CSS vs Table based layouts: Speed Differential
Categories: goog observations
Myself and a coworker of mine, Joe Gautreau, did an interesting experiment this week regarding load-time speed comparison between CSS-based templates vs table-based. Personally I wouldn't have thought there would be much difference, if any, but the results were eye-opening...33% less time to load a CSS'd version than the table version. You can read the details of it here.
Subscription Options
You are not logged in, so your subscription status for this entry is unknown. You can login or register here.
Re: CSS vs Table based layouts: Speed Differential
I've heard that a .css file is cached as well.
Posted by psenn on April 20, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Re: CSS vs Table based layouts: Speed Differential
I think it's funny that people say CSS vs tables when most tabled sites these days use a lot of CSS too. Div, or semantic layout, vs tables would be more accurate. Regardless, cool to know that semantic layouts are faster. More ammo to convince the folks that are too lazy to learn the "right" way to do things. :)
Posted by Josh on April 20, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Re: CSS vs Table based layouts: Speed Differential
I did a similar test where I work and came out with similar results.
Posted by Andrew on May 25, 2007 at 12:17 PM