In your post to my thread "Photo site design: fixed size or flexible?",
you mentioned that the layouts of the two example sites I sited can be
done using either tables or divs. From my research, tables without css
is (mis)used for layout purpose in the good old days, and divs with css
is the preferred way these days. There seems to be strong opinions on
both sides. Any truth to this? Which way is easier? Will tools like
Dreamweaver make it even easier? Thanks.

<photosonly@att.net> wrote in message news:43A0360C.5A213001@att.net...
> In your post to my thread "Photo site design: fixed size or flexible?",
> you mentioned that the layouts of the two example sites I sited can be
> done using either tables or divs. From my research, tables without css
> is (mis)used for layout purpose in the good old days, and divs with css
> is the preferred way these days. There seems to be strong opinions on
> both sides. Any truth to this? Which way is easier? Will tools like
> Dreamweaver make it even easier? Thanks.

Css divs create the most accessible and logical code - if you look at a page
coded in css, it's much cleaner than the code for a table layout. However,
since it's relatively new, web designers and developers are still using both
methods and good sites can be developed using either method.

I don't really think one method is much easier than the other because for
both you need to learn the tricks that make them work with different
browsers and monitors.

I like the css method better (now that I have finally learned a lot of the
tricks) because it's generally easier to make significant changes to a css
site and because they're more easily made accessible.

The latest Dreamweaver version works really well with css.

Flo

Flo Nelson wrote:
>
> <photosonly@att.net> wrote in message news:43A41E2F.A1DF4FFD@att.net... 
>
> I suspect that there isn't all that much difference if you start cold. Mos
t
> designers started out doing tables and over the years learned a lot of
> tricks that make them really work, so at this point tables seem easier.
> Learning something brand new is always harder. I'm just getting comfortabl
e
> with it myself, but now I really like it. Getting really good tutorials
> makes a big difference in the learning curve. See below!
>
> I also think it's better not to be rigid either way - I don't rule out usi
ng
> tables in certain situations.
> 
>
> Couple of recommendations:
> This site is great for getting a solid understanding of css and css
> positioning:
> http://css.maxdesign.com.au/index.htm - look at the Selectutorial for an
> introduction and the Floatutorial for layout.
>
> Also highly recommend http://www.projectseven.com/ - I bought one of their
> templates, Andersen-Jones, not to use as a template but to get their
> explanation of how to do layout with css. Learned more in a few hours with
> that than I had learned previously from several books on the subject. All
> their templates come with a detailed explanation of what they are doing.
>
> Several good forums, but I would start with macromedia.dreamweaver at
> forums.macromedia.com.
>
> hth,
> Flo

The first site is fantastic, and will keep me busy for a while. I don't
own dreamweaver, but will check out the forum. Thank you so much for
your help.