Thanks for your comment and the issues you have brought up concerning tables vs. CSS. You’ve inspired me to write a new post that goes more into detail.

I used tables for years before I finally made the switch to CSS. I noticed immediately that my sites had far less mark up and were much easier to update since the whole layout was controlled through one CSS style sheet.

It might seem like the tags used for tables would just be replaced by div tags, but you actually need far fewer div tags to accomplish the same feat. In addition, these div tags have much more power when it comes to altering the appearance of the site.

Until I write the post concerning this, take a look at the source code for my design studio website:

http://www.davidradtke.com/

It is extremely clean, fast loading, and completely controlled by an external CSS file making it a snap to update or even completely redesign. Speaking of which, the site is in its 6th redesign and I’ve only had to change the images in Photoshop and the CSS file. Each web page was never even touched.

That site only has 6 pages. But even if it had 60+ pages (which some of my clients have) the redesign would only occur in Photoshop and in the CSS file.

I’m not bad-mouthing tables. I still use them from time to time. It’s just that I’ve found CSS to be easier and more powerful for what I need to accomplish.

Thanks again!
-David

Though using CSS has its advantages, when it comes to displaying large images, slicing them up and putting them in a table enables you to keep file sizes small for faster downloading. I suppose you could use the same slices in CSS boxes with absolute positioning, but I don’t see where that reduces the bulk in your code. Instead of table cells cluttering things up, you now have a plethora of tags cluttering things up.

Tables have been used successfully for many years now, and though I will begin using all CSS to keep up with the modern standards, I guess it’s one of those things where I feel if it wasn’t broke, don’t fix it!

Thanks for the lesson.