Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of transitioning from Table to CSS_Experience exchange

The voices of CSS layout advocates are being overshadowed by the "merits of table layout" voices. It's a myth that CSS is difficult to learn. In fact, CSS is no more difficult than other web technologies. Here's the problem: Web designers who are already quite experienced with table design have to completely abandon their mindset and adopt a CSS approach.

I have designed with table layouts for many years, and when I first started using CSS layouts, I also encountered problems. "How easy it is to use forms" I thought. But that's just because I'm used to tables and I know how to deal with them cleverly. Any change, even a small one, would be troublesome to me, let alone such a drastic change.

Recalling the first time I learned to use table layout, there were also a lot of problems plaguing me. Think back to those rowspans, colspans and blank GIF images. To be fair, of these two layout methods, table layout is more difficult.

Another old point of view is: the page (number of bytes) designed by CSS is very large, larger than the page designed by table. The reason is: because you put all the styles of the entire site in one file, when a user visits a page, the style sheet containing the styles of the entire site needs to be downloaded, so the page is very large.

So why do you put all styles in one CSS file? No one limits you to using only one CSS file. You can set up a separate sub-style sheet file for the detailed styles of certain chapters. In my experience, from simple manual websites to large database-driven, multi-functional system websites, I have never used only a single style sheet file, and no homepage has more code than a table design. Those table, tr, and td tags take up a lot of space. Take action now and use CSS layout methods to slash your file size.

When you use table layout, you lose the semantic meaning of the label itself. Web standard approach to layout will bring huge benefits by separating the content and presentation layers. When you lock your design with a table, once you need to change it, you have to find the page, then analyze the table structure, and modify it page by page, while the CSS file can simply change the design of the entire site. With CSS you don't have to think about device independence at all, and you don't have to worry about users choosing their own styles.

I also heard about the "benefits" of a form: designing forms. But forms can use any method to achieve table arrangement. Is it for Netscape 4? I've never heard of a reason to support such an old browser. The interests of users of most mainstream browsers are far greater than the interests of the few users who use browsers that do not support style sheets (not to mention that CSS also supports plain text).

The argument of those "Super Forms" proponents boils down to this: "Forms are easier." That's bullshit! If you're content with an inefficient approach, that's up to you. If you want to break through the limitations and make the page content more versatile, easier to use, and have less code, then work hard to change. Of course, if you are new to web design and starting from scratch, you will not have these problems.

"Don't push the car, just push it", "This is just a tool in the designer's toolbox." This is the view of some discussants.Table layout is like an old-fashioned wood-handled screwdriver that you can still use to drill into a wall. And I would rather use an electric screwdriver. CSS layout is more efficient and won't give me blisters on my hands.