DIV or Tables??

[danBoT]

***Before you vote please read this***

Please when you vote post why you chose that choice give a reason why one is better then the other.

***Before you vote please read this***


I am just wondering what you guys think an example post is:

"Div are the new generation and are pretty much the norm"
"Tables have much more support"


I personally like tables as they are easier to use. But since DIVs are becoming the norm I guess I have to learn more.

 

[planoali]

Using div's and css to create your layout makes the file size of your files much smaller thus loading much faster. However on the other hand to use div's and css you must be a lot more knowledgeable about web design since you can easily run into browser and other compatibility issues. Basically beginner web designers tend to use tables but more advanced designers tend to lean heavily towards using divs/css and all the advantages that lye with them.

 

[-LB-]

Using div's and css to create your layout makes the file size of your files much smaller thus loading much faster. However on the other hand to use div's and css you must be a lot more knowledgeable about web design since you can easily run into browser and other compatibility issues. Basically beginner web designers tend to use tables but more advanced designers tend to lean heavily towards using divs/css and all the advantages that lye with them.

Ditto.

 

[allabout42]

I personally like tables as they are easier to use. But since DIVs are becoming the norm I guess I have to learn more.

I like tables too for it's simplicity. DIV objects are great too, but I guess I'm more bias towards tables since I use them most of the time.

 

[-NC-]

CSS is:

more semantically correct - unless are you presenting purely tabular data.
architecturally better - your content is separated from your design
more flexible - central control from a css stylesheet

imho, less bytes is a nice side effect

http://www.csszengarden.com/

 

[Albino]

divs are miles better for layout. Better for loading, semantics, coding, and acessability.

 

[lime]

Acutally I think divs are better for seo than tables as well. I noticed this from when I compared 2 different sites I made, one had a table-based layout and one had purely divs. When I did a search on google the div page actually showed some snippet of text under the link to the page. The other page did not show any text. Just the link and the footer. I also got a better SEO score on the div page.

 

[cheerio]

I only use tables when it's absolutely positively necessary, or if I'm feeling lazy Other than that I will use DIV's because they are clean and simple, and analyzing/editing your web page source is a heck lot easier. Also, CSS is standardized now with all browsers. It's better to use a style sheet than burning your eyes when you see things like <table align="" bgcolor="" bgimage blah blah blah I don't even know the attributes anymore because I'm so used to CSS :D

 

[TyR]

This has probably been said to death, but:
Div's are best for a layout because it reduces load speed, easier to read & understand (as html), good for SEO.
Tables should be used for what they are meant to be used for: Displaying Tabular data. Like in spreadsheets and bus tables.

It may take some time to get used to if you've been using tables for a while. But it's totally worth it.

Cheers.

 

[Ixix]

This has probably been said to death, but:
Div's are best for a layout because it reduces load speed, easier to read & understand (as html), good for SEO.
Tables should be used for what they are meant to be used for: Displaying Tabular data. Like in spreadsheets and bus tables.

It may take some time to get used to if you've been using tables for a while. But it's totally worth it.

Cheers.

agree %100. i resisted learning css and was stubborn and insisted on using tables for my website layout... but css came a long way since then.... and you can do really cool things w/css that you can't do w/tables.

i can't see myself ever using tables for layout ever again.

 

[Wildhoney]

Tables and DIVs are 2 entirely different elements. The only reason people have been using tables like they're a synonym of a DIV is because of unlearned people using tables as the scaffholding for their website. This is wrong. Tables are intended for tabular data - with many columns and many rows. Thus this question is frivolous. People who argue otherwise, and who have voted on this thread, clearly don't comprehend, let alone have read, the HTML specification - this is the reason we got in such a mess. End of.

Here's another question on the back of this one. Which is better, a fork or a spoon?

 

[DeepRoute.com]

Ever been to KFC? The obvious answer is a spork.

Wildhoney is 100% right here. I grew up on tables and took forever to bother with learning DIVs and SPANs. Now that I am familiar with both, I use both, but not interchangably. Need dictates the choice.

DIVs are awesome to hide onload, and "pop up" on mouseovers of clicks. Can't do that strictly with tables.

Tables are great for table data. Much easier. Not as many formatting worries.

 

[isharis]

DIV is a container used for storing elements and it is the proper way to construct a layout.

As Wildhoney already stated, unlearned people use it because it's easy as compared to divs and positioning. Although, some people think that tables are bad - not really, they are for tabular purpose, an example would be a web hosting features comparison chart should be constructed using tables and styled using CSS.

 

[OS Master]

DIV's are better but it really depends on what you are going to use it for. If you are using tables of course tables are better. If you want a layout, DIV's are better to customize. Using tables would require extra work and W3C doesn't recommend you use them.

 

[isharis]

DIV's are better but it really depends on what you are going to use it for. If you are using tables of course tables are better. If you want a layout, DIV's are better to customize. Using tables would require extra work and W3C doesn't recommend you use them.

You're missing the point. Tables are not for layouts, tables are for tabular data.

 

[Gursimran]

You're missing the point. Tables are not for layouts, tables are for tabular data.

I dont agree to you at all. Tables are way better than DIVs and who says that tables are only for tabular data. i think it has much more support than DIV

 

[Albino]

I dont agree to you at all. Tables are way better than DIVs and who says that tables are only for tabular data. i think it has much more support than DIV

you are wrong.

there is no way anyone can justify using tables over divs for layouts, unless the person in question lacks the technical knowledge to create a layout using divs.

this argument has been had millions of times over the years, on pretty much every web forum.

 

[isharis]

I dont agree to you at all. Tables are way better than DIVs and who says that tables are only for tabular data. i think it has much more support than DIV

A google search brought http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=TablesVsDivs.

You will get the basic difference between Tables and Divs.

 

[deleted984054565403]

I can't stand using tables. DIV + CSS is more scalable, and you can define an object or a set of objects easily. It's difficult to position something at times, but you can't beat the clean markup and faster loading times.

Tables aren't designed for layouts; they're for tabular data.

 

[Lithium]

Voted DIV. Tables aren't for design, and the days when they were widely used for layouts left everyone with headaches searching through TD's TR's and colspans all over the place that made absolutely no sense.
With Div's and CSS, you tell it how big you want the section to be, and don't have to play logic puzzles with rows and columns to make it line up better.
Tables aren't highly supported at all, and every feature you can find in them can be matched with Div's unless, of course, you are trying to make a data table.