Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ] http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250  9878 
"Greg Schmidt" <gr***@trawna.com> wrote in message
news:1b****************@trawna.com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:53:48 -0600, me wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net... me wrote:
Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely
then the web serves no purpose.
The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
<snip>
Millions upon millions of web sites have come and gone. Many of them
failed because they didn't reach their intended audience. Of course,
the site must be there before visitors will show up, but if the visitors
don't materialize, then the site will wither and die. Looked at another
way, without visitors, it's not a web site, it's your own private
writings, which may as well be in a journal under your pillow.
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
And millions are continually coming online; most being built by the average
Joe who wants to share family photos or express an opinion or seek others
with similar interests in their hobby.
When I have time, I will return to the sites I built 5 years ago for $200.00
each to support my family, meanwhile I hope the ability to view sites does
not become contingent upon validation.
I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby standards
(not related to health & safety) are required to be met, before
publication/viewing by others. That may aid in understanding both sides.
I agree that accessibility is very important.
Carla
"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:jo****************************@news1.west.ear thlink.net... In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Wow. A seven-sentence response, two-thirds of which started with "I",
and six of which featured "I" as the primary subject. It really *must*
be all about you.
You are a keen observer, thank you for tallying the number of sentences I
used to express myself. The OP asked for opinions about how I as a website
designer felt about standards, as your astute observations have revealed I
have given my opinions as they applied to my situation so yes in a sense you
are correct, on this one occasion, in this thread and under these specfic
circumstances.
If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
Folks who can't express themselves freely on the Web probably face
_much_ bigger challenges than the meanies at the W3C. Poverty,
illiteracy and tyranny suppress far more expression than some W3C
committee suggesting that tables not be used for layout, or declining to
include BLINK in some standard.
The implications of my words are evidently non-obvious to you, I will
restate them for your benefit in terms I hope you can understand. Standards
are OK as long as they don't cause sites to become unusable. Please let me
know if you're still fuzzy on my meaning.
Get some perspective before spouting off BS about freedom of expression.
I'm sorry if my method of expression offended you but your approval is of no
consequence. If you found my post so lacking in perspective perhaps you
would honor us with your learned opinion, hopefully you have the capacity to
express yourself in a manner that is something other than just insults. Have
a nice day.
Signed,
me
c.thornquist wrote: I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby
standards (not related to health & safety) are required to be met,
before publication/viewing by others.
Publishing houses generally insist that standards of grammar and spelling
are followed by their authors.
Most newspapers and magazines, as well as insisting on correct grammar and
spelling, have a house style. For example, the Guardian makes its style
guide available online <http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/>.
(Aside: As an experienced journalist of 50 years' standing once said:
"There are only three words which need a capital letter: God, The Queen,
and the Editor." He was exaggerating, but you get the picture.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
"Arne" <us**@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net... Once upon a time *me* wrote:
Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website
author's freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely
then the web serves no purpose.
In what way do following standards prevent your freedom of expression?
So far I have not experience that. Of cause I have sometimes find
other ways to do what I want to do, if I want a page to be valid. But
there is always that other (valid) way to do it.
/Arne
Standards have not as yet impeded my freedom of expression but they might if
browser manufacturers adopt standards that obsolete code in such a way as to
make some sites unusable.
Signed,
me
"Toby Inkster" <us**********@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@tobyinkster.co .uk... c.thornquist wrote:
I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby
standards (not related to health & safety) are required to be met,
before publication/viewing by others.
Publishing houses generally insist that standards of grammar and spelling
are followed by their authors.
Most newspapers and magazines, as well as insisting on correct grammar and
spelling, have a house style. For example, the Guardian makes its style
guide available online <http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/>.
(Aside: As an experienced journalist of 50 years' standing once said:
"There are only three words which need a capital letter: God, The Queen,
and the Editor." He was exaggerating, but you get the picture.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Those are good examples, except there's nothing preventing the printing
presses from operating if those standards aren't met. And there's no
regulatory agency trying to enforce correct grammar by those publishers.
Perhaps there's room for sloppy & correct HTML?
Carla
kchayka wrote: Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
It's all about you?
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's really all about your
visitors. Without them, the web serves no purpose.
Why? If my site (personal or business) wants to project a specific
look, feel, flavor, what ever, even though I completely understand that
someone else may not like it or be able to see it. What concern is it
to you? Who cares what I do on the web?
I am not advocating using or not using anything, it is purely an
academic question. And speaking of which, wouldn't what I want to do on
the web be covered under free speech? (Citing US laws) I have a right to
express myself (or company) pretty much how ever I want.
Having said that, I must say I believe a smart business makes their site
by at least attempting to follow the rules.
--
-=tn=-
Greg Schmidt wrote: The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
This includes using tables for layout? That validates.
Validation is not the be-all and end-all. It is a useful tool.
Truer words can not be spoken.
--
-=tn=-
Travis Newbury wrote: kchayka wrote:Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
It's all about you?
Whether you want to admit it or not, it's really all about your
visitors. Without them, the web serves no purpose.
Why? If my site (personal or business) wants to project a specific
look, feel, flavor, what ever, even though I completely understand that
someone else may not like it or be able to see it. What concern is it
to you? Who cares what I do on the web?
If the site is for your own personal use, feel free to do whatever you
like, but there's not much point in having a web site if you are the
only visitor. If you don't care, no one else will, either.
But, if you want to reach a particular audience, then the purpose of the
site is for the benefit of those visitors, don't you think? The design
should be determined by what *they* want or need, not by the designer's
whims. If you know the target audience likes stuff like Flash and
gratuitous animation, give them what they want, but don't do it just
because the designer likes it. If you don't know what your visitors
want, you should find out.
Otherwise, you could end up alienating the very audience you're trying
to attract.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
kchayka wrote: Why? If my site (personal or business) wants to project a specific
look, feel, flavor, what ever, even though I completely understand
that someone else may not like it or be able to see it. What concern is
it to you? Who cares what I do on the web?
If the site is for your own personal use, feel free to do whatever
you like, but there's not much point in having a web site if you are the
only visitor. If you don't care, no one else will, either.
But, if you want to reach a particular audience, then the purpose of
the site is for the benefit of those visitors, don't you think?
The design
should be determined by what *they* want or need, not by the
designer's whims. If you know the target audience likes stuff like Flash and
gratuitous animation, give them what they want, but don't do it just
because the designer likes it. If you don't know what your visitors
want, you should find out.
Otherwise, you could end up alienating the very audience you're
trying to attract.
While probably not the answer most in this group would come up with, I
personally could not agree more.
--
-=tn=-
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote: As an aside I do not validate my code. I might implement validation if I
perceived that there was sufficient benefit for me to warrant doing so.
Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has been
voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious if you
take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more strongly
governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a flood of
new services and products.
--
Stephen Poley http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
c.thornquist wrote: Those are good examples, except there's nothing preventing the printing
presses from operating if those standards aren't met.
Except pride.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:nn********************************@4ax.com: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
As an aside I do not validate my code. I might implement validation if
I perceived that there was sufficient benefit for me to warrant doing
so.
Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website
author's freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves
freely then the web serves no purpose.
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.
A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).
c.thornquist wrote: "Greg Schmidt" <gr***@trawna.com> wrote in message
news:1b****************@trawna.com...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:53:48 -0600, me wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
>Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website
author's
>freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely
then
>the web serves no purpose.
The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
<snip>
Millions upon millions of web sites have come and gone. Many of them
failed because they didn't reach their intended audience. Of course,
the site must be there before visitors will show up, but if the visitors
don't materialize, then the site will wither and die. Looked at another
way, without visitors, it's not a web site, it's your own private
writings, which may as well be in a journal under your pillow.
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
And millions are continually coming online; most being built by the average
Joe who wants to share family photos or express an opinion or seek others
with similar interests in their hobby.
When I have time, I will return to the sites I built 5 years ago for $200.00
each to support my family, meanwhile I hope the ability to view sites does
not become contingent upon validation.
I'll try to think of analogies in other media & art forms whereby standards
(not related to health & safety) are required to be met, before
publication/viewing by others. That may aid in understanding both sides.
[snipped]
How about currency ? A great one would be road or health & safety signs!
I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.
In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.
Stephen Poley wrote: The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has been
voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth.
That statement completely depends on one's definition of creativity, and
if you are including accessibility as part of the standards.
--
-=tn=-
"Richard Brooks" <ri***********@kdbanglia.com> wrote in message
[snip] I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.
In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.
I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me
"Eric Bohlman" <eb******@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@130.133.1.4 ... Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:nn********************************@4ax.com:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
<snip>
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has
been voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious
if you take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more
strongly governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a
flood of new services and products.
A corrolary is that the greatest artists of all time have been those who
innovated *within* the limits of their media, whereas artists who have
tried to pretend that those limits didn't exist have been relegated to
the scrap-heap of pseudo-artists (those who regard Art as merely calling
attention to oneself).
What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors? Musicians?
Carla
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:nn********************************@4ax.com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:06:21 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website
author'sfreedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
The idea that working according to standards impedes creativity has been
voiced before in these groups. It is utter myth. This is obvious if you
take a look at the telecommunications sector: this is far more strongly
governed by standards than the Web is, yet it has produced a flood of
new services and products.
I have already addressed this here:
news:11************@corp.supernews.com
But my answer is in no way related to the telecommunications sector
especially considering that from the users point of view the act of making a
phone call has not changed for many decades (i.e. pick up receiver, dial,
talk).
Signed,
me
Benjamin Niemann wrote: Sugapablo wrote:
Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid.
Those corporations we are talking about have huge resources, have
officially and publicly commited to support web standards, have been
taken part of defining the specifications, and had years to convert
their own sites.
Such pages are dynamically constructed with content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in databases in
various departments (finding and convincing the responsible people first),
hardcoded in custom software (perhaps developed by external contractors),
ad code delivered by affiliates...
I still disagree with you for reasons I gave.
mozilla.org is (compared to the others) a pretty small site
Not true in my opinion. You have not surf a lot at mozilla.org. There
are hundreds, possibly thousands of documents.
and has just been redesigned.
Not true. There is still a lot of work being done to convert all pages
to HTML 4.01 strict. I even converted a page of the mozilla.org site today!
Even if the others started fixing their sites two year ago, I wouldn't
expect them to get the job done by now.
But they had much more than 2 years.
Microsoft for example just started this job (not sure, if it was
microsoft.com or another of their portal sites).
Not true. Microsoft publicly said it would support standards and comply
with standards.
Many years ago (around 2000), I read and saved these quotes:
"Microsoft is committed to working with the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) to implement W3C-approved HTML standards, and has confirmed its
pledge to work through W3C and other standards bodies on enhancements to
HTML and other key Web technologies." http://www.microsoft.com/standards/intro.asp
Now, that link was removed also many years ago. If you support defining
and implementation of web standards, then why do you neglect these
everywhere in your own web site?
NETSCAPE OPEN STANDARDS GUARANTEE
"We will adopt the major open standards recommended by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and other appropriate, vendor-neutral
standards bodies, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Object
Management Group (OMG), ECMA, and others." http://home.netscape.com/comprod/col...standards.html
DU
--
The site said to use Internet Explorer 5 or better... so I switched to
Mozilla 1.7.6 :)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:49:40 -0500, Travis Newbury wrote: Greg Schmidt wrote:
The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
This includes using tables for layout? That validates.
Tables for layout tend to hurt accessibility and search engine rankings,
make designs more fragile and increase page size (and hence download
times). However, you are right that from an SGML point of view they are
valid. It goes to show that, just as there are (rare) occasions where
(very slightly) invalid code is the best choice, there are also (many)
occasions where code that happens to be valid is not the best choice.
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
David Ross wrote: If my Web page complies with the W3C specifications, any problem
you have with viewing it as I intended is the fault of your
browser. It's not my fault, and I won't do anything about it.
If your page does not comply with the specifications and guidelines
— or worse uses proprietary capabilities found in only one
company's browser — any problem that I have with viewing it as you
intended may easily be the fault of your Web page.
There is a worse alternative. It's silent error correction mechanism in
browsers like MSIE. They will support poor coding practices by
compensating for syntax errors and they'll do this silently. So the
amateur web author will adjust the code according to what he sees: the
What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get principle can be the worst "teacher" of
HTML and CSS.
"If we lived in a world where browsers could refuse to display malformed
content (with useful error notification of course so that authors could
easily repair their content), then all of these 'bugs' would simply
disappear. I could focus my efforts on real DOM and CSS bugs, and not
have to waste my time emulating the behavior of WinIE.
(...)
The whole reason nearly all Web pages on the Internet are malformed is
because browsers let Web page authors get away with it. As long as
browsers are permissive in their error handling and recovery, Web
authors will continue to produce invalid Web pages, because they won't
even have any idea the pages they are authoring are invalid!
(...)
I think people who don't work on Web browsers for a living have no
concept of just how malformed the Web really is, so let me state this as
clearly as I can:
The #1 reason that HTML pages render incorrectly in alternate browsers
is because of differences in error handling and recovery."
David Hyatt January 18th 2004
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt...01.html#004702
also reported at
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/52481/sa...or-coding.html
"Error behavior that is appropriate for a person may not be appropriate
for software. People are capable of exercising judgement in ways that
software applications generally cannot. An informal error response may
suffice for a person but not for a processor."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch...ilent-recovery
"A user agent acts on behalf of the user and therefore is expected to
help the user understand the nature of errors, and possibly overcome
them. User agents that correct errors without the consent of the user
are not acting on the user's behalf.
Silent recovery from error is harmful."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch...error-handling
You need to fix your page before pointing an accusing finger at my browser. If you
don't care, then I don't choose to view your page.
For details, see
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html>.
David, I like your webpage. I had the intent to do a webpage exactly
like yours. I will check it more carefully later. It's bookmarked :)
Btw, mozilla.org still has some clean up to do:
I converted these http://www.mozilla.org/projects/l10n/mlp_status.html
and http://www.mozilla.org/projects/l10n/mlp_otherproj.html
to HTML 4.01 strict a few days ago and removed over 500 markup and CSS
errors.
Bug 151557: Make all pages on mozilla.org validate as HTML 4.01 Strict https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151557
DU
--
The site said to use Internet Explorer 5 or better... so I switched to
Mozilla 1.7.6 :)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:50:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Greg Schmidt wrote:
The web is (primarily) a visual medium.
Oh no, the whole point of the web was to communicate content. We
already had plenty of visual-specific media, before the WWW was
invented; if one of those had been enough, TimBL would have had no
need to invent the WWW.
Well, we had a number of text-specific media too, like FTP, Gopher and
WAIS. If the world was just about text content, then those would have
sufficed, but the physicists that TimBL worked with wanted to be able to
share graphs as well. The WWW does a great job not only of delivering
text, but also graphics (some of which is content, much of it is not).
I don't think it's coincidence that the surge in popularity of the WWW
came with the release of the first graphical browser.
I don't dispute that most readers browse the web visually. But that
doesn't devalue the web into a visual-only medium.
You didn't quote this part of my original: well-structured valid code has a
better chance of being translated reasonably well into non-visual media,
by an aural or Braille browser
A summary of that might be "valid code doesn't get in the way of the
content".
Perhaps my opening line should have been "The web is experienced
(primarily) as a visual medium."
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
Dr John Stockton wrote: JRS: In article <42***************@nowhere.not>, dated Sun, 27 Mar 2005
10:57:55, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, David Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> posted :
I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate.
Then write them down, and refer to them when posting.
Readers are more important than authors; they need to be at least as
numerous, since otherwise the authors are superfluous.
Wow! I've never read something as harsch as this. You can not be serious.
I understand well David Ross here. I remember a particular netscape
newsgroup: I was once told that my signature should not be more than 2
lines long and my signature had 3 links of references to FAQ and
resources links useful for readers of the group. My signature had 3
lines, not 2. When people are lectured and admonished for this sort of
"infraction", then I think we are all losing the purpose of joining a
newsgroup discussion.
I personally think that bottom-posting is much easier, more convenient
to read, interleaving replies contextually is better. I dislike cap-lock
manners. I prefer people keep only relevant parts of posts: such policy
vary from newsgroups btw. More technical newsgroups will not like
snipping much.
DU
In article <3b*************@uni-berlin.de>, dr*******@hotNOSPAMmail.com
enlightened us with... The whole reason nearly all Web pages on the Internet are malformed is
because browsers let Web page authors get away with it. As long as
browsers are permissive in their error handling and recovery, Web
authors will continue to produce invalid Web pages, because they won't
even have any idea the pages they are authoring are invalid!
Might I give a hearty yell of support to this statement?
When I first started out, I used MSIE because Netscrape sucked. I had no clue
that my pages even HAD errors, much less of a clue that other browsers
wouldn't render things the same way my browser did.
Because MSIE compensates for errors so much, I always design with Firefox now
and THEN check MSIE rendering (and fix if necessary). Same for when I do
javascript, since Firefox's error messages are so much better.
I keep hoping that SOME day, all browsers will at least support the same
basic DOM the same way, including rendering of CSS, so that by using whatever
elements are standard, I am 100% guaranteed that all browsers will render the
content in the exact same way (and CSS works the same, and javascript works
the same, etc). And if anyone thinks that is currently the case, I ran into
the wonderful IE peek-a-boo bug simply by putting a div in a table TD -- and
it wasn't even FLOAT!. As long as crap like that (and the box model problems,
etc) happens, I don't consider MSIE as supporting standards, since CSS is (or
should be) a standard I can count on.
--
--
~kaeli~
Doing my part to piss off the Religious Right. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
"Greg Schmidt" <gr***@trawna.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@trawna.com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:49:40 -0500, Travis Newbury wrote:
Greg Schmidt wrote:
The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
This includes using tables for layout? That validates.
Tables for layout tend to hurt accessibility and search engine rankings,
make designs more fragile and increase page size (and hence download
times). However, you are right that from an SGML point of view they are
valid. It goes to show that, just as there are (rare) occasions where
(very slightly) invalid code is the best choice, there are also (many)
occasions where code that happens to be valid is not the best choice.
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as opposed to
accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at a
stretch.
I know you can approximate the layout & look of a site built with tables in
CSS (saw it done in an example on a website), so why do so many CSS sites
look so bad? And so similar? Is it something inherent in coding with CSS?
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
Carla
kaeli wrote: In article <3b*************@uni-berlin.de>, dr*******@hotNOSPAMmail.com
enlightened us with...
The whole reason nearly all Web pages on the Internet are malformed is
because browsers let Web page authors get away with it. As long as
browsers are permissive in their error handling and recovery, Web
authors will continue to produce invalid Web pages, because they won't
even have any idea the pages they are authoring are invalid!
Might I give a hearty yell of support to this statement?
When I first started out, I used MSIE because Netscrape sucked. I had no clue
that my pages even HAD errors, much less of a clue that other browsers
wouldn't render things the same way my browser did.
Because MSIE compensates for errors so much, I always design with Firefox now
and THEN check MSIE rendering (and fix if necessary). Same for when I do
javascript, since Firefox's error messages are so much better.
I keep hoping that SOME day, all browsers will at least support the same
basic DOM the same way, including rendering of CSS, so that by using whatever
elements are standard, I am 100% guaranteed that all browsers will render the
content in the exact same way (and CSS works the same, and javascript works
the same, etc).
Well, now is the time to report these errors to Microsoft. At this site, http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/defaul...andardsSupport http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/defaul...plorerFeedback
you can report all bugs, errors, problems you see with MSIE 6 and the
MSIE 7 dev. team will... <gulp> see, and read these and then will
possibly implement the features you request or correct the bugs you report.
MSIE 7 dev. team is supposed to release a MSIE 7 beta 1 this summer...so
if I was you, I would hurry reporting the bugs you see over there. You
can also report a bug along with a testcase at http://www.quirksmode.org/bugreports/
as the IE 7 team also checks these pages.
DU
--
The site said to use Internet Explorer 5 or better... so I switched to
Mozilla 1.7.6 :)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
[overquotage snipped...] Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they,
almost all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that
they were built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way
across my 19" monitor?
Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page gets
to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as
opposed to accessibility)?
(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement max-width)
Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at a stretch.
That depends on the pixel density of the display! On my desktop
display, that's less than 3 inches, and represents a -very- short line
of text.
I know you can approximate the layout & look of a site built with
tables in CSS
This is truly perverse. You want to take a badly-engineered product,
and use good engineering to mimic it? You'd rate to finish up with
many of the disadvantages of both, and few of the benefits. No wonder
you're disappointed.
Nobody claims that CSS is perfect, or that browser implementations of
it are entirely reliable. But at least it's a move in the right
direction, and, if done properly, my perception is that on balance it
rates to produce better results. Of course, it can be that your
standards of "better" are so different from mine that we'd never
agree. But you seem to be doing your worst to put CSS in a bad light,
while "proving" that table layouts enjoy a superiority that IMHO they
don't deserve.
so why do so many CSS sites look so bad? And so similar?
More to the point, why is your perception of them so different from
mine?
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up.
The problem with table layouts is that they stubbornly insist on
"working" in situations where they're completely inappropriate.
CSS can be more flexible than that.
They must be precise.
Which web browsers are not; so the bets are off.
I drink to flexibility of design.
On 30/03/2005 19:47, c.thornquist wrote:
[snip] Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
I would imagine that it's simply because Web "designers" aren't using
CSS yet. The authors that do are the Web developers that know the
benefits of CSS, but don't have the artistic capability to exploit them.
Graphics designers are still being taught techniques from when NN4 was
a major user agent. I've even seen material that focuses on that
antiquated pain in the ass. CSS is a small side note, and the idea of
semantic mark-up never even comes up.
It's been said before that more graphical artists need to lead the way
with CSS-based Web development. To show others just what can be
achieved with well-written, semantic mark-up. I sincerely hope that
happens sometime soon.
[snip]
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
It's got nothing to do with numbers. It's that most table layouts I've
bothered to look at fit a particular design. If something doesn't
quite fit the design, or you need to change it, it's not always a
matter of a little editing here, at little there. That'll just lead to
something ugly and broken. It may necessitate rebuilding from the
ground up.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:47:59 GMT, c.thornquist wrote: Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring
This is an old question that's been rehashed here many times. The best
guess I've seen is that people who are good at CSS tend to be techies
and not so good at design(1), while people who are good at design tend
not to be so good at CSS. For a variety of reasons (mainly to do with
economics, I think), the two types tend not to collaborate very often.
and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as opposed to
accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at a
stretch.
Why do sites built with tables not stretch out to make better use of my
monitor? The pages which scrunch themselves all up into the left half
of the available space, and make themselves harder to read by doing so,
far outnumber the pages which will stretch too wide.
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
By fragile, I meant that they are more likely to break when changes are
made. You need to add a new menu item, and now all of the numbers must
be recalculated to fit it in. Such changes have much less "ripple
effect" on a properly designed CSS site.
(1) I know that this is true in my case. I think that perhaps my best
CSS design was for http://handsonmassage.ca/ It's not quite done yet,
but it's close. It's not as flashy as some sites, but I think it's not
as "boxy and boring" as many CSS sites. Most importantly, it meets the
client's needs, and it's dead easy to maintain (low maintenance costs
contribute to high customer satisfaction).
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writing in
news:wvC2e.116947$r55.84800@attbi_s52:
"Greg Schmidt" <gr***@trawna.com> wrote in message
news:1t****************@trawna.com... On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:49:40 -0500, Travis Newbury wrote:
Greg Schmidt wrote:
The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you
can express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it
validates.
This includes using tables for layout? That validates.
Tables for layout tend to hurt accessibility and search engine
rankings, make designs more fragile and increase page size (and hence
download times). However, you are right that from an SGML point of
view they are valid. It goes to show that, just as there are (rare)
occasions where (very slightly) invalid code is the best choice, there
are also (many) occasions where code that happens to be valid is not
the best choice.
--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost
all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were
built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19"
monitor? Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability
(as opposed to accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only
400 pixels across at a stretch.
I know you can approximate the layout & look of a site built with
tables in CSS (saw it done in an example on a website), so why do so
many CSS sites look so bad? And so similar? Is it something inherent in
coding with CSS?
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
Carla
Recently, I was asked to duplicate the look of the Loreal site. The new
site owner thought that duplicating the site would be difficult, because it
was using ASP.Net so I would not be able to see the real coding.
I explained that I did not have to see the server side coding, only the
HTML. I looked at the source, and saw a whopping 1,121 lines, including
presentational tables, javascript, and 45 validation errors. When I
duplicated it, I reduced it to 164 lines, pure CSS, external javascript,
and 0 errors.
The sites are: http://www.loreal.com/ and http://win04.startlogic.com/infinica/ (yes I know the text is too small,
but the site owner demanded it despite many warnings)
--
Adrienne Boswell http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
In article <3b*************@uni-berlin.de>, dr*******@hotNOSPAMmail.com
enlightened us with... I understand well David Ross here. I remember a particular netscape
newsgroup: I was once told that my signature should not be more than 2
lines long and my signature had 3 links of references to FAQ and
resources links useful for readers of the group. My signature had 3
lines, not 2. When people are lectured and admonished for this sort of
"infraction", then I think we are all losing the purpose of joining a
newsgroup discussion.
Yeah, there's a netcop over at the javascript group, too.
They're all over.
("My internet penis is <---- this ----> BIG!!")
LOL
I usually just ignore anyone who feels the need to correct me about my sig.
Unless I'm REALLY bored. *heh*
--
--
~kaeli~
It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in
rats. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
Michael Winter wrote: On 30/03/2005 19:47, c.thornquist wrote:
[snip]
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost
all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were
built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19"
monitor?
I would imagine that it's simply because Web "designers" aren't using
CSS yet. The authors that do are the Web developers that know the
benefits of CSS, but don't have the artistic capability to exploit them.
That's it, I beleive. I know that I am no designer. So, in the
upcoming redesign of the large website I manage ( http://alamo.nmsu.edu),
the design will be created by a committee consisting of people from our
(college) art department, marketing, public information, various area
personnel, and myself. We will each have something to offer in the
design, then I will implement what we come up with. I think it will
work rather well. Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
It's got nothing to do with numbers. It's that most table layouts I've
bothered to look at fit a particular design. If something doesn't quite
fit the design, or you need to change it, it's not always a matter of a
little editing here, at little there. That'll just lead to something
ugly and broken. It may necessitate rebuilding from the ground up.
I can't wait to get rid of tables on my site. Updating pages with
tables nested in tables nested ... Well, you get the idea. Editing
information in a div or paragraph or whatever is much much easier.
I've also just implemented, for experimentation, SSI and am in the
process of implementing a new layout for one part of the site
( http://alamo.nmsu.edu/computer/) using seperate files for heading and
navigation menu, styles, footer, and main content. I have many
secretaries and other novices on campus that take care of various pages.
I think that if they only have to concern themselves with the content
section, they will have a much easier time messing things up less.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Greg Schmidt wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:47:59 GMT, c.thornquist wrote:
<snip>
Why do sites built with tables not stretch out to make better use of my
monitor? The pages which scrunch themselves all up into the left half
of the available space, and make themselves harder to read by doing so,
far outnumber the pages which will stretch too wide.
Good point. Some of my sites may be what Carla is talking about. I'll
have to consider placing everything in a div with a max-width. Of
course, that's not going to work in every browser, but at least I'll
have tried. :)
Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up. They must be precise.
By fragile, I meant that they are more likely to break when changes are
made. You need to add a new menu item, and now all of the numbers must
be recalculated to fit it in. Such changes have much less "ripple
effect" on a properly designed CSS site.
(1) I know that this is true in my case. I think that perhaps my best
CSS design was for http://handsonmassage.ca/ It's not quite done yet,
but it's close. It's not as flashy as some sites, but I think it's not
as "boxy and boring" as many CSS sites. Most importantly, it meets the
client's needs, and it's dead easy to maintain (low maintenance costs
contribute to high customer satisfaction).
Nice looking site. I took a brief look at your coding and am wondering
why you went with the loose dtd. It appears (like I said, brief look)
that everything would validate strict. And I agree totally with you
about design vs. develop. I think I'm a pretty good developer; I'm not
so good at design.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
DU wrote: David Ross wrote:
You need to fix
your page before pointing an accusing finger at my browser. If you
don't care, then I don't choose to view your page.
For details, see
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html>.
David, I like your webpage. I had the intent to do a webpage exactly
like yours. I will check it more carefully later. It's bookmarked :)
Yes, some good information there. I have also bookmarked it for further
review.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
in alt.html, Adrienne wrote: The sites are: http://www.loreal.com/ and
Hurts my eyes and is very bad indeed.
http://win04.startlogic.com/infinica/ (yes I know the text is too small,
but the site owner demanded it despite many warnings)
Unfortunaltely can hardly be called good example of CSS layout. The good
thing about CSS is that you can do lots of things with it that you can't
do with table layouts. The bad thing is the same.
Show him and yourself this screen cap: http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/crap/screen.png
To fix it so that design don't break I had to:
- disable my general userstylesheet (line-height 1.5)
- disable my current font size userstylesheet (was something like 16px)
- disable my min font size thingy (it was 12px)
especially the last one I never use normally, I'm in user mode before
that.
Anyway, the problem is in sites coding. (the 3col layout is IMO stupid
idea anyway) It would be possible, of course, to make it not break, even
using current CSS.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera: https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173
c.thornquist wrote: Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as opposed to
accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at a
stretch.
The main reason is that graphic artists have yet to embrace css. When
this happens you will start to see less boxy looks. And I completely
agree with you, they all look alike.
--
-=tn=-
Alan J. Flavell wrote: Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they,
almost all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that
they were built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way
across my 19" monitor? Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page gets
to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
So to hell with those that use their browsers full screen eh?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as
opposed to accessibility)?
(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement max-width)
Wait a second! Who's browser is it? It is mine, so it is NOT
ridiculous for me to have it full screen!
I drink to flexibility of design.
And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!
--
-=tn=-
Toby Inkster wrote: Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile...153.css&page=0
Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.
So now you are telling me how to use my browser?
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."
How are these different?
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"
They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
--
-=tn=-
Lauri Raittila wrote: Or use userstylesheet.
P {max-width:60ex;}
Does that work in IE?
--
-=tn=-
Travis Newbury wrote: Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
I can't speak for Toby, but I see that both can be flexible to a point.
As a developer, I must make the decision of what will be a max size
and a minumum size. My reasoning of not using table layout is that it
is more difficult to work with than simple headings and paragraphs for
text, and all the fancy stuff separated with divs.
I disagree with your last statement in that the designer/developer isn't
deciding how you use your browser; he/she is deciding a max and min
*ideal* viewing size. It's still up to you (in either type of page)
whether to view it within the ideal conditions.
I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either. They will
most always close one before opening another. Teaching HTML and CSS, I
sometimes have a hard time getting students to have a browser window
open and a text editor saving the file and then refreshing the browser
to instantly see your changes. And that process is a whole lot easier
with windows that you can see parts of at the same time. I very rarely
ever have any application full screen as I usually have many things
going at once switching from one to another.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Travis Newbury wrote: Alan J. Flavell wrote:
I drink to flexibility of design.
And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!
What's the point of having a full-size window if you aren't going to use it?
Maybe this is why so many deezyners make fixed-width layouts - because
they haven't figured out how to change their browser window size to
something reasonable for the content they happen to be viewing? ;)
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Travis Newbury wrote: So now you are telling me how to use my browser?
You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."
How are these different?
a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
be able to fit a fixed width document in it.
b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
use 500px wide windows for instance.
There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!
But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
Then it will most likely (in your opinion) look like hell at any width
;-)
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"
They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?
The fixed width doesn't give you any other option than that particular
width. How is the author gonna know what your preferred width is?
Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen.
It's the same as with money. Those who have it, don't have a problem
with it. Not everybody /has/ a large screen (or /wants/ to use the
browser full width).
I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read.
So, you have the option to
a) use a narrower window
b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;margin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)
You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.
Nope, in the fixed width case, a lot of people have no option than to
adapt to the author's intended width or wider, and a lot don't even
have that, as they are limited to 14inch screens.
In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
"Travis Newbury" <tn@swingers.com> wrote in message
news:vM***************@fe04.lga... c.thornquist wrote:
Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost
all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were
built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19"
monitor? Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as
opposed to accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400
pixels across at a stretch.
The main reason is that graphic artists have yet to embrace css. When
this happens you will start to see less boxy looks. And I completely
agree with you, they all look alike.
--
-=tn=-
You may be right. My background is in fine arts (painting & sculpture). The
sites I've seen built with CSS are so repetitive in design, it makes me
wonder if it's caused by CSS. But CSS makes sense to me. You make an error
in coding on a large site built w/o CSS & they are a pain to fix. I do have
a couple small errors on a large site I recently completed & must use search
& replace on every page. But that's a scary proposition. Here's the site: http://www.srfc.com It's 270+ pages & every page must be fixed. Luckily (or
not) the browsers are forgiving. I realize the nav bar on top won't work as
it should (the long drop downs don't scroll) for those not using IE, so I
added the two main categories, which need scrolling) again on the left nav
bar.
Anyway, I think you are right, I just haven't seen enough variety in CSS
built sites. But, that will come. Right? Like I said, CSS makes more sense
to me. Still, I enjoy working with tables.
Re the site above, I need help learning to create secure forms (any forms!).
The customer has a Cobalt server, if that helps. Any tutorial links would be
appreciated.
Carla
Travis Newbury wrote: Actually they do all look boxy and similar.
No more so than table-based designs. After all, a table is a table -- a
grid of boxes.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Travis Newbury wrote: Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[attribution reinstated:]
| | On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote: Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they,
almost all that I've seen where it was brought to my attention
that they were built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all
the way across my 19" monitor? Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page
gets to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
So to hell with those that use their browsers full screen eh?
Not at all; but if they insist on using a browser window that's
inappropriate for purpose, and their browser fails to apply any
relevant max-width suggestions, they might not get the best result
possible.
(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement
max-width)
Wait a second! Who's browser is it? It is mine, so it is NOT
ridiculous for me to have it full screen!
Well, it wasn't me who was complaining about the results. It's a
well-established principle of web design that the final decision about
the presentation is taken by the reader; the author can only make what
seem to be appropriate proposals.
Making those proposals flexible, in the various ways which CSS allows,
can make a page which adapts itself more comfortably to variations in
the presentation situation. But if the reader takes that to extremes,
then the occasional sub-optimal result isn't so very surprising. At
least, to my way of thinking, it's better for the reader to have the
option of choice, as opposed to getting tiny fixed-size text cramped
into a narrow fixed-width column on an otherwise empty wide screen.
So which would *you* prefer?
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:
[overquotage snipped...]
<snip>
Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page gets
to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!
No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser & go.
Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to adjust
things under the hood depending on my destination (stole that analogy from
the 'webmasters newsgroup). So, what's "windowing"?
<snip>
(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement max-width)
What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768? Most sites
look fine at that setting. The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running
all the way across the screen. It makes reading tiring. Look at the opening
paragrah on their homepage. And it's like that throughout their HTML section
( http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ ). They don't care about usability issues and
they should, especially on a site that requires so much reading.
<snip>
That depends on the pixel density of the display! On my desktop
display, that's less than 3 inches, and represents a -very- short line
of text.
A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but still,
4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is comfortable in
print.
I know you can approximate the layout & look of a site built with
tables in CSS
This is truly perverse. You want to take a badly-engineered product,
and use good engineering to mimic it? You'd rate to finish up with
many of the disadvantages of both, and few of the benefits. No wonder
you're disappointed.
I meant presentation, not structure.
<snip>
But you seem to be doing your worst to put CSS in a bad light,
while "proving" that table layouts enjoy a superiority that IMHO they
don't deserve.
I'm not saying tables are superior, just different and legit. On the other
hand, CSS supporters claim the superiority of CSS over tables.
so why do so many CSS sites look so bad? And so similar?
More to the point, why is your perception of them so different from
mine?
Probably because I focus more on presentation than what the w3c deems
correct coding. Tables need not be fragile if the numbers add up.
The problem with table layouts is that they stubbornly insist on
"working" in situations where they're completely inappropriate.
CSS can be more flexible than that.
If tables work to present the content where you want it, how is that
inappropriate? They must be precise.
Which web browsers are not; so the bets are off.
I drink to flexibility of design.
I try to view my sites in FF, Opera & IE. All view the same way in each.
There are problems with presentation, though, if I change my browser's font
size settings. No overlapping, but they look terrible. But, I need to learn
more about font settings & stop using fixed sizes for fonts.
I drink to learning CSS:)
Carla
"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:LAM2e.119502$r55.56839@attbi_s52...
<snip>
Re the site above, I need help learning to create secure forms (any
forms!). The customer has a Cobalt server, if that helps. Any tutorial
links would be appreciated.
Carla
Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes. Did everyone know that about style
tags? How does CSS address font sizing by the user's browser? Now I'm
wishing I had never started using style tags (or whatever they are called.
Embedded CSS?)
I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.
Maybe I'll seek a new career. I'm too old for this stuff.
Carla
in alt.html, c.thornquist wrote:
"Travis Newbury" <tn@swingers.com> wrote in message
built with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19"
The main reason is that graphic artists have yet to embrace css.
You may be right. My background is in fine arts (painting & sculpture). The
sites I've seen built with CSS are so repetitive in design, it makes me
wonder if it's caused by CSS.
I believe the reason is that most of those sites you have seen is of
people writing here. (not the sites they create, but their own)
Thise people are generally not graphic designers, but CSS and HTMl
experts...
CSS is not too used fao layout yet.
It's 270+ pages & every page must be fixed.
Of course, if it is systematic error, it is matter or search and replace,
so 10 minute job...
Anyway, I think you are right, I just haven't seen enough variety in CSS
built sites. But, that will come. Right?
CSS zen garden has some graphical designed CSS. It used to be better
(there were no 100 examples of same stuff, but different approaches), and
of course those are mostly very flaky, as design is retrofitted
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera: https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173 This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. |
