Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

http://mercury.easternct.edu/d/duboisl/web/history/1996.html

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

**Barry Pearson** · Jul 20 '05, 05:17 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

Brian wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> No one gets hurt using layout tables.[/color]
>
> (Ab)using html elements for the presentation effects that they have in
> certain browsers has hurt all of us. If tables had never been used for
> layout, then it would be trivial to search for tabular data on
> population changes in west Africa. If blockquote had never been used
> for layout, then it would be trivial to search for pages that quoted
> Noam Chomsky.[/color]

As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"!

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> Why? I just state that people who claim that tables were not
>> intended for layout are probably wrong,[/color]
>
> You've reversed the burden of proof, with what appears to be circular
> reasoning, i.e., tables were meant for layout because they are used
> for layout. We can only be sure that the <table> element was meant for
> tabular data, hence its descendent <td> for table data.[/color]

I simply state that people who claim that tables were not intended for layout
are probably wrong. You could provide evidence to the contrary, if able.

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> But they are welcome to show evidence to the contrary.[/color]
>
> How about evidence of something more broad? HTML was not intended as a
> layout language:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/history/
>
> "The separation of document structure from the document's layout had
> been a goal of HTML from its inception in 1990."[/color]

Chuckle! I've read that page. I love the bit about Marc Andreessen's
conversion! I keep finding statements that didn't influence the web being
contradicted by statements and actions that did influence the web. And visual
formatting influenced the web.
[color=blue]
> I searched for history and html, and found the following:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Talks/WWW94Tim/
> http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
> http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-h...rkUp/Tags.html
>
> There are about the web and html as it existed in its infancy.
> Presentation of any sort is rarely mentioned, and then it's either a
> suggestion for appearance, e.g.,[/color]

Thank you for those URLs. They simply didn't say either way. And that is
typical. I'm wondering if the people making these statements, and writing the
specifications, and building the technologies, actually thought about this one
way or the other.

But I do think they simply took it for granted that the stuff would be
displayed visually. TBL talks about "diagrams with circles and arrows". The
"HTML tags" page talks about "displaying ", with titles on "one line". Another
document talks about a "stream of lines" (up to 80 characters wide). Their
references to layout are simply dropped in casually, suggesting that it was
obvious to them.

HTML 3.2 explicitly stated that tables "can be used to markup tabular material
or for layout purposes".

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> Using tables for layout is a brilliant idea, and helped to make the
>> web the interesting, useful, and successful system it is.[/color]
>
> To paraphrase something from a recent thread: restating a hypthesis is
> not a substitute for proving that hypothesis.[/color]

Would the web be the success it is if people had not used layout tables in
1995/6 to start to build more complex pages? I doubt it.

500 - Internal server error.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> There is no evidence that I can find that tables were *not*
>> intended for layout.[/color]
>
> My bogosity meter is registering increased activity. Why are you
> demanding that I prove a negative?[/color]
[snip]

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative! If you needed to, you could
prove to your nearest doctor that you were not a woman.

I suspect that you are talking about a different logical issue: "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence". That is vastly different, and not what I
was expecting.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_5_3/tableless_flexible_00.htm

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

**Ian Rastall** · Jul 20 '05, 05:17 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:38:55 -0000, Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"![/color]

I agree. I use tables for layout, even if it's not correct usage. I
sure do look forward to the day when there's better support for CSS,
though.

Ian
--

Index of /

http://www.aspipes.org/

Bookstacks Reader

http://www.bookstacks.org/

http://www.learnsomethingnew.us/

**Nick Kew** · Jul 20 '05, 05:18 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

In article <W5GLb.537$sb.3 32027@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"![/color]

Nonsense.

To take just one example, consider a layout table designed to give
columns of text (three or even four is not unusual). Now consider
a reader with low vision, who can only read large print and get 50
characters across the width of a screen. Because the layout table
is inflexible, it can't be sized down that far and you've got
lots of horizontal scrolling.

Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
routinely bugger me up.

Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
the offending table.
[color=blue]
> Thank you for those URLs. They simply didn't say either way.[/color]

Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.

Noting your posting address, I could say by analogy: if children
were never neglected, it wouldn't enter anyone's head to have a
child support agency.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

**Barry Pearson** · Jul 20 '05, 05:18 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

Nick Kew wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <W5GLb.537$sb.3 32027@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of
> infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
> <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> As I said, "No one gets hurt using layout tables"![/color]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> To take just one example, consider a layout table designed to give
> columns of text (three or even four is not unusual). Now consider
> a reader with low vision, who can only read large print and get 50
> characters across the width of a screen. Because the layout table
> is inflexible, it can't be sized down that far and you've got
> lots of horizontal scrolling.[/color]

In that case, it isn't the layout tables that are screwing things up. It is
the lack of flexibility. Tables can be flexible, and CSS-P can be inflexible.
The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
side-by-side in the mark-up, while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS. (Even
that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).

Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based on things
I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with the font size
wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal scrollbar, and just
about everything that people complain about in tables.

[color=blue]
> Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
> routinely bugger me up.[/color]

The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns. So do
other CSS-P layouts around. In fact, CSS often gets focused on pixels. One
problem is that floating needs widths, and it is common to use px values. And
if you use absolute positioning instead, you risk superimposition .

People abuse CSS-P just as much as they abuse layout tables. I guess some of
my pages screw you up too - I tend to prefer 2 rather than 3 columns, but the
sidebar, typically used for site navigation, tends to be of the order of
180px. Then, whether I am using a layout table or CSS-P, the main column takes
up the rest of the viewport. I would welcome your views on the following,
because I don't deliberately go around screwing people up!

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/templates/template_2_columns_right.htm

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

[color=blue]
> Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
> but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
> the offending table.[/color]

I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the capability of
disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development of things that run the
risk of leaving them behind.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Thank you for those URLs. They simply didn't say either way.[/color]
>
> Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.[/color]

My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking about page
layout. They were so focused on moving information around that they neglected
human nature - which has a strong design/layout component. People will always
demand control of layout. The trick is to get a good balance between
satisfying the demands of the publisher and the needs of the users. I believe
that is best achieved by transmitting a higher level abstraction of the
publishers' desires than CSS currently provides. Layout tables are closer to
this than CSS1 & CSS2.
[color=blue]
> Noting your posting address, I could say by analogy: if children
> were never neglected, it wouldn't enter anyone's head to have a
> child support agency.[/color]

Chuckle! Don't let people entangled with the CSA hear you say that! (I'm
childfree so it doesn't matter here).

The CSA is just the latest method in child support systems for at least the
last 4 centuries in the UK, since the first Poor Law. Child support (in the UK
& elsewhere, and down through the centries) always has 2 separate strands: to
relieve child poverty; and at minimum cost to the community at large.

404 Not Found

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_uk.htm

"Neglect" is misleading. Many people paying child support were forced to be
apart from their children, and would rather be spending the money directly on
them. And if a separated father and mother share the care of the children
equally, and even earn the same amount (or the mother earns lots more), the
father will end up paying the mother, because of *explicit* sex-bias in the
UK's child support legislation.

--
Barry Pearson

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

**Nick Kew** · Jul 20 '05, 05:18 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

In article <cNWLb.259$U83. 324111@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
> side-by-side in the mark-up,[/color]

s/single/critical/ in the above. It's exactly what I complain of.
[color=blue]
> while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS.[/color]

Critical difference: CSS can be turned off.
[color=blue]
> (Even
> that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).[/color]

Yes indeed: Opera's small-screen mode is rather similar to
mod_accessibili ty's linearisation option, although the mechanics
of it are entirely different.
[color=blue]
> Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based on things
> I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with the font size
> wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal scrollbar, and just
> about everything that people complain about in tables.
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...lexible_00.htm[/color]

You're on much firmer ground arguing that CSS is not the panacea for
every ill. FWIW, that page looks great in my "normal" browser (Konq) at
normal settings, but just narrowing the window too far messes it up
as it squeezes the middle column out. But there's still that crucial
difference: I as a user am empowered to turn it off, even if I don't
have the luxury of an advanced enabling technology like
mod_accessibili ty or Opera.

Look at that vs a 3-column table in Lynx. 3 text columns in
80-characters width is readable but not pretty, but your CSS page
linearises automatically and looks better. Reduce the size of
the Lynx terminal, and it becomes the difference between working
well and a total mess.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Or the common case of pixel-widths for text columns, which
>> routinely bugger me up.[/color]
>
> The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns. So do[/color]

Exactly. See above. Actually that does screw it up even in Konq:
Leaving out the middle part (just to get it into an 80-column usenet
post) I see:

Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. filler. Rightbar filler.
Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
filler.

.... which looks a little bit like a design that's "gracefully degraded"
by words wrapping differently on my display to yours.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Of course you can fix it with solutions like mod_accessibili ty,
>> but that only works because it gives users the option to linearise
>> the offending table.[/color]
>
> I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
> available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the capability of
> disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development of things that run the
> risk of leaving them behind.[/color]

No disagreement there. Just over how to proceed, and it comes down to
that crucial issue of empowerment.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.[/color]
>
> My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking about page
> layout. They were so focused on moving information around that they neglected
> human nature[/color]

This begins to look much clearer. I'm one of those people who detests
control and presentation freaks, and will (for example) refuse to use
a shop that plays muzak at me. I suspect that's not untypical of the
innovators who created the web before the deezyners and marketroids
came in and covered it in layers of crap.

On a personal level, I (we?) probably don't even mix with the presentation
freaks. Someone who wears warpaint or a stripey shirt and loud tie,
or (worse) stinks of perfume or aftershave, just makes me (at best)
nervous/edgy, and wanting to get away.

I guess you loved all those "millennium " projects too, so full of
glitz but lacking firm foundations? That bridge that swayed so
alarmingly as soon as people tried to walk across it - has to be
a great analogy for deezyner websites. So does the extra millions
they had to spend on it to make it fit to use.

Human nature for you, maybe. Not for me. I'd rather see systems that
work - whether they be websites or bridges - than have someone's ego
thrust in the way. Sure, there's a place for personal and artistic
expression (mine include singing in opera - surely one of mankinds
most absurd activities:-), but that place should never be where it
makes life difficult for people who don't choose to participate.

--
Nick Kew

**Barry Pearson** · Jul 20 '05, 05:18 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

Nick Kew wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <cNWLb.259$U83. 324111@newsfep1-win.server.ntli .net>, one
> of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Barry Pearson"
> <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The single built-in inflexibility of a table is that it puts things
>> side-by-side in the mark-up,[/color]
>
> s/single/critical/ in the above. It's exactly what I complain of.[/color]

I suspect you are complaining about the number of columns, rather than whether
or not it uses layout-tables.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> while some CSS-P layouts do so in the CSS.[/color]
>
> Critical difference: CSS can be turned off.[/color]

So can tables. See below. If you don't like, turn them off! If you are using
technology that doesn't let you, get better technology! It is out there.

Or ... just hit the back button. You can't do this if you depend on the site,
for example if it is in any sense a "public service" site. But you can for the
rest. And even for the public service sites, it is probably rare that you are
compelled to use the site - there are always alternatives. The (valid)
complaint is that people with vision problems are discriminated against, not
that they can't access the services of the organisation. *No one* is forced to
use a web site, even for public service purposes! So *no one* is hurt -
perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*. Their
(valid) case is discrimination, not hurt.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> (Even
>> that can be disabled, as Opera's "small screen mode" shows).[/color][/color]

This probably - actually inevitably - indicates where the future lies - better
& better technology for accessing content of all sorts, including that within
layout-tables. I estimate that at least 95% of web pages use layout-tables,
and at least 95% of new pages each day use layout-tables. I came to this
conclusion because I have spent a long time browsing the web using a style of
the form:
table { border: 1px dotted blue; }
I access *lots* of pages and *lots* of web sites each week, and hardly any of
them doesn't show with a blue dotted rectangle. It is very rare to find a news
site, or even a UK government site, that doesn't use layout-tables. "Wired",
of course, and "UKonline", but others are very rare. (I am desperately trying
to think of another! ESPN front page but not content, and ... er ...). I
actually believe the figure is closer to 99% than 95%. It has been the
dominant layout technique for about 8 years, and I suspect it will continue to
be for at least the next 8.

Therefore, user technology will (have to) adapt to match one of the most
important global information resources. It has no choice. And as it adapts,
this will reduce the pressure for change. I believe there is no credible
alternative. In other words, it is transforming the future direction, as well
as the current state, of the web. I hope that future techniques for proposing
page layouts build on layout-tables, not CSS.

These are not bad people. People who build and drive motorcars are not bad
people, even though this is an activity not really available to blind people.
(I'm a photographer ... a very discriminatory hobby. Some people are musicians
.... ditto). We all have to accept the we are excluded from some activities
because of our reduced abilities. You *really* would not like to have laws
that would compel people to accept me into a choir!

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> Here is one of the CSS-P 3-column layouts that I investigated, based
>> on things I found on the web. When I look at this via Firebird with
>> the font size wound-up a lot, I get superimposed text, a horizontal
>> scrollbar, and just about everything that people complain about in
>> tables.
>> http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...lexible_00.htm[/color]
>
> You're on much firmer ground arguing that CSS is not the panacea for
> every ill. FWIW, that page looks great in my "normal" browser (Konq)
> at
> normal settings, but just narrowing the window too far messes it up
> as it squeezes the middle column out. But there's still that crucial
> difference: I as a user am empowered to turn it off, even if I don't
> have the luxury of an advanced enabling technology like
> mod_accessibili ty or Opera.[/color]

Er ... luxury? I don't pay for Opera! And if I had to pay because of a
disability, perhaps I would petition the government to help me out.
[color=blue]
> Look at that vs a 3-column table in Lynx. 3 text columns in
> 80-characters width is readable but not pretty, but your CSS page
> linearises automatically and looks better. Reduce the size of
> the Lynx terminal, and it becomes the difference between working
> well and a total mess.[/color]

Better than what? Here are some alternatives to that page - which of them
linearises worse than that one?

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_5_3/

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> The above CSS-P 3-column layout uses pixel-widths for text columns.
>> So do[/color]
>
> Exactly. See above. Actually that does screw it up even in Konq:
> Leaving out the middle part (just to get it into an 80-column usenet
> post) I see:
>
> Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
> Leftbar filler. Leftbar filler. filler. Rightbar filler.
> Leftbar filler. Rightbar filler. Rightbar
> filler.
>
> ... which looks a little bit like a design that's "gracefully
> degraded"
> by words wrapping differently on my display to yours.[/color]

But what about the article? The page exists for the article, not the leftbar &
rightbar! (It is interesting how many CSS-P layouts linearise with the article
late rather than early!)

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> I think that as a society we must make such technologies more widely
>> available. My "model" is to use use technology to increase the
>> capability of disadvantaged people, not to try to hinder development
>> of things that run the risk of leaving them behind.[/color]
>
> No disagreement there. Just over how to proceed, and it comes down to
> that crucial issue of empowerment.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Of course not. Noone had yet raised the possibility of abuse.[/color]
>>
>> My conclusion is that at that time few people were really thinking
>> about page layout. They were so focused on moving information around
>> that they neglected human nature[/color]
>
> This begins to look much clearer. I'm one of those people who detests
> control and presentation freaks, and will (for example) refuse to use
> a shop that plays muzak at me. I suspect that's not untypical of the
> innovators who created the web before the deezyners and marketroids
> came in and covered it in layers of crap.[/color]

My web pages are all very passive. They don't have any active content, no new
windows, no attempts to control the browser, etc.

I don't see a problem with those people, as long as they are not responsible
for public service web sites. They should have the right to do so (and indeed
*do* have that right). Users have the right the hit the back-button. Now we
are all happy. I would condemn any initiative to restrict those people, as
long as their web sites were not in any sense public service sites.

But layout is *vitally* important. It can make the difference between whether
people can navigate round the site or not. See:
"Criteria for optimal web design (designing for usability)"

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/print.htm

Also see:
<extract>
That strikes me as the Web's saving grace. With the Web poised to go from 4
million sites to 100 million in the next few years, as you note in your
article, the idea of enforcing usability rules will never get past the
"thought experiment" stage. However, as you are not merely a man of action but
also a theorist, I want to address why I think enforced conformity to
usability standards is wrong, even in theory. My objections break out into
three rough categories: creating a market for usability is better than central
standards for reasons of efficency, innovation, and morality.
</extract>
That was from: Clay Shirky, "An Open Letter To Jakob Nielsen"

Page not found – Clay Shirky

http://www.shirky.com/writings/nielsen.html

[snip][color=blue]
> I guess you loved all those "millennium " projects too, so full of
> glitz but lacking firm foundations? That bridge that swayed so
> alarmingly as soon as people tried to walk across it - has to be
> a great analogy for deezyner websites. So does the extra millions
> they had to spend on it to make it fit to use.[/color]

I laughed at them. That isn't how I work. I use sound engineering principles
to judge what I should do. I run with Flash & other active content switched
off. I just hit the back-button if necessary. So can anyone else, except for
public service sites.

I don't do glitz. I take the trouble to understand my target audience and
cater for them. Anyone outside my target audience is on their own - take it or
leave it. Their problem, not mine.
[color=blue]
> Human nature for you, maybe. Not for me. I'd rather see systems that
> work - whether they be websites or bridges - than have someone's ego
> thrust in the way. Sure, there's a place for personal and artistic
> expression (mine include singing in opera - surely one of mankinds
> most absurd activities:-), but that place should never be where it
> makes life difficult for people who don't choose to participate.[/color]

I see a web comprising "implicit communities". When I publish my photographs,
I am in an implicit community of people with sight, possibly calibrated
monitors, who possibly don't have an language in common with me. We
communicate in images, not text. Anyone who decides they don't qualify can go
and pursue their own activities in their own implicit communities. We have no
responsibility, legally or ethically, towards such people. We don't damage the
web. We just use it, at our own expense.

But for other published material, I am publishing to a different implicit
community, with totally different criteria for access. All involving English,
in my case. And government sites have communities which are actually not
implicit, but comprise the citizens. But even then the scope typically stops
at the boundaries of the UK & its citizens.

Publishers only have limited responsibilitie s on the web. The trick is to
understand the limits.

--
Barry Pearson

http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter10.html

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

**Brian** · Jul 20 '05, 05:19 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

[article heavily snipped to save bandwidth; topic is tables for layout]

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
> discriminated against, not that they can't access the services of
> the organisation. *No one* is forced to use a web site, even for
> public service purposes! So *no one* is hurt - perhaps
> inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*.
> Their (valid) case is discrimination, not hurt.[/color]

My bogosity meter just pinned. I suppose by analogy that no African
Americans were hurt because they were denied a seat on the bus.[1]
"Perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated against, but not *hurt*."

Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
them.

But what's interesting is the admission:
[color=blue]
> The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
> discriminated against,[/color]
[color=blue]
> So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
> against[/color]
[color=blue]
> Their (valid) case is discrimination[/color]

Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.

[1]This is an international forum, and there's no reason for me to
assume that everyone knows about discrimination in public
tranportation in the southern U.S.: Prior to the 1950s, African
Americans were confined to seats in the back of city buses, and had to
give up even those seats to whites if the bus was full.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

**Barry Pearson** · Jul 20 '05, 05:19 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

Brian wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
> reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
> them.[/color]

I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple tables for
layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective, accessible, cost-effective,
and future-proof. See:

10. Tables and frames

<extract>
Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
reality check, shall we?

Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
indeed.)

Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
up tabular material or for layout purposes." Web designers who used tables for
page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
sin.

Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.
Back to the HTML 3.2 spec: "A cell can contain a wide variety of other block-
and text-level elements including form fields and other tables." The fact that
nested tables take longer to display in a graphical browser is surely
undesirable, but you cannot ascribe that behaviour to the inevitable effect of
illegal coding. Nested tables have always been legal.

The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.

In fact, the strongest condemnation of tables in the WAI is as follows: "Do
not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized."
Linearizing refers to running the contents of cells together with no row or
column structure. (How? In languages reading from left to right, start with
the top row and read left to right. Then, in each successive row, concatenate
cells in left-to-right order.)

The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend. Take my word for
it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
tables in this chapter.

Using tables for truly tabular data is actually quite rare online. In the
immortal words of William Gibson, the street finds its own uses for things.
The use the street found for tables is graphic design, not data structure.
When you employ tables for layout, you can get away with minimal coding. Data
tables require significant markup skills that take a long time to acquire. On
the other hand, the information in data tables is intrinsically complex, and
print designers struggle to this day with the difficulty of typesetting tables
in existing desktop-publishing software. If no one's gotten data-table
creation right in desktop publishing, a technology nearly 20 years old, why
are we surprised that conditions are rough on the Web?
</extract>
[color=blue]
> But what's interesting is the admission:
>[color=green]
>> The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
>> discriminated against,[/color]
>[color=green]
>> So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
>> against[/color]
>[color=green]
>> Their (valid) case is discrimination[/color]
>
> Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.[/color]
[snip]

That wasn't a comment about the effects of tables. Nick Kew was complaining
about problems caused by multiple columns. Layout tables are neutral. See Joe
Clark's stuff above.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/layout_tables/history.htm

Backorder UK domains or auction your own with UKBackorder.uk. Our platform offers a seamless process to secure expiring domains and sell your own UK domains through auctions. No catch, no fee.

**Lauri Raittila** · Jul 20 '05, 05:19 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

In article Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
> [snip][color=green]
> > Really, you say some silly things. Tables abused for layout don't
> > reach out of the browser and pinch the user, so no, noone is *hurt* by
> > them.[/color]
>
> I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple tables for
> layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective, accessible, cost-effective,
> and future-proof. See:
> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html[/color]

Well, 99% of times, tables are abused, instead of used the way I hope
that link is telling. I think that it is just as easy to use CSS based

And, according to my dictionary, abuse is correct term even if used well.
Sometimes end justifies means. And most times not.
[color=blue]
> <extract>
> Tables prompt eye-gouging hissyfits among accessibility advocates and Web
> designers of all stripes, whether oldschool or avant-garde. Both sides are
> saddled with myths and both argue in large part from ideology. Let's do a
> reality check, shall we?
>
> Tables were introduced in HTML 3.2 back in 1997. (Not HTML 2.0. Netscape 2.0
> supported tables, but they made their début in HTML 3.2. Very oldschool
> indeed.)[/color]

CSS1 in 1996, but it was not enaugh.
I wonder if JSSS has been chosen instead of CSS, would stylesheets be
more used nowadays? After all, Microsoft never has had any interest in
internet exept making money.
[color=blue]
> Purists, take note: Even back then, tables were expressly permitted "to mark
> up tabular material or for layout purposes."[/color]

And this quote from html3.2 goes on:
"Note that the latter role typically causes problems when rending to
speech or to text only user agents"

Too bad they didn't understant that it also causes problem when displayed
in graphical browsers in some conditions.

And, html3.2 was not spec in traditional sence. As it was done to
according to current situation, instead of for future. I think that's why
it is called "Reference Specification" instead "Specificat ion"
[color=blue]
> Web designers who used tables for
> page layout were not violating the spec, working against the spirit of the
> true, glorious Internet, sullying the swimming pool, or committing any kind of
> sin.[/color]

Well, neither is George Bush the dumber & Co breaking law when they
accuse Greenpeace with some historical law. The question if it is sin is
totally different matter.
[color=blue]
> Nested tables - tables within tables - have always been expressly permitted.[/color]

Of course, as they are necessary for certain kinds of tabular data.
Something like this is not possible whitout using nested tables:

404 Not Found

http://www.student.oulu.fi/~egea/timetable.html

[color=blue]
> The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
> Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page if it
> contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin - necessarily. You
> will not be forced to turn in your trackball and badge while WAI Internal
> Affairs conducts an investigation. But you are not off the hook: You must code
> tables properly, which, for layout tables, is not difficult at all.[/color]

True, tables are not necessarily syn, and neither is CSS layout
necessarily good accessibility.
[color=blue]
> The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent - that they
> do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that you're doomed to labour
> over them forever to get them working - is an urban legend.[/color]

IMHO, that is exactly correct idée. *If* accessibility has been taken
account, table layout is not usually much worse than suitable CSS based
layout. But it needs to be proven. One way to prove it is to have such
table layout that it will work in my normal browsing situation. Most
sites fail that, at least if I don't use some powertools.
[color=blue]
> Take my word for
> it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you that most
> layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical tables or when
> linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make even more sense with layout
> tables in this chapter.[/color]

You apparently never really used browser window sized less than 600px. Or
have really used lynx. Or you have lots of patience to scroll.

I have had big problems with table-layout and lynx. And table-layouts and
Opera. Neither problem was because browser was bad, but becase table
layout was very stupid.
[color=blue]
> Using tables for truly tabular data is actually quite rare online.[/color]

OTOH, not using table for tabular data in web is even more rare. Almost
as rare as well done table layout.
[color=blue]
> The use the street found for tables is graphic design, not data structure.
> When you employ tables for layout, you can get away with minimal coding.[/color]

Then why is it that site done with table layout usually takes at least
50% more code than one whitout?

Or do you mean that you can use wysinwyg program? Never seen any proper
code generated using wysinwyg in real use that has not been cleaned.
[color=blue]
> Data
> tables require significant markup skills that take a long time to acquire.[/color]

OTOH, simple cases are very simple to learn.
[color=blue]
> If no one's gotten data-table
> creation right in desktop publishing, a technology nearly 20 years old, why
> are we surprised that conditions are rough on the Web?[/color]

WWW has advantages over print media. Big ones. And specs are on right
tracks. Unfortunately, browsers aren't interested in implementing goodies
in html4 spec etc, because there is no way to know which is layout table
and which not.

And also because data tables are not that popular. They are not that
popular in print design either.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > But what's interesting is the admission:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> The (valid) complaint is that people with vision problems are
> >> discriminated against,[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> So *no one* is hurt - perhaps inconvenienced, perhaps discriminated
> >> against[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Their (valid) case is discrimination[/color]
> >
> > Discrimination -- one reason I don't abuse tables for layout.[/color]
> [snip]
>
> That wasn't a comment about the effects of tables. Nick Kew was complaining
> about problems caused by multiple columns. Layout tables are neutral. See Joe
> Clark's stuff above.[/color]

Well, it doesn't make much sence to have normal table layout whiout
multible columns. Most used browsers don't linearize tables any case. So
people that can see, but badly, are discriminated against.

OTOH, you can't do 2 column layout that works well in small window
whitout tables any better than you can do with just tables.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

**Barry Pearson** · Jul 20 '05, 05:21 PM

Re: Opera 7.23 doesn't show me inner tables

Lauri Raittila wrote:[color=blue]
> In article Barry Pearson wrote:[/color]
[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> I don't accept that "abused" is valid in this context. Using simple
>> tables for layout is typically sensible, valuable, effective,
>> accessible, cost-effective, and future-proof. See:
>> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/seri...Chapter10.html[/color]
>
> Well, 99% of times, tables are abused, instead of used the way I hope
> that link is telling. I think that it is just as easy to use CSS based[/color]

There is a fact that some people may not like to see revealed. From the time
that Dave Raggett proposed tables in "HTML+" in November 1993, tables have
been intended to display cells in a horizontal + vertical grid. And from
that date tables cells have been proposed and defined to contain complex
material, including headers, paragraphs, lists, text, and other stuff. (Which
is one of the reasons why their tags and attributes have terms like "row" and
"col" - that isn't an accident!)

See:
"A brief history of tables"

Every single proposal and standard and Recommendation from that time onwards
has continued this theme, as far as I know. Tables are designed to layout
complex things in a grid-formation. It isn't an accident - they were always
intended to work like that! The proposals were, and the browsers were. That is
the defined nature of the web.

The very latest proposals are for XHTML 2.0, which we won't even see for
years. And guess what - just the same! Tables are designed & intended to deal
with complex content, and put it into a rectilinear array in visual-mode. That
is the current official W3C position on XHTML 2.0.

[snip][color=blue][color=green]
>> The use of tables for layout has never been prohibited by the Web
>> Accessibility Initiative. You are not creating an inaccessible page
>> if it contains tables used for layout. You have committed no sin -
>> necessarily. You will not be forced to turn in your trackball and
>> badge while WAI Internal Affairs conducts an investigation. But you
>> are not off the hook: You must code tables properly, which, for
>> layout tables, is not difficult at all.[/color]
>
> True, tables are not necessarily syn, and neither is CSS layout
> necessarily good accessibility.
>[color=green]
>> The idée fixe that layout tables are guilty until proven innocent -
>> that they do not "make sense when linearized" by default, that
>> you're doomed to labour over them forever to get them working - is
>> an urban legend.[/color]
>
> IMHO, that is exactly correct idée. *If* accessibility has been taken
> account, table layout is not usually much worse than suitable CSS
> based layout. But it needs to be proven. One way to prove it is to
> have such table layout that it will work in my normal browsing
> situation. Most sites fail that, at least if I don't use some
> powertools.[/color]

I only quoted the above material from Joe Clark. I didn't write it. Joe (and
I) believe that most sites work, not fail.

How do we resolve this disagreement?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Take my word for
>> it: Having used the Web since the days of Mosaic, I can assure you
>> that most layout tables do make sense, whether rendered as graphical
>> tables or when linearized. You will nonetheless learn how to make
>> even more sense with layout tables in this chapter.[/color]
>
> You apparently never really used browser window sized less than
> 600px. Or have really used lynx. Or you have lots of patience to
> scroll.[/color]
[snip]

I didn't write that - Joe did. But I always access my pages at a lot less than
that! Including 240 pixel wide (with Opera).

Firebird is cr*ap less than 476 pixels. In fact, Gecko browser tend to be
cr*ap at small viewport widths. They lose the vertical scrollbar. Firebird
often doesn't provide a horizontal scrollbar!

The only narrow viewport widths I feel confident with are IE handling
table-layout. Perhaps Opera too. The rest are cr*p.

--
Barry Pearson