Umm... this is disingenuous. At the time, most websites were built using tables ...

cyberax · 2026-09-15T20:22:44 1789503764

No, it's not disingenious. Tables _were_ accessible and easily navigable, including by screen readers. They are also a very logical way of organizing content.

> One of the reasons we moved to XHTML, semantic markup, CSS instead of Tables... was to enable accessibility.

Again, nope. Try a design with 3-4 columns with the old CSS and see how it behaves. The order of elements in the HTML often differs from the visual order, confusing the readers.

It also breaks tab-navigation, even the https://csszengarden.com/ has the "View All Designs" button that is inaccessible.

Then add absolutely-positioned headers and other popular CSS patterns.

krupan · 2026-09-15T22:29:23 1789511363

I remember tables within tables within tables. Were those really accessible? The humans writing that html couldn't always keep it straight

cyberax · 2026-09-16T00:28:25 1789518505

Yes? What's problematic with nested tables? You just tab in and out of them.

Now try to navigate something like the WSJ/NYTimes home page.

If you remember the old days of good UI, there was this idea of "tab groups".

agos · 2026-09-15T21:11:28 1789506688

tables are a very logical way of organizing _tabular_ content. they're a terrible tool for layout, accessibility wise

cyberax · 2026-09-15T21:14:28 1789506868

No, they're not. They are _perfect_ for layouts, as they naturally support "move left/move right/up/down" directions.

To this day, this is STILL not working well for DIV-based designs.