you right!

css comes in handy(well at least for those who needed to achieve the desired look) when you want to keep the fomat of the design, color, etc. for ex.,when designing using fireworks and export to dreamweaver, and keeping the chosen color in mind(e.g black), you likely to use textboxes. the easiest way to have a good look of the page is by applying css style to make the page look good and make some color changes as inside textboxes we see a white color. Now what do you think if you use more than 5 textboxes?
as for tables, using the same programs mentioned above(firewoks and dreamweaver as an example), to manage the slices is a real task(i dont know if you too have had a same problem). Now i think a fireworks-made table when exporting can resolve the problem though the next challenging thing has been editing in dreamweaver esp. adding content like text and at the same time not extorting the design. It’s hell for a 1 year old designer compared for those who span 10 years. so, what would be your advice? I’d appreciate if anybody who knows better could tell the solution. Thank you.

Debating to use Tables or CSS is like deciding between PHP or ASP, they both have their place in design. CSS purists should put tabular data in tables, and all tabular designs probably have external stylesheets. Our clients are happy as long as the content gets to the user. And as long as I can go to sleep proud of how my site looks after thoroughly testing it in different browsers I am happy too. Don’t sweat the details, just make cool sites.

Table-based sites will continue to be supported because they’re based on a stable, mature set of html tags. Many people have learned how to build sites using tables and are comfortable with that. Unfortunately, the code (and the numerous image slices and the blank spacer divs that go with them) IS heavier. More image slices = same file size but WAY more separate requests to the server. This doesn’t mean that tables are a bad solution. If you can meet client expectations using tables, then they are the right solution for you and your client.

CSS- and web standards-based sites are a very, very powerful way to build sites, as well. I will concede that they aren’t always ultra-intuitive, and there are certain things that are hard do do with standards-based sites, but that doesn’t mean they’re any worse than tables. What’s intuitive about blank cells and spacer divs? How easy is it to sort through the code, or make site wide changes? Both methods have their problems–web design is a complex thing.

Nested divs ARE better than tables (where it takes a table, tr, and td tag to get a single cell and where tables inevitably get nested).

The separation of content from structure is the major benefit of CSS, and it’s not just a browser compatibility issue. It’s way, way better to use a single style sheet to change all headers of the class “highlight” than it is to hunt through every file to change color=”#fa34b2.” You can make two columns switch places with an edit to one file and without having to edit a single source code page. Moving the complexity to a SINGLE file is much better than having EVERY page be complex. Especially since the coder will be using the CSS and the client will be editing the source (if anything), by and large. You want the client’s job to be simpler.

Accessability, especially for the 8 to 10% of the population that counts in some way as disabled, is even required by law in some countries. Putting the content in the code in a comprehensible order is a major contributor to this, and tables just can’t do it as well.

Pixel-precise layouts are possible, and just as easy, with CSS. I do it for a living.

Even though some hacks have been used, when a browser correction comes along, it takes an adjustment to a SINGLE FILE to fix. Search and replace on the hack, and tada, you’re done! And there is PLENTY of CSS (the vast majority) that is already supported by every browser after NN and IE v4 (which came out nearly a decade ago!). The conditional comments fix is promoted by the web standards camp, too, so it’s not like the tables-based people have some knowledge that they don’t. It’s also possible to build sites without any hacks. I build CSS-based sites for commercial clients without any hacks.

So, there you have it–there are ways that each system is superior, and all these rabid opinions are usually based simply on which system a person learned first. That’s why there’s this big debate going on–people aren’t stepping outside of their own boxes to understand their peers in the other box. Now go and design GOOD sites, however you do it.

CSS is merely a tool to use in conjunction with reliable, predictable, intuitive HTML!

I have been building websites for over 10 years now (big sites I’m sure you’ve been to) and when you’re given a design for a site, and your finished product needs to be pixel-perfect to that design… CSS is not going to give you the flexibility to do that!

Sacrifices will have to be made to meet your precious “standards” and these sacrifices are what drive decent designers away from designing for the web.

If new web designers took a little time to learn the traditional method of building sites, they’d be amazed at how everything JUST WORKS!

This kind of thinking is great for the “purists” that build personal homepages, but my client is paying me to create a website that his clients can read and navigate through and ultimately buy something. If my client is using a browser that does not properly display the “standards-compliant” website that I just built, do you think I will still get my final payment when I tell him that I am trying to “force the browser programmers to actually live up to the standards that are set forth.”

Trying explain to a client that knows nothing about creating websites why a site needs to be created for different browser resolutions is hard enough.

The client is thinking about his or her bottom line and certainly not about whether or not browsers are standards compliant.