea, but the only explanation I can come up with is that Jeff isn't as supportive of web standards as he'd like us to think and none of the team are that hot on CSS. Programmers often use cross-browser-ness, ease-of-use and numerous other supposed time benefits to excuse their lack of CSS skills. And I don't mean that as a criticism, they're probably really good at programming C#/Java/Ruby/SQL/whatever, they just can't seem to admit that they don't really know something as well us a bunch of polo-neck wearing, Mac Book wielding designers...
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
It seems to be the general opinion that tables should not be used for layout in HTML.
Why?
I have never (or rarely to be honest) seen good arguments for this. The usual answers are:
It's good to separate content from layoutBut this is a fallacious argument; Cliche Thinking. I guess it's true that using the table element for layout has little to do with tabular data. So what? Does my boss care? Do my users care?Perhaps me or my fellow developers who have to maintain a web page care... Is a table less maintainable? I think using a table is easier than using divs and CSS.By the way... why is using a div or a span good separation of content from layout and a table not? Getting a good layout with only divs often requires a lot of nested divs.
Readability of the codeI think it's the other way around. Most people understand HTML, few understand CSS.
It's better for SEO not to use tablesWhy? Can anybody show some evidence that it is? Or a statement from Google that tables are discouraged from an SEO perspective?
Tables are slower.An extra tbody element has to be inserted. This is peanuts for modern web browsers. Show me some benchmarks where the use of a table significantly slows down a page.
A layout overhaul is easier without tables, see css Zen Garden.Most web sites that need an upgrade need new content (HTML) as well. Scenarios where a new version of a web site only needs a new CSS file are not very likely. Zen Garden is a nice web site, but a bit theoretical. Not to mention its misuse of CSS.
I am really interested in good arguments to use divs + CSS instead of tables.
I'm going to go through your arguments one after another and try to show the errors in them.
It's good to separate content from layout
But this is a fallacious argument; Cliché Thinking.
It's not fallacious at all because HTML was designed intentionally. Misuse of an element might not be completely out of question (after all, new idioms have developed in other languages, as well) but possible negative implications have to be counterbalanced. Additionally, even if there were no arguments against misusing the <table> element today, there might be tomorrow because of the way browser vendors apply special treatment to the element. After all, they know that “<table> elements are for tabular data only” and might use this fact to improve the rendering engine, in the process subtly changing how <table>s behave, and thus breaking cases where it was previously misused.
So what? Does my boss care? Do my users care?
Depends. Is your boss pointy-haired? Then he might not care. If she's competent, then she will care, because the users will.
Perhaps me or my fellow developers who have to maintain a web page care... Is a table less maintainable? I think using a table is easier than using divs and css.
The majority of professional web developers seem to oppose you[citation needed]. That tables are in fact less maintainable should be obvious. Using tables for layout means that changing the corporate layout will in fact mean changing every single page. This can be very expensive. On the other hand, judicious use of semantically meaningful HTML combined with CSS might confine such changes to the CSS and the pictures used.
By the way... why is using a div or a span good separation of content from layout and a table not? Getting a good layout with only divs often requires a lot of nested divs.
Deeply nested <div>s are an anti-pattern just as table layouts. Good web designers don't need many of them. On the other hand, even such deep-nested divs don't have many of the problems of table layouts. In fact, they can even contribute to a semantic structure by logically dividing the content in parts.
Readability of the code
I think it's the other way around. Most people understand html, little understand css. It's simpler.
“Most people” don't matter. Professionals matter. For professionals, table layouts create many more problems than HTML + CSS. This is like saying I shouldn't use GVim or Emacs because Notepad is simpler for most people. Or that I shouldn't use LaTeX because MS Word is simpler for most people.
It's better for SEO not to use tables
I don't know if this is true and wouldn't use this as an argument but it would be logical. Search engines search for relevant data. While tabular data could of course be relevant, it's rarely what users search for. Users search for terms used in the page title or similarly prominent positions. It would therefore be logical to exclude tabular content from filtering and thus cutting the processing time (and costs!) by a large factor.
Tables are slower.
An extra tbody element has to be inserted. This is peanuts for modern web browsers.
The extra element has got nothing to do with tables being slower. On the other hand, the layout algorithm for tables is much harder, the browser often has to wait for the whole table to load before it can begin to layout the content. Additionally, caching of the layout won't work (CSS can easily be cached). All this has been mentioned before.
Show me some benchmarks where the use of a table significantly slows down a page.
Unfortunately, I don't have any benchmark data. I would be interested in it myself because it's right that this argument lacks a certain scientific rigour.
Most web sites that need an upgrade need new content (html) as well. Scenarios where a new version of a web site only needs a new css file are not very likely.
Not at all. I've worked on several cases where changing the design was simplified by a separation of content and design. It's often still necessary to change some HTML code but the changes will always be much more confined. Additionally, design changes must on occasion be made dynamically. Consider template engines such as the one used by the WordPress blogging system. Table layouts would literally kill this system. I've worked on a similar case for a commercial software. Being able to change the design without changing the HTML code was one of the business requirements.
Another thing. Table layout makes automated parsing of websites (screen scraping) much harder. This might sound trivial because, after all, who does it? I was surprised myself. Screen scraping can help a lot if the service in question doesn't offer a WebService alternative to access its data. I'm working in bioinformatics where this is a sad reality. Modern web techniques and WebServices have not reached most developers and often, screen scraping is the only way to automate the process of getting data. No wonder that many biologists still perform such tasks manually. For thousands of data sets.
Here's my programmer's answer from a simliar thread
Semantics 101
First take a look at this code and think about what's wrong here...
class car {
int wheels = 4;
string engine;
}
car mybike = new car();
mybike.wheels = 2;
mybike.engine = null;
The problem, of course, is that a bike is not a car. The car class is an inappropriate class for the bike instance. The code is error-free, but is semantically incorrect. It reflects poorly on the programmer.
Semantics 102
Now apply this to document markup. If your document needs to present tabular data, then the appropriate tag would be <table>. If you place navigation into a table however, then you're misusing the intended purpose of the <table> element. In the second case, you're not presenting tabular data -- you're (mis)using the <table> element to achieve a presentational goal.
Conclusion
Will visitors notice? No. Does your boss care? Maybe. Do we sometimes cut corners as programmers? Sure. But should we? No. Who benefits if you use semantic markup? You -- and your professional reputation. Now go and do the right thing.
Obvious answer: See CSS Zen Garden. If you tell me that you can easily do the same with a table-based layout (remember - the HTML isn't changing) then by all means use tables for layout.
Two other important things are accessibility and SEO.
Both care about in what order information is presented. You cannot easily present your navigation at the top of the page if your table-based layout puts it in the 3rd cell of the 2nd row of the 2nd nested table on the page.
So your answers are maintainability, accessibility and SEO.
Don't be lazy. Do things the right and proper way even if they are a bit harder to learn.
See this duplicate question.
One item you're forgetting there is accessibility. Table-based layouts don't translate as well if you need to use a screen reader, for example. And if you do work for the government, supporting accessible browsers like screen readers may be required.
I also think you underestimate the impact of some of the things you mentioned in the question. For example, if you are both the designer and the programmer, you may not have a full appreciation of how well it separates presentation from content. But once you get into a shop where they are two distinct roles the advantages start to become clearer.
If you know what you're doing and have good tools, CSS really does have significant advantages over tables for layout. And while each item by itself may not justify abandoning tables, taken together it's generally worth it.
Unfortunately, CSS Zen Garden can no longer be used as an example of good HTML/CSS design. Virtually all of their recent designs use graphics for section heading. These graphic files are specified in the CSS.
Hence, a website whose purpose is to show the advantage of keeping design out of content, now regularly commits the UNSPEAKABLE SIN of putting content into design. (If the section heading in the HTML file were to change, the section heading displayed would not).
Which only goes to show that even those advocate the strict DIV & CSS religion, can't follow their own rules. You may use that as a guideline in how closely you follow them.
This isn't the definitive argument, by any means, but with CSS you can take the same markup and change the layout depending on medium, which is a nice advantage. For a print page you can quietly suppress navigation without having to create a printer-friendly page, for example.
One table for layout wouldn't be that bad. But you can't get the layout you need with just one table most of the time. Pretty soon you have 2 or three nested tables. This becomes very cumbersome.
It IS a LOT harder to read. That's not up to opinion. There's just more nested tags with no identifying marks on them.
Separating content from presentation is a good thing because it allows you to focus on what you're doing. Mixing the two leads to bloated pages that are hard to read.
CSS for styles allows your browser to cache the files and subsequent requests are much faster. This is HUGE.
Tables lock you into a design. Sure, not everyone needs the flexibility of CSS Zen Garden, but I've never worked on a site where I didn't need to change the design a little bit here and there. It's much easier with CSS.
Tables are hard to style. You don't have very much flexibility with them (i.e. you still need to add HTML attributes to fully control a table's styles)
I haven't used tables for non-tabular data in probably 4 years. I haven't looked back.
I'd really like to suggest reading CSS Mastery by Andy Budd. It's fantastic.
Image at ecx.images-amazon.com http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TH5NFKPEL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
It's good to separate content from layout
But this is a fallacious argument; Cliche Thinking
It's a fallacious argument because HTML tables are layout! The content is the data in the table, the presentation is the table itself. This is why separating CSS from HTML can be very difficult at times. You're not separating content from presentation, you're separating presentation from presentation! A pile of nested divs is no different than a table - it's just a different set of tags.
The other problem with separating the HTML from the CSS is that they need intimate knowledge of one another - you really can't separate them fully. The tag layout in the HTML is tightly coupled with the CSS file no matter what you do.
I think tables vs divs comes down to the needs of your application.
In the application we develop at work, we needed a page layout where the pieces would dynamically size themselves to their content. I spent days trying to get this to work cross-browser with CSS and DIVs and it was a complete nightmare. We switched to tables and it all just worked.
However, we have a very closed audience for our product (we sell a piece of hardware with a web interface) and accessibility issues are not a concern for us. I don't know why screen readers can't deal with tables well, but I guess if that's the way it is then developers have to handle it.
CSS/DIV - it's just jobs for the design boys, isn't it. The hundreds of hours I've spent debugging DIV/CSS issues, searching the Internet to get some part of markup working with an obscure browser - it drives me mad. You make one little change and the whole layout goes horrendously wrong - where on eath is the logic in that. Spending hours moving something 3 pixels this way then something else 2 pixels the other to get them all to line up. This just seems plain wrong to me somehow. Just because you're a purist and something is "not the right thing to do" doesn't mean you should make use of it to the nth degree and under all circumstances, especially if it makes your life 1000 times easier.
So I've finally decided, purely on commercial grounds, although I keep use to minimum, if I anticipate 20 hours work to get a DIV placed correctly, I'll stick in a table. It's wrong, it upsets the purists, but in most cases it costs less time and is cheaper to manage. I can then concentrate on getting the application working as the customer wants, rather than pleasing the purists. They do pay the bills after all and my argument to a manager enforcing the use of CSS/DIV - I would merely point out the customers pay his salary as well!
The only reason all these CSS/DIV arguments occur is because of the shortcoming of CSS in the first place and because the browsers aren't compatible with each other and if they were, half the web designers in the world would be out of a job.
When you design a windows form you don't try moving controls around after you have laid them out so I kind of think it's strange to me why you would you want to do this with a web form. I simply can't understand this logic. Get the layout right to start with and what's the problem. I think it's because designers like to flirt with creativity, whilst application developers are more concerned with actually getting the application working, creating business objects, implementing business rules, working out how bits of customer data relates to each other, ensuring the thing meets the customers requirements - you know - like the real world stuff.
Don't get me wrong, both arguments are valid, but please don't critise developers for choosing an easier, more logical approach to designing forms. We often have more important things to worry about than the correct semantics of using a table over a div.
Case in point - based on this discussion I converted a few existing tds and trs to divs. 45 minutes messing about with it trying to get everything to line up next to each other and I gave up. TDs back in 10 seconds later - works - straight away - on all browsers, nothing more to do. Please try to make me understand - what possible justification do you have for wanting me to do it any other way!
Layout should be easy. The fact that there are articles written on how to achieve a dynamic three column layout with header and footer in CSS shows that it is a poor layout system. Of course you can get it to work, but there are literally hundreds of articles online about how to do it. There are pretty much no such articles for a similar layout with tables because it's patently obvious. No matter what you say against tables and in favor of CSS, this one fact undoes it all: a basic three column layout in CSS is often called "The Holy Grail".
If that doesn't make you say "WTF" then you really need to put down the kool-aid now.
I love CSS. It offers amazing styling options and some cool positioning tools, but as a layout engine it is deficient. There needs to be some type of dynamic grid positioning system. A straightforward way to align boxes on multiple axis without knowing their sizes first. I don't give a damn if you call it <table> or <gridlayout> or whatever, but this is a basic layout feature that is missing from CSS.
The larger problem is that by not admitting there are missing features, the CSS zealots have been holding CSS back from all it could be. I'd be perfectly happy to stop using tables if CSS provided decent multi-axis grid positioning like basically every other layout engine in the world. (You do realize this problem has already been solved many times in many languages by everyone except the W3C, right? And nobody else denied that such a feature was useful.)
Sigh. Enough venting. Go ahead and stick your head back in the sand.
According to 508 compliance (for screen readers for visually impared), tables should only be used to hold data and not for layout as it causes the screen readers to freak out. Or so I've been told.
If you assign names to each of the divs, you can skin them all together using CSS as well. They're just a bit more of a pain to get to sit the way you need them to.
Here's a section of html from a recent project:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>{DYNAMIC(TITLE)}</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./styles/base.css" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="header">
<h1><!-- Page title --></h1>
<ol id="navigation">
<!-- Navigation items -->
</ol>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<!-- Sidebar content -->
</div>
<!-- Page content -->
<p id="footer"><!-- Footer content --></p>
</body>
</html>
And here's that same code as a table based layout.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>{DYNAMIC(TITLE)}</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./styles/base.css" />
</head>
<body>
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td><!-- Page Title --></td>
<td>
<table>
<tr>
<td>Navitem</td>
<td>Navitem</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table>
<tr>
<td><!-- Page content --></td>
<td><!-- Sidebar content --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Footer</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
The only cleanliness I see in that table based layout is the fact that I'm overzealous with my indentation. I'm sure that the content section would have a further two embedded tables.
Another thing to think about: filesizes. I've found that table-based layouts are twice the size of their CSS counterparts usually. On our hig-speed broadband that isn't a huge issue but it is on those with dial up modems.
I'd like to add that div-based layouts are easer to mantain, evolve, and refactor. Just some changes in the CSS to reorder elements and it is done. From my experience, redesign a layout that uses tables is a nightmare (more if there are nested tables).
Your code also has a meaning from a semantic point of view.
No arguments in DIVs favour from me.
I'd say : If the shoe fits, wear it.
It's worth noting that it's difficult if not impossible to find a good DIV+CSS method of rendering contents in two or three columns, that is consistent on all browsers, and still looks just the way I intended.
This tips the balance a bit towards tables in most of my layouts, and altough I feel guilty of using them (dunny why, people just say it's bad so I try to listen to them), in the end , the pragmatic view is it's just easier and faster for me to use TABLEs. I'm not being payed by the hour, so tables are cheaper for me.
CSS layouts are generally much better for accessibility, provided the content comes in a natural order and makes sense without a stylesheet. And it's not just screen readers that struggle with table-based layouts: they also make it much harder for mobile browsers to render a page properly.
Also, with a div-based layout you can very easily do cool things with a print stylesheet such as excluding headers, footers and navigation from printed pages - I think it would be impossible, or at least much more difficult, to do that with a table-based layout.
If you're doubting that separation of content from layout is easier with divs than with tables, take a look at the div-based HTML at CSS Zen Garden, see how changing the stylesheets can drastically change the layout, and think about whether you could achieve the same variety of layouts if the HTML was table based... If you're doing a table-based layout, you're unlikely to be using CSS to control all the spacing and padding in the cells (if you were, you'd almost certainly find it easier to use floating divs etc. in the first place). Without using CSS to control all that, and because of the fact that tables specify the left-to-right and top-to bottom order of things in the HTML, tables tend to mean that your layout becomes very much fixed in the HTML.
Realistically I think it's very hard to completely change the layout of a div-and-CSS-based design without changing the divs a bit. However, with a div-and-CSS-based layout it's much easier to tweak things like the spacing between various blocks, and their relative sizes.
The fact that this is a hotly debated question is a testament to the failure of the W3C to anticipate the diversity of layout designs which would be attempted. Using divs+css for semantically-friendly layout is a great concept, but the details of implementation are so flawed that they actually limit creative freedom.
I attempted to switch one of our company's sites from tables to divs, and it was such a headache that I totally scrapped the hours of work I had poured into it and went back to tables. Trying to wrestle with my divs in order to gain control of vertical alignment has cursed me with major psychological issues that I will never shake as long as this debate rages on.
The fact that people must frequently come up with complex and ugly workarounds to accomplish simple design goals (such as vertical alignment) strongly suggests that the rules are not nearly flexible enough. If the specs ARE sufficient, then why do high-profile sites (like SO) find it necessary to bend the rules using tables and other workarounds?
I guess it's true that using the table element for layout has little to do with tabular data. So what? Does my boss care? Do my users care?
Google and other automated systems do care, and they're just as important in many situations. Semantic code is easier for a non-intelligent system to parse and process.
Having had to work with a website that involved 6 layers of nested tables generated by some application, and having had it generate invalid HTML, it was in fact a 3 hour job to rectify it breaking for a minor change.
This is of course the edge case, but table based design is unmaintainable. If you use css, you separate the style out so when fixing the HTML you have less to worry about breaking.
Also, try this with JavaScript. Move a single table cell from one place to another place in another table. Rather complicated to perform where div/span would just work copy-paste-wise.
"Does my boss care"
If I were your boss. You would care. ;) If you value your life.
Layout flexibility
Imagine you're making a page with a large number of thumbnails.
DIVs:
If you put each thumbnail in a DIV, floated left, maybe 10 of them fit on a row. Make the window narrower, and BAM - it's 6 on a row, or 2, or however many fit.
TABLE:
You have to explicitly say how many cells are in a row. If the window is too narrow, the user has to scroll horizontally.
Maintainability
Same situation as above. Now you want to add three thumbnails to the third row.
DIVs:
Add them in. The layout will automatically adjust.
TABLE:
Paste the new cells into the third row. Oops! Now there are too many items there. Cut some from that row and put them on the fourth row. Now there are too many items there. Cut some from that row... (etc)
(Of course, if you're generating the rows and cells with server-side scripting, this probably won't be an issue.)
I think that boat has sailed. If you look at the direction the industry has taken you will notice that CSS and Open Standards are the winners of that discussion. Which in turn means for most html work, with the exception of forms, the designers will use divs instead of tables. I have a hard time with that because I am not a CSS guru but thats the way it is.
Also, don't forget, tables don't quite render well on mobile browsers. Sure, the iPhone has a kick-ass browser but everyone doesn't have an iPhone. Table rendering can be peanuts for modern browsers, but it's a bunch of watermelons for mobile browsers.
I have personally found that many people use too many <div> tags, but in moderation, it can be extremely clean and easy to read. You mention that folks have a harder time reading CSS than tables; in terms of 'code' that maybe true; but in terms of reading content (view > source) it is a heck of a lot easier to understand the structure with stylesheets than with tables.
Looks like you are just used to tables and that's it.
Putting layout in a table limits you for just that layout. With CSS you can move bits around, take a look at http://csszengarden.com/
And no, layout does not usally require a lot of nested divs.
With no tables for layout and proper semantics HTML is much cleaner, hence easier to read.
Why should someone who cannot understand CSS try to read it? And if someone considers himself to be webdeveloper then the good grasp of CSS is a must.
SEO benefits come from the ability to have most important content higher up the page and
having better content-to-markup ratio.
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
508 Compliance - the ability for a screenreader to make sense of your markup.
Waiting for render - tables don't render in the browser until it gets to the end of the </table> element.
The whole idea around semantic markup is the separation of markup and presentation, which includes layout.
Div's aren't replacing tables, they have their own use in separating content into blocks of related content (, ). When you don't have the skills and are relying on tables, you'll often have to separate your content in to cells in order to get the desired layout, but you wont need to touch the markup to achieve presentation when using semantic markup. This is really important when the markup is being generated rather than static pages.
Developers need to stop providing markup that implies layout so that those of us who do have the skills to present content can get on with our jobs, and developers don't have to come back to their code to make changes when presentation needs change.
This isn't really about whether 'divs are better than tables for layout'. Someone who understands CSS can duplicate any design using 'layout tables' pretty straightforwardly. The real win is using HTML elements for what they are there for. The reason you would not use tables for non-tablular data is the same reason you don't store integers as character strings - technology works much more easily when you use it for the purpose for which it is desgined. If it was ever necessary to use tables for layout (because of browser shortcomings in the early 1990s) it certainly isn't now.
Tools that use table layouts can become extraordinarily heavy due to the amount of code required to create the layout. SAP's Netweaver Portal by default uses TABLE to layout their pages.
The production SAP portal at my current gig has a home page whose HTML weighs over 60K and goes seven tables deep, three times within the page. Add in the Javascript, the misuse of 16 iframes with similar table issues inside of them, overly heavy CSS etc, and the page weighs over 5MB.
Taking the time to lower the page weight so you can use your bandwidth to do engaging activities with users is worth the effort.
It's worth figuring out CSS and divs so the central content column loads and renders before the sidebar in a page layout. But if you are struggling to use floating divs to vertically align a logo with some sponsorship text, just use the table and move on with life. The Zen garden religion just doesn't give much bang for the buck.
The idea of separating content from presentation is to partition the application so different kinds of work affect different blocks of code. This is actually about change management. But coding standards can only examine the present state of code in a superficial manner.
The change log for an application that depends on coding standards to "separate content from presentation" will show a pattern of parallel changes across vertical silos. If a change to "content" is always accompanied by a change to "presentation", how successful is the partitioning?
If you really want to partition your code productively, use Subversion and review your change logs. Then use the simplest coding techniques -- divs, tables, JavaScript, includes, functions, objects, continuations, whatever -- to structure the application so that the changes fit in a simple and comfortable manner.
Because it's HELL to maintain a site that uses tables, and takes a LOT longer to code. If you're scared of floating divs, go take a course in them. They're not difficult to understand and they're approximately 100 times more efficient and a million times less a pain in the ass (unless you don't understand them -- but hey, welcome to the world of computers).
Anyone considering doing their layout with a table better not expect me to maintain it. It's the most ass-backwards way to render a website. Thank god we have a much better alternative now. I would NEVER go back.
It's scary that some folks might not be aware of the time and energy benefits from creating a site using modern tools.
Tables are not in general easier or more maintainable than CSS. However, there are a few specific layout-problems where tables are indeed the simplest and most flexible solution.
CSS is clearly preferable in cases where presentational markup and CSS support the same kind of design, no one in their right mind would argue that font-tags are better than specifying typography in CSS, since CSS gives you the same power than font-tags, but in a much cleaner way.
The issue with tables, however, is basically that the table-layout model in CSS is not supported in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Tables and CSS are therefore not equivalent in power. The missing part is the grid-like behavior of tables, where the edges of cells align both vertically and horizontally, while cells still expand to contain their content. This behavior is not easy to achieve in pure CSS without hardcoding some dimensions, which makes the design rigid and brittle (as long as we have to support Internet Explorer - in other browsers this is easliy achieved by using display:table-cell).
So it's not really a question of whether tables or CSS is preferable, but it is a question of recognizing the specific cases where use of tables may make the layout more flexible.
The most important reason for not using tables is accessibility. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ advice againt using tables for layout. If you are concerned about accessibility (and in some cases you may be legally obliged to), you should use CSS even if tables are simpler. Note that you can always create the same layout with CSS as with tables, it might just require more work.
I was surprised to see some issues were not already covered, so here are my 2 cents, in addition to all the very valid points made earlier:
.1. CSS & SEO:
a) CSS used to have a very significant impact on SEO by allowing to position the content in the page wherever you want. A few years ago, Search Engines were giving a significant emphasis to "on-page" factors. Something at the top of the page was deemed more relevant to the page than something located at the bottom. "Top of the page" for a spider meant "at the beginning of the code". Using CSS, you could organize your keyword-rich content at the beginning of the code, and still position it wherever you liked in the page. This is still somewhat relevant, but on page factors are less and less important for page ranking.
b) When the layout is moved over to CSS, the HTML page is lighter and therefore loads faster for a search engine spider. (spiders don't bother downloading external css files). Fast loading pages is an important ranking consideration for several search engines, including Google
c) SEO work often requires testing and changing things, which is much more convenient with a CSS based layout
.2. Generated content:
A table is considerably easier to generate programmically than the equivalent CSS layout.
foreach ($comment as $key=>$value)
{
echo "<tr><td>$key</td><td>$value</td></tr>";
}
Generating a table is simple and safe. It is self-contained and integrates well within any template. To do the same with CSS is considerably harder and may be of no benefit at all: hard to edit the CSS stylesheet on the flight, and adding the style inline is no different from using a table (content is not separated from layout).
Further, when a table is generated, the content (in variables) is already separated from the layout (in code), making it as easy to modify.
This is one reason why some very well designed websites (SO for instance) still use table layouts.
Of course, if the results need to be acted upon through JavaScript, divs are worth the trouble.
.3. Quick conversion testing
When figuring out what works for a specific audience, it is useful to be able to change the layout in various ways to figure out what gets the best results. A CSS based layout makes things considerably easier
.4. Different solutions for different problems
Layout tables are usually dissed because "everybody knows divs & CSS" are the way to go.
However the fact remains that tables are faster to create, easier to understand and are more robust than most CSS layouts. (Yes, CSS can be as robust, but a quick look through the net on different browsers and screen resolutions shows it's not often the case)
There are a lot of downsides to tables, including maintenance, lack of flexibility... but let's not throw the baby with the bath water. There are plenty of professional uses for a solution which is both quick and reliable.
Some time ago, I had to rewrite a clean and simple CSS layout using tables because a significant portion of the users would be using an older version of IE with really bad support for CSS
I, for one, am sick and tired of the knee-jerk reaction "Oh noes! Tables for layout!"
As for the "it wasn't intended for that purpose and therefore you shouldn't use it this way" crowd, isn't that hypocrisy? What do you think of all the CSS tricks you have to use to get the darn thing working in most browsers? Were they meant for that purpose?
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.