7 HTML Tags You Should NEVER Use Again



+ Add a Comment


Thanks these are tips seems to be very interesting and useful. From HTML point of view i think we should not regret it...



<a href="http://www.shishahost.com">استضافة</a> | <a href="http://www.4rentgta.com">Toronto rentals</a>



html means markup language and it will not advance like joomla or drupal

<a href="http://www.softwarelogodesign.com">software logo design</a>

<a href="http://www.logoforcompany.com">logo for company</a>

<a href="http://www.scstrade.com">online banking pakistan</a>

<a href="http://www.seobizlink.com">SEO Services</a>



Lubbock Moving Company -Lubbock Moving Company - Movers in Lubbock, Texas TX





On the issue of strong vs b it's about structure/function vs look. Ideally, you want your text to have structural tagging/markup and the CSS handles the look and layout based on the tagging. So B just makes it bold. Using strong your CSS sheet can change how it looks in simple ways throughout the document. So you can change your layout and look for a whole site just by editing the strong definition your CSS.

<p>Similarly, you can have your CSS sheet apply layout to different bits of text drawn from a database for a dynamic page but will look cohesive as the CSS interprets the structure of the different bits of text by applying consistent layout based on the tagging. Or the samebits of text can be loaded by a different request and a different CSS applied for still another look and feel. It gives your content portability and reuse





I have to disagree on the table part, I rather use tables then Div's because they're much easier when it comes to cross-browser. Not saying div's are bad, just rather work with tables.



Although difficult to begin with, stopping using tables for layouts is an absolute must. If not for the flexibilty of divs and positioning that css brings then for the fact that anything within tables should be ignored by search engines as they should only contain data.

However the Title of this post is "HTML tags you should NEVER use again" so I would also disagree with having tables in the list. The use of tables for displaying data would be considered semantically correct and fine to use within "modern" websites.



I use a combination of css and "classic" html. My website is for personal as opposed to business interest. I agree that the underline tag should never be used. I rely heavily on tables to get my pictures to align correctly but it is a pain to code. Dreamweaver makes it easier though. I admit, I would like to learn more css.

Always a work in progress, my site is http://tjhall1.home.comcast.net/~tjhall1/ . The part that's closest to finished is the CPK mini site (pic heavy). I got lazy on the other parts.



It looks as though the writer of this article has developed a website or two, but clearly hasn't developed sites all that long to understand why the web does what it does.  Having developed literally THOUSANDS of websites over the past 15 years for companies ranging from Microsft and the US Air Force to many, many small business websites, I can agree with most of your statements, but lets make an attempt to clear up two points that really matter here:

table tag -- You're making quite a <b>bold</b> statement here declaring the developers of hundreds of millions of websites wrong for using the table tag.  We'll just start then by first saying tables are NOT the most misused tag of all time.  And bogging down page size has never really been an issue (hence the point of HTML), as most of america has upgraded to some sort of broadband... tables never bogged down narrowband anyhow so your point there is moot.

Looks like you drew your conclusion from the last paragraph of the introduction, which also states that you should not use tables as the ONLY means... it never said not at all.  The reason tables have been used and are still widely used today is simply for the fact they work... on EVERY browser (this quote cracks me up "Now that CSS has been refined and is compatible with all browsers"... really?  Show me CSS support on older browsers), and developing for a broad clientele for every browser is far more important than using a styled DIV (oh suddenly the days of good ol' Netscape Navigator come to mind... which parts of the government STILL use today on NT4 networks!).  Sure, this website's demographic may be able to get away with it, but most certainly not most international demographics or those sites who cater to selling products to people who bought computers 10 years ago and their computers continue to work fine for them (I know it's sad, but it's true).  I love CSS and code with it daily, but lets apply our dear CSS on DIVs in IE6 which I hate to say, but a large portion of the world still uses.  Bear in mind our beloved CSS3 is still in its infancy and is yet to even be fully compliant on every browser.  Tables are not misused, they're critical!  An experienced web developer knows this.

b, i and u tags -- your comments here are hilarious and clearly <u>underline</u> your lack of experience in the field (let me harass you just a little :P).  These tags are important for search engines that crawl the web such as Google, Yahoo and MSN.  Sure, once you have an established PageRank and you're in the search engine systems it's safe to gradually remove these elements, but on a new site... again, they're critical!  Anyone who understands SEO will know this.

Yes, stylesheets are wonderful, but this is a classic case where looks aren't everything.  There is an effective balance of design and code for every project, but that's up to a skilled developer to find.  I wrote articles like this blindly in 2003 for a large e-commerce platform, but later learned that the cutting edge doesn't cater to everyone.  Get some more development time under your belt and you'll learn as well.  Best of luck to you.



"The <b> and <i> tags should never be used solely for the purpose of stylizing text and especially not for headers."


That's silly. The <b> and <i> tags don't functionally do anything _except_ stylize text and in every web browser on the planet can be used interchangibly with the much-longer-to-type-out "correct" tags. Arguing differently is just sophistry.


Look, CSS just isn't the answer to every web design problem. Different browsers behave very differently with the same markup. That means that the "correct" way to do things often results in unexpected behavior. It's ludicrous that a tutorial is needed to make a page that has a three column layout with CSS when the same thing is trivial to accomplish with tables.


Lastly, you should validate your own CSS before writing an article about what a wonderful panacea CSS is.





While you are correct that visually <b> and <strong> are the same thing, the <strong> and <em> tags should be used in order to make your web site more accessible to people that rely on screen readers for their web surfing. Bolding or italicising text are generally used to put emphasis on a word or phrase or some other part of your text. Most screen readers will ignore <b> or <i> tags, but will emphasize anything in a <strong> or <em> tag. This way you are able to get your point across verbally through a screen reader as well as visually through the browser.

And in my opinion (as a web designer) <u> should never be used. It's just tacky.




I make no claim to actually know anything about html coding, but I deal with far more arcane matters on a daily basis so I have to ask - what does <strong> do other than bold the text and make it more accessable to screen readers?  Because if it is nothing else then why not make screen readers treat <b> like it does <strong>?

 Just because its old doesn't make it bad.  Like I said I know nothing about html, so if there is more to the story I would like to hear it.





The history to < b > tag is basically does the same thing as the < strong > tag. First came the < b > tag created back when html first came around, and there wasn't much understanding in implementing html. So, they were accepting ever type of codes in order to see how it would applied. In which was why < frame > was created, and now php have taken < frame > place with is for the better.

However, with < b > tag it was made to only use to semantic text, bold presentation of a text. Where the < strong > tag is for context, therefor classified as an phrase tag, therein emphasis something more important than < em > tag. Still, the < strong > tag should not but used to bold text, but it just so happen it appeared that way on the screen when the < strong > text is next to normal text. Just like when using a < h 1 > tag. However, to use < strong > tag as css is wrong, for it is only for phrasing context of a content. It is like you are saying to put < b r > or the < p > tag in css or use as css.

To correctly bold text is to use font-weight, css style. That is why < b > tags are consider not to be used because the < b > tags are not in css style sheets but font-weight is. Another word as always internal css markup in html is frown upon and using an external Css style sheet is not.

Blueway @ BlueWay.CO



bah! Bah i say, Frames far excede CSS, you want to maintain 1, OnE, UNO, menu not have to track it across 22 pages...but the pros like me




<include> and some light PHP 


Computer Whiz

Hey, since you are a pro, maybe you can help me out.  I am making a website and I recently found out that that not everything is where it is supposed to be when I view it in Internet Explorer.  Where can I find a script that checks the browser and then sends it to a new webpage if it is not compaible?  I have viewed my site in IE, FireFox, Safari, and Google Chrome; all work fine except IE.



With a simple JavaScript, you can detect the browser used and bounce to another page.




you neeed the special IE only version of HTML...


No joke, IE renders the web in its own way, ignoring Web 2.0 Standard for IE Standard.



I just can't resist this. "pros like me" my ass! The topic is about HTML not PHP. If you don't have access to PHP, then what "pros like you" do?


Regarding <b> and <i> - I don't get it. We should use <strong> because some stupid readers ignore <b>?

oh gee do I need remind you the mess Microsoft created with it's IE not following HTML standarts and 90% websites were designed for it?

I just don't get the point in replacing already existing tags with identical new ones (talking about the standarts)...IMHO it's just idiotically stupid.



which is why i said frames are the prefered method for one menu you update once if using pure HTML.


BUT PHP is the better method in a general sense





I disagree with your assessment of tables.  Tables can be used much more effectively and efficiently than div's when creating certain types of pages.  If you are creating a column oriented site, with left right and center columns, the table is simpler than floating div's all over the place. Tables are rendered much more consistantly across browsers than divs, although this is improving greatly in the latest round of browsers.



I'm SOOOO guilty of the Table and <b> and <i> and font tags. Never liked frames, never used imagemaps. Frankly, I don't agree that just because a particular tag wasn't meant to be used a certain way, don't mean we shouldn't use it that way. Lots of stuff gets used in ways other than it was intended!



As one new to the web world, it's nice to have things like this around for me to figure stuff out. I use the <b> and <i> tags from time to time, along with <u>. I also use tables to organize things on a page. I dealt with one frameset, and it was awkward...and even wonkier to look at the source. I <3 CSS sheets though..they make life simpler. 

I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.