Dreamweaver - layers to tables.....good idea??

Author

layers to tables.....good idea??

bpark7373

2004-07-29, 4:14 am

i've read that converting tables to layers is not a good idea.

but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??

pros and cons?

thanks

:. Nadia .:

2004-07-29, 4:14 am

Neither are a good idea.

You are better off starting your design in the way you mean to continue,
that is, use layers (divs) OR tables.
Doing it any other way is going to cause you more trouble than you can
imagine and as well as bloat your code.

--
Nadia
---------------
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
Free Templates | Free Nav Bar Sets
Dropdown Menu Designs | CSS Layouts
Ecommerce - YVStore | SEO Articles
Table Tutorials | Background image Tutorials
------------------------------------------------
:Flexible Table Tutorial:
http://www.dwfaq.com/Tutorials/Tabl...ible_tables.asp
-----------------

"bpark7373" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ce9okk$s5f$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> i've read that converting tables to layers is not a good idea.
>
> but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??
>
> pros and cons?
>
> thanks
>

Gary White

2004-07-29, 4:14 am

bpark7373 wrote:

>but what about converting from LAYERS TO TABLES??
>
>pros and cons?

Pros: Uhhh ...

Cons: Writes horrendously bloated, inflexible, and overly complex tables
that you will never be able to debug when they start to explode. Note
that I said "when" and not "if".

Gary

TC2112

2004-07-29, 4:14 am

Hello,
Still pretty new here, but I had a page that had a lot of layers that I
converted to tables. I ended up with a hundred empty cells, rowspans, colspans,
transparent gifs and a huge amount of code. Give it a try, just put four or
five layers of different sizes on a page. Look at the code, then convert to
tables. Now look at the code. Yikes!
As far as pros for it, like I said..I'm still learning and haven't found any
yet, but I did live one of the cons.
Take care.

John Waller

2004-07-29, 7:14 am

AFAIK, the feature of converting in either direction has been part of
Dreamweaver since its inception and is a hangover from the late 90's and v.3
(and earlier) browsers.

It is not required today because modern browsers can easily handle layers
and/or tables and the feature should be discontinued by MM.

--
Regards

John Waller

Gary White

2004-07-29, 12:14 pm

TC2112 wrote:

> Still pretty new here, but I had a page that had a lot of layers that I
>converted to tables. I ended up with a hundred empty cells, rowspans, colspans,
>transparent gifs and a huge amount of code. Give it a try, just put four or
>five layers of different sizes on a page. Look at the code, then convert to
>tables. Now look at the code. Yikes!

Want to see something funny? After the Convert to Tables, convert that
page back to layers. :-0

Gary

bpark7373

2004-07-29, 7:15 pm

WOW!

thanks john and everyone else for your insightful reponses. i've been reading
dreamweavermx2004 for dummies and they didn't seem to mention the horror of
converting.

so how many people today design in LAYERS vs tables? are you guys telling me
it's a good idea now to STAY IN LAYERS???

John Waller

2004-07-29, 7:15 pm

> so how many people today design in LAYERS vs tables?

Well "layers" is a Dreamweaver term and a bit of a misnomer.

What Dreamweavercalls "Layers" are actually <div>'s which are absolutely
positioned (see your code) i.e. fixed at a given coordinate on the page. You
can also relatively position <div>'s. This is all part of the CSS method of
layout.

The real debate these days is whether to layout your page with tables or
exclusively with CSS or even a mixture of both and the jury's still out
while the battle rages.

In the red corner we have the tried and tested tables which have been around
for years and feel like a pair of comfortable old shoes once you understand
how they work. In the blue corner, we have the lean, mean,
new-kid-on-the-block, CSS, which has its own frustrations and learning curve
(and its own advantages of course). You can also combine the two which is
yet another story.

are you guys
> telling me it's a good idea now to STAY IN LAYERS???

If you have DW "layers" and the page works, there's no compelling reason to
change.

Got a URL?

--
Regards

John Waller

Alan

2004-07-29, 7:15 pm

>
> If you have DW "layers" and the page works, there's no compelling reason to
> change.

and- there's many reasons especially to not "convert layers to tables"

it was provided as a quick way to make a page that would work in version 3
browsers (so it's almost pointless to do in 2004)

it makes bloated table code- creating a table grid that can fit all the
coordinates of the fixed-position divisions on the page. So you might have a
single table that's got 30 columns and 50 rows, with 80% of the 150 cells
being empty. That makes it almost impossible to sight-read the code to find
or fix things.

it will remove any behaviors applied to the <div> tags, since it's replacing
them..

if the page works as designed in "layers" leave it that way.
the only trickiness is that in most cases- the resulting page won't be
"liquid", it will work at a certain browser width and may go a bit wonky if
the user has their browser set to increase the text size (but that can be
minimized by using CSS to control text sizing)

TC2112

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

Hi Gary,
Just tried that. :-0 I only made the mistake of converting once.
I'm glad I found these boards and listened to you guys a while ago. I decide
on tables or layers first, am learning CSS, don't go near Layout Mode, and
always use the Properties window to change size and position of tables and
divs.
So while I'm thinking of it, thanks to all of you for the great advice :-)

bpark7373

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

THANK YOU EVERYONE....i've been studying books, but it's amazing how advice
from real people can put a completely different perspective.

point taken from everyone.....I WILL NOT CONVERT!

but i'm still confused ....between LAYERS, TABLES, and CSS. what to
use...hmmm....maybe a combo of all?

MY POINT IS = my original concern with starting this thread was b/c i wanted
my design to be centered no matter what the resolution the viewer was seeing it
at. SO WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS?

keep in mind....i will be doing the bulk of aesthetics in PHOTOSHOP......then
implementing FLASH for buttons and a few other things......then using
DREAMWEAVER to put it all together.

can someone lay this to rest?

thanks!

Mad Dog

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

You'll probably get a lot of varying opinions on this around here, but the
truth is, each of those methods has its plusses and minuses. It depends
largely on what your site needs to be. Personally, I use a mix of all of
them. Having been "raised" on tables, I'm comfortable with them as my main
starting point, then use layers if needed and nowadays a lot of CSS, as much
because it lets me vary things site-wide without changing page after page
after page after........

My motto is: whatever works best for you and the site.

MD

bpark7373 wrote:
> THANK YOU EVERYONE....i've been studying books, but it's amazing how
> advice from real people can put a completely different perspective.
>
> point taken from everyone.....I WILL NOT CONVERT!
>
> but i'm still confused ....between LAYERS, TABLES, and CSS. what to
> use...hmmm....maybe a combo of all?
>
> MY POINT IS = my original concern with starting this thread was b/c
> i wanted my design to be centered no matter what the resolution the
> viewer was seeing it at. SO WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS?
>
> keep in mind....i will be doing the bulk of aesthetics in
> PHOTOSHOP......then implementing FLASH for buttons and a few other
> things......then using DREAMWEAVER to put it all together.
>
> can someone lay this to rest?
>
> thanks!

:. Nadia .:

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

"Mad Dog" <md@mdp.com> wrote in message
news:cecmgl$j28$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> You'll probably get a lot of varying opinions on this around here, but the
> truth is, each of those methods has its plusses and minuses. It depends
> largely on what your site needs to be. Personally, I use a mix of all of
> them. Having been "raised" on tables, I'm comfortable with them as my main
> starting point, then use layers if needed and nowadays a lot of CSS, as
much
> because it lets me vary things site-wide without changing page after page
> after page after........

Excellent advice MD !

> My motto is: whatever works best for you and the site.

I'm a tables lady from way back also, and totally agree with your motto :-D

--
Nadia
---------------
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
Free Templates | Free Nav Bar Sets
Dropdown Menu Designs | CSS Layouts
Ecommerce - YVStore | SEO Articles
Table Tutorials | Background image Tutorials
------------------------------------------------

Mad Dog

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

I'm not surprised. You always struck me as a tables lady..........(:})

:. Nadia .: wrote:
> I'm a tables lady from way back also, and totally agree with your
> motto :-D

:. Nadia .:

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

umm ok, is that good or bad - now you've got me worried :-D

Nadia

"Mad Dog" <md@mdp.com> wrote in message
news:ceco4s$khq$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> I'm not surprised. You always struck me as a tables lady..........(:})
>
> :. Nadia .: wrote:
>
>

Mad Dog

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

Sorry, I'm sworn to secrecy.......

:. Nadia .: wrote:[color=darkred]
> umm ok, is that good or bad - now you've got me worried :-D
>
> Nadia
>
>
> "Mad Dog" <md@mdp.com> wrote in message
> news:ceco4s$khq$1@forums.macromedia.com...

:. Nadia .:

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

you rat!...... would a bribe work?

"Mad Dog" <md@mdp.com> wrote in message
news:cecpgh$lqk$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Sorry, I'm sworn to secrecy.......
>
>
> :. Nadia .: wrote:
>
>

ShowtelPromotions

2004-07-30, 4:14 am

Yum, a table lady...that sounds good nadia....lol

:. Nadia .:

2004-07-30, 7:14 am

Dr J,

This may be an interesting read for you
http://www.thepattysite.com/layer_laws.cfm

--
Nadia
------------------------------------
Free Templates | Free Nav Bar Sets
http://www.DreamweaverResources.com
Dropdown Menu Designs | CSS Layouts
Ecommerce - YVStore | SEO Articles
Table Tutorials | Background image Tutorials
------------------------------------------------

".::Dr. J::." <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:ced1h8$2ql$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Interesting thread, lots of good advice here.
>
> Actually after I threw hand coding out the door (b/c I could never figure
out
> tabels, ugh.) it was the Dreamweaver layers that saved me. I was able,
> painstakingly in most cases, to make the convert work, but only if the
layers
> didn't overlap.
> - which brings me to my first question: if I'm desgining in layers (in
the
> blue corner -- with CSS my back-up) need I worry about overlapping layers?
> What does it mean if I have overlapping layers?
> - second question: which is SEO friendlier, layers or tables?
>
> Thanks for your insight everyone
>

.::Dr. J::.

2004-07-30, 7:14 am

Interesting thread, lots of good advice here.

Actually after I threw hand coding out the door (b/c I could never figure out
tabels, ugh.) it was the Dreamweaver layers that saved me. I was able,
painstakingly in most cases, to make the convert work, but only if the layers
didn't overlap.
- which brings me to my first question: if I'm desgining in layers (in the
blue corner -- with CSS my back-up) need I worry about overlapping layers?
What does it mean if I have overlapping layers?
- second question: which is SEO friendlier, layers or tables?

Thanks for your insight everyone

.::Dr. J::.

2004-08-03, 4:14 am

Indeed...
thanks : )