Div elements instead of tables.

[Iotrez]

Hi all,

I read recently that it is much better to use div elements to arrange where different parts of your web site are placed, instead of using tables. Is this the case?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Thanks alot.

 

[josephine]

I can think of a few adv-dis for css/divs

adv:
Pages can load faster, smaller size of the pages.
flexibility
search engine friendly pages.


dis:
takes some time to develop a full css website.
hard to position them

 

[Dan]

I think coding CSS and div's are easy. I don't know too much about what they do or why, but I can do it.

 

[dan_Vt]

I like CSS, a lot. Really helps loading times, and it's nice to be able to change some styling by changing one file.

The downside is just some quirks CSS has. I had to change one portion of my site from CSS to tables because of a background issue (that the Dan above tried to help me with), so using a combination of the two is often beneficial.

D

 

[LeetPCUser]

The main advantage is that your code is much cleaner and easier to read/edit. You can also cutomize it quite a bit more.

I have started using divs and I will never go back to tables.

 

[leviathon]

There were many topics on this like this one:
http://www.namepros.com/web-design-discussion/98208-tables-or-css.html

Personally I use both TABLES and DIVS together. DIVs for positioning and Tables for data management, etc.

 

[Iotrez]

Thanks for the replies.

I have read that CSS divs are sometimes not supported by browsers. is this still sometimes the case?

I mean, can someone who intends to be a professional web designer risk using CSS divs for positioning instead of tables.

Thanks alot.

 

[LeetPCUser]

People who say that are ignorant. You have to learn how to fully take power of CSS to make your site look good in all browsers. See most work off the correct one (firefox, netscape, opera), then, of course, IE has it's own stupid tweaks. Internet Explorer butchers everything.

Then you have people who only use tables who are too lazy to learn the simple fixes bashing CSS because it doesn't "properly view in all browsers". But the truth of it is they don't put in enough coding or logic to code it correctly. That is complete slander and b.s.

 

[dan_Vt]

People who say that are ignorant. You have to learn how to fully take power of CSS to make your site look good in all browsers. See most work off the correct one (firefox, netscape, opera), then, of course, IE has it's own stupid tweaks. Internet Explorer butchers everything.

Then you have people who only use tables who are too lazy to learn the simple fixes bashing CSS because it doesn't "properly view in all browsers". But the truth of it is they don't put in enough coding or logic to code it correctly. That is complete slander and b.s.

There are limits to everything, including CSS.

Nothing answers everything.

 

[LeetPCUser]

There are more limits to tables when we compare the two directly. If he/she asks for a comparison from tables to css, css has less limitations and therefore, if coded correctly, is the better pick (imho).

 

[azi00]

I am asking every so called "expert" to read few more books about html, xhtml and SEO before they write that DIVs are treated by google better than Tables.

At the beginning it was making me laugh, now it makes me angry that normal ppl (webmasters) have to read that XHTML is better than HTML in meaning of SEO.

I am asking our "experts" (Josephine, Leviathon) to show us their analysis of google algorithm, that proove that one part of HTML language (DIVs) are treated better than other part of the same language (Tables).

I use DIVs, for one reason: the code of the website (and I am owning few very big portals) is so big, that I had to introduce divs to make it work faster. And guys I can tell You , introducing divs gave me nothing in meaning of SEO.

Sometimes I take some SEO job, and thinking if webpage is made in divs or in tables is last part I consider. Google eats divs just as it eats tables

Best regards,
Steve

P.S. Sorry for my english

 

[StudioWorks]

Well if you want to keep a clean web site and a small file size you should go with CSS..

SW

 

[CreedFeed]

I believe the argument for CSS helping with SEO is that using floating DIV's you can position your content to appear first in your HTML source which allows search engine spiders to pick up your main keywords and content quicker/better. I haven't done any personal research to back this claim up; this is simply what I've read on other webmaster forums.

 

[Epic]

CSS has a lot going for it, but it can ultimately lead to frustration due to cross-browser differences. For instance, borders go on the inside of a div in one browser, and the outside of another browser. Seems like it wouldn't make that much of a difference but it does.

 

[CreedFeed]

^^ Not sure what you're talking about, but really the only big difference between browsers is the CSS box model. If you can grasp the subtle differences in the way IE and Firefox renders the box model, you should be fine.

See: http://www.brainjar.com/css/positioning/

 

[Epic]

^^ Not sure what you're talking about, but really the only big difference between browsers is the CSS box model. If you can grasp the subtle differences in the way IE and Firefox renders the box model, you should be fine.

See: http://www.brainjar.com/css/positioning/

Yes, the difference in box models makes things hard for me. Especially when making a design that need to be pixel-perfect.

 

[josephine]

You didn't understand me, maybe because i wasn't so detailed in my post.(I just gave few general points in why people are using css/divs than tables right now)

What i meant by saying "search friendly pages" is that building a site in css/divs and web standards definately can encourage the development of search friendly sites.

You just took something i posted and interpreted, like i said that table based sites are not search friendly...Which is not what i meant.

Anyway.

Surely there are table-based that score very high in search engines and the opposite.

It's because of the content those websites used and the inbound links to be search engine friendly.

I am asking every so called "expert" to read few more books about html, xhtml and SEO before they write that DIVs are treated by google better than Tables.

At the beginning it was making me laugh, now it makes me angry that normal ppl (webmasters) have to read that XHTML is better than HTML in meaning of SEO.

I am asking our "experts" (Josephine, Leviathon) to show us their analysis of google algorithm, that proove that one part of HTML language (DIVs) are treated better than other part of the same language (Tables).

I use DIVs, for one reason: the code of the website (and I am owning few very big portals) is so big, that I had to introduce divs to make it work faster. And guys I can tell You , introducing divs gave me nothing in meaning of SEO.

Sometimes I take some SEO job, and thinking if webpage is made in divs or in tables is last part I consider. Google eats divs just as it eats tables

Best regards,
Steve

P.S. Sorry for my english