Comments on: Rowspans & Colspans in CSS Tables

By: arts-multimedia

arts-multimedia — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:33:45 +0000

Not using html tables as a method to to create a layout IS looking at it from an accessibility mindset. There is no other reason, actually.
If screen readers cannot handle css tables then I suggest the makers of screen readers adapt to the new standards.
That said, the css tables are not worth considering at this time, as you can read from many other comments above.

By: rguy84

rguy84 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:56:33 +0000

Has anybody looked at this from an accessibility mindset? It doesn’t seem like it. Screen readers use table elements to allow the user to navigate the table. CSS Tables are lacking this, and can’t reproduce it, yay

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:06:16 +0000

i prefer to simply use a table and style the rows and cells,
until the browser creators get their act together.

By: sqwirral

sqwirral — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:30:17 +0000

And that is precisely how it should be and why display: table is such an excellent idea.

It doesn’t even work. I’d rather go the non-semantic route if it means tidier and less code, and actually works in current browsers.

By: asbjornu

asbjornu — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:57:53 +0000

People who reply that this is the exact same as using a table misses the point entirely. The whole point of not using a table is because a table has a semantic meaning where columns headers signify the type of content to expect in given data columns. A table also explicitly and visually places the first td left of the next and so on. Using display: table, however, is something completely different. First, you're not semantically marking anything up as tabular data, because it isn't. Secondly, without the CSS or even without display: table support, the rendering will be completely different. The rendering will be up to the user and the user agent, not up to the design or the designer. And that is precisely how it should be and why display: table is such an excellent idea. The people that don't understand this probably don't use table for tabular data either, because "tables are bad!" If what you want is a visual layout that mimics that of a table, then display: table is what you should use. Using a table instead since that's "the same" just proves how little of the semantics involved you understand.

By: busy

busy — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:31:03 +0000

The fact that it’s displayed like a table doesn’t offend my sense of semantics in the least. We could call it a grid layout or a boxyMcRoxy layout instead of a table layout – it doesn’t matter! It’s still not going to require tabular data for correct semantic use. CSS is for how you want stuff to look and how you want it to be arranged. You get to pick how to arrange stuff. HTML is for marking up your information in a way that describes it.

HTML table tags are the ones that need to be used for tabular data.

The divitis in the example is not what I would consider good practice, but I wouldn’t classify it as semantically misleading in the least.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:06:55 +0000

Semantics! I thought the lesson of CSS based markup is to create the page structure based on semantics and describing what the content is, rather than doing everything in presentation code!

When and if a valid scenario for using the CSS table properties within semantic markup is available (and I’m sure there will be), then I welcome IE8’s full support of this. Otherwise, it is going backwards to the land of dodos for sake of layout rather than the content needing tabular data!

(those who persist in using table elements for non-tabular content layout when CSS is suitable and works with minimal hackery: try harder!)

By: wowdezign

wowdezign — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:55:56 +0000

Well, like many others here. I don’t see any real benefit to this in the near future. Sure, it would be great if this method worked in all major browsers, but the fact that it doesn’t work in IE 7 blows the whole thing for me.

I market to my clients based on the fact that my sites are rendered the same in all the major browsers. Right now (and for years to come it seems) HTML tables are very consistent across those browsers. I say years to come because even though these new browsers are being released it doesn’t mean that users are going to upgrade.

So, if I have to choose a method I am going to use the one that allows me to write the HTML code once for all major browsers.

By: arts-multimedia

arts-multimedia — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:11:52 +0000

Thanks for the info, Kevin.
Well, in that case, I’m sorry, but I find this a very poor solution. They will have to come up with something much better before I’m prepared to use it.
I like css, but this method is pointless. It is easier to create layouts with regular divs, if you ask me.

By: Kevin Yank

Kevin Yank — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:54:31 +0000

arts-multimedia,

Are tables not meant for tabular data? Hence, are CSS tables not meant for tabular data?

No, they aren’t. HTML tables are meant for tabular data. CSS tables are meant to describe table-style layouts, both as they apply to tables, and to non-table elements. From the CSS 2.1 spec:

In a visual medium, CSS tables can also be used to achieve specific layouts. In this case, authors should not use table-related elements in the document language, but should apply the CSS to the relevant structural elements to achieve the desired layout.