469,366 Members | 2,198 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,366 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is the end of HTML as we know it?

Every respected Web-authoring Guru says that.
This is the era of table-less design, CSS code, XHTML compliant
websites.
Separate layout from content.

There's no reason to use tables any more.
Everything can be done with CSS.
Tables are so 2002ish ...

Do you agree with that?
I don't.
I've run into many situations where I just couldn't achieve the
desired effect in different browsers without using tables.
But it could be that I'm not well versed on the intricacies of CSS ...

Nov 3 '07
136 4289
And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language
I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
Nov 8 '07 #101

"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
>
paul watt wrote:
>"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googleg roups.com...
>
Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text
have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi

Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate?
<snip>
Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
project, soon to be officially launched.
I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
(freewebdesignonline.org).
How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.
i'm not doing bad thanks, got a bit of buisness, just done a freebie for my
sister and i've got something else in the pipe line. I've had to take a full
time job but thats ok

--
Paul Watt

http://www.paulwattdesigns.com
Nov 8 '07 #102

paul watt wrote:
"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...

paul watt wrote:
"Chaddy2222" <sp***********************@yahoo.com.auwrote in message
news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...

Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
: http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.

I hope you can take constructive criticism...

The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text
have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi

Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate?
<snip>
Hay again Paul, I am doing quite well. I finished my final Uni exam
for the year today (well yesterday now I guess.
I am also working on a re-design of the Web Design Tips Online
project, soon to be officially launched.
I am also launching my new domain name on Monday
(freewebdesignonline.org).
How are you going anyway, have you got more business yet?.

i'm not doing bad thanks, got a bit of buisness, just done a freebie for my
sister and i've got something else in the pipe line. I've had to take a full
time job but thats ok
Hmm it's a worry really.
But I am sure you know who to blaim for the lack of work, it's those
dam graphic designer hacks who think they can slap up pages and call
themselves a web designer.
They also charge very low rates.
BTW just a thaught have you considard buying ads in local newspapers
as well as web based (Google Add words) comes to mind.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

Nov 8 '07 #103
On Nov 8, 2:26 pm, "paul watt" <p...@NOSPAMpaulwatt.infowrote:
"Chaddy2222" <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.auwrote in message

news:11**********************@e34g2000pro.googlegr oups.com...


Heidi wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
: It was a template I developed for my own sites.
:http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz now is useing it.
: It should look a lot better as I changed a lot of things in the CSS.
I hope you can take constructive criticism...
The flash thingy for your portfolio is annoying. Why does the text have
to
flip, roll, spin, or bounce oddly into place?
Heidi
Hmmm do you think it would look better if they all (meaning the text)
came in the same way? I believe I was thinking of doing that first.

Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash?
"concentrating on Flash"???
Oh I see, it is a joke.
I get it now.
Very funny.
Hilarious, really, good one !!!
I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?
Another joke, no doubt ...

Nov 8 '07 #104
GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.comwrote:
>And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language

I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...
Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
we have in the Western world.

I have two profoundly deaf chums. They smoke pot, drink too much beer,
fornicate, but communicate in sign language rather than English.
They're deaf, not stupid.

In short, like all disabled people they are the same as everyone else.
All the same, all different. They all need to make use of services, so
to bar them from your web site, doesn't make economic sense.

Matt

--
Author of The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Nov 8 '07 #105
Els
Matt Probert wrote:
GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.comwrote:
>>And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>>those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language

I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...

Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
we have in the Western world.
And that illustrates how some people fail to read all the words
properly ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 8 '07 #106

Matt Probert wrote:
"paul watt" <pa**@NOSPAMpaulwatt.infowrote:
Hey Chad,
How ya doing mate? Why are you concentrating on flash? I thought that would
move you away from the accessable aspect of your philosophy?


You may be considering accessible only through terms of visual
impairment. Children and possibly therefore those with learning
difficulties, often find pictures, and by extenson, Flash more
accessible than plain text.
That is quite true.
Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) toa high level, and as
such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.

Matt
BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.
--
Regards Chad.

Nov 8 '07 #107
Els
Chaddy2222 wrote:
BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.
That's just the thing: your portfolio shows static sites. Why
shouldn't it just be a series of images with text? There is nothing
that Flashy effects could add to it. There is no interaction needed in
the portfolio as far as I can see, and the visual effects are just not
needed at all. They don't help convey your message, in fact quite the
opposite. If you want the slideshow, use unobtrusive JavaScript so
that a visitor without JavaScript can still browse it with regular
links, and those with JavaScript will get the slideshow bonus. (if it
is a bonus, but that's a matter of personal taste)

Just look at it from the potential customer's point of view: he's
blind, and is looking for someone who makes accessible websites.
Unfortunately he can't check out your accessible work, because you hid
it in inaccessible Flash. Tell me, does that make sense at all?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 8 '07 #108
And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
GreyWyvern wrote:
>And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>>those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language

I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...

Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
we have in the Western world.
I forgive you.

Here, how's this for accessibiity?
http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1

If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
page for deaf users...

....


....


!

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
Nov 8 '07 #109
Els
GreyWyvern wrote:
Here, how's this for accessibiity?
http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1

If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
page for deaf users...
LOL!

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Nov 8 '07 #110
Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) to a high level, and as
such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.
"Hey, she's deaf. Just give her some picture books."

That has to be the most ignorant, presumptive, prejudiced and
downright DUMB statement I've read on Usenet for many years.

My late and much lamented grandmother was born profoundly deaf as a
result of her mother catching Rubella during pregnancy.

Not only was reading one of her greatest pleasures in life, but she
was very adept on a piano even though she could hear absolutely
nothing. She had a metronome on top of the instrument and just
enjoyed using her fingers and the rhythm. Even as a seven-year-old I
enjoyed her playing of the classics.

She could lipread at thirty yards and had her eyes checked twice a
year to keep up this capability. Nobody had any secrets from her.

I've known her many times watch TV programmes for a few minutes and
then sort in disgust: "All stolen from Marlowe/Shakespeare/whoever".

She lived near Tamworth in Staffordshire. The Mobile Library used to
stop outside the house once a fortnight and the driver would walk down
the path and wave through the window - she would then go out and get
eight books. You were only allowed four, but she had a ticket in her
husband's name and got another four on that.

The scriptwriters on Starsky and Hutch once admitted they had four
basic plots and two variants, all from Shakespeare. My grandma
spotted every one - ten minutes into a programme she'd tell you which
one they were using and start predicting EVERY SINGLE scene. "He's
the Malvolio character this time."

Until the middle of the eighteenth century, deaf people in England
were unable to "inherit property, to marry, to receive education, to
have adequately challenging work-and were denied fundamental human
rights" (Sachs, Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices. Harper Perennial: New
York, 1990.)

Let's not go back there, huh?

Nov 8 '07 #111
In article <op.t1hn9almsl6xfd@bhuisman>,
GreyWyvern <sp**@greywyvern.comwrote:
>
Here, how's this for accessibiity?
http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1
Now *that* is sheerly brilliant!

--
dorayme
Nov 8 '07 #112
On Nov 8, 8:54 pm, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.comwrote:
And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
GreyWyvern wrote:
And lo, Matt didst speak in a-buncha-groups:
>those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language
I don't think those people are even able to worry about website
accessibility...
Which illustrates perfectly the typical level of ignorance and bigotry
we have in the Western world.

I forgive you.

Here, how's this for accessibiity?
http://www.wmfs.net/wmfs/home.xtml?bhcp=1

If you put your mouse over the little woman, she signs the contents of the
page for deaf users...
Nice detail.
Shouldn't you indicate it in some way to deaf users?
A little sign, perhaps, above her?

Don't jump on me now, it's just a good-intentioned suggestion ...

Nov 9 '07 #113
On Nov 8, 9:26 pm, Phil Payne <p...@isham-research.co.ukwrote:
Similarly the deaf; those born profoundly death may not have learned a
spoken language (English, Spanish, German etc) to a high level, and as
such may find pictures easier to comprehend than written words.

"Hey, she's deaf. Just give her some picture books."

That has to be the most ignorant, presumptive, prejudiced and
downright DUMB statement I've read on Usenet for many years.

My late and much lamented grandmother was born profoundly deaf as a
result of her mother catching Rubella during pregnancy.

Not only was reading one of her greatest pleasures in life, but she
was very adept on a piano even though she could hear absolutely
nothing. She had a metronome on top of the instrument and just
enjoyed using her fingers and the rhythm. Even as a seven-year-old I
enjoyed her playing of the classics.

She could lipread at thirty yards and had her eyes checked twice a
year to keep up this capability. Nobody had any secrets from her.

I've known her many times watch TV programmes for a few minutes and
then sort in disgust: "All stolen from Marlowe/Shakespeare/whoever".

She lived near Tamworth in Staffordshire. The Mobile Library used to
stop outside the house once a fortnight and the driver would walk down
the path and wave through the window - she would then go out and get
eight books. You were only allowed four, but she had a ticket in her
husband's name and got another four on that.

The scriptwriters on Starsky and Hutch once admitted they had four
basic plots and two variants, all from Shakespeare. My grandma
spotted every one - ten minutes into a programme she'd tell you which
one they were using and start predicting EVERY SINGLE scene. "He's
the Malvolio character this time."

Until the middle of the eighteenth century, deaf people in England
were unable to "inherit property, to marry, to receive education, to
have adequately challenging work-and were denied fundamental human
rights" (Sachs, Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices. Harper Perennial: New
York, 1990.)

Let's not go back there, huh?

A practical guide to teaching and supporting deaf learners in foreign
language classes

This book is about deaf people learning spoken/written foreign
languages. To date there has been a dearth of information on this
subject, and in that vacuum there has been a tendency to think that
deaf learners should be steered away from foreign language learning.
http://www.directlearn.co.uk/ashop/catalogue.php?cat=8

How the Deaf (and other Sign language users) are Deprived of their
Linguistic Human Rights.
http://www.terralingua.org/DeafHR.html

Nov 9 '07 #114

Els wrote:
Chaddy2222 wrote:
BTW the main reason for doing my portfolio the way I did is mainly due
to the fact that it's just easier and you can do more visual effects
for that kind of stuff in F;lash then in HTML.

That's just the thing: your portfolio shows static sites. Why
shouldn't it just be a series of images with text? There is nothing
that Flashy effects could add to it. There is no interaction needed in
the portfolio as far as I can see, and the visual effects are just not
needed at all. They don't help convey your message, in fact quite the
opposite. If you want the slideshow, use unobtrusive JavaScript so
that a visitor without JavaScript can still browse it with regular
links, and those with JavaScript will get the slideshow bonus. (if it
is a bonus, but that's a matter of personal taste)

Just look at it from the potential customer's point of view: he's
blind, and is looking for someone who makes accessible websites.
Unfortunately he can't check out your accessible work, because you hid
it in inaccessible Flash. Tell me, does that make sense at all?

This is an interesting point, the site is aimed mainly at non
profits but still I guess that considering that some of them are
still on dial-up, due to eather cost location or other factors, it
would probably make sence to make the portfolio page an ordinary HTML
page.
--
Free Web Design Online re-launching soon @ freewebdesignonline.org

Nov 9 '07 #115
On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.frwrote:
Ed Jensen wrote:
I call this the "Bjarne Stroustrup Excuse". He always argued that
it's not C++ that's too complex, but instead, developers not being
properly educated.
We all know how that turned out: C++ has little going for it these
days, except simple inertia (i.e., it's not worth rewriting large
bases of code in less complex/better languages). Developers continue
to increasingly choose simpler/better languages these days, such as
Java and C#.

I've programmed many tools, for personal use, with C++, and it works very
well. I wouldn't use Java (too heavy runtime inertia), C# or C. I find
that C++ fits my needs.
C++ isn't the "ultimate universal tool", but it's perfectly fine for many
application fields for people who master the language.

There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.
Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
designers.
If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
get all that bad stuff.
And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
designers, you will get even less bad stuff.
That's true to a much larger extent for
JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.

No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
spec to use it!
e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
I beg to differ. Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
so why on Earth are they allowed?
Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
10px; ?
In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
children were allowed to drive a car without license?
Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.
It's my opinion that the underlying problem is somewhere closer to the
tool being too complex. You may have a different opinion, and that's
fine.
The tool is being too complex (because it's powerful), which implies:
1) That IE don't support it.
So that means that more than half of all Internet users don't support
it.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
2) That most web developers don't use it correctly.
And depending on which web developer you speak to, he/she will tell
you a different thing about how CSS should be used.
And that applies to even the most basic concepts
Note: Purely from a user point-of-view, user CSS (without author CSS) is
great. If CSS had to be removed from the web then, user CSS should have to
be kept.
That makes more sense.

Nov 10 '07 #116
On 2007-11-10, 1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
....
>But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".

I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is impossible, that's why.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
The Web is not paper.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
Which, on the better sites, they do.
That's why you use Templates and grids.
Exactly.
>Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
designers.
If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
get all that bad stuff.
And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
designers, you will get even less bad stuff.
That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....
>That's true to a much larger extent for
JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.

No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
spec to use it!
e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
I beg to differ.
Differ from what?
Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
so why on Earth are they allowed?
Who is going to disallow them? And how?

There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.
Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
10px; ?
To make the text unreadably small (or too large).
>In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
children were allowed to drive a car without license?
Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.
Just as in a car.

....

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nov 10 '07 #117
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.frwrote:
>There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.
Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 10 '07 #118
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On 2007-11-10, 1001 Webs wrote:
>On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
...
>>But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.

It is impossible, that's why.
>It is a basic graphic design principle.

For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.
>When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.

The Web is not paper.
>You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.

Which, on the better sites, they do.
>That's why you use Templates and grids.

Exactly.
>>Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
designers.
If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
get all that bad stuff.
And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
designers, you will get even less bad stuff.

That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....
>>That's true to a much larger extent for
JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.

While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
spec to use it!
e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
I beg to differ.

Differ from what?
>Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
so why on Earth are they allowed?

Who is going to disallow them? And how?

There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.
>Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
10px; ?

To make the text unreadably small (or too large).
>>In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
children were allowed to drive a car without license?
Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.

Just as in a car.

...
Forget it, Chris. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and
is just trying to raise hell. My recommendation is to ignore any of his
posts.

And maybe one of these days his mommy will find out what he's doing and
take his computer away from him.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 11 '07 #119
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
>On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.frwrote:
>>There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally
wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.
Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
experience, instead of enhancing it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 11 '07 #120
1001 Webs wrote:
>
Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.
Neither of those have anything to do with the browser.

Pixel sizes are determined by the individual screen settings, not the
browser. Em sizes are determined by the font being used.

Both are set (consciously or not) by the individual user, as it should be.

--
Berg
Nov 11 '07 #121
On Nov 10, 5:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"
<tabkanDELETETHIS...@yahodeletethato.frwrote:
There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper.
This is where we disagree, while you are right, the web is not paper,
the fact is there is nothing wrong with designing a web page so it
tried to simulate a structured design. Just a different way to design
for the web. Neither design style is any more right or wrong than any
other.

I can easily design a flexible design. But sometime I want a specific
look and feel to the page. And while it may not work on everyone's
configuration, I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

Nov 11 '07 #122
On Nov 11, 7:56 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.comwrote:
I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess.
No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.

Nov 11 '07 #123
In article
<11**********************@50g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.
By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.

--
dorayme
Nov 11 '07 #124
On Nov 11, 4:24 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article
<1194811703.726729.167...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.comwrote:
I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.

--
dorayme
Common sense dictates as much

Nov 12 '07 #125
On Nov 12, 9:07 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.comwrote:
I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess.
No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.
Well I don't know about any of you in here but I have to say it was my
opinion that the term "webmaster" by definition implied no specific
level of knowledge....
My point is there are many different web design philosophies. None
more right and the other.

Nov 12 '07 #126
In article <11**********************@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrote:
Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input? How do I make
the content of a <selectvary depending on the user's choice in another
<select??
Nov 12 '07 #127
On Nov 12, 4:56 pm, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@dante.org.ukwrote:
In article <1194880439.017332.232...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input? How do I make
the content of a <selectvary depending on the user's choice in another
<select??
http://search.techrepublic.com.com/s...alidation.html

Nov 12 '07 #128
On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@dante.org.ukwrote:
In article <1194880439.017332.232...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.

OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?
It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.

Nov 12 '07 #129
In article <11**********************@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@dante.org.ukwrote:
In article <1194880439.017332.232...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?

It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.
Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.

Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.

My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.

Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".
Nov 12 '07 #130
Tim Streater wrote:
In article <11**********************@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.comwrote:
>On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@dante.org.ukwrote:
>>In article <1194880439.017332.232...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?
It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.

Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.

Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.

My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.

Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".
Tim,

You don't even need to use an iframe to do it. Works fine without one.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Nov 12 '07 #131
On Nov 12, 11:14 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article <1194893219.052938.123...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.comwrote:
On 12 Nov, 15:56, Tim Streater <tim.strea...@dante.org.ukwrote:
In article <1194880439.017332.232...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups .com>,
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
OK, so how do I do data validation based on user input?
It's not a _requirement_. You can still do it purely server-side,
which you ought to support as a fallback anyway for both security and
accessibility reasons.
Of more importance, actually, is the second question I asked, about
modifying one <selectbased on the results of another. In some cases I
use Javascript all by itself, when the contents of the select are
limited to a few values, and if, for example, the user choosing "A" in
<select1 means they must be prevented from choosing "B" in <select2.
Where I really need to restrict the contents of another <selectI put
it in an iFrame, which is passed the results of <select1 and then
displays <select2. I still have to use javaScript to ensure that the
iFrame <selectis passed a useful parameter and so displays right
subset of values.
My app simply doesn't scale without this sort of technique.
Which is why I complain when I see blanket statements like "JavaScript
is not required to design websites these days".

Tim,

You don't even need to use an iframe to do it. Works fine without one.
Oh, shut the flunk up, really !!!
How would you know?
Can't you stop for a second making a fool yourself ???

What a disgusting pathetic CRIMINAL troll you are...

Tell us moron, how would you do it?
It's an straight question, just paste the code here.

Nov 12 '07 #132
On Nov 13, 11:07 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.comwrote:
read more »
Man, by the time I got to the end of this post I completely forgot
what the hell we were talking about....

Nov 13 '07 #133
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:33:13 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:
On Nov 13, 11:07 am, Kevin <kevinlen...@lakeareawebs.comwrote:
>read more »

Man, by the time I got to the end of this post I completely forgot
what the hell we were talking about....
The mind is the second thing to go.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Nov 13 '07 #134
On Nov 5, 5:56 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>
ROFLMAO!
What does ROFLMAO mean?

Nov 14 '07 #135
ru*****@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Nov 5, 5:56 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>ROFLMAO!

What does ROFLMAO mean?
Amazing how many folks that use Google for Usenet never think to use it
to find out about something!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
ROFLMAO - Google Search

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 14 '07 #136
ru*****@fastmail.fm writes:
On Nov 5, 5:56 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>>
ROFLMAO!

What does ROFLMAO mean?
Rolling On the Floor, Laughing My Ass Off.

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Nov 14 '07 #137

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Phong Ho | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by Michael C | last post: by
59 posts views Thread by Lennart Björk | last post: by
40 posts views Thread by VK | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.