Comments on: Is ESPN returning to the nest? http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:05:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: wnYxXlYPKF http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-14317 wnYxXlYPKF Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:35:03 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-14317 tpVsr1og2fiYwv Wq3a4AzJ0Ocx aBHWNiZSsz tpVsr1og2fiYwv Wq3a4AzJ0Ocx aBHWNiZSsz

]]> By: Ryan Behrman http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10982 Ryan Behrman Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:57:18 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10982 I think a lot of people are missing one of the major advantages of css over tables. That is, that css helps separate content from presentation. We are implementing this in our company and it means that the server side developers (e.g. ASP/PHP/JSP developers)can write code independently of the presentation. These developers work with simple DIV tags and the CSS designers then style these up. I think a lot of people are missing one of the major advantages of css over tables. That is, that css helps separate content from presentation. We are implementing this in our company and it means that the server side developers (e.g. ASP/PHP/JSP developers)can write code independently of the presentation. These developers work with simple DIV tags and the CSS designers then style these up.

]]> By: AlexW http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10062 AlexW Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:02:37 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10062 <blockquote>A site such as ESPN displays tons of tabular data (think spreadsheet). </blockquote> I don't think anyone has ever argued that tables should be removed from the HTML spec. In fact, tables are really the <em>only </em>correct way to be presenting information such as fixtures, player and game stats, and scores. They're accurate and smart and their structure allows you to imply stuff about the relationships between the stuff it contains -- i.e. all the items in '<em>column 1</em>' are surnames, and all the items in '<em>row 1</em>' relate to the same player. You can then use those interconnections to give the user more flexible and useful data. The most obvious example of this might be to do something like allowing the user to do 'on-the-fly' re-ordering and reshuffling of the data within a player stats table. That's very difficult to do if you had layed those player stats out in DIVs, because the DIVs don't imply any interrelationships, (unless you manually code them into it). Tables are good. Unfortunately, a glance at the above image tells you that they are not using the tables for anything more meaningful than positioning content. Any assumptions that you were to make about the relationships between items in the same column, or the same row, would be quite wrong, simply because there <em>is no relationship</em> there.

A site such as ESPN displays tons of tabular data (think spreadsheet).

I don’t think anyone has ever argued that tables should be removed from the HTML spec. In fact, tables are really the only correct way to be presenting information such as fixtures, player and game stats, and scores. They’re accurate and smart and their structure allows you to imply stuff about the relationships between the stuff it contains — i.e. all the items in ‘column 1‘ are surnames, and all the items in ‘row 1‘ relate to the same player. You can then use those interconnections to give the user more flexible and useful data.

The most obvious example of this might be to do something like allowing the user to do ‘on-the-fly’ re-ordering and reshuffling of the data within a player stats table. That’s very difficult to do if you had layed those player stats out in DIVs, because the DIVs don’t imply any interrelationships, (unless you manually code them into it). Tables are good.

Unfortunately, a glance at the above image tells you that they are not using the tables for anything more meaningful than positioning content. Any assumptions that you were to make about the relationships between items in the same column, or the same row, would be quite wrong, simply because there is no relationship there.

]]> By: iMojo http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10058 iMojo Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:38:17 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-10058 Plain and simple... Browser presentation and content layout should primarily be CSS but good old tables will most likely always have a use. A site such as ESPN displays tons of tabular data (think spreadsheet). Code for this type of content utilizing spans and divs only is much harder to edit and maintain. As a result developers still end up using table tags hence their creep into everyday use. Using valid table tag markup works fine so why not use it. For sectional content layout and style presentation then its CSS ofcourse. My 2 cents. Plain and simple…
Browser presentation and content layout should primarily be CSS but good old tables will most likely always have a use. A site such as ESPN displays tons of tabular data (think spreadsheet). Code for this type of content utilizing spans and divs only is much harder to edit and maintain. As a result developers still end up using table tags hence their creep into everyday use. Using valid table tag markup works fine so why not use it. For sectional content layout and style presentation then its CSS ofcourse.

My 2 cents.

]]> By: Kyle http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9971 Kyle Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:36:28 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9971 I'm guessing it's a limitation of their inhouse content management system, and that they probably have some WYSIWYG editor parts of their site. It's been my experience in commercial environments that CMS's are very good for templated content pages, but that they don't work well for one off pages. Sounds as though part of the original team has departed, and that they maybe don't have the technical knowledge in house, or well documented. Just a hunch. I’m guessing it’s a limitation of their inhouse content management system, and that they probably have some WYSIWYG editor parts of their site. It’s been my experience in commercial environments that CMS’s are very good for templated content pages, but that they don’t work well for one off pages.

Sounds as though part of the original team has departed, and that they maybe don’t have the technical knowledge in house, or well documented.

Just a hunch.

]]> By: deronsizemore http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9930 deronsizemore Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:13:03 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9930 I'm with some others here. I by no means would consider myself a CSS expert, but I have not used a single table for over a year and I just can't think in "tables" anymore. I never was that good with tables anyway and for me CSS seems easier. I guess it comes down to the way you think and I think in CSS not tables. I never could get the concept of all the nesting of tables. All of my older layouts turned out horrible with tables. I'm sticking with CSS even if there are some minor browser issues. I’m with some others here. I by no means would consider myself a CSS expert, but I have not used a single table for over a year and I just can’t think in “tables” anymore. I never was that good with tables anyway and for me CSS seems easier. I guess it comes down to the way you think and I think in CSS not tables. I never could get the concept of all the nesting of tables. All of my older layouts turned out horrible with tables. I’m sticking with CSS even if there are some minor browser issues.

]]> By: lajkonik86 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9910 lajkonik86 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:17:18 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9910 well is always done very fast. With the problems with min-height hacks in opera, having to use 2 divs for padding, not slipping in any ie bug stuffies, problems with clear:both in firefox, well not really a problem but harder to work with. Wel it might just be me, but i think even paul comes up with faster then the correct css :P Still prefer CSS anytime, fast loading pages are nice :) well is always done very fast.
With the problems with min-height hacks in opera, having to use 2 divs for padding, not slipping in any ie bug stuffies, problems with clear:both in firefox, well not really a problem but harder to work with.
Wel it might just be me, but i think even paul comes up with faster then the correct css :P

Still prefer CSS anytime, fast loading pages are nice :)

]]> By: Dean C http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9907 Dean C Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:34:38 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9907 <blockquote>Tables are easier and quicker to programme and they work more or less the same in all browsers. The problem with CSS is cross browser compatibility, if they all worked like firefox then life would be sweet, but we are still programming for ie 5.1 mac, which is not such a walk in the park. So I can understand how people can just slap a bit of tabling in for a quick fix and I think this will continue until we can kill off all the older browsers.</blockquote> Had you said that 2 years ago. Fine. But we're now in 2005 and so what if we have to mess around to get it to work in IE5? It's hardly that much work anymore with all the excellent hacks out there. If you know CSS and how it works (granted I'm still learning), you can whip up something just as fast (if not faster) using CSS :)

Tables are easier and quicker to programme and they work more or less the same in all browsers. The problem with CSS is cross browser compatibility, if they all worked like firefox then life would be sweet, but we are still programming for ie 5.1 mac, which is not such a walk in the park. So I can understand how people can just slap a bit of tabling in for a quick fix and I think this will continue until we can kill off all the older browsers.

Had you said that 2 years ago. Fine. But we’re now in 2005 and so what if we have to mess around to get it to work in IE5? It’s hardly that much work anymore with all the excellent hacks out there. If you know CSS and how it works (granted I’m still learning), you can whip up something just as fast (if not faster) using CSS :)

]]> By: Mel81 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9882 Mel81 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:20:23 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9882 I tend to agree with Alex, tables only tend to be easier for the table coder, if you are used to using css for layouts and havn't used tables for years then its a lot easier to just code a css layout. I tend to think what has happened is that they have hired new web developers over time and the new web developers are not used to coding in css so as time goes on the website slowly saw tables crepping back in to the layout. I tend to agree with Alex, tables only tend to be easier for the table coder, if you are used to using css for layouts and havn’t used tables for years then its a lot easier to just code a css layout. I tend to think what has happened is that they have hired new web developers over time and the new web developers are not used to coding in css so as time goes on the website slowly saw tables crepping back in to the layout.

]]> By: jont17 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9876 jont17 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:32:25 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/10/12/is-espn-returning-to-the-nest/#comment-9876 Tables are easier and quicker to programme and they work more or less the same in all browsers. The problem with CSS is cross browser compatibility, if they all worked like firefox then life would be sweet, but we are still programming for ie 5.1 mac, which is not such a walk in the park. So I can understand how people can just slap a bit of tabling in for a quick fix and I think this will continue until we can kill off all the older browsers. Tables are easier and quicker to programme and they work more or less the same in all browsers. The problem with CSS is cross browser compatibility, if they all worked like firefox then life would be sweet, but we are still programming for ie 5.1 mac, which is not such a walk in the park. So I can understand how people can just slap a bit of tabling in for a quick fix and I think this will continue until we can kill off all the older browsers.

]]>