CSS Validation and Standards; Does it matter?

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Honestly, show me a strong reason for validation, and I'll show you a homeless person with a job. Every site I've done in the last two years was built on nested tables within more nested tables. Sure, sometimes I have to figure out why something won't line up in IE, but will in Firefox, or vice-versa, but it will work. Why build a house out of new lumber, when old lumber works just fine, and once you put the sheetrock up, you can't tell anyways. And the advantage is, is that old wood doesn't rot any faster than new wood, and it is just as strong. So what if it's not as pretty underneath the sheetrock...nobody sees it.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't necessarily need to be validated, but hacked up, unclean code is terrible for search engine spiders, and that my friend, hurts businesses in affiliate marketing. Affiliate marketing is extremely competitive and every little bit helps when trying to get your website ranked high, whether through Google, Alexa or Overture. If affiliate managers allowed their clients site to be built on tables nested within each other numerous times, they wouldn't have a strong site to work with. Of course it's only one aspect, but as professionals, we should be working like one.

Honestly, who does affiliate marketing other than cheap fly-by-night stores and portfolio sites? I mean, I get your point regarding search engine placement and large amounts of code (nested tables within more nested tables)...I'd consider sacrificing for search engine placement

Like Axiom said, whether a site was made in tables or CSS has got nothing to do with whether it has wow factor or not. The reason a lot of the CSS advocate sites look ugly is because they are written by technical-minded programmers, rather than designers. And most designers just use imageready or the same old method that they learned years ago to do sites, which is tables.

And to use your own analogy, does using old wood to frame a house make the house look better? Does it give it a wow factor? No. You don't see it. But tables aren't like using old wood. They are like using old, rotted, termite filled wood. And in a few years that **** is going to rot and your house is going to fall down.

Like Spectra said, we are professionals and should do things the best way possible when we can. Not just leave off the foundation of the house because no one will see it and you don't want to take the time to learn how to make one correctly.

No offense but it sounds like you are just coming up with reasons to put down CSS so you don't have to take the time to learn how to do it properly. It's really not that complicated if you put some time into it, and the difference is quite large when you want to redesign the site in a year, or when you need the site to get on search engines.

And more and more as I've been looking for a job for the past month, I see web design positions with "Valid XHTML and CSS coding skills a must" as a job requirement. Yeah, tables will probably always work in web browsers, just to support the old sites that aren't updated anymore. But don't trick yourself into believing they are a better solution just because you are comfortable with them and don't want to try to learn something new.

Paul Scrivens, the 9rules/forevergeek/whitespace guy, made over $16,000 in 3 months from Amazon affiliate links alone. He used their XML engine to make his own stores which were much more simple than the amazon pages, and were written in XHTML/CSS. They got listed on the search engines and that's how he made all that money.

Do you really have a reason to stick with tables other than you just don't want to learn another way?

I admit some things are more difficult to do in CSS than in tables, like 3 column layouts and a few other things, but at the very least, use one simple table to frame up your site, and use CSS for everything else. Nested tables were frowned upon even when tables were the only way to build a web site.

Here's a better analogy for you.

Tables are like lead-based house paint. Sure, it'll cover the walls, and it looks the same as modern paints, but it kills you!

Sticking with nested tables is like being an old painter that refuses to use latex paints just because lead paints have always worked for you in the past, and you don't see any big "wow-factor" difference in the new latex paints.

But, do what you want. I gave up caring about trying to convert people to use CSS a couple of years ago. The people that care have already switched, the people that don't probably never will.

Instead I'm just trying to get people to play WoW with me.

And to use your own analogy, does using old wood to frame a house make the house look better? Does it give it a wow factor? No. You don't see it. But tables aren't like using old wood. They are like using old, rotted, termite filled wood. And in a few years that **** is going to rot and your house is going to fall down.

No it won't. It will stay solid forever, until building codes (web browsers) refuse to allow me to use old wood.

Now listen, I'm not saying that tables are a better solution than CSS, but I'm not agreeing that CSS is a better solution that tables yet either. I still have yet to see an absolute good reason to use CSS over tables other than search engine troubles. I'll admit, that is enough reason there to get me to switch. OK, I'm switching, are you happy? From here on out, you are the CSS moutebank.

Oh yeah, and WoW sucks.

What is a moutebank?

Why wait until you're forced to change? Then you'll have to go back and redo all of your sites. If you just start doing it "right" now, it'll save you trouble later.

And there are dozens of reasons why CSS is better besides just search engines. But that has been written about in other places. And I have ogres to kill.

I don't know what a moutebank is Dek, but my guess it could've been a typo. Maybe slim meant mouthbank, or a fitting word would be mountebank, which is an archaic word meaning: "To ensnare or prevail over with trickery"

Slim, what did you mean?

Okay, back to CSS vs. Tables. Deker man, you were on a roll there. I like using CSS when I can, meaning when I know how to. I don't always have enough time to practice and get things right.

I admit, I like the graphics and all, especially the skins I see for vBulletins. Man, those nav bars and colors and metal looking things. But I like CSS in that the code is lean and you can be very creative.

Currently I can't say I'm like you guys that do sites full time, I wish. But what I'd love to learn is more of the technical side. It's great to do a layout in Photoshop and make it look slick, but when it comes to coding a site, I feel the momentum slip, because I'm not "geeky" I guess is the word I'm looking for. Make sense? Kinda?

The two sites I have I coded in css and xhtml and they validate. It felt good to understand most of it, but it took alot of time and reading and research to learn it when I could've been doing so many other sites in tables.

Don't give up on converting people Deker, I've benefited tons from your advice man. When I think of just going pure tables, I stop and think that this can work, it will work, it has to work or else.

By the way slim, if you like those site you listed, you should check out neubiz.com and look at their portfolio. See what you think, you might like it man. They use flash/css and also css/xhtml. One cool site they have out is NYCPeach.com. Check it out.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]Honestly, who does affiliate marketing other than cheap fly-by-night stores and portfolio sites? I mean, I get your point regarding search engine placement and large amounts of code (nested tables within more nested tables)...I'd consider sacrificing for search engine placement[/QUOTE]

Affiliate Marketing is going to be huge. You heard it here first. Go visit Commision Junction and see the fly-by-night stores that take part in it. Affiliate marketing is relatively tiny right now, but the money is huge. Look up James Martel and see what he makes on his sites. Over 50 grand a month. An associate of mine essentially had a blank cheque from the company he worked for to keep up the program he started. Anyways, its just one reason for clean code, to keep the topic on hand.