Divs or Tables?

[philosophie]

I'm designing a new layout for my site, and I've been thinking about div layers instead of tables for positioning. What do you guys think is better to use - should I stick to tables or is it safe to use div positioning?

I just don't want to have a bungled-up site on others computers and different internet programs...but am interested in div layers.

Thanks for any opinions =)
- Sarah.

[Marble]

Well tables will be consistent from browser to browser. Div positioning is pretty consistent. I have created css only layouts and found things not the same browser to browser. But you might as well play with div's to get used to them.

[Randy]

There are so many advantages to CSS.

Oh, and div's aren't *really* layers. They're just DIVisions of your CONTENT :)

That's the major benefit: separation of content and style.

Other benefits include faster load times and greater accessability for screen readers, PDA's, cellphones, etc.

CSS is a great tool.

[Marble]

pda's and cellphones don't read .htm, .html, .php sites, etc. You have to format them specifically using .wml pages.

But yes div's are exactly that - containers, and allow easy formatting of content.

[Randy]

There are whole bunch of PDA's that read HTML and a couple of cellphones too.

[Marble]

I was un aware of that.... I was only aware that WAP uses the Wireless Markup Language (WML).

[Eric]

I agree with Randy, using CSS has many advantages. Its also a TON easier to edit just one file and have it applied to every page. I have also found I can do a lot more with CSS than with tables, so I would vote CSS (DIVs).

[philosophie]

Thanks for that =D I'm not so worried about using css divs now. I already use a lot of css (stylesheets for jazzing up things), but I might take it a bit further now.

Another question: what browsers should I get a hold of to test layouts, excluding the obvious IE and Netscape. Thankyou!

[Sara]

I agree with using .CSS for positioning, I finally can do what I want with it! :D

I test on the following browsers: Opera 7, NS 6 and 7, IE 6 and I have a friend that tests all my pages on a Mac.

Sara

[Eric]

Philosophie,

You can go to : www.mozilla.org and download the latest Mozilla release. Netscape is based on Mozilla, but between the standard Mozilla program and Firebird (another mozilla product) there may be changes eventually. I know folks use Opera as well, but don't know where to get it from and haven't used it.

If you have a Mac or have access to one you can also look at Safari (the browser for Mac OS X). Although if you can get the page to look good in IE and Netscape or Mozilla, you should be ok with the vast majority of surfers out there.

[tsge]

You can get opera at http://www.opera.com/ . I recommend downloading the free version (has a banner ad) to at least test stuff. It's a nice browser, but I stick to IE.

Also, whatever you do and get ready to publish it, I also suggest getting someone on a mac to look at it, and even better, make a screen shot and send it.

When I started using <div> tags opposed to table tags, looked great in IE, Netscape, and Opera, then someone on a mac told me it was screwy, so went back to tables, got tired of messing with it.

Tim

[deker]

Marble, yes you can look at HTML pages in a lot of PDA's and Cellphones now. Opera is even available to run on quite a few cellphones. (You can see what your page will look like on a PDA using the Opera browser by pressing SHIFT + F11 in Opera). Also search engines really like CSS based sites, since they don't have to sort out all of that nasty table code. You'll definitely see a huge improvement in search engine rankings if you switch to CSS.

To see what your site looks like on a Mac if you dont have one, just go here: http://www.danvine.com/capture/

It's temporarily down, but will be back soon with improvements.

You can also use http://www.browsercam.com/ which shows you what your page looks like in many Mac, Linux, and Windows Browsers. However there is a fee for this service.

[Marble]

Cool Dek... thanks for the links. I spent a day and looked at the W3Schools site about content models and CSS2 compliant. I messed with some of it and realised IE6 isn't fully compliant! I got a page to look fine in Firebird, then IE still needs to have depracated tag attributes (like 0 border) where XHTML1.0 strict says to use only style sheets.

[deker]

Yes, IE is the worst browser in the world. Almost all of the hacks needed to make CSS layouts work are because of IE.

[VxJasonxV]

Except for Netscape 4.
Don't forget about that Fiasco.

[deker]

Yes, but about .5% of the people on the 'net use that now, whereas about 95% use IE. Which sucks a lot more than .5% using Netscape.

[VxJasonxV]

That is actually rather untrue.

[deker]

What is untrue about it?

[VxJasonxV]

Many designers have to implement NS4 design (CSS) styles, due to the complete and total screw up that they pulled off.
I don't remember the details, but NS4 is still a (weirdly) widely used browser. Plus, with the advent of Mozilla going mainstream, IE is NOT 95% anymore.

Plus, all Linux users use Mozilla/Gecko/Safari/Opera because...you know...there is no IE for Linux.
Most MAC users use Safari as well.

[Marble]

Most stats show Net4 at about 1% or less usage. Also you can run IE 5.5 on *nix systems, and people do (using wine.)

[Randy]

I don't know of any Linux users using Safari (!!)

:guess

[deker]

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

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/browser.php

Like I said...

95% of Mac users don't use IE, and 95% of Linux users don't use IE, but just about everyone else does, and since just about everyone uses Windows, IE has about a 95% market share.

[Marble]

I am surprised how many people still use Win98 and ME.