quote:

---

> Hi All,
>
> I've become part of a team to redevelop
> a major coporate website. I find myself
> alone argueing for not using tables. I've
> tried all the usual reasons that people list
> here, to no avail. It's too late now to change
> the direction of this project, but for the future,
> so I'm better prepared, I'm looking for that one,
> simple killer reason I can give to make the
> case for not using them. Something fairly simple
> that the non html-writing management will also understand
> too would help.
>
> Also, what do people think about Javascript drop
> down menus on sites?
>

---

quote:

---

> Hi All,
>
> I've become part of a team to redevelop
> a major coporate website. I find myself
> alone argueing for not using tables. I've
> tried all the usual reasons that people list
> here, to no avail. It's too late now to change
> the direction of this project, but for the future,
> so I'm better prepared, I'm looking for that one,
> simple killer reason I can give to make the
> case for not using them. Something fairly simple
> that the non html-writing management will also understand
> too would help.

---

quote:

---

>
> Also, what do people think about Javascript drop
> down menus on sites?
>
> Regards
>
> Michael.

---

quote:

---

> Hi All,

---

quote:

---

> Also, what do people think about Javascript drop
> down menus on sites?

---

quote:

---

>"Michael Hughes" <michael@entamedia.com> wrote in message
>news:a094c608.0311050047.144b33e1@posting.google.com...
>
>
>There is no "killer reason" !!
>...unless you think in terms of accessibility for disabled persons

---

quote:

---

> and those
>viewing the net on devices other than a PC/MAC
>

---

quote:

---

>
>--
>W
>
>
>
>

---

quote:

---

> Hi All,
>
> I've become part of a team to redevelop
> a major coporate website. I find myself
> alone argueing for not using tables. I've
> tried all the usual reasons that people list
> here, to no avail. It's too late now to change
> the direction of this project, but for the future,
> so I'm better prepared, I'm looking for that one,
> simple killer reason I can give to make the
> case for not using them. Something fairly simple
> that the non html-writing management will also understand
> too would help.

---

quote:

---

> Also, what do people think about Javascript drop
> down menus on sites?

---

quote:

---

> "Michael Hughes" wrote

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> STAM = Saves time and money
> Coding time goes down. People can do other things.
> Server space needs reduced. All those table tags take up real estate
> and cost money.

---

quote:

---

> "Michael Hughes" <michael@entamedia.com> wrote in message
> news:a094c608.0311050047.144b33e1@posting.google.com...
>
> There is no "killer reason" !!
> ...unless you think in terms of accessibility for disabled persons and those
> viewing the net on devices other than a PC/MAC

---

quote:

---

> "West" <not@this.one> wrote in message

---

quote:

---

those[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> So there's the killer reason: use tables and lose customers. Nothing
> gets a company to act like the phrase 'lose customers'.
>

---

quote:

---

> --- Stephen Morley ---
> http://www.safalra.com

---

quote:

---

> Hi All,

---

quote:

---

>
> I'm looking for that one,
> simple killer reason I can give to make the
> case for not using them. Something fairly simple
> that the non html-writing management will also understand
> too would help.

---

quote:

---

> "Safalra" <usenet@safalra.com> wrote in message
> news:c555467b.0311050832.4931699f@posting.google.com...
> news:<if3qb.4329$bD.16613@news.indigo.ie>...
> those
>
> You wrote "use tables and lose customers"
> ...how do you figure that one?

---

quote:

---

>"West" <not@this.one> wrote in message
>news:<aucqb.4448$bD.16868@news.indigo.ie>...
>
>If 'disabled' people can't use your site, they'll find it a bit
>difficult to purchase your products.

---

quote:

---

> "West" <not@this.one> wrote in message
> news:<aucqb.4448$bD.16868@news.indigo.ie>...
>
> If 'disabled' people can't use your site, they'll find it a bit
> difficult to purchase your products.

---

quote:

---

> Safalra wrote in news:c555467b.0311060811.7c387769@posting.google.com:
and[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> Hmmm.
> Disabling tables. I thought you can only disabling JS and Cookies with the
> browsers.
> Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

---

quote:

---

>
> Hmmm.
> Disabling tables. I thought you can only disabling JS and Cookies
> with the browsers.
> Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

---

quote:

---

> ...
> Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

---

quote:

---

> picayunish wrote:
>
> Lynx

---

quote:

---

>
> In the discussion not the tables are disabled but the visitor.

---

quote:

---

>picayunish wrote:
>
>Lynx

---

quote:

---

>
>"picayunish" <e_vdvaart@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:M2zqb.1680$%W3.7045@amstwist00...
>and
>
>Any text to speach browser.
>
>They don't do tables. They don't do images. They totally screw up frames or
>rather frames totally screw *them* up. They only read the content. If the
>tables do not linearise correctly then you get jumbled content.
>
>Cheers
>Richard.
>
>

---

quote:

---

> "William Tasso" <news27@tbdata.com> wrote:
>
>
> My Lynx shows tables. The table cells are lined up under each other.

---

quote:

---

> Alexander Weber wrote:
>
> Really? Mine doesn't. Perhaps it is markup dependent - do you have a url?

---

quote:

---

> ...
> Links, however, has an option to specifically disable table support.
> BTW, Links has become my browser of choice on Linux.

---

quote:

---

> I think it's a
> better text browser than Lynx, and I'm even starting to like it better
> than most graphical browsers. :)

---

quote:

---

> kchayka wrote:
>
> Would you know if there's a windows version - no *nix workstations here.

---

quote:

---

> Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

---

quote:

---

> My Lynx shows tables.

---

quote:

---

> In message <Kazqb.181432$bo1.178050@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, rf
> <making.it.up@the.time> writes
the[QUOTE][color=darkred]
or[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> I may have got this wrong, but are you saying that
> screen-readers/voice-browsers (i.e. 'assistive technology') can't handle
> tables, images, and frames?

---

quote:

---

>
> Links is even better than Lynx. It can handle more complex tables and
> FRAMES!

---

quote:

---

>
> I construct a two column table to contain two columns of text. I put these
> columns in two different cells. 4 cells all up. The text is supposed to be
> read top to bottom, like a newspaper.
>
> Sentence 1 Sentence 3
> Sentence 2 Sentence 4
>
> A visual browser will display this correctly. An aural browser will read:
> <quote>
> Sentence 1
> Sentence 3
> Sentence 2
> Sentence 4
> </quote.
>
> This is an example of a table not linearising correctly. The content is
> there, it just does not mean anything.

---

quote:

---

> kchayka wrote:
>
> Would you know if there's a windows version - no *nix workstations here.

---

quote:

---

>I construct a two column table to contain two columns of text. I put these
>columns in two different cells. 4 cells all up. The text is supposed to be
>read top to bottom, like a newspaper.
>
>Sentence 1 Sentence 3
>Sentence 2 Sentence 4
>
>A visual browser will display this correctly. An aural browser will read:
><quote>
>Sentence 1
>Sentence 3
>Sentence 2
>Sentence 4
></quote.
>
>This is an example of a table not linearising correctly. The content is
>there, it just does not mean anything.

---

quote:

---

> Sometime around Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:42:08 +0100, Nico Schuyt is
> reported to have stated:
>
> <nitpick mode="political_correctness">The visitor _has_a_disability_.
> They are not disabled.</nitpick> :-)

---

quote:

---

> I construct a two column table to contain two columns of text. I put
> these columns in two different cells. 4 cells all up. The text is
> supposed to be read top to bottom, like a newspaper.
>
> Sentence 1 Sentence 3
> Sentence 2 Sentence 4
>
> A visual browser will display this correctly. An aural browser will
> read: <quote>
> Sentence 1
> Sentence 3
> Sentence 2
> Sentence 4
> </quote.
>
> This is an example of a table not linearising correctly. The content
> is there, it just does not mean anything.

---

quote:

---

> Sometime around Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:14:12 -0000, William Tasso is reported
> to have stated:
>
>
> I've got it running on Win2k.

---

quote:

---

> Mark Parnell wrote:
>
> Does the Windows version support the mouse? (I can't imagine the mouse
> working properly in a DOS box.)

---

quote:

---

>
>"jake" <jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:DvIaphG7gtq$EwGG@gododdin.demon.co.uk...
>the
>or
>
>Yes, I am, in many cases. The worse the authoring the worse the support.

---

quote:

---

>
>Lets take them individually.
>
>Tables.
>
>I construct a two column table to contain two columns of text. I put these
>columns in two different cells. 4 cells all up. The text is supposed to be
>read top to bottom, like a newspaper.
>
>Sentence 1 Sentence 3
>Sentence 2 Sentence 4
>
>A visual browser will display this correctly. An aural browser will read:
><quote>
>Sentence 1
>Sentence 3
>Sentence 2
>Sentence 4
></quote.
>
>This is an example of a table not linearising correctly. The content is
>there, it just does not mean anything.

---

quote:

---

>
>Images.
>
>An aural browser can not display an image. It has no screen, just a
>loudspeaker. The aural browser will read the contents of the alt attribute
>the author has thoughtfully provided, and just how often is that *not*
>provided. No alt text and the browser reads:
><quote>
>images slash roo dot jpeg
></quote>

---

quote:

---

>
>Frames, the worst case of all.
>
>Download a copy of lynx, it's a free text only browser. It gives you a good
>idea of how a page will sound when read by an aural browser.
>
>I fired up lynx and found a random framed web site. This is what lynx
>displayed:
>
><quote>
> FRAME: top
> FRAME: contents
> FRAME: main
> FRAME: right
> FRAME: bottom
>
> This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
></quote>
>
>When I navigate to one of these frames I can not go back to the frameset
>because there is no like from the frame back to the frameset.
>
>Not very user friendly, is it.

---

quote:

---

>
>Cheers
>Richard.
>
>

---

quote:

---

>
> What I want to say is, that many people claim, as in this thread, that
> tables are evil per se and cannot be displayed correctly by aural/text
> browsers. But I don't see a problem if tables are used carefully.

---

quote:

---

> Alexander Weber wrote:
>
> While a well-constructed layout table may not pose serious issues for
> aural/text browsers, they certainly can for some devices. Table layouts
> usually do quite poorly on the small screens of mobile devices, whereas
> CSS layouts can do quite well, especially with well-formed, structured
> markup that degrades nicely when CSS is disabled.

---

quote:

---

>
> --
> To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
> address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

---

quote:

---

> picayunish wrote:
>
> In the discussion not the tables are disabled but the visitor.

---

quote:

---

> William Tasso wrote:
>
>
> And Links

---

quote:

---

>
> Hmmm.
> Disabling tables. I thought you can only disabling JS and Cookies with
> the browsers.
> Where can I find those browsers, that can disabling tables.

---

quote:

---

> "Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.11.07.08.02.45.311737@goddamn.co.uk...
>
> Mice work quite well in a DOS box, providing the correct dos mode drivers
> are installed.
>
> In fact, mice were invented before Windows.

---

quote:

---

> So, what do have at the end of this thread :-
> 1. Tables do not pose serious issues for aural/text browsers?[1]
> 2. Tables 'may' present a problem for the tiny % of mobile device users?

---

quote:

---

> West wrote:
>
>
> Also:
>
> 3. Table-based layouts tend to result in larger file sizes. If you use
> CSS it is true that you have an extra file to download, but once this
> has been downloaded it can be cached for use on the next page.
>
> 4. Many browsers wait to download "</table>" before even beginning to
> render the table. This can cause delays in rendering pages.
>
> 5. With a CSS-based layout you can move a navigation column from the
> left to the right and back again on a whim -- just by editing a few
> lines in a single CSS file. With table-based layouts it requires
> restructuring each page.
>
> 6. Tables for layout hinders the take-up of the semantic web.
>
> 7. Every time you use a table for layout a puppy dies.

---

quote:

---

> Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, designing in CSS/div boxes can be quite expensive too :-)
> Nico
> (How much money did you spent on developing http://www.granatedit.com?)
>
>
>

---

quote:

---

> 8. If tables were used exclusively for tabular data, browser developers,
> particularly developers of auditory browsers, would be able to make
> browsers treat tables in ways that would be highly appropriate for tabular
> data

---

quote:

---

> picayunish wrote in news:M2zqb.1680$%W3.7045@amstwist00:
>
> A lot of replies on the subject disabing tables.
> Thanx mates, I was forgotten about the text-browsers.
>
> What's next. Disabling webpages in the browsers ?

---

quote:

---

> Nico Schuyt wrote in message
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> You know, I thought about that as I was writing, but decided that it
> was true, anyway.

---

quote:

---

> a browser that only displays valid markup would be a usefool tool

---

quote:

---

> a browser that only displays valid markup would be a usefool tool

---

quote:

---

>
> Does the Windows version support the mouse? (I can't imagine the mouse
> working properly in a DOS box.)

---