Beginner's Guide: it's not difficult to transition from tabular table to standard CSS

css| Standard | beginners

Beginner's tutorial, mainly tells you to learn CSS is not difficult.

The CSS layout advocate's voice is being overwritten by the sound of "table layout benefits". One myth is that CSS is hard to learn. In fact, CSS is no more difficult than other web technologies. The problem is that web designers, already quite experienced in table design, have to completely abandon their thinking mode instead of using CSS methods.

I used to design a table layout for many years, and when I first started using CSS layouts, I also ran into problems. "How easy is it to use a table," I thought. But that's just because I've used the tables and I know how to handle them skillfully. Any change, even a small one, will make me feel trouble, not to mention such drastic changes.

I remember the first time I learned to use a table layout, but also a lot of problems around me. Think back to those Rowspans, Colspans, and blank GIF images, which are just as fair as these two layouts, which are more difficult to use in tabular layouts.

Another old idea is that CSS design pages (in bytes) are very large, larger than table-designed pages. The reason: Because you put all the styles of the entire site in one file, when the user visited a page, the style sheet containing the entire site style needs to be downloaded, so the page is very large.

So why do you have to put all the styles in a CSS file? No one can limit you to just one CSS file, you could set up a separate stylesheet file for the details of a section. In my experience, from a simple manual site to a large database-driven, multi-functional system Web site, I have never used only a single stylesheet file, not a home page code more than the design of the table. Those table,tr,td tags take up a lot of space, take action now, and use the CSS layout method to slash your file size.

When you use a table layout, you lose the semantics of the label itself. The Web standard method layout separates the content and the presentation layer and brings great benefits. When you lock your design with a form, once you need to change it, you have to find the page, then analyze the table structure, page by page, and the CSS file can simply change the design of the entire site. With CSS you don't have to consider device independence, regardless of the user's choice of their own style.

Also heard the "benefits" of a table: design forms. Forms, however, can be used in any way to achieve table arrangement. Is it for Netscape4? I've never heard of a reason to support such an old browser. Most mainstream browsers benefit far more than a handful of users who use browsers that do not support style sheets (CSS is also supported for plain text).

The idea of those "super form" supporters boils down to one thing: "Tables are easier." "That's nonsense!" If you're content with a inefficient approach, it's up to you. If you want to break the limit and make the page content more generic, easy to use, and less code, try to change. Of course, if you are a newly-designed web design, from the beginning, you will not have these problems.

"Chite", "It's just a tool in the designer's toolbox." "This is the point of view of some of the discussion people. The table layout is like an old-fashioned wooden-handle screwdriver, which you can still use to drill into a wall. And I prefer to use an electric screwdriver, the CSS layout is more efficient, will not let my hand blisters.