Same here. It's amazing how convoluted "modern" CSS can be compared to simple, reliable tables.

Layout with CSS is really much simpler than doing that with tables.

Exactly. I mean, I get the part where people are against layout with tables in principle.

I just hate the part where they act like CSS is a good alternative in practice.

Even better is to draw everything in a canvas!

To that point, no human should have to work directly with CSS for layout!

Generally I agree that too many people have a fetish about avoiding tables when it's clearly the right tool for the job. But I've definitely been bitten by using them. Table layouts don't play well with other CSS properties.

If you are using HTML tables for layout then you definitely aren't using the right tool for the job. If it isn't tabular information then it doesn't belong in a table.

You can easily get around that by using `display: table` and `display: table-cell` So you have your semantic HTML elements, if you're into that sort of thing, and flexible layout options, like `vertical-align: middle`.

Depending on how you do the layout it also may not play well with screenreaders.

Why do people care about screen readers? Is it because they are good people and want to make sure sight-impaired visitors are able to access their content? Or is it because they have contracts that require 508 compliance?

Why does it matter why they care? Does doing it for 508 compliance somehow make it less important? It's simply the right thing to do.

I ask purely out of curiosity, not because I think the answer should affect my, or anyone else's, actions.

I guess it's a good question. At a recent conference it [website accessibility] was described as the digital equivalent to putting a ramp in at your door.

Where I work at the moment I'm required to comply with WCAG2 AA at a minimum.