Tables or not

Paul · 2008-07-08 13:05:09

Some feedback would be helpful. I have a functional tableless design for index, viewforum, search results etc. The design be default fakes a tabular layout almost exactly with the exception that it cannot do verical-align: middle. Essentially its similar to phpbb3's Prosilver except that column dividers stretch full height as do background colours for fake columns.

ADVANTAGES

1. Flexibility. It can be styled to look like a table or look like something completely different. This is particularly useful for an index page where there is only one category and a small number of forums.

2. Stylesheets can be designed for iPhones and mobile devices that recognise handheld stylesheets or stylesheets with queries. That covers Opera mini, iPhone and the most recent Nokia phones. These stylesheets would stack the information vertically rather than in columns and could remove some of the more complex and problematic css.

3. Probably more accessibile. The markup for a forum is essentially a heading followed by a list though it could just as easily be an ol with a nested ul.

4. More extensible if you don't use the fake tabular layout.

5. I think better semantics. I've never been convinced that the index page is really a table though the case isn't as strong for viewforum.

6. Keeping up with the competition. phpBB has done it. Vanilla is tableless. There is even a rumour that the next version of vBulletin will certainly use a lot less tables.

DISADVANTAGES

1. More complex css though no more so than viewtopic and the css is actually lighter than for tables.

2 Doesn't do verical-align: middle

3. Probably harder to extend if you use the fake tabular layout but I'm not sure as you would have to revise the css if your extension added a column to a table anyway.

3. Probably less robust but all modern browsers (including IE6) seem to handle it ok.

4. Viewforum topics would be on two lines instead of one though this is a matter of taste rather than a disadvantage. Personally I'm quite happy with "Started by Fred" being on a second line and this seems to be fairly standard with a lot of forums. It does however mean it takes up more space.

NB: Userlist would stay a table because semantically that almost certainly really is a table.

DavidONE · 2008-07-08 14:45:08

Absolutely. Tables are for tabular data. Most of the forum is composed of lists.

I'd argue about user list being a table - it's called a 'list' for starters!

I'd also be tempted to follow 37s's lead and drop IE6 support. It's an aggressive strategy, but I think it's justified and will help to consign IE6 to the dustbin of the web - where it belongs.

Paul · 2008-07-08 14:57:07

I'm pretty sure the user list really is a semantic table. Its primary function is to provide information and it really is a data matrix unlike index and viewforum where the primary function is actually navigation.

There isn't any chance of dropping support for IE6 and that aggressive strategy won't work. The thing about IE6 is that it is used by casual web users who know nothing about web technology and have no interest in it. They may not even know what a web browser is, as far as they are concerned they just use the thing that come with their laptop. If a site doesn't work properly in IE6 they will just think the web designer is an incompetent idiot. Its fine for 37 Signals who have a captive audience but not for the web generally.

MattF · 2008-07-08 14:58:36

DavidONE wrote:

drop IE6 support. It's an aggressive strategy, but I think it's justified and will help to consign IE6 to the dustbin of the web - where it belongs.

That's complete bollocks and a totally blinkered attitude.

liquidat0r · 2008-07-08 15:02:39

Well: You listed more advantages than disadvantages; I can't think of any other disadvantages; and the disadvantages you have listed don't seem to have any major impact on the end user whatsoever. So on that basis, why not go for it?

Perhaps some sort of demo would be a good idea - it would help people (I think ... well, it will help me) in giving feedback. If not a demo, then screenshots, etc.

jsanders · 2008-07-08 15:11:19

Something that doesn't come up often in this age of broadband and fast CPUs is that table layouts can cause the page to be drawn ONLY when the whole table has been downloaded. If you somehow put together a page with a massive amount of data that would be downloaded on a relatively slow connection, it would end up displaying faster with a CSS layout rather than a table layout.

Pure CSS: Tables are so 1999.

MattF · 2008-07-08 15:11:32

Personally, if it's the type of thing I'm thinking of, (such as you tend to see on Wordpress and such)? I'd say stick with tables. The amount of those types of site I see where for some reason or other the page displays as it likes when it likes, really gets on my tits. At least with tables, you know the structure is there if there is some CSS problem or such.

SuperMAG · 2008-07-08 15:14:39

liquidat0r wrote:

Well: You listed more advantages than disadvantages; I can't think of any other disadvantages; and the disadvantages you have listed don't seem to have any major impact on the end user whatsoever. So on that basis, why not go for it?
Perhaps some sort of demo would be a good idea - it would help people (I think ... well, it will help me) in giving feedback. If not a demo, then screenshots, etc.

yes i want to see demo too, i didnt know what tables he was talking about. if tables are lines that are in forums, and viewforums then afcource yes. but pic or demo will be good.

elbekko · 2008-07-08 15:20:57

Tableless does sound good, especially if it's alot more flexible.

Paul · 2008-07-08 15:24:21

There isn't much point in a demo since it looks and behaves almost exactly the same as now.

Matt: thats the upside and the downside. If there is a css glitch you still have the table structure which makes it robust. If however you don't want the tabular look you can't do anything about it apart from edit the markup.

I'm seriously wondering about taking the sneaky bastard approach ie. include both types of markup and set a config option in styles.php. Oddly enough it only adds about 10 lines to the php files.

MattF · 2008-07-08 15:26:43

Paul wrote:

I'm seriously wondering about taking the sneaky bastard approach ie. include both types of markup and set a config option in styles.php. Oddly enough it only adds about 10 lines to the php files.

That's the option I'd prefer. Keeps both camps happy that way.

liquidat0r · 2008-07-08 15:34:27

Paul wrote:

There isn't much point in a demo since it looks and behaves almost exactly the same as now.

Then I see even less of a problem with using your no-tables idea.

Paul wrote:

I'm seriously wondering about taking the sneaky bastard approach ie. include both types of markup and set a config option in styles.php. Oddly enough it only adds about 10 lines to the php files.

Well, that sounds like a good compromise.

DavidONE · 2008-07-08 15:51:39

Paul wrote:

Its fine for 37 Signals who have a captive audience but not for the web generally.

Their audience is really no more captive than FluxBB. 37s do not have a product monopoly. If this decision were going to alienate large numbers of their users, they would not be doing it.

If 37s make a business or design decision, it's usually not a bad idea to look at it closely. Investing a disproportionate amount of development time for a dying browser, at the expense of 'good stuff', isn't a good strategy.

Also, by dropping support for an obsolete browser gives a clear signal that the project is looking to the future. And, of course, it doesn't prevent those who need it to cond. comment for IE6.

MattF wrote:

That's complete bollocks and a totally blinkered attitude.

Persuasive argument.

And who are you?

Paul · 2008-07-08 15:57:56

DavidOne: In the last few weeks I've spent very little time trying to make things work in IE6. It actually isn't that difficult once you understand its little quirks. I've spent a total of over 20 hours battling with Safari to make things work which work perfectly in IE6, IE7, FF2, FF3 Opera9. If I were going to dump support for anything it would be Safari.

eliot · 2008-07-08 16:04:08

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

These numbers are pretty typical of surveys across the web. IE6 is still between 25 and 30% of users. Safari is less than 3%, and opera is half that. So I'd agree that safari could (should?) be dropped as not worth the extra effort. I know for my own fluxbb site, IE6 is closer to 50% of my hits. Like it or not, it still lives, and its not that much different than supporting IE7.

MattF · 2008-07-08 16:05:04

DavidONE wrote:

And who are you?

It isn't an argument. It's an observation and opinion.

DavidONE wrote:

And who are you?

Like it matters, but I ain't someone who considers alienating a large portion of the online community for one, just because I personally think my opinion is correct, or someone told me that 'this way' is best.

DavidONE · 2008-07-08 16:19:10

Paul,

True, I don't find IE6 that difficult to code for either (with use of cond.comms.) - although surprised you've found it *that* easy for a fairly complex layout, such as this.

Eliot,

W3 Schools is a very techie site, so their stats are not indicative of the 'average'. http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php may be a better measure - which I looked at before making my OP. Like I said, it would be an aggressive strategy - but one I'd support just to help bury IE6.

MattF,

Hot tip: don't talk to people like they're dickheads if you don't want a response in kind.

eliot · 2008-07-08 16:21:08

Ok, so 36% IE6 according to w3counter. Bears it out more so

Meow · 2008-07-08 16:29:44

As prosilver in phpBB3, all things are tableless instead of user lists. Using tables in user lists is more effective so user lists shouldn't be tableless.

I hope that FluxBB will be tableless as prosilver in phpBB3, and FluxBB will be very easy to be customized.

Meow · 2008-07-08 16:32:26

eliot wrote:

Ok, so 36% IE6 according to w3counter. Bears it out more so

FluxBB should still support IE6 in the future because IE7 aren't popular in Asian countries.

MattF · 2008-07-08 16:36:50

DavidONE wrote:

MattF,
Hot tip: don't talk to people like they're dickheads if you don't want a response in kind.

I honestly don't care how you respond mate. It's still complete bollocks.

horus · 2008-07-08 16:37:04

I vote for pure css layout where it's possible.

Paul · 2008-07-08 16:37:47

I'm sure I've also seen sites where the stats are 45% for IE6 and 45% for IE7 with FF hardly getting a look in. It should also be remembers that, as has been pointed out, IE is easily dealt with by way of conditional comments. If you have a bug in FF, Opera or Safari you are left with either changing the markup or trying to find some weird combination of advanced selectors to target/not target that particular browser.

raptrex · 2008-07-08 17:34:16

horus wrote:

I vote for pure css layout where it's possible.

co-sign

Felix · 2008-07-08 17:34:57

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Just to throw it in. Think I did it already in some other thread.

Forums

#1 2008-07-08 13:05:09

Tables or not

#2 2008-07-08 14:45:08

Re: Tables or not

#3 2008-07-08 14:57:07

Re: Tables or not

#4 2008-07-08 14:58:36

Re: Tables or not

#5 2008-07-08 15:02:39

Re: Tables or not

#6 2008-07-08 15:11:19

Re: Tables or not

#7 2008-07-08 15:11:32

Re: Tables or not

#8 2008-07-08 15:14:39

Re: Tables or not

#9 2008-07-08 15:20:57

Re: Tables or not

#10 2008-07-08 15:24:21

Re: Tables or not

#11 2008-07-08 15:26:43

Re: Tables or not

#12 2008-07-08 15:34:27

Re: Tables or not

#13 2008-07-08 15:51:39

Re: Tables or not

#14 2008-07-08 15:57:56

Re: Tables or not

#15 2008-07-08 16:04:08

Re: Tables or not

#16 2008-07-08 16:05:04

Re: Tables or not

#17 2008-07-08 16:19:10

Re: Tables or not

#18 2008-07-08 16:21:08

Re: Tables or not

#19 2008-07-08 16:29:44

Re: Tables or not

#20 2008-07-08 16:32:26

Re: Tables or not

#21 2008-07-08 16:36:50

Re: Tables or not

#22 2008-07-08 16:37:04

Re: Tables or not

#23 2008-07-08 16:37:47

Re: Tables or not

#24 2008-07-08 17:34:16

Re: Tables or not

#25 2008-07-08 17:34:57

Re: Tables or not

Board footer