Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.
CSS vs Tables
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Posts
- 7,412
- Reaction score
- 151
By using CSS to control all the formatting information, you need a lot less html, e.g. all those font colour specifications, font sizes, and by using CSS for positioning, you don't need tables and all the associated table tags. This means the code on your page is more "content", so important keyphrases have greater weight within the page, plus the site is "lighter weight" and "cleaner" (coding wise) so can be read faster and more easily by search engines.
I still use tables at the moment, but I use CSS for formatting more and more, and am waiting until the technology is sufficiently accepted by all browsers before using it for layout. In the overall SEO scheme, you can still get away with using tables I reckon.
Rgds
Accel
I still use tables at the moment, but I use CSS for formatting more and more, and am waiting until the technology is sufficiently accepted by all browsers before using it for layout. In the overall SEO scheme, you can still get away with using tables I reckon.
Rgds
Accel
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Posts
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 375
It's more about accessibility than SEO.........
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
Priority 2 checkpoints
3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.
5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html
Priority 2 checkpoints
3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.
5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version).
accelerator said:
I can't think of a browser that won't work with a bit of elbow grease applied
Even IE 5.2 on Mac (which MS has dropped now) can read the sites fine.Basically, when a search engine reads a page, it reads the source - and no formatting applies. BUT... they don't read all of it, there is a certain cutoff, so if you have long/big pages, then you need to sort that out - i'm not aware of the figure off the top of my head.
Furthermore, with CSS, your content can be the first thing in teh source after <body> - the headers, navbars etc can all come after. Having the content first is a good thing
Tables aren't evil, they could be used for example for the domain prices list you have, but should never be used for arranging page elements that aren't tabulated data.
- Status
Similar threads
There are no messages in the current room.