News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Table shame eliminator by cstejerean on Friday February 01, 2008 @12:30AM (#107692)
If you have a bunch of full time designers on staff let them toy with CSS all day long to get the right layout. Otherwise take the PG approach and treat HTML as object code.
Re:Table shame eliminator by olavk on Friday February 01, 2008 @08:59AM (#107809)
A better (serious) solution would be to transform the layout based on the user agent. For IE generate tables, for any other UA generate divs with the appropriate CSS using display:table. Everyone is happy!
Re:Table shame eliminator by juanpablo on Friday February 01, 2008 @12:46AM (#107699)
That already exists, on any element

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html#q2

the problem, as always, is Internet Explorer.

Re:Table shame eliminator by Zak on Friday February 01, 2008 @11:51AM (#107887)
So... to avoid using tables, reinvent all the table-related tags as classes? I haven't had my caffeine yet. Is this a joke?

Plus, you have to use "float," which if you think about it means you're really just pushing the dirt under the CSS rug.

Isn't that what CSS is all about?

Re:Table shame eliminator by imsteve on Friday February 01, 2008 @02:52PM (#107990)
Do that in javascript and I'll start using it:)
Re:Table shame eliminator by ibsulon on Friday February 01, 2008 @01:08AM (#107703)
And, as I mentioned in the blog post, how does that work for screen readers and other enabling technologies for the disabled?
Re:Table shame eliminator by zach on Friday February 01, 2008 @03:08AM (#107728)
A lot better than using Flex, I'm going to guess.

Okay, seriously, here's my question to startup website developers. Is it wise for us to spend significant time trying to avoid using tables in our often-changing layouts, in the hope that a blind user may have a slightly less confusing experience? I'm not quite going to say YAGNI, but I will say I'm not convinced.

If you're serious about accessibility, good for you -- use VoiceOver or JAWS, truly check your site out. It's a lot more laudable a goal than having your HTML perfectly pass some XHTML validator. Otherwise, I think it's one of those things we can sensibly put on hold until after our B rounds.

Re:Table shame eliminator by Hexstream on Thursday January 31, 2008 @10:31PM (#107657)
A circumvoluted way of reinventing an obsolete approach.

I find no value in this "feel good" proposition...

Re:Table shame eliminator by kirubakaran on Thursday January 31, 2008 @10:33PM (#107658)
It is a tongue in cheek "code" subtly advocating the use of table where appropriate.
Re:Table shame eliminator by irrelative on Thursday January 31, 2008 @10:36PM (#107662)
That's the goal -- glad you got it :-)

We hope to add several additional absurd coding solutions in the future -- already have a couple in the works.

Re:Table shame eliminator by Hexstream on Friday February 01, 2008 @06:50PM (#108105)
Oh. Well, aren't you a bit afraid some people could decide to use your "solution"?...
Re:Table shame eliminator by ehird on Saturday February 02, 2008 @06:58PM (#108502)
I'm sure they lose sleep over it.
Re:Table shame eliminator by tokipin on Thursday January 31, 2008 @11:22PM (#107675)
rofl. nice pictures lol