after creating a couple of mediocre sites and talking too much about
them, i've been overwhelmed w/ requests for new sites & site
make-overs. i have a full-time job and i don't have the time or skills
to develop what companies are asking of me. i'd like to capitalize on
this by hiring someone to do all the production once i've sold the
site. i'm not courting anyone who's considering a massive e-commerce
site or anything that extensive, but the work would likely involve a
lot of Flash, Java etc. i don't care what it's built with as long as
it looks great and works well. i'll interface with the client, provide
the creative direction & take any pics and email them to you... all i
need someone to do is to code and upload. email me w/ a few links to
some sites you've created recently and QUOTE ME AN HOURLY RATE. i'll
get back to you.
~Chris
64  3204 
Chris,
I don't know what exactly your looking for, but I'm interested in
discussing the details with you. I'm in the process of building my web
design company (CatsEyeDesigns.Net) so I'm actively looking for new
clients right now. In all honesty I don't do a whole lot of flash
work, but I'm more than capable of doing it if need be. As far as
price, you won't find another company as capable and knowlegeable that
offers a lower price.
Have a look at my website and send me an email or an instant message
if you'd like to discuss it further. http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net/contact.asp - contact info
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - CatsEyeDesigns.Net to*******@hotmail.com (Chris Rodriguez) wrote in message news:<49**************************@posting.google. com>... after creating a couple of mediocre sites and talking too much about
them, i've been overwhelmed w/ requests for new sites & site
make-overs. i have a full-time job and i don't have the time or skills
to develop what companies are asking of me. i'd like to capitalize on
this by hiring someone to do all the production once i've sold the
site. i'm not courting anyone who's considering a massive e-commerce
site or anything that extensive, but the work would likely involve a
lot of Flash, Java etc. i don't care what it's built with as long as
it looks great and works well. i'll interface with the client, provide
the creative direction & take any pics and email them to you... all i
need someone to do is to code and upload. email me w/ a few links to
some sites you've created recently and QUOTE ME AN HOURLY RATE. i'll
get back to you.
~Chris
Mr. B. wrote: I'm in the process of building my web
design company (CatsEyeDesigns.Net)
A few things you should fix before commencing trading:
XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
Tables used for layout: use CSS.
There are issues in Opera.
Fixed width design; don't.
<td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style.
<br /><br /><br /><br />; is it cold where you live?
oh dear.
The site doesn't work sans images:
blank navbar
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
blank navbar
Click here to learn about ou
Click here to learn about ou
blank navbar
--
Spartanicus
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:46:38 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote: A few things you should fix before commencing trading:
XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional ! And if you
want a target attribute (before hell freezes over and the alternatives
are available) then it's needed.
You missed out one of my favourite mistakes - fixed height fonts.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
Andy Dingley wrote: XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional !
It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it should only
be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated (lack of time,
money).
And if you want a target attribute
Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
--
Spartanicus
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Spartanicus wrote: Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
Speaking for myself, if I ever use it then it's to get myself as far
away from frames as HTML makes possible. Is that such a bad thing to
do?
Alan J. Flavell wrote: Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
Speaking for myself, if I ever use it then it's to get myself as far
away from frames as HTML makes possible. Is that such a bad thing to
do?
You've lost me.
--
Spartanicus
Hello,
First of all, thanks for the review. Didn't ask for it, but it's
always good to get opinions.
Second of all, I whole heartedly disagree with some of you in a couple
of respects. XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
Tables used for layout: use CSS.
NO... still too many incompatability issues. If I knew exactly what
browser/OS my site would be viewed with, it wouldn't be a problem, but
believe it or not, there are still people using NS 4 and 5 and layers
do not work the same way
in all browsers. Layers will be nice once they are uniformly supported
by 98% or more of the browser market. Until then, I know tables and
they work just fine form me.
There are issues in Opera
I've had about 5 visitors to my website from Opera users in the last
month. Relatively speaking, that's not even half a percent. I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter.
Fixed width design; don't.
Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow. For now, I much prefer the control
offered by a fixed width table because it allows me to know exactly
how everything appears. Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
<td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style
Why not? Functionally, it displays the same. Sure, updating the site
is easier if it's all kept in an external style sheet, but if ALL of
my css code was in an external style sheet, it would be quite long. I
see your point, but I'm not too concerned with it as I'm sure I'll do
a complete re-design before I change my css formatting.
oh dear.
Take a look at a page that uses cell padding in NS6... I could have
used a padding-left: 10px; or something, but it looked horrid in NS6
which some users still use. Maybe I could have used a transparent gif,
but who really cares? Do you think it's a big deal and if so, why?
You missed out one of my favourite mistakes - fixed height fonts.
I know why it irritates people, but I had to make a decision. Let a
few old people (just kidding :) ) read my site easier, and let the
rest of my page look like crap, or force the text to be a certain
height in pixels and KNOW what my page is going to look like. I don't
expect TOO many people with bad eyes to be viewing my site, but if I
hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe I'll
reconsider. Thanks for the input. Maybe you're right.
It (xhtml transitional) contains stuff that should not be used
anymore
Well, this is actually a "transitional" time of the internet isn't it?
In all honesty, I didn't do whole bunch of research on the difference
between HTML and XHTML and specifically, what version of XHTML to code
for. Maybe one is really better than the other? Got any links that you
think are worth reading? In all honesty, I chose transitional out of
ignorance more than anything. I knew the internet was moving towards
XHTML, but wasn't quite there yet so transitional made since.
By the way, sorry if this was a bit long. Thanks to all for the input
and comments.
Regards,
Ryan
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<on********************************@news.spar tanicus.utvinternet.ie>... Andy Dingley wrote:
XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
Why ? There is nothing _wrong_ with transitional !
It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it should only
be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated (lack of time,
money).
And if you want a target attribute
Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:37:06 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote: And if you want a target attribute
Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore
Why not ? What problems does it _really_ cause ?
There's a common misconception that things that disappeared
(especially in XHTML) were pulled because they were bad, whereas they
were simply relocated to other non-core modules. Sadly for some of
these, including target, the alternative module won't be around for
some years yet. It doesn't mean that there's suddenly somethign evil
about the old way though !
(and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
Open a link in a new window, without JavaScript. It's trivial, but
still a common requirement.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?: http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<on********************************@news.spar tanicus.utvinternet.ie>... XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and
revised.
It contains stuff that should not be used anymore, hence it
should only be used for legacy documents that cannot be updated
(lack of time, money).
Mr. B. wrote:
That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
99% of your visitors are not skilled in web authoring issues. You're
supposed to be. That's the difference.
I know why it irritates people, but I had to make a decision. Let a
few old people (just kidding :) ) read my site easier, and let the
rest of my page look like crap, or force the text to be a certain
height in pixels and KNOW what my page is going to look like.
Or, at least *think* you know what it looks like. Trying to fix the
size of text in pixels will not always succeed, and when it does, it
won't necessarily have the effect you were after.
I don't expect TOO many people with bad eyes to be viewing my site,
but if I hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe
I'll reconsider. Thanks for the input. Maybe you're right.
Your nonchalant attitude toward those whose eyesight is poor says it all.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Andy Dingley wrote: Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore
Why not ? What problems does it _really_ cause ?
The target attribute is for use with frames, frames was a badly broken
concept from the start. (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
Open a link in a new window, without JavaScript. It's trivial, but
still a common requirement.
As I thought, opening windows should be left to the user, it's a UI
issue that should not be interfered with by authors.
--
Spartanicus
Mr. B. wrote:
[Regarding fixed-size fonts.] I know why it irritates people, but I had to make a decision.
No, you didn't.
Let a few old people (just kidding :) ) read my site easier, and
let the rest of my page look like crap, or force the text to be a
certain height in pixels and KNOW what my page is going to look
like.
If you are the only person viewing your page, then this is a valid
argument.
If your page is out on the Web for the world to see, then you cannot
possibly know what your page will "look like" for anyone but yourself.
if I hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe
I'll reconsider.
Don't hold your breath. Very few people actually take the trouble to
complain.
They just leave.
--
Joel.
Mr. B. wrote: XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
A good plumber creates plumbing that stands up to close inspection even
if 99% of his clients never see any of it.
Tables used for layout: use CSS.
NO... still too many incompatability issues.
Nonsense, there will always be cross browser issues, that's an intrinsic
part of web coding and by no means particular to CSS.
If I knew exactly what
browser/OS my site would be viewed with, it wouldn't be a problem
Trying to prevent browser bugs/issue is a flawed strategy, not least
because there are simply to many UA's, you can't test with all of them.
Being aware of the limitations of IE and avoiding usage of constructs
that the poor old thing doesn't understand is sufficient.
but
believe it or not, there are still people using NS 4 and 5 and layers
do not work the same way in all browsers. Layers will be nice once they are uniformly supported
by 98% or more of the browser market.
Afaik layers are not part of any specification.
Until then, I know tables and they work just fine form me.
Bad plumbing.
There are issues in Opera
I've had about 5 visitors to my website from Opera users in the last
month. Relatively speaking, that's not even half a percent.
I'm not suggesting that you should attempt to make your site
"compatible" with Opera, I'm suggesting that there is an error in your
code (which Opera exposes).
I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter.
Bad plumbing again, a properly coded site *works* fine regardless of the
UA used, lynx, links, speech browser, PDA, cell phone etc. etc.
Fixed width design; don't.
Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow.
That's an argument for not maximizing your browser, no relevance to
fluid design.
For now, I much prefer the control
offered by a fixed width table because it allows me to know exactly
how everything appears.
That's the problem, you are fighting an intrinsically flexible medium in
an attempt to reduce it's functionality back into the dark ages of
printed media.
Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
Stop wanting that.
<td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style
Why not? Functionally, it displays the same.
More bad plumbing.
Sure, updating the site
is easier if it's all kept in an external style sheet, but if ALL of
my css code was in an external style sheet, it would be quite long.
So you add 20% extra code to each html page so that you can save on the
size of 1 css files?
oh dear.
Take a look at a page that uses cell padding in NS6... I could have
used a padding-left: 10px; or something, but it looked horrid in NS6
which some users still use.
Again, coding in an attempt to circumvent browser issues/bugs is a
flawed strategy.
In all honesty, I didn't do whole bunch of research on the difference
between HTML and XHTML and specifically, what version of XHTML to code
for. Maybe one is really better than the other?
HTML 4.01 Strict is the one to go for, not XHTML.
I knew the internet was moving towards
XHTML
It isn't.
Ryan
Lead Designer
Hire a Lead Coder.
--
Spartanicus
In article
<fv********************************@news.spartanic us.utvinternet.ie>
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote: Andy Dingley wrote:
Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore
Why not ? What problems does it _really_ cause ?
The target attribute is for use with frames, frames was a badly broken
concept from the start.
The target attribute is not limited to frames; it can also do
complete separate windows.
While I concede that the great majority of current uses of target to
open new windows are bad, occasionally I do see a reasonable use. I
too wonder what was the rationale for deprecating it, so that HTML
Strict can't use it at all.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:27:29 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote: Andy Dingley wrote:
Open a link in a new window, without JavaScript. It's trivial, but
still a common requirement.
As I thought, opening windows should be left to the user, it's a UI
issue that should not be interfered with by authors.
Speaking as a user rather than an author, I despise it when certain
types of pages [such as a page that links to an 'external' site' *do
not* open in a new windows.
I may want to follow several links, without 'losing my place' on the
main site that I was originally browsing. Admittedly I could always
manually open another window, but in certain circumstances it makes
sense to have the code do it for you.
--
Macie
ZZR600E1
OK Spartanicus, I'm getting the feeling I know a few people like you.
An intelectual debate with you is probably a waste of time because
apparently you are always right and everyone who disagrees is
obviously wrong. I'll give it a shot though. XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised.
That's a matter of opinion.... maybe you're right, but 99% of my
visitors will never know the difference.
A good plumber creates plumbing that stands up to close inspection even
if 99% of his clients never see any of it.
OK, so what you're saying is that ANY page ever originally created in
XHTML transitional is bad? Well, once again, maybe you're right about
the transitional vs strict argument, but the fact that my code is
written as transitional does not make it inherently bad, just
different than what YOU think is right. Tables used for layout: use CSS.
NO... still too many incompatability issues.
Nonsense, there will always be cross browser issues, that's an intrinsic
part of web coding and by no means particular to CSS.
So I should completely ignore the fact that many people will see a
bunch of crap instead of the webpage I intended? You want to talk
about nonsense? If I knew exactly what
browser/OS my site would be viewed with, it wouldn't be a problem
Trying to prevent browser bugs/issue is a flawed strategy, not least
because there are simply to many UA's, you can't test with all of them.
Being aware of the limitations of IE and avoiding usage of constructs
that the poor old thing doesn't understand is sufficient.
Flawed, but necessary. You're right about there being to many UA's,
but I shouldn't ignore the way my pages look in the common browsers
and operating systems. Additionally, if I have to option of making a
page look the way I want, I'll impliment it in whatever way I can as
long as the majority of browsers will be able to display it correctly. believe it or not, there are still people using NS 4 and 5 and layers
do not work the same way in all browsers. Layers will be nice once they are uniformly supported
by 98% or more of the browser market.
Afaik layers are not part of any specification.
Afaik? You lost me. What does "Afaik" mean? Until then, I know tables and they work just fine form me.
Bad plumbing.
That's your opinion. If a plumber wants to put pipes in my house that
only carry hot water because it's the newest thing, that doesn't mean
I have to let him. There are issues in Opera
I've had about 5 visitors to my website from Opera users in the last
month. Relatively speaking, that's not even half a percent.
I'm not suggesting that you should attempt to make your site
"compatible" with Opera, I'm suggesting that there is an error in your
code (which Opera exposes).
That's good to know. I've never used Opera, so I'll have to download a
copy of it and have a look at the errors you're talking about. I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter.
Bad plumbing again, a properly coded site *works* fine regardless of the
UA used, lynx, links, speech browser, PDA, cell phone etc. etc.
Get a copy of lynx and have a look at some of the better sites out
there. Most of them will look like crap b/c most good websites make
extensive use of images in one way or another. My target audience is
overwhelmingly using Internet Explorer 5 and 6 to access my site and
in those two browsers my site looks exactly as intended although I
would like to find the error(s) you're talking about. Fixed width design; don't.
Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow.
That's an argument for not maximizing your browser, no relevance to
fluid design.
So you suggest I tell my visitors they're not allowed to maximize
their browser? Come on now. For now, I much prefer the control
offered by a fixed width table because it allows me to know exactly
how everything appears.
That's the problem, you are fighting an intrinsically flexible medium in
an attempt to reduce it's functionality back into the dark ages of
printed media.
So I shouldn't be concerned with how may page actually looks and just
leave everything up to the vistors browser? Feel free to do that if
you like, but I would rather have as much control as possible over the
look of my page. I spent the time to design it and I get to decide how
it looks. Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
Stop wanting that.
No. If you're trying to present a professional image, you need to make
sure it looks the way you want it to, not the way some brainless
computer application thinks it should. <td style="height: 350px; width: 600px;">; don't use inline style
Why not? Functionally, it displays the same.
More bad plumbing.Sure, updating the site
is easier if it's all kept in an external style sheet, but if ALL of
my css code was in an external style sheet, it would be quite long.
So you add 20% extra code to each html page so that you can save on the
size of 1 css files?
20% extra code? It's a single line; less than a single KB of code in a
page that is over 20 kb... someone needs a math lesson. oh dear.
Take a look at a page that uses cell padding in NS6... I could have
used a padding-left: 10px; or something, but it looked horrid in NS6
which some users still use.
Again, coding in an attempt to circumvent browser issues/bugs is a
flawed strategy.
Again, flawed, but neccessary. I understand your point. However, I
still don't want my page to display incorrectly for the sake of coding
something the "technically correct" way if the backwards compatible
way displays just as well. In all honesty, I didn't do whole bunch of research on the difference
between HTML and XHTML and specifically, what version of XHTML to code
for. Maybe one is really better than the other?
HTML 4.01 Strict is the one to go for, not XHTML.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I knew the internet was moving towards
XHTML
It isn't.
I need to get myself one of those crystal balls. I bet they come in
handy. Let me rephrase... I THOUGHT the internet was moving towards
XHTML although nobody truely knows where it will be in a year, or 2,
or 5. Ryan
Lead Designer
Hire a Lead Coder.
I plan to. Did I mention that I'm IN THE PROCESS of starting my own
business? In a perfect world, I'd have a hundred thousand dollars to
get started with to hire employees, pay for advertising, pay for new
equipment/software... etc. However, for now, I'll make due with what I
have.
My concern is not with proving that I'm capable of writing perfect,
bugless, standard HTML. My concern is presenting the image I want to
present to my potential customers. I think, although I could be wrong,
that I'm doing that now. We could argure the merits of HTML vs XHTML,
or transitional vs strict all day. At the end of the day, I won't make
any more money if I chose one over the other.
And about the whole "bad plubming" analogy... do you care what kind of
glue is used to seal your pipes, or do you care that the seal doesn't
leak? For the most part, my "seals" are water tight, and that's about
all you can expect with the ever changing technologies of the
internet.
You seem hellbent on poking holes in my site when I never asked you
for your opinion in the first place. I appreciate your unique
perspective but lets keep things civil. For the sake of
professionalism and civility, I'll leave it at that.
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
Sometime around 23 Nov 2003 19:26:08 -0800, Mr. B. is reported to have
stated: Tables used for layout: use CSS.
NO... still too many incompatability issues. Nonsense, there will always be cross browser issues, that's an intrinsic
part of web coding and by no means particular to CSS.
So I should completely ignore the fact that many people will see a
bunch of crap instead of the webpage I intended? You want to talk
about nonsense?
No, you learn to use CSS properly. Unfortunately, this means knowing
browser bugs, and in some cases working around them. But if you write good
quality code in the first place, this will be minimal.
I'll impliment it in whatever way I can as
long as the majority of browsers will be able to display it correctly.
Why not do it so that any browser can display it correctly? The web is not
DTP. If you want it to be pixel-perfect, use PDF or images.
Afaik? You lost me. What does "Afaik" mean?
As Far As I Know
There are issues in Opera
I've had about 5 visitors to my website from Opera users in the last
month. Relatively speaking, that's not even half a percent.
I'm not suggesting that you should attempt to make your site
"compatible" with Opera, I'm suggesting that there is an error in your
code (which Opera exposes).
That's good to know. I've never used Opera, so I'll have to download a
copy of it and have a look at the errors you're talking about.
The best way to check for errors in your code is to use a validator, such
as http://validator.w3.org . That's not to say you shouldn't check your
page in Opera, though. :-)
I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter.
Lynx (and Opera) are both very recent, and are being continually worked on.
IE6 is now about 3 years old, and no new version will be forthcoming until
at least 2006 (and then only as part of the OS). So which is old?
Get a copy of lynx and have a look at some of the better sites out
there. Most of them will look like crap b/c most good websites make
extensive use of images in one way or another.
So they have designed their sites badly. Include alt text for images where
appropriate (and alt="" for purely presentational images). Then text/speech
browsers/search engines will still be able to use the site.
Fixed width design; don't.
Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow.
That's an argument for not maximizing your browser, no relevance to
fluid design.
So you suggest I tell my visitors they're not allowed to maximize
their browser? Come on now.
No. If they want to read lines of 220 words, who are you to tell them
otherwise? If you don't want to, then don't maximise your browser. It's up
to the user.
So I shouldn't be concerned with how may page actually looks and just
leave everything up to the vistors browser? Feel free to do that if
you like, but I would rather have as much control as possible over the
look of my page. I spent the time to design it and I get to decide how
it looks.
Of course you get to *suggest* a look for your site. But is the site there
for your benefit, or the benefit of your users?
Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
Stop wanting that.
No. If you're trying to present a professional image, you need to make
sure it looks the way you want it to, not the way some brainless
computer application thinks it should.
No, you need to make sure it looks the way your visitor wants it to. If
that means that it is 1600px wide, the font sizes are 150% of what you
expect, and who knows what else, that's up to the user.
Sure, updating the site
is easier if it's all kept in an external style sheet, but if ALL of
my css code was in an external style sheet, it would be quite long.
So you add 20% extra code to each html page so that you can save on the
size of 1 css files?
20% extra code? It's a single line; less than a single KB of code in a
page that is over 20 kb... someone needs a math lesson.
So it wouldn't make your CSS file much longer, would it?
I need to get myself one of those crystal balls. I bet they come in
handy. Let me rephrase... I THOUGHT the internet was moving towards
XHTML although nobody truely knows where it will be in a year, or 2,
or 5.
At least 3, since IE doesn't support XHTML.
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message 99% of your visitors are not skilled in web authoring issues. You're
supposed to be. That's the difference.
I understand your point, but what I meant is that the end result (the
way the page displays) is the same. Once coding method may be
technically correct, but if it's not backward compatable, another
method may work better. If I use an outdated coding technique, but it
displays correct in more browsers, what's the harm?
Or, at least *think* you know what it looks like. Trying to fix the
size of text in pixels will not always succeed, and when it does, it
won't necessarily have the effect you were after.
Well, once again, I understand from a usability standpoint, how a
fixed size font can irritate some users, but if every text character
on the page ended up being 20 pixels, the entire site would be
hideous. The "artistic" menu text would be smaller than the actual
text on the page. The length of each page would increase
significantly, the number of words per line would increase
significantly.... etc. If all that is the case, then why did I go
though the work of making the page look good in the first place. I don't expect TOO many people with bad eyes to be viewing my site,
but if I hear a single complaint from a potential customer, maybe
I'll reconsider. Thanks for the input. Maybe you're right.
Your nonchalant attitude toward those whose eyesight is poor says it all.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I truely don't believe the font
is too small for anyone to read. My mother, who is about to retire and
has bad eyesight didn't even complain. I would imagine that people
with eyesight worse than hers would be accustomed to using
accesability software for people with bad eyesight such as the
Magnifier software provided with Windows.
As I stated before, my tone of "voice" was humorous, not critical or
antagonistic. That's the reason for the "just kidding" and the ":)" .
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
Macie wrote: As I thought, opening windows should be left to the user, it's a UI
issue that should not be interfered with by authors.
Speaking as a user rather than an author, I despise it when certain
types of pages [such as a page that links to an 'external' site' *do
not* open in a new windows.
A site should not interfere with a user's preferences. You have no idea
about the user's preference, hence you should cater for both styles. By
not opening new windows everyone can have it the way they like it.
Admittedly I could always
manually open another window, but in certain circumstances it makes
sense to have the code do it for you.
It does not, unless you adopt an "everyone should adopt my preferences"
arrogance.
--
Spartanicus
Mr. B. wrote: A good plumber creates plumbing that stands up to close inspection even
if 99% of his clients never see any of it.
OK, so what you're saying is that ANY page ever originally created in
XHTML transitional is bad?
I said that it's bad practice to use transitional for newly authored or
revised documents.
So you add 20% extra code to each html page so that you can save on the
size of 1 css files?
20% extra code? It's a single line; less than a single KB of code in a
page that is over 20 kb... someone needs a math lesson.
Removing the inline CSS from your index page results in 10% less code,
and a lot more could be saved if properly cleaned up.
--
Spartanicus
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> writes: Alan J. Flavell wrote:Someone wrote: Target is a attribute that should not be used anymore (and you are
probably using it for things that shouldn't be attempted in the first
place).
Speaking for myself, if I ever use it then it's to get myself as far
away from frames as HTML makes possible. Is that such a bad thing to
do?
You've lost me.
On one site I wrote a while back (that it is important for various
reasons doesn't end up as part of someone else's frameset if
possible), all the links have target="_top". At worst the first page
will be framed, after that it'll be okay.
--
Chris
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message > >>>>Tables used for layout: use CSS. NO... still too many incompatability issues.
Nonsense, there will always be cross browser issues, that's an intrinsic
part of web coding and by no means particular to CSS.
So I should completely ignore the fact that many people will see a
bunch of crap instead of the webpage I intended? You want to talk
about nonsense?
No, you learn to use CSS properly. Unfortunately, this means knowing
browser bugs, and in some cases working around them. But if you write good
quality code in the first place, this will be minimal.
Well, my page validates as VALID XHTML transitional.... seems like I'm
using CSS properly. I'll impliment it in whatever way I can as
long as the majority of browsers will be able to display it correctly.
Why not do it so that any browser can display it correctly? The web is not
DTP. If you want it to be pixel-perfect, use PDF or images.
I know I won't get "pixel-perfect" unless I publish single images, but
I'd like it to be as close as possible. Afaik? You lost me. What does "Afaik" mean?
As Far As I Know
Good to know. >There are issues in Opera
That's good to know. I've never used Opera, so I'll have to download a
copy of it and have a look at the errors you're talking about.
The best way to check for errors in your code is to use a validator, such
as http://validator.w3.org . That's not to say you shouldn't check your
page in Opera, though. :-)
Already done... w3.org validator didn't find any errors... I just
assumed he was talking about something that the validator missed. I tried to
make my site look as good as possible in as many browsers as possible,
but clearly, it would look relatively bad in lynx or any really old
browser for that matter. Lynx (and Opera) are both very recent, and are being continually worked on.
IE6 is now about 3 years old, and no new version will be forthcoming until
at least 2006 (and then only as part of the OS). So which is old?
By "old", I was talking about old versions of a particular browser.
Have a look at most quality websites today in NS2, and you'll notice
that they look like garbage.
Get a copy of lynx and have a look at some of the better sites out
there. Most of them will look like crap b/c most good websites make
extensive use of images in one way or another.
So they have designed their sites badly. Include alt text for images where
appropriate (and alt="" for purely presentational images). Then text/speech
browsers/search engines will still be able to use the site.
95% of my images already have alt text. However, I believe someone
pointed out earlier that the alt text is too long. I didn't know there
was a limit on Alt text, but I'll look into that.
>Fixed width design; don't.
Once again, I disagree. Filling the width of the screen works for some
types of sites. It's aweful for others. On my computer, 90% of
"non-fixed width" websites look AWEFUL because my resolution is set at
1600x1200. When a line of text is 220 words long, it looks bad and
it's hard for the eyes to follow.
That's an argument for not maximizing your browser, no relevance to
fluid design.
So you suggest I tell my visitors they're not allowed to maximize
their browser? Come on now.
No. If they want to read lines of 220 words, who are you to tell them
otherwise? If you don't want to, then don't maximise your browser. It's up
to the user.
Who am I? I'm the person who owns the copyright. :) I do see your
point, but I designed it to look a certain way. Is it really that
strange that I want it to look the way I intended it to? I personally
think it's sloppy to let a page expand to fill the width of the screen
unless the designer spent the time to make sure it looks good at all
"common" resolutions, which they usually don't. So I shouldn't be concerned with how may page actually looks and just
leave everything up to the vistors browser? Feel free to do that if
you like, but I would rather have as much control as possible over the
look of my page. I spent the time to design it and I get to decide how
it looks.
Of course you get to *suggest* a look for your site. But is the site there
for your benefit, or the benefit of your users?
Well, my goal is to give customers what they want so that I get what I
want... it's a two way street. No well established, successful
business is actually in business strictly for the benefit of their
customers. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a succesful business,
it would be a volunteer organization. Leaving the width of your table to chance
means your page looks different in every resolution, and therefore may
or may not look the way you wanted it to.
Stop wanting that.
No. If you're trying to present a professional image, you need to make
sure it looks the way you want it to, not the way some brainless
computer application thinks it should.
No, you need to make sure it looks the way your visitor wants it to. If
that means that it is 1600px wide, the font sizes are 150% of what you
expect, and who knows what else, that's up to the user.
Well, some people don't understand when they read something that if
the line is too long that their eyes start to miss things, loose lines
and strain to read. Some people will end up not reading what's there
b/c it's hard to follow.
If that's what the user wants to see it, they are welcome to go
elsewhere. This is ultimately my site. If they want their site to look
that way, by all means, I'll design one for them that way. If I were
able to please everyone, I would, but that's simply not possible so
when in doubt, I get the final say. So you add 20% extra code to each html page so that you can save on the
size of 1 css files?
20% extra code? It's a single line; less than a single KB of code in a
page that is over 20 kb... someone needs a math lesson.
So it wouldn't make your CSS file much longer, would it?
No, but if I added 20 one-liner classes to my css file, the css file
would be rather confusing to read. Not a big deal, but why does it
matter? That was the way that was easiest for me and it's not the
wrong way, just not the way he thought I should have done it. I need to get myself one of those crystal balls. I bet they come in
handy. Let me rephrase... I THOUGHT the internet was moving towards
XHTML although nobody truely knows where it will be in a year, or 2,
or 5.
At least 3, since IE doesn't support XHTML.
Well, maybe not officially, but XHTML seems to be easily rendered by
both IE5 and IE6 on win98, 2000 and XP. I decided to code the site in
XHTML. Why is that such a problem?
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:37:34 +0000, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net>
wrote: A site should not interfere with a user's preferences. You have no idea
about the user's preference, hence you should cater for both styles. By
not opening new windows everyone can have it the way they like it.
I see your point about not interfering with a users preference,
although to achieve this completely and across all browsers would [I
assume] mean quite a basic site.
Everyone can't have it the way they like it - if I like the page to
open a new window and it doesn't, then it's not how I like it! Don't
go blowing a gasket over it - I was only commenting on what I
interpreted as a 'cast in stone' statement that opening new windows is
bad, period.
My opinion is that sometimes it *can* make sense - for example I have
seen a nice looking [to me, anyway] frames site where the content area
was very small - it was fine until you clicked on a link to an
external sitek, and then it would try and pull an 800x600 page into a
200x150 box. To me that is a no-brainer - you know that the linked
page is going to look awful, so opening a new window in that instance
would give the viewer the option to view the linked page in a much
more user friendly way. Admittedly I could always
manually open another window, but in certain circumstances it makes
sense to have the code do it for you.
It does not, unless you adopt an "everyone should adopt my preferences"
arrogance.
I disagree that it is necessarily arrogance.
--
Macie
ZZR600E1
Chris Morris wrote: On one site I wrote a while back (that it is important for various
reasons doesn't end up as part of someone else's frameset if
possible), all the links have target="_top". At worst the first page
will be framed, after that it'll be okay.
A javascript breakout script would be more appropriate for that imo.
--
Spartanicus
Macie wrote: Everyone can't have it the way they like it - if I like the page to
open a new window and it doesn't, then it's not how I like it!
That's a client issue, not an argument to hardcode a particular
preference into a site.
--
Spartanicus
Mr. B. wrote: OK Spartanicus, I'm getting the feeling I know a few people like
you. An intelectual debate with you is probably a waste of time
because apparently you are always right and everyone who disagrees
is obviously wrong.
I was going to say the same thing about you, especially after reading
the belligerent tone of your response. Spartanicus gave you good
advice. If he was curt, he was not, as far as I can see, rude. Curt
responses are quite common in the ciwa* groups.
So I should completely ignore the fact that many people will see a
bunch of crap instead of the webpage I intended? You want to talk
about nonsense?
This is an example of a rather hostile tone. And to answer your
question, html documents are *supposed* to look different in different
browsing situations. CSS, then, seems perfectly suited to suggest a
presentation without trying (often unsuccessfully) to force one on
visitors.
And about the whole "bad plubming" analogy... do you care what kind
of glue is used to seal your pipes, or do you care that the seal
doesn't leak? For the most part, my "seals" are water tight,
And how can you be sure of that?
You seem hellbent on poking holes in my site when I never asked you
for your opinion in the first place. I appreciate your unique
perspective but lets keep things civil.
"Physician, heal thyself."
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Mr. B. wrote: Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
Your nonchalant attitude toward those whose eyesight is poor says it all.
I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I truely don't believe the font
is too small for anyone to read.
Um, it most certainly is too small in my browsing environment.
Try viewing it on a high-resolution monitor.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Mr. B. wrote: Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message > >>>>Tables used for layout: use CSS. No, you learn to use CSS properly. Unfortunately, this means knowing
browser bugs, and in some cases working around them. But if you write good
quality code in the first place, this will be minimal.
Well, my page validates as VALID XHTML transitional.... seems like I'm
using CSS properly.
There is an ocean of difference between using correct syntax and using
the technology properly.
Validation only checks the syntax. It cannot possibly check whether
anything is used in the right context.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Macie wrote:
Speaking as a user rather than an author, I despise it when certain
types of pages [such as a page that links to an 'external' site' *do
not* open in a new windows.
I may want to follow several links, without 'losing my place' on the
main site that I was originally browsing. Admittedly I could always
manually open another window,
Exactly.
but in certain circumstances it makes
sense to have the code do it for you.
Thus forcing everyone else to open it in a new window, whether they
wanted to or not. I can see no circumstance where this makes sense.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Macie wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:37:34 +0000, Spartanicus wrote:
A site should not interfere with a user's preferences. You have
no idea about the user's preference, hence you should cater for
both styles. By not opening new windows everyone can have it the
way they like it.
I see your point about not interfering with a users preference,
Apparently, you don't, because you're arguing that one preference,
opening new windows, should be foisted on all users.
although to achieve this completely and across all browsers would
[I assume] mean quite a basic site.
Strange assumption. How does not opening new windows make for a
"basic site?" Is target="mynewwindow" somehow exciting?
This is a matter of respecting the author's boundardies: the content
of the browser window. The author's job ends there. The toolbars,
scrollbars, number of windows, etc., are not the author's to control.
Authors can never really control it. Better to focus on document
content and presentation.
Everyone can't have it the way they like it - if I like the page to
open a new window and it doesn't, then it's not how I like it!
Of course it is. You can open a new window using your favorite
browser. (If the browser does not permit opening new windows, then
you might want to get a new browser. But in that case, a target
attribute would have no effect anyways.)
I was only commenting on what I interpreted as a 'cast in stone'
statement that opening new windows is bad, period.
It almost always is. Users find them difficult to navigate, as an
artist learned while watching people surfing her site.
I have seen a nice looking [to me, anyway] frames site where the
content area was very small - it was fine until you clicked on a
link to an external sitek, and then it would try and pull an
800x600 page into a 200x150 box.
The solution is not a new window; it is to load the external link in
the full window, i.e., target="_top". (Well, the solution is not use
frames in the first place; they break the web in many ways.)
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Mr. B. wrote: Brian wrote
99% of your visitors are not skilled in web authoring issues.
You're supposed to be. That's the difference.
I understand your point, but what I meant is that the end result
(the way the page displays) is the same.
Why is that important to you? It is not important to you visitors.
Most of your visitors will never see your site in more than one
browser, so they won't even know that it looks different in different
browsers.
Once coding method may be technically correct, but if it's not
backward compatable,
Technically correct html is backward compatible, perhaps with small
exceptions. Can you think of a technically correct snippet of html
that is not backward compatible? css?
If I use an outdated coding technique, but it displays correct in
more browsers, what's the harm?
e.g., <font>, an outdated techniqe. Used in N4, the user cannot
change the color (or size?). Using css, the user can override the
author's choice, if the user wants or needs to. It's not beside the
point to note that <font> is invalid markup.
Or, at least *think* you know what it looks like. Trying to fix
the size of text in pixels will not always succeed, and when it
does, it won't necessarily have the effect you were after.
Well, once again, I understand from a usability standpoint, how a
fixed size font can irritate some users,
It can do more than irritate. It can make sites truly unreadable.
(Yes, unreadable. I've been to sites where the text was too small on
my monitor to read. Way too small. And I could not resize it, either.)
but if every text character on the page ended up being 20 pixels,
the entire site would be hideous.
So you have chosen something else, then? Let's say you have chosen 14
pixels, because it looks on your monitor. Now, how will it look on a
different monitor, with different resolution? Consider the different
between 800x600 and 1600 x 1200.
The "artistic" menu text would be smaller than the actual text on
the page. The length of each page would increase significantly, the
number of words per line would increase significantly.... etc.
If the layout falls apart with a different font size, then you have
designed a layout that is too rigid for the www.
I truely don't believe the font is too small for anyone to read. My
mother, who is about to retire and has bad eyesight didn't even
complain. I would imagine that people with eyesight worse than hers
would be accustomed to using accesability software for people with
bad eyesight such as the Magnifier software provided with Windows.
So rather than let them resize your text in their browser -- or,
better still, author so that their font size is used in the first
place -- you'll make them acquire additional software?
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:n4pwb.222220$ao4.801820@attbi_s51... Mr. B. wrote: Brian wrote
99% of your visitors are not skilled in web authoring issues.
You're supposed to be. That's the difference.
I understand your point, but what I meant is that the end result
(the way the page displays) is the same.
Why is that important to you? It is not important to you visitors.
Most of your visitors will never see your site in more than one
browser, so they won't even know that it looks different in different
browsers.
Once coding method may be technically correct, but if it's not
backward compatable,
Technically correct html is backward compatible, perhaps with small
exceptions. Can you think of a technically correct snippet of html
that is not backward compatible? css?
Are you under the impression that Netscape 4.* works tremendously well with
CSS?
Harlan Messinger wrote: Brian wrote in message news:n4pwb.222220$ao4.801820@attbi_s51
Mr. B. wrote:
Once coding method may be technically correct, but if it's not
backward compatable,
Technically correct html is backward compatible, perhaps with
small exceptions. Can you think of a technically correct snippet
of html that is not backward compatible? css?
Are you under the impression that Netscape 4.* works tremendously
well with CSS?
No. I'm under the impression, though, that css is optional in all
situations. I'm also under the impression that if a browser cannot
handle css, it should ignore it, as does N2 (and N3?). And Lynx, for
that matter.
It's true that N4 is particularly nasty, in that it parses many css
selectors and properties, but falls apart when it tries to actually
implement those presentation suggestions.
However, hiding css from N4 is a trivial matter; html works quite well
with N4.x; robust, valid html 4.01 strict, with css for presentation,
is my best option for forward and backward compatbility; it gives me a
greater option of presentation options than any transitional dtd
provides; and it reduces page weight. Using nonstandard html, by
contrast, runs the risk of losing backward compatibility in other
browsers, with no easy solution, and makes all users download the
extra code without benefitting from it.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:90qwb.221303$275.838330@attbi_s53... Harlan Messinger wrote: Brian wrote in message news:n4pwb.222220$ao4.801820@attbi_s51
Mr. B. wrote:
Once coding method may be technically correct, but if it's not
backward compatable,
Technically correct html is backward compatible, perhaps with
small exceptions. Can you think of a technically correct snippet
of html that is not backward compatible? css?
Are you under the impression that Netscape 4.* works tremendously
well with CSS?
No. I'm under the impression, though, that css is optional in all
situations. I'm also under the impression that if a browser cannot
handle css, it should ignore it, as does N2 (and N3?). And Lynx, for
that matter.
It's true that N4 is particularly nasty, in that it parses many css
selectors and properties, but falls apart when it tries to actually
implement those presentation suggestions.
However, hiding css from N4 is a trivial matter; html works quite well
with N4.x; robust, valid html 4.01 strict, with css for presentation,
is my best option for forward and backward compatbility; it gives me a
greater option of presentation options than any transitional dtd
provides; and it reduces page weight. Using nonstandard html, by
contrast, runs the risk of losing backward compatibility in other
browsers, with no easy solution, and makes all users download the
extra code without benefitting from it.
I think you and I are using definitions of "compatible". Assuming first of
all that the user knows what CSS is, one then has to assume the same user
knows how to keep his browser from using the one that comes from the server.
Then, you may be right that the text without CSS can be read as a continuous
stream in the browser--but, oh, what an ugly mess it might be. It might be
readable in the same sense that the phone book would be readable if they
removed all the hard line breaks and let the listings flow continuously and
wrap at the edge of the page. But "compatible"?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:46:13 +1100, Mark Parnell wrote: No. If they want to read lines of 220 words, who are you to tell them
otherwise? If you don't want to, then don't maximise your browser. It's
up to the user.
Although I think this is right in principle, I suspect a lot of people
maximise their browsers without really thinking about why they're doing it
(most people I know maximise any application if they are only using that
application at the time). Also, I suspect most people are unaware that
short lines of text are easier to read, and so, rather than deciding to
change their browser size, simply find reading text on the web to be a bit
unpleasant without realising _why_.
I don't know what to do about this, and I certainly don't think
fixed-width design is the answer. But I do wonder if there is anything
that _can_ be done to improve peoples experience with text on the
Internet. Perhaps a user education campaign of some sort, or web browsers
which only use a limited width even by default even when maximised? I'd
like to hear peoples ideas.
--
" - Penny, I worry that you are loosing heart... You are not the sweet little
girl I once knew. Where's your sense of wonder?
- Currently flowing into a sanitary napkin... Guess where my childlike
innocence and idle dreams are currently wedged. Come on, I dare you." http://www.huh.34sp.com/
I V wrote: Although I think this is right in principle, I suspect a lot of people
maximise their browsers without really thinking about why they're doing it
(most people I know maximise any application if they are only using that
application at the time). Also, I suspect most people are unaware that
short lines of text are easier to read, and so, rather than deciding to
change their browser size, simply find reading text on the web to be a bit
unpleasant without realising _why_.
I don't know what to do about this, and I certainly don't think
fixed-width design is the answer.
"max-width: ...em" is the answer. We could wish for better browser
support though (or for mass migration away from old and broken browsers,
such as MSIE).
At least include "max-width" in the design, for the benefit of those
that do use modern browsers. It does degrade gracefully.
--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Harlan Messinger wrote: "Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote
in message news:90qwb.221303$275.838330@attbi_s53...
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Are you under the impression that Netscape 4.* works
tremendously well with CSS?
css is optional in all situations. I'm also under the impression
that if a browser cannot handle css, it should ignore it, as does
N2 (and N3?). And Lynx
It's true that N4 is particularly nasty, in that it parses many
css selectors and properties, but falls apart when it tries to
actually implement those presentation suggestions.
However, hiding css from N4 is a trivial matter; html works quite
well with N4.x; robust, valid html 4.01 strict, with css for
presentation, is my best option for forward and backward
compatbility; it gives me a
I think you and I are using definitions of "compatible".
Perhaps. I'm using it in the sense that content can be rendered in an
appropriate way. That may not be as the author might have envisioned,
mind you.
Assuming first of all that the user knows what CSS is, one then has
to assume the same user knows how to keep his browser from using
the one that comes from the server.
No, a user does not have to know these things when a page is authored
correctly. You seem to be discussing user stylesheets. I'm not sure
what is the relevance to using css instead of deprecated or invalid
markup. I was talking about wasted bandwith, e.g., downloading
presentation html when the presentation is irrelvant. If one is using
e.g. N2, the stylesheet would never be downloaded in the first place.
Ditto for Lynx.
you may be right that the text without CSS can be read as a
continuous stream in the browser--but, oh, what an ugly mess it
might be.
I don't know what you mean by ugly mess. If you mean plain html, with
no styles, perhaps. But would you rather compromise the content for
presentation, or the other way around?
It might be readable in the same sense that the phone book would be
readable if they removed all the hard line breaks and let the
listings flow continuously and wrap at the edge of the page. But
"compatible"?
I see some strange analogies in this group...
It would be very poorly written html if a list of names and phone
numbers were dropped in body of an html document with no further
markup. I think, then, that your point only serves to prove mine:
using html sensibly is the way to go.
<ul>
<li>Joe Schmoe 555-1111</li>
</ul>
What html browser is incapable of rendering paragraphs? Lists?
Headings? I can think of none.
<table>
<tr>
<td>Joe Schmoe</td>
<td>555-1111</td>
</tr>
</table>
Tables were not supported on early browsers, but I think that's
pre-Netscape 2. So using table markup has backward compatibility well
past N4.x, which is the browser you first mentioned in this thread.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
In article <gl********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, Macie <me@privacy.net> wrote: Everyone can't have it the way they like it - if I like the page to
open a new window and it doesn't, then it's not how I like it!
An analogy: The TV program is at a lower volume than you prefer. Do
you expect the station to change the signal, or the producers to
change the record level? Of course not! You adjust the volume on
your set.
In the same way, if you want something in a separate window, you
open it that way. Pretty much every graphical browser makes this
very easy: shift-click, control-click, or at least a menu selection
when you right-click.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Bertilo Wennergren wrote: I V wrote:
I don't know what to do about this, and I certainly don't think
fixed-width design is the answer.
"max-width: ...em" is the answer.
....but only if used on the proper element.
body { max-width:30em } would be inappropriate, but
p { max-width:40em } would be fine and dandy, methinks.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Sometime around 24 Nov 2003 02:02:07 -0800, Mr. B. is reported to have
stated: Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
Well, my page validates as VALID XHTML transitional.... seems like I'm
using CSS properly.
That's a non sequitur. You can have valid (X)HTML without any CSS. And even
if it is "valid", using it properly is a different matter. See my comments
below re: alt text.
XHTML and CSS are two very different beasts. You can validate your CSS
separately (not your inline styles though):
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator
The best way to check for errors in your code is to use a validator, such
as http://validator.w3.org . That's not to say you shouldn't check your
page in Opera, though. :-)
Already done... w3.org validator didn't find any errors... I just
assumed he was talking about something that the validator missed.
As did I - I hadn't checked it myself. There are a couple of errors in your
CSS (see above), but from looking at it, it is the sliced images that are
the problem.
Lynx (and Opera) are both very recent, and are being continually worked on.
IE6 is now about 3 years old, and no new version will be forthcoming until
at least 2006 (and then only as part of the OS). So which is old?
By "old", I was talking about old versions of a particular browser.
Have a look at most quality websites today in NS2, and you'll notice
that they look like garbage.
Most sites don't really work at all in NS2. But sites where the content is
separated from the presentation, using CSS, degrade quite nicely.
95% of my images already have alt text. However, I believe someone
pointed out earlier that the alt text is too long. I didn't know there
was a limit on Alt text, but I'll look into that.
Having alt text and using alt text appropriately are two different things.
e.g. alt="blank navbar"? Alt text is a textual *alternative* to the image.
If it is an image of text, replicate the text. If is is purely
presentational - like the blank navbar - use alt="". Anything in between,
put whatever is appropriate. This is one reason for testing in Lynx - it
gives you a good idea whether your alt text is appropriate.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
As for it being too long - there isn't a set length for alt text, but in
many cases if you need to put anything more than a few words, you would be
better off using the title attribute. This is also displayed as a "tool
tip" in many graphical browsers.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/gl...tml#adef-title
BTW: "Click here" is not good text for links - how does someone using a
keyboard/PDA/speech browser/whatever click? And you shouldn't be using only
Javascript for links - what happens for the ~10-15% of users who have it
disabled? Not to mention Googlebot.
No. If they want to read lines of 220 words, who are you to tell them
otherwise? If you don't want to, then don't maximise your browser. It's up
to the user.
Who am I? I'm the person who owns the copyright. :) I do see your
point, but I designed it to look a certain way. Is it really that
strange that I want it to look the way I intended it to?
No, but the you have a pixel perfect idea in your head. That doesn't work
on the www. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a design/layout/etc. But
you can't force it to be rigid. That's not how the web works.
I personally
think it's sloppy to let a page expand to fill the width of the screen
unless the designer spent the time to make sure it looks good at all
"common" resolutions, which they usually don't.
That's why you use a fluid design - then it doesn't matter what screen size
(resolution is irrelevant) - the site will flow appropriately to whatever
screen size the user has decided is best for them.
Well, my goal is to give customers what they want so that I get what I
want... it's a two way street. No well established, successful
business is actually in business strictly for the benefit of their
customers. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a succesful business,
it would be a volunteer organization.
Absolutely. But this isn't about the purpose of your business, it is about
the purpose of the web site. Presumably the ultimate purpose of the site is
to impress visitors so that they will want you to do a site for them? If it
only works under certain conditions, surely it is not achieving that
purpose to its full potential?
So it wouldn't make your CSS file much longer, would it?
No, but if I added 20 one-liner classes to my css file, the css file
would be rather confusing to read. Not a big deal, but why does it
matter? That was the way that was easiest for me and it's not the
wrong way, just not the way he thought I should have done it.
It wouldn't necessarily be confusing to read if you laid it out carefully.
It reduces file sizes, since you can reuse any style rules that are
duplicated, and you have them all in one CSS file instead of in every HTML
file. It also means that if anyone else takes over the site, it will be
much easier for them to understand and maintain.
Inline styles can also cause problems with some browsers, namely NS4.
At least 3, since IE doesn't support XHTML.
Well, maybe not officially, but XHTML seems to be easily rendered by
both IE5 and IE6 on win98, 2000 and XP.
Only if you serve it as text/html, not application/xml+xhtml, which is the
correct mime type.
I decided to code the site in
XHTML. Why is that such a problem?
It isn't as such, but why would you want to use XHTML instead of HTML?
There really isn't any point.
Plus it increases your file sizes - all those extra "/" :-P
--
Mark Parnell http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote in message news:<3fc211a5$0$40215 Um, it most certainly is too small in my browsing environment.
Try viewing it on a high-resolution monitor.
What's your definition of high resolution? Mine is set to 1600x1200
and it's only a 19 inch monitor. If I'd opted to use Times New Roman
(for some strange reason), the 12px font size would have been
incredibly hard on the eyes, but with Verdana, I believe it's not to
bad. I prefer it to be small and I certainly did not go nearly as
small as I've seen on some sites.
Maybe it's worth changing though.
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
I'm going to stop responding to comments about my site pretty soon
because this is getting ridiculous. Some of the coments are clearly
from people who haven't read the thread or just plain don't know what
they're talking about.
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message Why is that important to you? It is not important to you visitors.
Most of your visitors will never see your site in more than one
browser, so they won't even know that it looks different in different
browsers.
If it looks BAD in one browser, then that IS important to me. Pay
attention here. Some coding techniques not only look different, but
actually BAD in one browser but perfectly ok in others. Once coding method may be technically correct, but if it's not
backward compatable,
Technically correct html is backward compatible, perhaps with small
exceptions. Can you think of a technically correct snippet of html
that is not backward compatible? css?
Here's one for you: padding using css.
According to the NS6 rendering of padding, padding is added to, NOT
subtracted from the width or height of the cell. If that's the case
and a background image is supposed to fill the entire width or height
of a cell, it no longer will in the same way.... think of what happens
when two cells are supposed to match up with respect to the background
images in them. If I use an outdated coding technique, but it displays correct in
more browsers, what's the harm?
e.g., <font>, an outdated techniqe. Used in N4, the user cannot
change the color (or size?). Using css, the user can override the
author's choice, if the user wants or needs to. It's not beside the
point to note that <font> is invalid markup.
So what is your point about this? I don't know where you're going with
this. Well, once again, I understand from a usability standpoint, how a
fixed size font can irritate some users,
It can do more than irritate. It can make sites truly unreadable.
(Yes, unreadable. I've been to sites where the text was too small on
my monitor to read. Way too small. And I could not resize it, either.)
I understand. However, my font is not THAT small. I have a VERY
"dense" resolution on my monitor. My resolution is set to 1600x1200
and the viewable area is only 18 inches. It is EASY to read for me. To
me, it looks worst when it's on a 17 inch monitor with a resolution of
800x600 or 1024x768. Then the text is much to big in my opinion. but if every text character on the page ended up being 20 pixels,
the entire site would be hideous.
So you have chosen something else, then? Let's say you have chosen 14
pixels, because it looks on your monitor. Now, how will it look on a
different monitor, with different resolution? Consider the different
between 800x600 and 1600 x 1200.
See the previous answer. I think I chose the best size. It is a
judgement call, and obviously, when someone makes a decision, not
everyone is going to like it. The "artistic" menu text would be smaller than the actual text on
the page. The length of each page would increase significantly, the
number of words per line would increase significantly.... etc.
If the layout falls apart with a different font size, then you have
designed a layout that is too rigid for the www.
Did you even look at the site? Are you saying that nobody should ever
use text in graphical navigation? I understand there are times when
straight text is better, but not always. If my graphical text is all
14 px, and the text on the page is all 20 px because the user set it
to that, it's going to look silly. Understand? Think of how stupid it
would look if you read a newspaper, and all the article text was
larger than the headlines. I truely don't believe the font is too small for anyone to read. My
So rather than let them resize your text in their browser -- or,
better still, author so that their font size is used in the first
place -- you'll make them acquire additional software?
If their eyes are truely that bad, it's safe to assume that the
majority of them already have accessability software, or they hate
their computer.
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
It's nice to read a well written response. Thank you for making sense.
Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message news:<1v*****************************@40tude.net>. .. Well, my page validates as VALID XHTML transitional.... seems like I'm
using CSS properly. That's a non sequitur. You can have valid (X)HTML without any CSS. And even
if it is "valid", using it properly is a different matter. See my comments
below re: alt text.
I only stated that because someone was saying that my page had invalid
code that was exposed by Opera.
XHTML and CSS are two very different beasts. You can validate your CSS
separately (not your inline styles though):
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator
Yes, they certainly are. Thanks for the link. I haven't used a CSS
validator, although I occaisionally use TopStyle to write some of the
less common commands, so I'm fairly certain my CSS is "mostly" ok.
I'll check it later.
Already done... w3.org validator didn't find any errors... I just
assumed he was talking about something that the validator missed.
As did I - I hadn't checked it myself. There are a couple of errors in your
CSS (see above), but from looking at it, it is the sliced images that are
the problem.
What about the sliced images is the problem? I'm not sure I
understand. Keep in mind I've read all of these posts with varying
degrees of focus and at several different times, so I'm starting to
get some comments mixed up with other in my head.
Lynx (and Opera) are both very recent, and are being continually worked
By "old", I was talking about old versions of a particular browser.
Have a look at most quality websites today in NS2, and you'll notice
that they look like garbage.
Most sites don't really work at all in NS2. But sites where the content is
separated from the presentation, using CSS, degrade quite nicely.
Unless CSS is used for images. And even if they do "degrade quite
nicely" most designers would disagree with you and be horrified at
what NS did to their work. Either way, NS2 is almost non-existant
these days. I was in High School when NS2 was around.
Having alt text and using alt text appropriately are two different things.
e.g. alt="blank navbar"? Alt text is a textual *alternative* to the image.
If it is an image of text, replicate the text. If is is purely
presentational - like the blank navbar - use alt="". Anything in between,
put whatever is appropriate. This is one reason for testing in Lynx - it
gives you a good idea whether your alt text is appropriate.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
I've never used lynx, so I don't have a "feel" for how things look to
text only browsers and I suppose it would have been better to leave
that alt property empty.
As for it being too long - there isn't a set length for alt text, but in
many cases if you need to put anything more than a few words, you would be
better off using the title attribute. This is also displayed as a "tool
tip" in many graphical browsers.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/gl...tml#adef-title
BTW: "Click here" is not good text for links - how does someone using a
keyboard/PDA/speech browser/whatever click? And you shouldn't be using only
Javascript for links - what happens for the ~10-15% of users who have it
disabled? Not to mention Googlebot.
As far as googlebot, I don't WANT googlebot to index that, which is
why a javascript link isn't a problem in that respect. The only
javascript links are for the items in my portfolio, and a few others
that don't need to be search engine indexable.
As far as the "click here" thing, I read a user interface article a
year or so ago that said that users like to be TOLD what to do
sometimes. Maybe they were wrong? Maybe I don't remember it correctly?
Who knows.
Concerning the % of users with JS disabled, I didn't realize it was
that high. It's good to know. I'll look that up and if the number is
actually that high, I may need to change a few things.
No. If they want to read lines of 220 words, who are you to tell them
otherwise? If you don't want to, then don't maximise your browser. It's up
to the user.
Who am I? I'm the person who owns the copyright. :) I do see your
point, but I designed it to look a certain way. Is it really that
strange that I want it to look the way I intended it to?
No, but the you have a pixel perfect idea in your head. That doesn't work
on the www. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a design/layout/etc. But
you can't force it to be rigid. That's not how the web works.
Well, yes, you can force it to be rigid for the most part. It's a
judgement call whether it is a good idea or not. Some people don't
understand why something is hard to read if the lines are too long.
They don't understand why it makes their eyes hurt. It is easier to
read many short lines of text than one long line, so with that in mind
I set the table width to a fixed number of pixels.
I personally
think it's sloppy to let a page expand to fill the width of the screen
unless the designer spent the time to make sure it looks good at all
"common" resolutions, which they usually don't.
That's why you use a fluid design - then it doesn't matter what screen size
(resolution is irrelevant) - the site will flow appropriately to whatever
screen size the user has decided is best for them.
I understand what you mean by a "fluid design" and that is exactly
what I think is sloppy. When I go to a site, I expect them to make the
page look good and easy on the eyes. If they leave that decision to my
browser, why did they spend the money to pay a professional designer
in the first place?
Well, my goal is to give customers what they want so that I get what I
want... it's a two way street. No well established, successful
business is actually in business strictly for the benefit of their
customers. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a succesful business,
it would be a volunteer organization.
Absolutely. But this isn't about the purpose of your business, it is about
the purpose of the web site. Presumably the ultimate purpose of the site is
to impress visitors so that they will want you to do a site for them? If it
only works under certain conditions, surely it is not achieving that
purpose to its full potential?
I think under the majority of the common conditions, it does look
good. That's the best I can do b/c as you said before, it's not "pixel
perfect" and in the end, I don't have total control. Even if I did,
the user may have a different idea of what looks good.
(re: long css files)
It wouldn't necessarily be confusing to read if you laid it out carefully.
I did lay it out carefully. But there's no reason to create a class
for everything. Especially if the class would only be used once.
It reduces file sizes, since you can reuse any style rules that are
duplicated, and you have them all in one CSS file instead of in every HTML
file. It also means that if anyone else takes over the site, it will be
much easier for them to understand and maintain.
It reduces file size significantly in some cases, and almost not at
all in other cases. Easier to maintain, yes. Easier to understand? Not
neccessarily. What's easier? Looking at a single line of text with
inline style, or looking at a single line of text with a class? With a
class, you have to go and look in another file to see what that class
means. If something is only going to be used once, it is easier, in my
opinion to write and understand if inline styles are used. In the
instance he is refering to, I only have that style written ONCE so why
would I make a class for it?
Inline styles can also cause problems with some browsers, namely NS4.
Not TOO concerned with how my page looks in NS4 although it's good to
know.
At least 3, since IE doesn't support XHTML.
Well, maybe not officially, but XHTML seems to be easily rendered by
both IE5 and IE6 on win98, 2000 and XP.
Only if you serve it as text/html, not application/xml+xhtml, which is the
correct mime type.
Didn't know that. Once again, good to know.
I decided to code the site in
XHTML. Why is that such a problem?
It isn't as such, but why would you want to use XHTML instead of HTML?
There really isn't any point.
The truth? I'm working on my bachelors and I need to get a few
prerequisites out of the way... one of which is intro to web authoring
which is now taught using XHTML.
Plus it increases your file sizes - all those extra "/" :-P
:)
Once again, thanks for taking the time to make some sense. Some of the
replies I've gotten seem more intent on insulting my work than having
an intelectual conversation. I do understand some of your arguements,
but I respectfully disagree with others.
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
"physician, heal thyself"??? Interesting choice of words. We might be
on the same side.
Ok, let's have a look at what he had to say about my site without me
ever asking his opinion.
"XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised"
His opinion. His tone, to me sounds condescending. If he'd offered an
explaination to back up his suggestion, maybe it wouldn't have.
"Tables used for layout: use CSS"
once again, sounds condescending to me. I prefer tables and they work
fine for me. If he wanted to start a debate on the merits of CSS vs.
Tables, ok. He didn't do that. He's TELLING me to use CSS. I'm not a
child.
"Fixed width design; don't."
At this point, I'm starting to notice a pattern of condescending tone
of "voice".
"<br /><br /><br /><br />; is it cold where you live?"
I don't even know what he meant by that.???
" oh dear"
Once again, I'm not a child, and I don't like being talked to as if I
were. Is that line of code absolutely absurd? If it's not completely
ridiculous, what's with the "oh dear"?
I have no problem with an intelectual debate. However, when someone
says "don't .... don't ....don't ... oh dear" without explaination, it
starts to sound like he thinks he's to good to explain it to me and
I'm not worth his time. Interesting how he took the time to read my
code for no reason but didn't have the time to debate his opinions.
Let me say it now, for all who are wondering, I KNOW don't know
everything. I'm considering the font size issue. I am always open to
suggestions and debate. I DON'T like being spoken down to though.
Regards,
Ryan Burley
Lead Designer - http://CatsEyeDesigns.Net
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
news:<y9nwb.216588$mZ5.1644139@attbi_s54>... Mr. B. wrote: OK Spartanicus, I'm getting the feeling I know a few people like
you. An intelectual debate with you is probably a waste of time
because apparently you are always right and everyone who disagrees
is obviously wrong.
I was going to say the same thing about you, especially after reading
the belligerent tone of your response. Spartanicus gave you good
advice. If he was curt, he was not, as far as I can see, rude. Curt
responses are quite common in the ciwa* groups.
So I should completely ignore the fact that many people will see a
bunch of crap instead of the webpage I intended? You want to talk
about nonsense?
This is an example of a rather hostile tone. And to answer your
question, html documents are *supposed* to look different in different
browsing situations. CSS, then, seems perfectly suited to suggest a
presentation without trying (often unsuccessfully) to force one on
visitors.
And about the whole "bad plubming" analogy... do you care what kind
of glue is used to seal your pipes, or do you care that the seal
doesn't leak? For the most part, my "seals" are water tight,
And how can you be sure of that?
You seem hellbent on poking holes in my site when I never asked you
for your opinion in the first place. I appreciate your unique
perspective but lets keep things civil.
"Physician, heal thyself." we*******@CatsEyeDesigns.Net (Mr. B.) wrote: Here's one for you: padding using css.
According to the NS6 rendering of padding, padding is added to, NOT
subtracted from the width or height of the cell.
And according to the CSS spec, and Opera, and IE6 and indeed just
about all browsers except IE4 - 5.5 (and 6 if you put it into Quirks
mode).
If that's the case
and a background image is supposed to fill the entire width or height
of a cell, it no longer will in the same way....
The background image always starts from the outer edge of the padding
unless you specify otherwise.
If you really want the element (table cell in your example) to be the
exact same pixel size in browsers that get CSS padding correct and in
IE then you need to use something like the Tantek hack to feed
different width values to different browsers.
But surely this is an example of the pixel perfect layout that was
discussed in other posts.
think of what happens
when two cells are supposed to match up with respect to the background
images in them.
Sounds like using tables for layout....
Did you even look at the site? Are you saying that nobody should ever
use text in graphical navigation? I understand there are times when
straight text is better, but not always. If my graphical text is all
14 px, and the text on the page is all 20 px because the user set it
to that, it's going to look silly. Understand? Think of how stupid it
would look if you read a newspaper, and all the article text was
larger than the headlines.
Sounds like a very good argument for not using text in graphics.
Except for logos there's no need to.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Bertilo Wennergren wrote: "max-width: ...em" is the answer.
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote:
...but only if used on the proper element.
body { max-width:30em } would be inappropriate, but
Why? The body is the content *within* the page. Don't you want the
entire page contents to have the similar proportions, wherever possible?
p { max-width:40em } would be fine and dandy, methinks.
What about other elements? They could end up being wider than the
paragraphs.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Tim <ad***@sheerhell.lan> wrote: Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
"max-width: ...em" is the answer.
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote:
...but only if used on the proper element.
body { max-width:30em } would be inappropriate, but
Why? The body is the content *within* the page. Don't you want the
entire page contents to have the similar proportions, wherever possible?
Some content has to be wider.
Images have an intrinsic width that doesn't care what size and em, let
alone how many of the make a nice line length.
Tables of data with many columns can be best presented wider than
prose text.
<pre> elements need to be excluded as well.
If you set a max-width for body then you need to consider overflow and
also background images. Both of which are areas where browser
behaviours vary.
p { max-width:40em } would be fine and dandy, methinks.
What about other elements? They could end up being wider than the
paragraphs.
I'm sure that was just an example.
p, li, dt, dd, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, address, blockquote covers most
cases with the possible additions of fieldset and caption.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Mr. B. wrote: kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote in message news:<3fc211a5$0$40215 Um, it most certainly is too small in my browsing environment.
Try viewing it on a high-resolution monitor.
What's your definition of high resolution? Mine is set to 1600x1200
and it's only a 19 inch monitor.
That really surprised me, it's probably comparable to what I'm using.
If I'd opted to use Times New Roman
(for some strange reason), the 12px font size would have been
incredibly hard on the eyes, but with Verdana, I believe it's not to
bad.
Therein lies part of the problem. I don't have Verdana, so I get some
other font that is probably rather smaller.
I prefer it to be small and I certainly did not go nearly as
small as I've seen on some sites.
Your preference is not mine. My browser default font size is 18px.
12px is 1/3 smaller than what I consider to be a comfortable reading
size in my particular environment.
Maybe it's worth changing though.
Indeed. ;)
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?: http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote
in news:<y9nwb.216588$mZ5.1644139@attbi_s54>...
Mr. B. wrote:
I appreciate your unique perspective but lets keep things
civil.
"Physician, heal thyself."
Mr. B. wrote:
let's have a look at what he had to say about my site without
me ever asking his opinion.
"XHTML 1.0 Transitional; Use strict for anything new and revised"
His opinion. His tone, to me sounds condescending.
"Tables used for layout: use CSS" once again, sounds condescending
to me. I prefer tables and they work fine for me.
"Fixed width design; don't." At this point, I'm starting to notice
a pattern of condescending tone of "voice".
As I already said, curt <> rude. Posts here tend to be curt,
especially when the same issues come up again and again. If you don't
like it, you can always kill file posts. Beyond that, I'm afraid I
don't have the desire to continue yet another discussion about how we
discuss here.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jane Doe |
last post by:
Hi
I took a quick look in the archives, but didn't find an answer
to this one.
I'd like to display a list of HTML files in a directory, showing the
author's name between brackets after the...
|
by: Richard Tarjeft |
last post by:
I need to hire a python programmer for a small modification project.
Where is the best place to find one?
Richard Tarjeft
http://www.mlmlead.net
http://www.lowcostlocal.com...
|
by: Grant |
last post by:
Hi
I have a database which logs the usage of rooms. Some booking are entered
well in advance, and some have stays of more than six months.
I would like to ensure that rooms which have been...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
