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?

Regards

Michael.

"Michael Hughes" <michael@entamedia.com> wrote in message
news:a094c608.0311050047.144b33e1@posting.google.com...
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?
>


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.


--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.granatedit.com

"Michael Hughes" <michael@entamedia.com> wrote in message
news:a094c608.0311050047.144b33e1@posting.google.com...
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.



There is no "killer reason" !!
...unless you think in terms of accessibility for disabled persons and thos
e
viewing the net on devices other than a PC/MAC


--
W

quote:

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

"Michael Hughes" <michael@entamedia.com> wrote in message
news:a094c608.0311050047.144b33e1@posting.google.com...
quote:

> Hi All,

quote:

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


They are are a bloody pain in the arse. An advanced case of mystery meat
navigation:
http://webpagesthatsuck.com/

Cheers
Richard.

In message <if3qb.4329$bD.16613@news.indigo.ie>, West <not@this.one>
writes
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


Not really an issue, providing the content linearizes correctly. In
practice, it's rare to come across a tables-based site that doesn't
work.
quote:

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

True. Maybe he just doesn't care about the 0.00000001% of the population
who use their cell phones ;-)
quote:

>
>--
>W
>
> 
>
>


--
Jake

Michael Hughes wrote:
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.


Not that I think espn.com's redesign is good (it isn't), but they did
quote some impressive figures on bandwidth savings.
<URL:http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsou...n-interview/01/>
quote:

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


In general, they create usability and/or accessibility problems.  The
more submenu levels there are, the worse they are.  If you use these
things, make sure you at least have a site map accessible from a plain
text link on every page.  Not every page needs to be listed on the site
map, but every page does need to be accessible with JavaScript disabled.

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

Bonnie Granat wrote:
quote:

> "Michael Hughes"  wrote

quote:
 
[QUOTE]
> 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.


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

"West" <not@this.one> wrote in message news:<if3qb.4329$bD.16613@news.indigo.ie>...
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 tho
se
> viewing the net on devices other than a PC/MAC


So there's the killer reason: use tables and lose customers. Nothing
gets a company to act like the phrase 'lose customers'.

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

"Safalra" <usenet@safalra.com> wrote in message
news:c555467b.0311050832.4931699f@posting.google.com...
quote:

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

news:<if3qb.4329$bD.16613@news.indigo.ie>...
quote:
 
those[QUOTE] 
>
> So there's the killer reason: use tables and lose customers. Nothing
> gets a company to act like the phrase 'lose customers'.
>


You wrote "use tables and lose customers"
...how do you figure that one?

--
W
quote:

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

Sometime around 5 Nov 2003 00:47:38 -0800, Michael Hughes is reported to
have stated:
quote:

> Hi All,


G'day.
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.


Unfortunately there isn't "one, simple killer reason". But there are
various reasons, which when combined are fairly powerful (IMHO). The main
ones (that I can think of off the top of my head):

o Reduced code = better search engine visibility/rankings = more sales =
better profit margin
o Reduced code = smaller file sizes = lower bandwidth costs = better profit
margin
o Reduced code = smaller file sizes = faster page loading times = better
user experience = more sales = better profit margin
o The ability to change the design of the entire site in one file, rather
than having to go through every file. This means more time to do [insert
other more important things here].
o Site will generally be more accessible to users with disabilities (don't
know about where you are, but here in Australia that is required by
legislation).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au