New Website Design

[JamesW]

Forgive me... I'm rather excited about my new website... couldn't resist the opportunity to post it here...

http://www.sitebyjames.com/

Works in all browsers except a few old netscape versions... Let me know what you think... with the exception of the div vs tables argument...

[mkb.aus]

mate you've got google content adwords on your site.. that's not giving your site credibility.

[JamesW]

Why not? This site has them ----------------->>>>>

I think this site has credibility...

[1ooScreamingTrees]

I think this site has credibility...
Not really. No one recognizes the graphicdesignforum.com as a credible design resource in any major trade publication, conference, studio...etc. Most people aren't even aware of it's existence.

It's a forum...that's about it.

[JamesW]

Not really. No one recognizes the graphicdesignforum.com as a credible design resource in any major trade publication, conference, studio...etc. Most people aren't even aware of it's existence.

It's a forum...that's about it.
really? I would think that this is one of the closest knit communities of graphic designers around... in fact... for all of the fourm hopping that I do... I have never been more impressed with any community than this one...

Also... this is the first forum I recommend to anyone... even your non-forum materials, tutorials and contests beat everyone else out...

I guess we shoud define what credible actually means before I kiss your ass any further... huh?

because if it has anything to do with honesty and realism then the adwords are certainly not hurting the credibility of this forum at all... if anything they lend credibility to it... jmo...

I would like to think they lend credibility to my site as well rather than detract from it... perhaps I should style them at least....

[colonel5]

the google adwords is a valid argument but it is also a way to recoup some of your hosting costs etc but it can look somewhat tacky when it's on a "professional" site.

The look of the site is decent and the moving clouds thing is pretty cool but your code is messy and you're using tables for layout which is especially disappointing considering you've linked to a style sheet.

Your style sheet is also pretty messy.

Go back and recode your site laying it out using div boxes and clean up your html and css and you're on your way to a nice site.

for cleaning up your html refer to this image (http://bentipler.com/imgs/CleanCode.jpg). I wish I could remember where I got it so I could give them credit so if anyone recognizes it let me know.

to clean up your css I rearranged one of your classes

not like this

.content{padding:0px 40px 0px 20px;clear:left;line-height:150%;overflow:auto;}

but like this

.content {
padding:0px 40px 0px 20px;
clear:left;
line-height:150%;
overflow:auto;
}

[JamesW]

You have to remember that I didn't go to school for any of this... everything I know is from rigorously doing my own tests to discover the results I need to see... the div's vs tables debate is an acedemic one which holds no merit in real life situations...

[JamesW]

Yahoo, msn, google, and just about everybody else uses tables... the only people who use divs exclusively seem to be the bloggers... you can get just as good a code-to-content ratio using tables... sematically there is no difference between tables and divs when a search engine is concerned... and you can get wider cross compatibility without going the xhtml route...

And you can get more flexibility by using the html 4.01 doctype... using html 4.01 with tables gives you the most options and it sacrifices nothing...

[mkb.aus]

Well just back to the google adwords debate for a second... having them on your site doesn't lend you professional credibility because, imo, it looks amateurish. You're trying to sell yourself and your web designs to potential clients and yet.. right now on your site there are other web designers getting their ads displayed to all your potential customers... While adwords may help bring a little bit of revenue in they could cost you a customer. Which is worth more? Getting your few cents a click from google or losing potential clients to:

Custom Website Creations
Affordable Website Design For the Work at Home Business
www.ElaboriqueStudios.com
Red-i Design
Graphic Design. Logos, Brochures Ads, Web, Signage, Illustration
www.red-idesign.com

[JamesW]

Youtube --- 4.01 uses tables...
Ebay --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...

orkut.com --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...

blogger.com --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...
www.megaupload.com --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...

fotolog.net --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...

friendster.com --- HTML 4.01 uses tables...

[JamesW]

Well just back to the google adwords debate for a second... having them on your site doesn't lend you professional credibility because, imo, it looks amateurish. You're trying to sell yourself and your web designs to potential clients and yet.. right now on your site there are other web designers getting their ads displayed to all your potential customers... While adwords may help bring a little bit of revenue in they could cost you a customer. Which is worth more? Getting your few cents a click from google or losing potential clients to:

Custom Website Creations
Affordable Website Design For the Work at Home Business
www.ElaboriqueStudios.com (http://www.ElaboriqueStudios.com)
Red-i Design
Graphic Design. Logos, Brochures Ads, Web, Signage, Illustration
www.red-idesign.com (http://www.red-idesign.com)
Well... my client base will be people who cannot make web pages on thier own... they may click through to the next page... but my traffic volume and click through rate is not saying that... people are not clicking on the ads... they are going deeper into my site... the fact that I have them on my site may be a clear signal to others that I can add that to thier own site if they please... personally... I like having the ads because it gives me a constant reminder of how Google sees my content and how it is related to the advertisements.... in essence... it's a sales tool for me and it gives my a daily seo tool for determining relevancy...

I might sacrifice my "clean professional" look... but if I get a few more widgets up there... it will add to my sophistication I think... and rigt now... I m worried that my sophistication level is at a low... I do not want to be a clean "blog"... I want to be a real website...

You forget... I am not selling design alone... I am selling software functionality... I am selling the whole package... hence my first line... "I build websites from the ground up"... which may soon change to "We build websites from the ground up" to make me seem more credible...

ElaboriqueStudios.com (http://www.elaboriquestudios.com/)
will not take my clients because my clients will expect more than design alone...

red-idesign.com (http://www.red-idesign.com/)
Is a very slow loading website... People will come back to my site... before they invest in a broken website manufacterer... which breaks standards conventions... they have even doubled up thier usesless meta keywords tags and stuffed them beyond belief... my god...
http://www.google.ca/search?q=site:red-idesign.com+machintosh

[mkb.aus]

You forget... I am not selling design alone... I am selling software functionality... I am selling the whole package... hence my first line... "I build websites from the ground up"... which may soon change to "We build websites from the ground up" to make me seem more credible...

Lol.. if you're not a 'we' then don't say you are.... a one person design/developer can have just as much credibility as a team.. Just sell what you do and who you are.

[JamesW]

Lol.. if you're not a 'we' then don't say you are.... a one person design/developer can have just as much credibility as a team.. Just sell what you do and who you are.
Thank you very much for that... I have oftne believed that using the term we is not correct... but I do often work on projects which are collaborative efforts... I used to be in the film industry and I believe that credit is due to everyone who worked on the project...

It is hard to sell yourself as "I", when it is really, "everyone"... perhaps If I added more credits to the portfolio pages to give a better breakdown of roles played on the project it might make me feel better...

But experience tells me that corporate types do not want credit going anywhere but to the company who liased the "sale"...

perhaps I am destined to work with small business and individuals for the rest of my life...

I will stick with "I" as per your suggestion... and I will give better breakdown of my roles on certain projects... giving credit due to those who earned it...

[colonel5]

Youtube --- 4.01 uses tables...


The difference is that a site like youtube uses tables within their site where tables are meant to be used in web pages rather than to layout their sites. I'd agree that the css vs table layouts used to be an academic argument but with how quickly the idea of web standards is catching on even to the unknowing person it's only a matter of time until you have a client that's questioning you about it.

To stay in the game for the long haul clean html and well put together css layouts are going to be a necessity for anyone who calls themselves a web designer.

[JamesW]

The first table I see in youtube is this...

<table width="270">

That's a layout attribute...



It's important to know that defining layout styles directly within the html document can mean faster page rendering while your waiting for those external stylesheets to download...

Div's versus tables means nothing... performance, testing and experience is all that matters... the academics are not in the trenches...

[1ooScreamingTrees]

Let's back up a minute.

This is a design showcase - not a coding probe.

Your design is struggling a great deal. You have a very strange color scheme and many different styles clashing here. Grafitti "spray" which looks reminiscent of MS Paint, a realistic (and animated) sky, then mixed with an illustration done with a cartoon head and comic-book body.

And that's just in the header.

Moving on to the remainder of the page, you have a very organic / homey color in your type.

From a heirarchy perspective, I don't want to read a damn thing about your life story on the main page of your web site. I want to see your work, and I want to see if you are good enough to design and develop my company's web site. I could care less about the "fluff" words you surround your links with. I won't read them, and they are distracting. It makes your site feel like a blog, and not a professional's site.

I'm out of time - I may continue later!

[JamesW]

touche....



you have now been bookmarked... that is excellent advice if I ever heard it... thank you...


What do you mean by fluff... I am not understanding what you mean by fluff...

Grafitti "spray" which looks reminiscent of MS Paint

I am trying to send the message of "pimp my website" without actually saying those words... and I thought the super hero image was cheesy enough to get a laugh, portray confidence and remain memorable to the client at the same time...

[MikeTheVike]

It's important to know that defining layout styles directly within the html document can mean faster page rendering while your waiting for those external stylesheets to download...


and what are you going to do when you have a 100 page website and you want to change the way something looks on every page? Are you to change the inline style for every page?

[JamesW]

and what are you going to do when you have a 100 page website and you want to change the way something looks on every page? Are you to change the inline style for every page?

No... I'm going to modify the server side script which spits the template out... in one place...

I make use of content management systems...

worst case scenario I use preg_match() to scrape it out...

But I do understand what your saying... and I do agree that pushing your styles into an external document is the correct thing to do... 100%... but I will never agree that there is any real advantage ( at all ) to using divs over tables...


Maybe I should take the extra time and draw the "comic book" body as a "cartoon" body to match the cartoon head...

I am sooo lazy when it comes to illustration but the mismatching of elements could obviously be improved if I took the extra time to actually draw a matching body rather than using Yahoo Images...

perhaps I could style the cartoon body to match the "homey" colours of the rest of the document as well... then the logo would be the next thing to tackle... it would be an easy thing to design after I got all of the other elements in line...

divs vs. tables = waste of time...

[graphicsmama]

I am trying to send the message of "pimp my website" without actually saying those words... and I thought the super hero image was cheesy enough to get a laugh, portray confidence and remain memorable to the client at the same time...

Just glancing through the thread and your site....I didn't get this message through your site at all, BUT that is a good thing...I don't think you really want to send that message or even try to portray that message if you're tyring to retain professional/corporate clients.

[tZ]

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/20semanticmarkup.html

All the sites you mentioned are fairly old. It wouldn't be cost effective to re-design them.

[JamesW]

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/20semanticmarkup.html

All the sites you mentioned are fairly old. It wouldn't be cost effective to re-design them.
I'm not sure if that was addressed to me but... all of the websites in my portfolio are subscribed to the same code base... altering the semantic markup for one essentially... alters the code for all of them... the only thing I do plan on altering is the menus from <td> to <li>... but until I find the equivalent design flexibility available to tables I can't... to give you an example...

denningers.com

It uses tables with the javascript drop downs to prevent breaking to the next line when the user alters the size of the text...

float elements which do not break to the next line... but which scale to accomodate the scaling of the contents which are held within them... it's only an issue in firefox due to the way it scales text within a webpage vs IE's was of scaling the entire document... but firefox has a 50% browser share these days...

Due to the fact that I have found no evidence to suggest that semantic markup ( ul ... li vs tables or even <font size="+7"> vs h1{font-size:xx-large;} ) is treated any differently when search engine indexing is concerned it is not a priority... it is purely an academic persuit...

cost effectiveness has never been a real concern of mine... I've been quite happy living below the poverty line for most of my known life...

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/22navbars.html

See how inline UL elements scale to the next line in the semantic code you provided when you scale the text in firefox... there is no workaround when you go the semantic route... using 4.01 grants you the most flexibility and sacrifices nothing... most of the largest and most trafficked websites on the internet know this... and they use 4.01 + tables as a result...

Why a group of designers has limited themselves to the markup details of what is considered correct or "strict"... baffles my mind...

semantic code = limited design capabilities = no search engine indexing benefits

But... I guess semantics are important to everyone visiting the site and opting to read the contents of the code rather than the contents on the page... give me one reason why sematic code should be used... has anyone actually answered this question? Because I battle this one all the time and no one can provide me with one good reason why semantic code means anything at all...

Look who gets a number one ranking for CSS

http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp

notice there is no semantic markup... and an abundant use of tables.... go figure... semantic markup is a bull**it concept if I ever heard one...

[colonel5]

faster loading pages, smaller file sizes, easier on the fly edits, better SEO, faster and easier trouble shooting your code - just to name a few reasons...

You can't argue what you don't know about so arguing with you on this will be useless.

The reason you don't do it is because you don't know how, the quicker you give in and learn web standards the better chance you'll have at sustaining a career in web design.

[JamesW]

faster loading pages, smaller file sizes, easier on the fly edits, better SEO, faster and easier trouble shooting your code - just to name a few reasons...

You can't argue what you don't know about so arguing with you on this will be useless.

The reason you don't do it is because you don't know how, the quicker you give in and learn web standards the better chance you'll have at sustaining a career in web design.
Validated code which does not trip the spiders up... content to code ratio and reduction of templating content... server side scripts with a content management system are all but a few of the real things that matter with a website...

Sematic code is nothing... prove me wrong... you can't becuse you only know how to regurgitate what others are feeding you...

Trust me... sematic code is nothing... design is everything...

All of my websites validate to web standards... they pass all the major parsers and they are cross browser compatible... let me see just one of your websites... post a link...

Just one link...

[colonel5]

http://iotsolutions.com - the only errors you'll find are in the outgoing links to other manufacturers.

Like I said it's impossible to argue with you, all I know is my life (as far as web design) is so much easier, my design is so much better and my bosses love me because of the great results we get SEO wise since I buckled down and learned how to do things the right way.

and btw this isn't some kind of competition based on peoples preferences. Web standards are becoming more of a norm for designers and businessmen alike everyday

[JamesW]

http://valet.seoconsultants.com/ run your site through that for some seo advice...

You have domain name issues... both non-www and www addresses are indexing...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=site:iotsolutions.com

Your code does not validate... usually this is not a big deal but for someone who preaches web standards it is...

http://htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http://iotsolutions.com+&warnings=yes


But you do look very cross browser compatible... way to go!!!

Actually...l you have serious issues... your main page should be first in the Google cache and it is not... you have some issues to sort out... http://www.google.ca/search?q=site:iotsolutions.com

I take back the way to go and add... you've got problems...

Your main page may have been banned for whatever reason...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=http://iotsolutions.com/

http://www.google.ca/search?q=http://www.iotsolutions.com/

Those searches should be turngin something up... troll...

[colonel5]

like i Said it wouldn't validate because the manufacturers outgoing links are invalid (nothing from my end)

I haven't seen that valet seo deal before (thanks for that link)

and I set it up so both non-www and www index but you'll notice the links all revert to non.

I don't make this strong argument for web standards just cause I have nothing better to do. The more web (and graphic) designers can unite and set standards and best practices the more seriously the professions are taken in the business world and the more job security we all have and the more money we all make.

[JamesW]

I don't make this strong argument for web standards just cause I have nothing better to do. The more web (and graphic) designers can unite and set standards and best practices the more seriously the professions are taken in the business world and the more job security we all have and the more money we all make.
I agree... no-spec... whatever... but don't waste your time on things that don't matter... focus on what counts...


like i Said it wouldn't validate because the manufacturers outgoing links are invalid (nothing from my end)

If it's on your site... then it's on your end...

[tZ]

Its really not worth arguing with someone who doesn't care.

[JamesW]

Its really not worth arguing with someone who doesn't care.
Again... I am not sure if your addressing me or not... but I don't think it's fair to say that either of us don't care...

In fact I care a great deal... I care about young graphic designers who get dumped on and have little voices when thier input is the winning ticket on a project... I care about seo scam artists which sell top ten listings... I care about domain resellers who claim compound words in domain names are the key to good rankings...

and I certainly care about debunking the belief that semantic code is worth fussing over...

Cross browser compatibility ( which colonel5 (http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/member.php?u=6371) site is incredibly good at ) and staying visible in a search engine ( which validation can be partly responsible for )... those are the only technicals which matter...

and btw... you just have duplicate content issues with your domain... one is getting filtered out... it will kill your page rank... no big deal... and your validation is not a problem... your text is indexing fine...

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KzkJgu0OvwwJ:www.iotinc.com/+iotsolutions.com&hl=en&gl=ca&strip=1

Everything else is good design... and the sooner the graphic designers realize the value that they are worth instead of kicking the dirt with thier semantics code... the better off they will be in the end...

semantic code is nothing... design is everything...

[carolyn]

can we get back to this google ads thing for a sec? the point of your website is so you can get clients and make money, correct? that is why the google ads look so horrendous, they basically scream "my business isn't making any money so please, please click these links and pay my hosting fee!" this site has ads because it's non profit. that is why your site shouldn't have ads, supposedly you ARE making a profit. it makes your site look like one of those free hosting sites, like angelfire or something. pleeeeease get rid of the ads.

[JamesW]

can we get back to this google ads thing for a sec? the point of your website is so you can get clients and make money, correct? that is why the google ads look so horrendous, they basically scream "my business isn't making any money so please, please click these links and pay my hosting fee!" this site has ads because it's non profit. that is why your site shouldn't have ads, supposedly you ARE making a profit. it makes your site look like one of those free hosting sites, like angelfire or something. pleeeeease get rid of the ads.
I agree... I need to style them... but I need to promote marketing skills as well... I have no choice but to put some form of advertising on my site and adwords is the simplest and easiest... maybe if I moved them to the left hand site of the screen... then it would look more like I was trying to un-strategically place them and not profit off them...

[tZ]

Semantics is part of design. Considering the whole over the parts and giving things meaning – isn't that what we do? No where is that more applicable then the web with todays technologies.

[JamesW]

Semantics is part of design. Considering the whole over the parts.
Okay... Okay... I will stop arguing about semantics... sure there is value in every aspect of design... it is worth covering all of your bases... from my point of view... semantics code is not high on the priority list... but yes... it certainly counts... you won't see me rushing to make XML websites any time soon though... I am quite happy with the 4.01 specs which has nothing to do with semantics btw... ( not sayin gyou claimed that )

Sure... semantically you might look different to those without CSS enabled...

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:3lnRBHnIU6sJ:www.sitebyjames.com/+sitebyjames&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=ca&strip=1

So yes... text only rendering of design elements carry weight from an informational architecture point of view... but clean code and the actual content matter more... there is only so much I can wrap my head around in the few years I have on this earth... I have to focus on what matters... and semantics are not it...


Semantics contrasts with syntax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax), which is the study of the structure of sign systems (focusing on the form, not meaning). When analyzing languages, an analysis can be said to cover both the "syntax and semantics"
I am more concerned with syntax... especially when code is what we are talking about and the semantics you refer to sacrifice design flexibility...

Divs when used in preference to tables sacrifices flexibility in design... they cause no disruption to the semantics of the document... and they are perfectly okay from a syntaxical ( did I say that? ) point of view...

[JPnyc]

We have google adwords because we lease google's analytics.

[John G]

What's the purpose?
It looks like a blog. All of your sub links look like all the stupid highlights in a blog that take me somewhere else or pop up an advertisement which makes me think they aren't important. Those hidden links should be your main navigation, that's the crap I want to look at.

It doesn't sell.
With the myriad of stuff flying around on just the main page, you have no focal point. It's titled portfolio, but I see 3 pics. Your links look like pullouts, which makes all of your other links that I just now found after my tenth visit to this site looks like regular boring paragraph text. SKIP! Not even noticed. The port piece links don't pop, and with a page full of text it needs to. All the standards compliance in the world doesn't mean it's easy to read or understand at a glance.

"Hyphens vs Underscores..." wtf? no seriously, who the freak cares? You've wasted my time, because that didn't mean a thing to me, your customer, joe schmoe.

Mini-game?
Oh, and I can play pong. The late 90's early 00's are over my friend, the seperate mini-game part of the site fad to keep viewers on your webpage failed because they kept people playing games, not reading what the companies were all about (integrated ones not withstanding, they're good).

Resume:
Are you looking for work, or are you a company? A company gets jobs on their work, adding a personal resume seems kind of redundant, but it does add confusion as to what you're offering.

Sitemaps:
They aren't very much used anymore. Well, still used, but they aren't your main navigation and most definitely shouldn't be, because we're in the age of high speed internet and your main navigation should be easy enough to use or else you're doing something wrong. Using it is great and all but does it warrant main navigation status (i.e. stick it down at the bottom with your sitebyjames link)?

I get the SEO thing, it's great that you're doing it. Tables instead of divs? Great whatever works. But right now your site needs focus. It seems like you want to sell me something, but then you tell me how to do it myself. It's almost as if you're straying into the failure that the old search engine sites had (excite lycos etc), adding to much, trying to do it all.

If you like what you have now. Fine, but I would urge you to make a separate portfolio site, find and focus your objective. Is this a business? Is this a portfolio site to help me get work?, is it a hosting site?, or something else? Because right now, it honest to god reads like a jumble of everything web, and it suffers for it. There's actually a ton of sh!t in there, but the navigation to it defies all logic. Which, now that I think about it is why you need a site map. You shouldn't need it, but it does. That shouldn't be the case.

Focus your objective, focus your audience (it's not "everyone who uses a search engine" btw). The all in one sites, time and time again, are not effective in marketing. Go back to: who?, why?, how?, with a where? and when? if you need to.

edit: geez, go back and emulate your work http://www.sitebyjames.com/Presage.php ! Simple, concise leading paragraph, doesn't look overwhelming enough to turn me off from reading it, easy to spot navigation. A focal point. Unity in colors... that one works man, I'd like to see the rest of that one.

[JamesW]

What's the purpose?
It looks like a blog. All of your sub links look like all the stupid highlights in a blog that take me somewhere else or pop up an advertisement which makes me think they aren't important. Those hidden links should be your main navigation, that's the crap I want to look at.

It doesn't sell.
With the myriad of stuff flying around on just the main page, you have no focal point. It's titled portfolio, but I see 3 pics. Your links look like pullouts, which makes all of your other links that I just now found after my tenth visit to this site looks like regular boring paragraph text. SKIP! Not even noticed. The port piece links don't pop, and with a page full of text it needs to. All the standards compliance in the world doesn't mean it's easy to read or understand at a glance.

"Hyphens vs Underscores..." wtf? no seriously, who the freak cares? You've wasted my time, because that didn't mean a thing to me, your customer, joe schmoe.

Mini-game?
Oh, and I can play pong. The late 90's early 00's are over my friend, the seperate mini-game part of the site fad to keep viewers on your webpage failed because they kept people playing games, not reading what the companies were all about (integrated ones not withstanding, they're good).

Resume:
Are you looking for work, or are you a company? A company gets jobs on their work, adding a personal resume seems kind of redundant, but it does add confusion as to what you're offering.

Sitemaps:
They aren't very much used anymore. Well, still used, but they aren't your main navigation and most definitely shouldn't be, because we're in the age of high speed internet and your main navigation should be easy enough to use or else you're doing something wrong. Using it is great and all but does it warrant main navigation status (i.e. stick it down at the bottom with your sitebyjames link)?

I get the SEO thing, it's great that you're doing it. Tables instead of divs? Great whatever works. But right now your site needs focus. It seems like you want to sell me something, but then you tell me how to do it myself. It's almost as if you're straying into the failure that the old search engine sites had (excite lycos etc), adding to much, trying to do it all.

If you like what you have now. Fine, but I would urge you to make a separate portfolio site, find and focus your objective. Is this a business? Is this a portfolio site to help me get work?, is it a hosting site?, or something else? Because right now, it honest to god reads like a jumble of everything web, and it suffers for it. There's actually a ton of sh!t in there, but the navigation to it defies all logic. Which, now that I think about it is why you need a site map. You shouldn't need it, but it does. That shouldn't be the case.

Focus your objective, focus your audience (it's not "everyone who uses a search engine" btw). The all in one sites, time and time again, are not effective in marketing. Go back to: who?, why?, how?, with a where? and when? if you need to.

edit: geez, go back and emulate your work http://www.sitebyjames.com/Presage.php ! Simple, concise leading paragraph, doesn't look overwhelming enough to turn me off from reading it, easy to spot navigation. A focal point. Unity in colors... that one works man, I'd like to see the rest of that one.


That has to be the best critique I have had yet... I agree with everything...

Thank you...

[eighty4]

I just came across this thread and got caught up reading all of it, and decided I have to post and try and get something through your head (James).

First off I will start by discussing what started this whole thing, the google adwords. I will say, google adwords are great....for some things. NOT for a business website because you are actually advertising your competition. I'm looking at your site right now, and the ads promote 1) a web design/development company, 2) a graphics company, 3) another web design company, 3) small business software......now, lets put this into perspective. You claim to be a web design "company". Now lets just say someone is on your site looking for a web designer and checking out your work, if they happen to not like your work, you are giving them an escape plan. You are actually linking to other web design companies who, by clicking through to those links (spend those pennies wisely) are a hell of a lot better then you are. You've just given potential clients a reason to NOT hire you. At least if they are on your site and arent completely impressed, they may still think of hiring you because they dont know where else to look. DON'T GIVE YOUR CLIENTS SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GO! The company promoted in your google ads thanks you for sending clients to them.

Now, like i said before, google ads ARE a great thing. If you started a blog and had google adwords in each post, the companies that google ads would generate would be relevant to the post. So if you posted an entry that dealt with applications you work with, or life as a freelancer, or your so called "benefits of using table layouts" then it would generate ads for applications that people might find resourceful in addition to the applications mentioned in the post, or companies that specialize in helping freelancers, or one that says "TABLE LAYOUTS SUCK! STOP USING THEM" which would all be beneficial to the reader in a way that does not take business away from you.

You mentioned earlier how the reason you have google adwords on your site, is so you can generate a bit of revenue to cover the cost of your hosting. Then when someone mentioned that you promote services of other people in your industry, you claimed that people dont pay attention to the adwords because they are checking out your site....if this is the case, and no one is actually clicking on them, then why have them there? If you are making a decent profit of of these ads, you shouldn't be happy about that, because the people that click on those ads, are clicking on them so they can view the websites of YOUR COMPETITORS. So every time you see those pennies rise, you probably smile a bit, but really, every single penny you make off those ads, are to be considered a lost opportunity. If you ran a successful web design business, you should not have to run adwords in order to pay your hosting. For me, 1 hour of work pays off my hosting for the entire year.

Alright, thats enough about google adwords. Now onto the CSS/Tables debate. If you honestly believe that table layouts are better and you are unwilling to convert to CSS layouts, then you should open up the calendar on your computer, beside the month and the day, you should see a 4 digit number. If that 4 digit number is not 2008, then change it to read 2008. Done? Great. Now, you may begin to learn the benefits of CSS and why it is so crucial in our industry right now.

Tables, as the name suggests, are to be used for TABULAR DATA. The layout of a website is NOT tabular data. When you design your site in tables, you end up with messy and bloated code, which slows down the speed in which your site loads. Here is what I mean:

1) Your site needs to load this to get one section of your site:
table -> tr -> td

2) my site needs to load this this
div

thats all mine has to load, one thing compared to 3 if not more if you have nested tables or whatever else your moronic, unnecessary, bloated code has in it. Think about that, for every 1 div tag i have, you have a minimum of 3 tags, not to mention if you have your "align/valign/cellpadding/cellspacing" garbage included in them. You're site is not properly optimized to be on the web, get rid of your table layout and use tables when they are supposed to be used. To help you with this, i'm going to provide you with a link:

http://veerle.duoh.com/blog/comments/designing_a_css_based_template_part_i/

there are a few different parts to that, i suggest you follow along and learn it.

now, you say that with css is not as flexible in terms of design and cannot create the designs you wish to create. Well first off, after looking at your portfolio, you are not doing anything wild, you are sticking to static width sites that have a basic structure. What kind of flexibility are you looking for? Let me prove you wrong with your statement that CSS layouts to not provide the design flexibility you wish you acheive. Take a look at the design of these sites, which were all built in CSS using DIVs:

http://www.webbliworld.com/
http://www.elliotjaystocks.com
http://www.aialex.com/

and possibly the most important:

http://www.csszengarden.com/

at CSS Zen Garden you can click through different styles and see how versatile css is. I suggest doing so and learning from it. Hopefully by now i've made you realize how important CSS is, and I'm sure by now you are just dying to rebuild your site without using tables, so i've compiled a couple links that will help you out a bit. Add them too your daily readings.

http://www.alistapart.com/
http://www.cssglobe.com/
http://css-tricks.com/
http://poshcss.com/

I guess this post is quite long, and hopefully I've taught you a little bit. But, alas, I am not done. I would like to add to what John G says and give you some critiques on your website. I'll keep it short and sweet.

1) Lose all that copy on your homepage, its unnecessary. Keep your homepage simple, organized, and easy for the user to find his/her way around.
Refer to: http://www.werkbot.com/

2. Get rid of that rediculous graffiti logo, it looks cheesy and amateur. People will not understand the "Pimp My Site" thing or whatever the hell it is you're trying to make them think. go to http://www.dafont.com and download a nice clean font and use that. and don't add an abundance of layer styles. Keep it SIMPLE.

3. That illustration needs to fly off the screen.

4. So you found a nice little script which gives you a cool little cloud effect....well, its not cool, its cheesy and distracting. You shouldn't have anything diverting the viewers attention from your work.

Ok, thats all. I really do not want you to take all of this the wrong way, I am by no means trying to belittle you, I'm trying to help you improve your work and improve your skillset so that you may acquire more clients. Trust me James, take my advice and the advice of the people in this thread, they are trying to lead you in the right direction. Just because you dont know CSS, does not mean you dont need to. Table layouts are becoming increasingly obsolete, you are living in the past, and if you plan on designing websites in the future, then get with the times.

-Sean

[ChristinaMae]

I think there's an inconsistancy with the overall feeling of the site. The header uses a funky font and vector illustrations. It doesn't seem to tie in with the bottom which has a very clean, streamlined look. The featured website The Vegan Housewife has a very unified overall look, translate that into your website and you'll have a great site!

[JamesW]

First off I will start by discussing what started this whole thing, the google adwords. I will say, google adwords are great....for some things. NOT for a business website because you are actually advertising your competition.
IN my previous career as a night club promoter I would always tell people where the best night clubs were... because I knew they would come back to me if I could gain thier trust... advertising is a way of life for everybody... I am not interested in collecting every single last person to my website as a client... I am only interested in a few clients... if my business model relied heavily on impuse shopping I would think differently...

If people like my pitch ( which needs alot of work )... the ads will not hurt my business...

"TABLE LAYOUTS SUCK! STOP USING THEM"
I will use them till the day I die... as I said at the start of the thread... it's not an issue... and anyone who thinks it is... is not somebody I will ever get along with...

Refer to this... http://www.sitebyjames.com/datamine/

The entire thing is divs... I know how to use divs!!! The page is two years old... there is not difference between a div layut or a table layout... period... people to your site can't tell the difference and search engines do not treat you site any differently... do you know why the germans lost the war? because they wasted thier time concentrating on engineering which proved time consuming and useless...

1) Lose all that copy on your homepage, its unnecessary. Keep your homepage simple, organized, and easy for the user to find his/her way around.
Refer to: http://www.werkbot.com/

Agreed... I am struggling with my identity and my message and my clean layout... I understand this...

2. Get rid of that rediculous graffiti logo, it looks cheesy and amateur. People will not understand the "Pimp My Site" thing or whatever the hell it is you're trying to make them think. go to http://www.dafont.com and download a nice clean font and use that. and don't add an abundance of layer styles. Keep it SIMPLE.
I know... it's pretty bad...

3. That illustration needs to fly off the screen.
I think it need to fly around the screen... I want to attract people with good ideas to work with... if I go boring like the rest of the world then I'll end up working with stiffs...

4. So you found a nice little script which gives you a cool little cloud effect....well, its not cool, its cheesy and distracting. You shouldn't have anything diverting the viewers attention from your work.
I built the script... That's the point... I am a programmer... almost everything I use is written from scratch... scrapers, email software, search engines, animations, all of it... I must figure out a way to make this message more clear...

[JamesW]

I think there's an inconsistancy with the overall feeling of the site. The header uses a funky font and vector illustrations. It doesn't seem to tie in with the bottom which has a very clean, streamlined look. The featured website The Vegan Housewife has a very unified overall look, translate that into your website and you'll have a great site!

okay... I've cleaned it up...

[tZ]

I think your site would be more successful if you omitted the sky, superman and found a more sophisticated font for the main header with accurate kerning.

[eighty4]

I will use them till the day I die... as I said at the start of the thread... it's not an issue... and anyone who thinks it is... is not somebody I will ever get along with...

Refer to this... http://www.sitebyjames.com/datamine/

The entire thing is divs... I know how to use divs!!! The page is two years old... there is not difference between a div layut or a table layout... period... people to your site can't tell the difference and search engines do not treat you site any differently... do you know why the germans lost the war? because they wasted thier time concentrating on engineering which proved time consuming and useless...


you are right, people can't tell the difference and search engines do not treat you differently. but in this new age of the web, with CSS3 and HTML5 coming into play, it is important that you keep up with the technology of today. As stated previously, table layouts make your website load slowly and the code looks messy and unprofessional. I search a lot of freelance job boards to see what people are looking for, and almost every single person looking for a website requires that the designer/developer code all sites using CSS and valid markup. I believe that the reason you are still designing in tables is because you are being lazy and dont want to try building it in CSS. Honestly, take some time and do it, I guarantee it will work out better for you in the end. Also, by looking at your code, there are many places where you could benefit from CSS Image Replacement techniques, which would help you significantly in search engines.

Read this http://www.drostdesigns.com/top-12-benefits-of-using-css-for-web-pages/


I think it need to fly around the screen... I want to attract people with good ideas to work with... if I go boring like the rest of the world then I'll end up working with stiffs...

hahahaha, oh....that wasnt a joke? im sorry. you need to scrap that idea, it would be distracting and annoying. If i saw a stupid "Super James" flying around the screen, I would laugh and never even considering hiring you. If you want to display this sort of thing to clients, make a page of it and put it in your portfolio.

Here is some advice, when someone goes to your site, they know exactly what you do. They dont need to read a bunch of crap about what you do, put it in a Services section. When they get to your page, they want to know how good you are, all they care about right off the bat is "Is this guy good?" and if you make them read a bunch of crap they already know about you or dont care about, they will get bored and leave. Let your homepage showcase a few great projects, and have some "call to actions" below going to other parts of your site. If they like the first few designs that are boldly showcased on your homepage, then they will decide if they want to see what else you can do.

oop, look at that, i found an issue with your lovely table-based site. Its not quite as cross-browser compliant as you previously stated. I'm using Safari on a Mac and on this page (http://www.sitebyjames.com/Casual_Fridays.php) i get a huge horizontal scrollbar that scrolls into nothingness. Actually it appears to go on as far as the cloud thing goes. Might be worth looking into.

[JamesW]

Also, by looking at your code, there are many places where you could benefit from CSS Image Replacement techniques, which would help you significantly in search engines.

The banner must stay as a non-css image other wise it breaks compatibility wiht browsers... other images have valuable alt text...

But I understand what your saying... tables can load slowly if you don't know how to use css... so can divs... even moreso actually... thank god I'm not looking to get hired by any large company... because I'd much rather keep producing work rather than futzing with the techincal belief of my superiors...

hahahaha, oh....that wasnt a joke? im sorry. you need to scrap that idea, it would be distracting and annoying.
Well... no matter why others think on this one I have really thought it out... I'm stciking with my avatar... I'm sure he'll morph over time... but he's my logo... he stays...

Here is some advice, when someone goes to your site, they know exactly what you do. They dont need to read a bunch of crap about what you do, put it in a Services section. When they get to your page, they want to know how good you are, all they care about right off the bat is "Is this guy good?" and if you make them read a bunch of crap they already know about you or dont care about, they will get bored and leave. Let your homepage showcase a few great projects, and have some "call to actions" below going to other parts of your site. If they like the first few designs that are boldly showcased on your homepage, then they will decide if they want to see what else you can do.
I agree... content is next... lots of it...




oop, look at that, i found an issue with your lovely table-based site. Its not quite as cross-browser compliant as you previously stated. I'm using Safari on a Mac and on this page (http://www.sitebyjames.com/Casual_Fridays.php) i get a huge horizontal scrollbar that scrolls into nothingness. Actually it appears to go on as far as the cloud thing goes. Might be worth looking into.
Yah... I haven't been udating the stylesheets while I do my work... you should reload the page... not getting a tremendous amout of traffic just yet...

[edit] YOU ARE RIGHT... I see it... not sure what's causing it yet but thank you...




in any event... the scrollbar would be a css issue and not a table layout issue...

[eighty4]

But I understand what your saying... tables can load slowly if you don't know how to use css... so can divs... even moreso actually... [QUOTE]

wrong. divs will never load slower than tables if you know what you're doing. but good for you for admitting to yourself of one benefit of using CSS, you're almost there.

[QUOTE=JamesW]thank god I'm not looking to get hired by any large company... because I'd much rather keep producing work rather than futzing with the techincal belief of my superiors...

its not just large companies to require you know how to produce table-less websites, it is anyone who actually knows about the direction of the web. i guess you would rather lie to your clients by telling them tabled websites are just as good.

Well... no matter why others think on this one I have really thought it out... I'm stciking with my avatar... I'm sure he'll morph over time... but he's my logo... he stays...

thats fine if you keep him, just redraw him, make him look more....illustrated, like on FreelanceSwitch (http://freelanceswitch.com/) and no not make him fly around the screen. While in school a 50 year old teacher thought it would be "cool and hip" to have a guitar pick flying around the screen using javascript. The entire class laughed at him.



in any event... the scrollbar would be a css issue and not a table layout issue... but thanks for re-enforcing my belief that the next generation of css designers are mis-informed nazis...

yes it is a css issue, and the issue with the css is that you do not know how to properly use it. you're width on that div is 4094px.

i honestly think you should lose the cloud scroller, its really distracting and the clouds are very low res, they look like crap. I think you're idea of having clouds as the main design part of your site would be really cool if designed properly and it didnt scroll like that.

I think you should check this site out, honestly, its a daily dose of inspiration, I have it set as my default page and check it every morning when i start my day. It's helped me out a lot when it comes to designing websites. This goes for everyone too, not just you. Its a really great resource

www.dailyslurp.com (http://www.dailyslurp.com)

[eighty4]

also, i have a question for you and i'd really like you to answer it. I mentioned it before but noticed you would not respond to it.

is the layout of a website considered TABULAR DATA?

[JamesW]

its not just large companies to require you know how to produce table-less websites, it is anyone who actually knows about the direction of the web. i guess you would rather lie to your clients by telling them tabled websites are just as good.
Buddy... [edit] take a look at every major website which clocks any significant amount of traffic and you will see tables in use...

Just because you went to technical school or read a few articles on css does not mean you know jack about what is and is not possible... or even what is in production and working...

I will tell my clients things that matter... and it's not tables versus divs... go ahead... tell your clients till your blue in the face that divs are better than tables... make a fool out of yourself...

and re-read this thread before you get into an argument with me other the tables versus divs debate... and please tell me which doctype Google uses...

[JamesW]

also, i have a question for you and i'd really like you to answer it. I mentioned it before but noticed you would not respond to it.

is the layout of a website considered TABULAR DATA?

I don't know? Do you think a screen reader will have trouble linearizing your div data? Show me one of your sites...

do you think anybody has invested the time to scrape information fom a website and label the information as more or less important because it's sematcially tabular?

[JamesW]

yes it is a css issue, and the issue with the css is that you do not know how to properly use it. you're width on that div is 4094px.
Are you sure it's not because I'm using tables? I could of swore it was an image which has those dimensions... that image being nested within a div with the overflow:hidden attribute...

[edit] sounded like I was saying that divs were somehow better than tables... odd concept really...

[eighty4]

Buddy... take a look at every major website which clocks any significant amount of traffic and you will see tables in use...

yeah, i saw you mentioned before that youtube uses tables...so i checked out their code...yes they do use it, but for tabular data, not layout. They use it for what its supposed to be used for.

Just because you went to technical school or read a few articles on css does not mean you know jack about what is and is not possible... or even what is in production and working...

i haven't just read "a few articles on css" i've read A LOT about css. I, too, was just like you before, I used to think "whats the big difference if i design in tables? why should i convert to CSS?" and then i started reading everywhere about the advantages, then i came across the Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org) and really realized that I had to change what I was doing if i want a future in this field. Also read: A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com)

I don't know? Do you think a screen reader will have trouble linearizing your div data?

the layout is NOT tabular. an example of something being tabular is an Excel Spreadsheet.

Show me one of your sites...

sure, heres my portfolio http://www.eighty4.ca



look man, im really not trying to fight with you or offend you, i'm trying to help you and educate you and open up your eyes to what is real, what is now, and what is becoming increasingly more important. If i'm getting through to you a little bit, I'm happy, if after all I've said and all the links i've shown you, you still think tabled layouts are the way to go, than I'll give up now and won't bother continuing this discussion. The only reason I signed up for an account here is because I came across this thread and wanted to help you out.

[tZ]

Is there anyone else on the face of this planet that agrees with you?

I'd honestly like to read an article that states tables are just as appropriate as divs to layout a site and semantic mark-up doesn't matter. I'm not being sarcastic either – if you have a recent article with statistics to back up your claim I'm open to your logic. However, everything I have read says different which is why I am hesident to conform to your belief and question it.

Furthermore, you say there is a problem with CSS and laying out the banner – why? If certain browsers are rendering it incorrectly than that is a symptom. Therefore, you can easily create filters for separate browsers to lay it out correctly. However, its always best to make sure that the symptom can't be avoided entirely by using a different approach – thats the best solution. Its not that CSS is limiting its that it takes a bit more knowledge to get things to work correctly because of browser inconsistencies. Especially in regards to hasLayout.

[JamesW]

yeah, i saw you mentioned before that youtube uses tables...so i checked out their code...yes they do use it, but for tabular data, not layout. They use it for what its supposed to be used for.
They use 16 tables on thier front page... they are not using it for tabular data... they are using it specifically for layout perposes for when thier network overloads and the extra few pakets of stylesheet informaition fail to deliver the stylesheet in a timely manner.

HTML reached the client before an external stylesheet... if the layout information is loaded first and then the style sheet cascades everything works great... if the stylesheet is slow to load then they have thier layout information already loaded.


i haven't just read "a few articles on css" i've read A LOT about css. I, too, was just like you before, I used to think "whats the big difference if i design in tables? why should i convert to CSS?" and then i started reading everywhere about the advantages, then i came across the Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org) and really realized that I had to change what I was doing if i want a future in this field. Also read: A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com)
I have read a few volumes of work on seo and how to make a million dollars and css and html and javascript and php...

Just because I have read information on the web does not mean it is correct. There are a thousands of incorrect bits of info floating around.



the layout is NOT tabular. an example of something being tabular is an Excel Spreadsheet.
I know what tabular means... and the fact that you think I don't tell me your arrogant... I'm not an idiot... I;ve ben doing this stuff for a very long time... before there were courses in school about the subjects... I've been in the trenches for years...



sure, heres my portfolio http://www.eighty4.ca


I saw it... does it bother you that I saw a link to the company who does the project on the bootm of all your portfolio pieces... you seem to have an issue with my adsense campaign... I would think links to your competitors would lose you your clients...


look man, im really not trying to fight with you or offend you, i'm trying to help you and educate you and open up your eyes to what is real, what is now, and what is becoming increasingly more important. If i'm getting through to you a little bit, I'm happy, if after all I've said and all the links i've shown you, you still think tabled layouts are the way to go, than I'll give up now and won't bother continuing this discussion. The only reason I signup up for an account here is because I came across this thread and wanted to help you out.

Your not helping me out... in fact your doing nothing but regurgitating the same crud that everyone does without having the evidence to back your claims... I am trying to help you out by making you realize that there is more to life than DIVS... there are more important things to worry about... taking pride in your infinite knowledge of div implementations does nobody any favors...

[tZ]

James wrote:
Just because I have read information on the web does not mean it is correct. There are a thousands of incorrect bits of info floating around.

Is it correct if it was read in a book?

or… can they not be trust either?

I agree with you. The web is full of incorrect information but are books also?

[eighty4]

I have read a few volumes of work on seo and how to make a million dollars and css and html and javascript and php...

Just because I have read information on the web does not mean it is correct. There are a thousands of incorrect bits of info floating around.



haha, well the Web Standards Project is real. A List Apart is one of the first websites to know and publish information about future internet information.



I know what tabular means... and the fact that you think I don't tell me your arrogant... I'm not an idiot... I;ve ben doing this stuff for a very long time... before there were courses in school about the subjects... I've been in the trenches for years...

haha, im not being arrogant at all, im just letting you know that the layout of a website is not tabular. And thats great that you have been doing this stuff for years. But get with the times, the web is not what it was 10 years ago. I guess the saying is correct, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.


I saw it... does it bother you that I saw a link to the company who does the project on the bootm of all your portfolio pieces... you seem to have an issue with my adsense campaign... I would think links to your competitors would lose you your clients...

no it doesnt bother me at all, seeing as the company being linked at the bottom is the company I work for and who pay my salary. I just do freelance on the side. So if people dont want to hire me on a freelance basis but would rather go to my company, its no big deal to me because I still get to work on it and I get paid either way! So nice try on that one.

Your not helping me out... in fact your doing nothing but regurgitating the same crud that everyone does without having the evidence to back your claims...

really?! without backing up my claims?! are you kidding me? I've provided you with MANY links which back up my claim, which PROVE that CSS layouts are better than tables, which actually provide you with reasons WHY they are better! you have not given me one piece of evidence to back up YOUR claim, you are just being ignorant. Telling you about CSS is like telling an 80 year old about the benefits of using a computer.

I am trying to help you out by making you realize that there is more to life than DIVS... there are more important things to worry about... taking pride in your infinite knowledge of div implementations does nobody any favors...

of course there are more important things to worry about, but we're not talking about other things, we're having a discussion on table layouts vs css layouts. im not gloating or trying to say how much i know about div implementations, im SHARING with you my knowledge of it and how it has benefitted me and how I believe it will benefit you.

[JamesW]

James wrote:


Is it correct if it was read in a book?

or… can they not be trust either?


Web technology is costantly evolving... what you read five years ago is certainly not true today... and what you read today will certainly not be true five years from now... ( Maybe... )

[JamesW]

haha, well the Web Standards Project is real. A List Apart is one of the first websites to know and publish information about future internet information.

So is the wc3... Do you have any idea how many failed specifications they have on record...

haha, im not being arrogant at all, im just letting you know that the layout of a website is not tabular.

You are being completely arrogant... You have lied to me and tried to say that youtube is correctly using tables as the way you feel they should be correctly used and you have ignored my factual statements regarding the faster loading of layout information if it is included in the html document.

really?! without backing up my claims?!

yes really... you are doing nothing but firing links and regurgitation the smae crud... please tell me why almost every website on the internet uses tables today? Are they just stupid? Are they just slow with the times?

Maybe you can take thier job when you hit that job interview and tell everybody why divs are soooo much better than tables...

[JamesW]

I agree with you. The web is full of incorrect information but are books also?

It really depends... does a book on phrenology count?

[tZ]

Most books if not all I have read in regards to web design and languages have been published in 2006 or after…

If I was referring to books 5 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate;)

Here's a list of books that counter your logic:

http://www.amazon.com/HTML-Utopia-Designing-Without-Tables/dp/0975240277/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202094917&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/CSS-Mastery-Advanced-Standards-Solutions/dp/1590596145/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095086&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Web-Standards-Creativity-Innovations-Scripting/dp/1590598032/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095163&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Your-Website-Right-Using/dp/0975240293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095049&sr=1-1

All have been read by yours truly so are saying all these books use false information?

[eighty4]

You are being completely arrogant... You have lied to me and tried to say that youtube is correctly using tables as the way you feel they should be correctly used and you have ignored my factual statements regarding the faster loading of layout information if it is included in the html document.

Youtube does not use tables to structure their site. Look at the code, the first table they use is for the Login form, which is TABULAR DATA. All the rest of the tables on their home page are the video details and screenshots underneath FEATURED VIDEO, which is, you guessed it, TABULAR DATA! So once again, nice try.

yes really... you are doing nothing but firing links and regurgitation the smae crud... please tell me why almost every website on the internet uses tables today? Are they just stupid? Are they just slow with the times?

here are some of the most popular sites on the internet

• YouTube (uses div layout)
• Yahoo (uses div layout)
• MSN.com (uses div layout)
• Digg.com (uses div layout)
• Facebook (uses div layout)
• CNN.com (uses div layout)

so tell me, where is YOUR evidence that tables are better? that using div layouts are a waste of time? find me ONE article that says this, just ONE. where, besides your ignorant mind, does it say that tables are the way to go?

[JamesW]

Most books if not all I have read in regards to web design and languages have been published in 2006 or after…

If I was referring to books 5 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate;)

Well... I haven't actually bought any books recently... and believe me... I am not saying that any of the css concpets are not worth learning or even using.

Everything which excersises the mind is good.

The only real world example I can give you which might be partially relevant to your question is the fact that my sister recently took a course on web design and they told her she must use a web safe pallette for her gifs. Which as we all know is old news since almost every browser uses more than 256 color displays these days. But the course was current and she paid for the information so that might be equivalent to purchasing a book.

I know... your thinking what a bad school... ??? what school is 100% accurate? What book is? Are encyclopedias acurrate? While most attempt to provide non-biased views the occasional biased view slips in...

To me the divs vs tables is a biased argument.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:tabular

Does this mean if my website was strictly text aligned in columns that table use for layouts would be acceptable? Show me a blog which isn't text arranged in columns.

I know where the tabular/semantics argument comes from... It comes directly from the w3c which says tables should only be used for tabular information. But if you read further into thier documents they will continue to say that tables are perfectly okay so long as they linearize for srceen readers.

The divs vs tables argument is misunderstood at it's core. I am preaching for a better understanding of the technology in general and I am using real world examples of websites which receive million of visitors daily.

I have a 1970's vintage videography book which has a chapter entirely devoted to HDTV and how it was going to be the next big thing and that everyone should rush to adopt the technology. This of course ws before digital tv was even thought of.

[eighty4]

Most books if not all I have read in regards to web design and languages have been published in 2006 or after…

If I was referring to books 5 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate;)

Here's a list of books that counter your logic:

http://www.amazon.com/HTML-Utopia-Designing-Without-Tables/dp/0975240277/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202094917&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/CSS-Mastery-Advanced-Standards-Solutions/dp/1590596145/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095086&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Web-Standards-Creativity-Innovations-Scripting/dp/1590598032/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095163&sr=1-7

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Your-Website-Right-Using/dp/0975240293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202095049&sr=1-1

All have been read by yours truly so are saying all these books use false information?

all great books tZ, but i think we're kind of beating a dead horse, and if he doesnt want to learn and advance himself, then thats his own problem. He'll get a rude awakening one day.

[garricks]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/garricks/DeadHorse.gif

I don't think anyone is going to change JamesW's mind...

[frankster]

This all seems to have got shouty and silly in here.

How about you lot just post what in your opinion are straight forward pros and cons to both the method you choose and the method you choose not to use. Everyone needs to lay out the facts they have if they want to convince anyone of their logic in their choices.

I find the minutia of the dabate quite intriguing, but I don't want to read name calling and bickering. It's dull and pointless.

[eighty4]

This all seems to have got shouty and silly in here.

How about you lot just post what in your opinion are straight forward pros and cons to both the method you choose and the method you choose not to use. Everyone needs to lay out the facts they have if they want to convince anyone of their logic in their choices.

I find the minutia of the dabate quite intriguing, but I don't want to read name calling and bickering. It's dull and pointless.

i agree it is pointless. i never intended it to get like that, as i've stated, i came here to help and he has taken everything personally and has tried calling me a liar.

i've laid out all of my reasons supporting my argument, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere.

[JamesW]

Youtube does not use tables to structure their site. Look at the code, the first table they use is for the Login form, which is TABULAR DATA. All the rest of the tables on their home page are the video details and screenshots underneath FEATURED VIDEO, which is, you guessed it, TABULAR DATA! So once again, nice try.



here are some of the most popular sites on the internet

• YouTube (uses div layout)
• Yahoo (uses div layout)
• MSN.com (uses div layout)
• Digg.com (uses div layout)
• Facebook (uses div layout)
• CNN.com (uses div layout)

so tell me, where is YOUR evidence that tables are better? that using div layouts are a waste of time? find me ONE article that says this, just ONE. where, besides your ignorant mind, does it say that tables are the way to go?

LOOK!!!!
Youtube uses 16 tables... with columns... for layout purposes... you cannot use a table for anything else BUT layout purposes....



Did they need to? No! They could have used divs... but is in anyway what so ever causing any kind of disruption to anybody? Is it even semantically correct? Should we write them an email and demand that they take it down immediately for the just cause of the web standards act? Where is there summary definition? I DO NOT SEE IT!
OMG... they have a non breaking space html entity within a table cell... the heathens... let's burn them at the stake...

I could pick them all apart and tell you why the divs versus table argument is useless... but I'll give you three examples...

www.google.com ( no doctype )

http://www.google.ca/search?q=css ( table layout )


http://web.archive.org/web/20000301012010/www.w3.org/ ( has anything really gotten any better in 9 years? )

[tZ]

Going to school for web design is completely pointless in my opinion. The technology changes so rapidly and often that you must be devoted to the medium to produce current and up to date work. However, by proposing that that tables are just have appropriate has divs for mark-up you are preaching past principles yourself. These are same things they teach in the classroom. Tables rather than tabless and semantic mark-up. part of it is probably due to the the fact that many of these courses especially in a graphic design ciriculmn are very basic. There simply isn't enough time in one small course to go over everything. Therefore, professors opt to start at beginning – traditional educational logic. I mean… in most graphic design programs you don't start doing business cards, posters, etc you start with the beginning – drawing and traditional media. Therefore, I think many web design professors take on this view also and tart with the beginning. Not neccesarily because tables are easier to understand but because they were the start and tradition in education is to start from the beginning. Therefore, unless you attend a program with multiple classes designated to web design you simply can't expect to get the most oup to date version. Thats just my outlook though on the topic from what I have seen. However, by preaching tables over divs your pretty much buying into the old ways of doing things. Yes, there is a place for tables but more appropriate methods have been created since their introduction. Therefore, I think its in yours and everyones best interest to learn those new methods. If design is about achieving simplicity and meaning then tables counter act that. Why use a table to place a paragraph when you could just as easily use a paragraph tag? Why create a cell for a masthead when all you need to do is wrap its content in a <div id="masthead"></div> element? It just doesn't make much sense. I don't know about you but, I like to work smart rather than hard.

[JamesW]

Why use a table to place a paragraph when you could just as easily use a paragraph tag?
I agree... there are certainly better ways to do things... no doubt... you will not hear me argue that alternative options should not be used...

BUt you will always hear me argue people when they say a table is not-accessible, semantically more correct or less correct than a div, wrong or otherwise unacceptable for use...

Going to school is valuable... I learned alot in school but I learned how to work with teams of people... that was the big benefit for me... coders are different... they learn it one way and they vary rarely work as a team of web designers... which as everyone knows... is demanded in any professional web development environment...

schools have a long way to go regarding teaching programmers... because right now... they seem to only teach rules... which are not always true t the real world...

I mean have you ever heard programmers argue about how a switch statement is wrong? Or why procedural is inferior to object oriented programming? It's rediculous...

[JamesW]

i agree it is pointless. i never intended it to get like that, as i've stated, i came here to help and he has taken everything personally and has tried calling me a liar.

i've laid out all of my reasons supporting my argument, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere.

sorry for calling you a liar... but I have no choice... I have given you reasons as to why your arguments do not hold weight and we continue to argue in circles... perhaps we will just never see eye to eye...

[tZ]

procedural isn't really inferior but oop creates more readily reusable code…

why is a switch statement wrong?

Personally, I try to avoid switch statements just because I really don't like them,lol

[urstwile]

This all seems to have got shouty and silly in here.

How about you lot just post what in your opinion are straight forward pros and cons to both the method you choose and the method you choose not to use. Everyone needs to lay out the facts they have if they want to convince anyone of their logic in their choices.

I find the minutia of the dabate quite intriguing, but I don't want to read name calling and bickering. It's dull and pointless.

Yes, I agree, Frankster.

As a moderator, I feel compelled to step in and say to those involved in this debate to please keep it civil, name calling doesn't make your point and only alienates people. This forum exists as a place for people to learn.

At the moment it seems that things are just barely on the correct side of the line separating a thread from being allowed to continue or being shut down.

[eighty4]

you're completely wrong with youtube. the 16 tables they use are all the same tables containing different content, if you look at what is displayed inside those tables you will see that the content inside those tables are the FEATURED VIDEOS, which as i stated before is tabular data and not the layout of the site.

the same is for Yahoo, they use a table when it is necessary, the site is not built using tables, it uses a CSS layout.

i never said these sites dont use tables, i said these sites dont use table layouts, they use css layouts.

you're links to 2 google sites show that you could not find any other big sites that use tabled layouts, and please note that i did not include Google as one of my example. I dont know why they chose to use tables but they did.

While i'm at it, some other big sites using div layouts:

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
ESPN (http://espn.go.com/)
CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/)

[JamesW]

procedural isn't really inferior but oop creates more readily reusable code…

sure... oop philosphy has a slightly better organization to it... but I have had much harder times re-writing poorly written oop code than I have re-writting poorly written procedural... really... it makes no difference to me... I could try and argue that oop has extra overhead... but they are both acceptable tools available for use... which ever one makes no difference to me... but you will always hear he argue someone when they say one method is better than the other...

my personal favorite language of all time is AppleScript, then Lua... Lua is nice, then Javascript... I love javascript but very rarely have the time for it... I know a little C but not enough to work efficiently in it... php is great but I will always program it procedural simply because I have run accross more useful libraries in my time which were written that way to begin with... but I will use oop as well... that's what's great about php... it's a language with no strict rules... freedom in organization...

I hate java... I hate it... I hate it... I hate it... and I butt heads with every java fresh out of school know-it-all... I remember whn java was going to be the next big saviour in platform independence... well... look where we are now...

why is a switch statement wrong?

I am not really sure... I will never be able to find the thread... but here's one I just dug up... http://blog.iffy.us/?p=20 not as good as some of the others out there... but it's funny none the less...

Personally, I try to avoid switch statements just because I really don't like them,lol

I don't like them either...

[JamesW]

you're completely wrong with youtube. the 16 tables they use are all the same tables containing different content, if you look at what is displayed inside those tables you will see that the content inside those tables are the FEATURED VIDEOS, which as i stated before is tabular data and not the layout of the site.

the same is for Yahoo, they use a table when it is necessary, the site is not built using tables, it uses a CSS layout.

i never said these sites dont use tables, i said these sites dont use table layouts, they use css layouts.

you're links to 2 google sites show that you could not find any other big sites that use tabled layouts, and please note that i did not include Google as one of my example. I dont know why they chose to use tables but they did.

While i'm at it, some other big sites using div layouts:




NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)

Front page... scroll down to this table...
<table id="mainTable">

That is a table being used for layouts...


ESPN (http://espn.go.com/)

Jump to this...

<table width="772" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" ><tr><td width="728">

That is layout information...



CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/)


Do I have to? okay...

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4">

OMG!!! cellpadding... that's pure evil..






Now tell me why Google... The industry giant refuses to use a doctype? I have been kind enough to carry this argument through this thread several times over providing concrete examples and arguements to back my claims...

Why does Google refuse to use a doctype and why should they?

[eighty4]

Here is a really great presentation for all who do not see the benefits of using css layouts written by Bill Merikallio of Scott Design Inc, and Adam Pratt who is the Senior Systems Engineer at Adobe

Why tables for layout is stupid: problems defined, solutions offered (http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/)

[eighty4]

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)

Front page... scroll down to this table...
<table id="mainTable">

That is a table being used for layouts...


ESPN (http://espn.go.com/)

Jump to this...

<table width="772" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" ><tr><td width="728">

That is layout information...



CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/)


Do I have to? okay...

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4">

OMG!!! cellpadding... that's pure evil..






Now tell me why Google... The industry giant refuses to use a doctype? I have been kind enough to carry this argument through this thread several times over providing concrete examples and arguements to back my claims...

Why does Google refuse to use a doctype and why should they?


haha, i dont think you really understand what i mean by LAYOUT. i dont mean one section of a site, that is not a layout. Sure these sites use tables, but they are contained within divs and are used for tabular data, those sites are mostly content/statistics-based, of course they would use tables to display some of that information, thats when tables are meant to be used. Tables are not meant to be used to structure the entire layout of the site. If these sites used tables to layout their sites, the source code would be about 10 times larger then they currently are.


and as for google, like i said, i dont know why they dont use a doctype, it confuses me aswell, but i came across this when researching it, which seems to make the most sense to me:

google's code is optimised to be tiny. The code on their homepage is as small as it could possibly be whilst still working with pretty well every browser ever created.

Considering that they are getting hit *billions* of times per month, and that a single extra character therefore means extra gigabytes of bandwidth, a 120 or so byte doctype just doesn't look like such a great idea from a business perspective

[JamesW]

Here is a really great presentation for all who do not see the benefits of using css layouts written by Bill Merikallio of Scott Design Inc, and Adam Pratt who is the Senior Systems Engineer at Adobe

Why tables for layout is stupid: problems defined, solutions offered (http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/)

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/03overview.html

Look I am not sure who adam pratt is... but tables are not to blame for code to content ratio.... code to content ratio is to blame for code to content ratio...

Google does not use a doctype and most likely never will so I cannot see how divs will ensure your job security...

Lowering your hosting costs will not be because you decided to dump tables... it will be because you used stylesheets to cache style information client side... that's it...

Tables are perfectly acceptable... and they are in wide spread use...

You are taking the technique of using css stylesheets and mixing the concept with tables...

I could use <i> tags exclusively and reduce my server costs, code to content ratio even further... but you don't see anybody doing it because it's useless...

[eighty4]

hahahahaha, alright thats enough. i'm done with this, i've wasted too much time arguing this. if you can't take good advice from a Senior Systems Engineer at Adobe then you are a lost cause. good luck in the future. think of me when people dont want to hire you because you still design layouts in tables.

[JamesW]

Yes... Google does not need to follow web standards which would otherwise increase thier download time... increase thier server costs... ect....

It is mind boggling to think that the very thing that web standards are supposed to do have been reversed in the situation of the largest internet company of our time...

Real world situations are all that matter...

for example... look at how adobe breaks compatiblity with the internet archives...

http://web.archive.org/web/20070807072122/http://www.adobe.com/

[JamesW]

hahahahaha, alright thats enough. i'm done with this, i've wasted too much time arguing this. if you can't take good advice from a Senior Systems Engineer at Adobe then you are a lost cause. good luck in the future. think of me when people dont want to hire you because you still design layouts in tables.
I will... but I will be thinking of the clients who have gone with me versus the jobs you beg for...

sorry moderator... he instigated it... it's over...

[eighty4]

hahahahaha

[JamesW]

hahahahaha
http://www.baybloordental.com/ you did that right? the table layout... no alt tags and text embedded within images?

http://htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baybloordental.c om%2F&warnings=yes

nice site... I mean it though... there is nothing wrong with it... that website will probably land you more jobs in the future than any xhtml standard will...

[eighty4]

yup, did it before i took the time to learn how to develop sites properly. when i was lazy. i know its poorly built, as are a few other sites in my portfolio, but those are old sites. i develop all of my sites in pure css/divs now.

stop digging for dirt and dragging this on, im not arguing with you anymore

[JamesW]

I'm not really dragging the dirt... but while we are on the topic of better search engine ranking throguh the use of DIVS... Here are your text vs content ratio scores for your websites...

http://www.seochat.com/?go=1&option=com_seotools&tool=16


Code to Text Ratio : 24.89 % http://www.baybloordental.com/

Code to Text Ratio : 32.26 % http://www.red9ine.com/

Code to Text Ratio : 17.93 % http://www.freefromdieting.com/

Code to Text Ratio : 13.18 % http://www.caravankids.ca/

Code to Text Ratio : 14.04 % http://www.thebeerconnection.com/

I'm not aying the code-to-text ratio really makes a difference... but I am just showing you that there is no clear seo benefit to using divs over tables... I am trying to help you...

[eighty4]

hahahaha, you just dont give up do you? i've never once mentioned code-to-text ratio as one of my arguments about using css layouts. im telling you its good practice and the future of the web. i've said it helps loading time of your site. i've mentioned image replacement using css. i've mentioned flexibility of a css website. not once did i mention SEO and code-to-text ratio. crunch numbers and waste time with online SEO tools all you want, the fact of the matter is that tabled layouts are no longer the way to do things, and we've given you multiple reasons to believe that. we've given you books, articles, code snippets, and even presentations by some of the most respected people in our industry. yet, you still claim you are right. so theres nothing i can do or say, and i will no longer respond to your petty number crunching and analyzing of my website statistics. the time you waste studying my websites is time you lose studying what you could be doing better yourself.

[JamesW]

the time you waste studying my websites is time you lose studying what you could be doing better yourself.
I have studied... I spend virtually no time in manuals or reading articles on css or whatever...

What I do know is that divs cannot mimick the behaviour of tables exactly... in fact there are some things with layout that you can only do with tables...

http://www.sitebyjames.com/divs_vs_tables.php

You cannot reproduce the effect of a table and in some circumstances tables are a better choice... all things considered... tables are perfectly acceptable...

That is my only argument... tables are okay... for layout... or whatever you want to use them for. IN fact... your table layout sites are just as good as your div layout sites from a technical perspective and an accessibility perspective...

You now have two great techniques at your disposal... two different tools in your tool box... now if you could only get over the limitations you feel tables cause you could do more than critic websites with a tables vs divs argument...

[frankster]

tables are okay... for layout... or whatever you want to use them for.

Well I'm off to use one for having some rough sex on. I suggest everyone in here should do the same.

[eighty4]

Well I'm off to use one for having some rough sex on. I suggest everyone in here should do the same.

hahaha, good plan

[JamesW]

I'll put my o.c.d. to rest... goodnight...

[urstwile]

Are you two done now? I hope so.

You both have the capability to use PM's, I suggest you take advantage of that feature if you feel you need to prolong this debate. I doubt anyone else is learning anything from the endless ping pong game you've been playing in this thread.

[tZ]

I think divs are better for rough sex than tables.

[eighty4]

Are you two done now? I hope so.

You both have the capability to use PM's, I suggest you take advantage of that feature if you feel you need to prolong this debate. I doubt anyone else is learning anything from the endless ping pong game you've been playing in this thread.

i think we're done. i am at least.

this is, however, a discussion forum, and i do agree with you not wanting us to bicker back and forth, it obviously got us nowhere, but by noticing that this thread has 1,364 views, it has turned into a popular thread that a lot of people may have taken interest in. there has been a lot of really great resources in this thread by myself, James and others, and i'm sure a lot of the people who have read this thread have probably learned a lot and have made good use of the resources given.

[hewligan]

Honestly, if you want to discuss the issue then that's fine. But keep it polite. I know I've nearly closed this thread at least twice now. It's not what anyone in here's saying, it's how they're saying it.

All we ask is you keep it polite, and you can keep discussing this until the sun burns out, if that's what you want.

[urstwile]

i think we're done. i am at least.

this is, however, a discussion forum, and i do agree with you not wanting us to bicker back and forth, it obviously got us nowhere, but by noticing that this thread has 1,364 views, it has turned into a popular thread that a lot of people may have taken interest in. there has been a lot of really great resources in this thread by myself, James and others, and i'm sure a lot of the people who have read this thread have probably learned a lot and have made good use of the resources given.

Le sigh.