Chris Ovenden wrote: > http://olav.dk/articles/tables.html
I'm not going to argue with that at all. It's completely true. Generally, there is wisdom in the pseudo-religious standards-compliance of CSS gurus, but I have always felt that the case against tables was exceptionally weak. Apart from the sheer pressure of Not Invented Here policy, there is really only one argument that prevents me from using tables when they are the obvious layout solution: the fact that different screen-readers supposedly go through tables in different sequences (ie some go row by row, others column by column etc.), which chucks an unknown into accessibility. I ask you though, how many of you base your design convictions on the basis of appealing to screen-readers that you have never used or done any research on (w3's accessibility guidelines as far as sightless use is concerned is entirely based on idle theory and no research)? And if sequence is so important (especially for blind users), how come I still bump into 'compliant' professionally designed sites with the navigation after the content, and other apparently completely forgivable gaffs? Other people are amazed that I would use a table when what I want is not , per se, 'a table' - and get hung up on the semantic issue. Okay - your div within a div within a div with identifying attributes of ids like 'wrapper' are making it far easier for those people who can only understand where they are via markup. I'd like to hear what people have to say to this. Regards, Barney ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
