DIV TAGS or TABLES ?

[Screedy]

Hi all,

I have recently redesigned my website at the request of a business partner who also happens to be a so called expert in SEO. Search Engine Optimisation.

He strongly suggests using DIV containers because he is convinced it makes the site more crawlable and indexable by the search engines.

I am not convinced on this and because all sites until now have been done using tables as containers it just makes sense to me that it would either make no difference or be at least equal.

My site is at http://www.creedy.com.au and I have basically used tables with CSS.

He is frowning but my site is being searched reasonably well.

He wants me to rework using DIV tags... does anyone have any thoughts one way or the other.

Si

:eek:

[Fredonia2k]

Whether you should switch or not, your reasoning for not using DIV tags is flawed. People used to get around on foot, then horseback, and now we have cars. Each succession is significantly more beneficial than its predecessor.

What I'm saying is that if this person is your partner, and that's his strongsuit, it woudn't hurt to open up your mind a little.

[Drazan]

The modern web theory is that CSS is for layout, positioning, and styles, while Tables is for tabular database, like listing information from a database.

Search engines as well as assisted readers take out all the html and leave just the content. The problem with the older table layouts is that people had tendancy to nest the tables. When that occurs the information got jumbled in the readers.

So, in theory if the site has less html/code to strip the engines and readers work less to deliver the content and thusly listing your content better as more accessable.

In theory.

I however question some of the standards. I've had tabled sites run top in their search terms even above manufacturer sites. I also code tables smartly.

I can do and have done liquid layouts using divs/css only, with no tables. Also "fixing" for the three different browser series, firefox/mozilla, IE6 and IE7. Sometimes that takes more effort than just plopping a table in it. Some people think that's just lazy, but when time is money and the common public doesn't care about backend, and the search engines and readers can still do a fine job on the site, I compromize.

But I know when and how to break the rules.

I alsways wondered who makes up these rules for the web designers to follow. Typically if a new thing doesn't work without a bunch of hacks people wait until it's stable to use widely. Seems to me that many have jumped on the CSS only bandwagon and tote it as the be all and end all of html when in fact there's still many things that are broken across the browsers, IE being the worst of things. Hopefully IE 8 will become part of the standards movement. Oh, but then we'll have to code to 4 browser types - 3 of which being MSIE.

I will love the day when I will code a three column page in div and not have to resort to rediculously special positioning or even tripled css files just to have the site appear across the browsers the same.

SO, if you want to be "in standards" recode it to div/css markup.

Search engines don't really care so much that you use tables or divs. What they care about is what order the content is delivered. For example if you have a table setup for your site, typically the first cell of that table contains your navigation. This is what is read first in search engines. Some search engines are smarter than other and filter out the "home, portfolio, about us, contact us" buttons, others will actually list those as your key words. Not something that SEO people want to see.

So in the div world, we are able to code the content first then the navigation second and use positioning to align the divs where ever we want them.

Many tote the divs as standards and seo friendly when in fact it is not so much the divs, as the content and how it is layed out. Many don't know this little tidbit, or use it even when coding in divs.

:)
Jade

[Sphinx]

The search engines love text! Be sure you have in your webpages the words you want the search engines to find...this includes even how you name your files.

[shalom_m]

I has a look at your site and have to agree with your partner.
There is no reason why the site should be with tables.
Additional advantages of CSS is of course faster loading and less processing times.

[Screedy]

Hi Guys,

I just want to say ... Thank you particularly to Drazan who surpassed him/herself with exactly the answer I was looking for.

Tables are great for tabular data... that makes sense

A single table is a container and if you make it into a CSS style it behaves very much like a div tag. The thing is though ... and you hit the nail on the head for me.

Time is money. If you can design a sharp looking creative site using tables which works beautifully in all browsers (with a little care) and possibly takes less than half the time to make with tables... and depending on content reaches the pinnacle of search engines... why worry about how you look... walking, riding a horse or driving a car... (Fredonia2k)

I appreciate the comments... well done

Si

http://www.creedy.com.au (http://www.creedy.com.au)

[Drazan]

I wouldn't just tote tables as a time saver, they are really not. You have tripled nested tables, a no-no by far. At the worst have one table with content in the middle of the structure, aka tabular data.

So in my opinion, yes you should recode your site to a cleaner symantics.

With a little effort, you'll be able to code in divs just as quick as without. I keep a code library that I built, which I can plug in css "fixes" quickly and easily.

Can you use tables without repercussions? No. You need to know what those repercussions are in order to determine if tables will still work for your site.

Jade

[Skinny]

Drazan makes some really great posts here and I agree with her answers.

I've found that CSS is easier to use. I would only use tables if I wanted represent data that coun't be displayed using divs. That site can be created by divs so you can definitely do it.

When I first learned I was just used tables. Then I learned about divs and was a bit aprehensive so I used both, but now I'm comfortable using just css.

Skinny

[Screedy]

Hi again guys, and I really appreciate your input here.

I have to say... I am an old guy... I have been around a long time... and have beend doing graphic design for many years.

Web stuff is relatively new to me... I definitely have limitations... partly because I dont read well and I have never been to college to learn we design.

I do get a lot of criticism from my web sites ... in terms of build... and I agree fully.

The trouble is though that I am so snowed under with different projects I dont really have the time or real inclination to learn it at the depth it requires.

So I just muddle along and learn little bits and peices as I go.

One thing I would say though... is this.

Even since I started doing computer graphics there have been exceptional layout programs that work with print... which are what you see is what you get... For some inexplicable reason, web design isnt drag and drop and WYSIWYG. Dont the rest of you find this bazaar.

That there isnt a single way of presenting elements on the net so they all fall into the same place and look the same.

It mystifies me.

Thanks again all for stating your cases so well.

Si

http://www.creedy.com.au

[Screedy]

I wouldn't just tote tables as a time saver, they are really not. You have tripled nested tables, a no-no by far. At the worst have one table with content in the middle of the structure, aka tabular data.

So in my opinion, yes you should recode your site to a cleaner symantics.

With a little effort, you'll be able to code in divs just as quick as without. I keep a code library that I built, which I can plug in css "fixes" quickly and easily.

Can you use tables without repercussions? No. You need to know what those repercussions are in order to determine if tables will still work for your site.

Jade

Just want to personally thank you for taking so much time with me on this.

Its really easy to be positive and just accept everything... You have actually bothered to look at my code and find out how I got my site to work... however clumbsily.

Its great that someone with so much knowledge would spend the time to help a complete stranger.

Regards

Simon

http://www.creedy.com.au graphic designer, web designer in Sydney

[JPnyc]

There are programs like Dreamweaver which are WYSIWYG, but the code they output will never be as good as that of a good hand-coder.

[Screedy]

Unfortunately Dream weaver isnt WYSIWYG... it is second rate for that. Especially when you use div tags and css on it.

We need a better industry standard.

Si

Graphic and Web Design in Sydney http://www.creedy.com.au

[JPnyc]

The industry standard is coding by hand.

[Drazan]

^^ yep. Programs which highlight code and different syntax is nice, but a good coder will be able to type away just about any code.

Programs are only tools to assist knowlege. If you don't have the knowlege the programs lend a crutch and you'll never be able to expand beyond a basic webpage.

Programs used effectively can assist the people who hand code, but I still perfer the code mode, or text editors. Faster, easier, better than the stuff that wysiwyg give you.

[Screedy]

As a web designer... and not a programmer... (OR CODER, lol) can you imagine how undesirable coding everything is by hand is.

If you think about it... is exactly the same as creating old fashioned print artwork before computers came along to kill all the little people that helped slow the process down and give designer what they dont want.

Then someone clever invented Quark Xpress, Corel Draw, Illustrator, Photoshop and Indesign... and that revolutionised print artwork.

In the ideal world the designer creates elements with functionality already worked out once ... by a programmer and pops them into a layout and massages the look unitl he is happy with it.

You shouldnt have to stress over transparency and rounded corners on boxes and having to be worried about shading down the page and having more interesting backgrounds that becuase of the limitations of how gif,png and jpg work you cant get decent resolution.

These are things for programmers to work out in programs before designers get there.

Hand code ... We are still living in the dark ages of Web Design.

Si

xx

[JPnyc]

then let designers design, then turn their design over to a developer who can code it for the web. It sounds like you're lamenting the necessities of the medium. I tell you with no uncertainty, you will never find a WYSIWYG program that will equal hand coding. I don't believe it's possible, and it's even more obvious when it comes to server-side scripting.

[Gregory]

I think the analogy with print design breaks down pretty quickly. Print designs eventually get 'fixed'. They get put on the page and they don't change. At that point, it doesn't matter if you constructed your files efficiently (Did you use tabs or spaces? Did you use transparency when you could have just used a tint swatch?). The piece gets printed, and the prepress gurus go home and drink.

On other hand, the functions and capabilities of web sites are so varied that a WYSIWYG editor would have to read you mind in order to create correct code in every scenario. If you stick with the print design analogy, this would be like having InDesign select the correct paper and ink for your job. Even if you are just making static pages, your code (your design) is being reinterpreted every time someone views the page (across different browsers and platforms). (Standards will help, but won't even the standards change over time?). Perhaps this is also an argument for semantic coding. Theoretically, it will make your content more reusable over time.

[JPnyc]

Exactly! That's exactly how I would've put it. The code variations are not just plentiful, but vary based on intent! I'd love to see a program that could anticipate that and deliver the proper code. I'd become the programmer's disciple.

[digizan]

It sounds like you're lamenting the necessities of the medium.
Delurking to say...

I'll second that. 75% of my work is web-related, but when I do print work in InDesign, Illustrator et al, they don't do the prepress work for me—I need to know how to properly set up bleeds, what resolution any placed images need to be, choose the correct color space for output, be aware of how different types of presses, ink & paper will affect the final outcome, etc. If I don't know how to do those things I might be able to count on the prepress guys to fix things, but I can't blame the tool I used.

Just my $0.02.

[tZ]

ahh… another div vs. tables thread – when will they end?

[Red Kittie Kat]

Don't even waste your time TZ the OP is gone ;)

[tZ]

wasn't planning on it ;)

[Red Kittie Kat]

lmao .. how did I know you were going to say that :D

[Tiffany Pilgrim]

And print design is far from fixed! I"m sure you've seen print jobs returned with unexpected results.

Excuse me Creedy, but I think you've got far bigger fish to fry than reaching the statues of the best SEO on the planet.

http://tinyurl.com/2cb2z2

This is how your site appeared on my computer using safari.

I see words running over graphics comprimising readabilty and flow. I see that hand gif has a bit of nastiness around the extended finger. Your new websites list looks junky on my computer.

That red box on the bottom that says "SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION ON YOUR SITE" hardly looks like a designer touched it.

If your job as half is this team is to massage the fee of the page and when know when to sacrifice perfect optimization for design I think you still have a way to go.

Form and functionality have to find a balance in this crazy markup world we live in. If not the designers who will bring it to us?

-Sincerely,

-TP

[urstwile]

I've closed the thread, as the original poster was banned. Nothin' to see here folks. :)