Why do Google and Twitter use table layout? [dupli

问题:

Possible Duplicate:
Does it make sense to use the <table> tag on a “modern” website?

Everywhere I go I see don't use table layout, it's evil, even Google says that, so why one of the most visited websites, Google and Twitter, use it for their homepage?

I don't think it is any kind of mistake, or any other stupid problem.

The only reason I can think of is, that they want the page to look similar even if client doesn't support CSS, like with Lynx.

So why everyone say it is so bad, if the biggest websites on the internet use it.

In my opinion, there are some cases, like those mentioned above, where it is vitaly important to have the same look everywhere, than it is OK to use tables.

edit: The same question goes about html elements like <center>, or formatting text with attribute align and other "html attributes and elements used to substitute CSS functionality"

回答1:

Page load time is king for these guys, and bandwidth usage is extreme.

I'd have to say they use tables for raw data speed, since they are serving up so much bandwidth every day.

Also, notice that they use inline styles in the page header to reduce the number of HTTP requests to help speed up page load time.

回答2:

Table layout gets more grief than it deserves. It's easy for developers to use, it's consistent across nearly every web browser, and it allows you to easily add rows/columns with little to no effort.

The only downside is that it goes against the mantra that your document should only contain content, and your design should be contained separately (in a CSS file).

回答3:

Google doesn't have to care about ranking high in search engines... ;)

回答4:

Yep, agreed. Sometimes, just sometimes tables are just fine. Not everyone is writing websites that are targeted at every possible browser, that needs to support text to speech etc. In general, try to learn and grow your skills and use CSS positioning etc, but nothing bad will happen if someone uses a table to position things on a webpage.

Maybe this question should be community wiki, though?

回答5:

It's evil, it's a pain, but rendering is pretty much guaranteed to be consistent across different browsers.

回答6:

Table layout is working on most browsers. Google and others want to reach all user, not some or only modern users. Having different layouts or layout technologies is hard to maintain and costly in delivering content. Table layout is not tricky. Its straight forward. You dont have to look for css hacks, browser incompatibilities or others.

Table layouts are bad. Because thy mix layout and content.

回答7:

Twitter works pretty well from phones in web mode. Some web browsers are truly gruesome, so I assume Twitter does what it has to.

Given how poorly so many web sites work on phones, I'm more concerned about mobile compatibility than with the concerns of CSS evangelicals.

回答8:

Three main reasons:

1. Tables are mainly bad for search engine reasons (there's also the issue of them messing up the DOM a bit, but that's not too bad). People don't search for Google on search engines, and people don't search for Twitter posts on generally either.
2. Tables render consistently on nearly every browser, including smartphones (which is a big concern for Twitter especially).
3. Tables consume less bandwidth. Both sites have immense data loads and need every bit of speed they can get.

回答9:

Browser Support - These guys need to have their websites render perfectly on ALL web browsers (New, Old and Obscure). No matter who's using their websites and what OS/Browser their using, these websites need to work.

Each web browser supports it's own implementation of CSS and this causes a similar issue to that of the JavaScript DOM support in various browsers.

Page Load Time - Also their pages are optimized for Page load times. If it takes a user too long to load the page they'll just go somewhere else. There are still plenty of users without broadband, even a lot of mobile devices don't have very fast connections depending on where you are.