Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Web Designers With Standards!
Options
Comments
-
-
Good stuff.jennyrusks wrote:Hi all
Just going to add myself to the list. My site is http://www.laughingliondesign.com.
I've recently redesigned my site and I am having a teeny weeny problem with a style sheet but my XHTML is ship shape according to the W3 Validator.
all the best for now
Jennifer
It's just a little typo causing you trouble. You have an extra # character in the color definition on line 92.
Do you know that #xxyyzz can be written as #xyz? For example on that line you can write #333 to save you some space.
0 -
-
Ph3n0m wrote:why not practice what you preach (that is, if you control www.blogireland.ie)
em well that system wasn't coded by me and as it is Google code throwing out the code - you can hardly say practice what you preach.
If however you want to review the coding of any of my other stuff I'm sure you'll find it fully compliant to xhtml 1.0/1.1 W3C standards. I can't control google code nor paypal code but the rest is compliant.
Looking over a lot of Irish sites and at the source of most pages, I would say I get a breakdown as following per 10 sites viewed;
1 or two To the current W3C standards compliancy (xhtml/css)
1 or 2 using older html 4.0/4.01 code - 'Correctly' identified and coded,
The remaining 60%? A hashed together mess of incorrect html 4.0/4.01 and the majority of these not even identifying the markup (Correct dtd in other words).
Use of the dtd? This is probably one of the most important parts of your coding - it is this that tells the browser what code you are using. Leave it out and your browser is switching to Quirks and the guessing game begins (for the browser that is) and thats only the start of your problems. I very rarely see it being used and I include some of the supposedly 'Top' design sites and operators in that...
Most are 'Dreamweaver' built sites and a few in Frontpage. I prefer to use notepad and handcode a site from scratch.
So yeah Ph3nom, have a go at my coding 'When' it is my coding at fault not someone elses. Fairs fair like 0 -
smeggle wrote:So yeah Ph3nom, have a go at my coding 'When' it is my coding at fault not someone elses. Fairs fair like
Ok 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Oh dear, looks like an "i" wormed its way into trawl when I was writing. Erkjmcc wrote:The trawl is easy. Correlating the sites with webdesigners is difficult because most webdevs do not "sign" their work.
Regards...jmcc
Yes, I'd presume you'd have to email the webmasters of those sites with ambiguous authors and see if they'd give that information. No easy task.0 -
-
smeggle wrote:So yeah Ph3nom, have a go at my coding 'When' it is my coding at fault not someone elses. Fairs fair likePh3n0m wrote:Ok
Sorry I just re-read what I wrote at the end there - wee bit harsh I thought so my apoligies.
The OP does raise a very valuble issue here though. I've written about this issue on other forums and it's like other website developers just don't care.
OK, lets look at the issue of standards and why we should at least adhere to a certain basic format. i.e. If I write in my css that I want a certain div to do this, do that and display in this width and height, then I expect that to happen no matter which browser I display it in. As we all know, that is not the case. (And, yes, I.E. has allways been the biggest culprit in these areas).
That goes back to the issue of the 'Browser Wars', which some think is over but personally I'm not to sure. I.E. 6.0 was supposed to be fixed for displaying xhtml 1.0 and above but there are still major apparent differences between how say I.E. and Firefox, who do follow the recommendations of W3C, display a page. Easy example is my summary page at my blog system, Firefox? Displays as I want, I.E. an the other hand? Massive white area at the foot of the page.
Webmasters then just got into the habit of basically saying sod you jokers we'll just apply 'Hacks', it works but it's not great, imo.
One issue though that is overlooked in all this, is the legal one. Technically, I would say a good 55% - 60%, (Maybe even more!) are 'Illegal'. The issue here, is 'The availabilty of the medium to Disabled Persons'. It is a law after all that all forms of media should be as fully accessible as possible. It's why newspapers 'Have To' not 'Choose to' also supply the paper in Audio Format. It's why 888 exists on your television. This hasn't been challenged as yet as far as I know but there was a rumour last year that a visually disabled person visited a site in the UK and found it literrally totally inaccessible and so sued the sites owners and won. It was only a rumour and I never saw any really reputable source but irrespective the governing law is true.
This is why we use 'alt' or 'id' - to give an alternative text to an image being displayed. The software obviously can't tell you what an image looks like. It needs a text alternative. A lot of sites I look at do use it now but then go totally screwing everything with no dtd. Thats what tells the software what it's reading, be it a browser or a the audio/visual display reader. (<The software a blind person would use).
So, to me it makes total sence to apply the standards the are recommended. It means I know that it makes no difference who visits my site/s, they are going to be able to access every thing, especially forms.
With I.E. 7.0 the problem is supposed to be fixed. Actually the strange thing here is the appearance of tabbed browsing in I.E. and in Firefox 1.5 the default settings of the quick links just below the control/address bar/search bar are preset to microsoft sites? At least they were on mine. So hopefully in the next year or so we could see an end to the hacks that need to be applied to make everything work across all platforms.
But that only works if everyone applys the standards. It's no good the browser manufactuers doing it if the website makers, i.e. webmasters don't apply them. This means identifying what you are writing, html 4.0/4.01 or xhtml 1/0/1.1 or 2.0. It also means writing it correctly. Correct meta structure, learn in what order the browser will read the page, using the correct css/java script tags (They changed in xhtml
).
The benefits of using standards is obvious. Everyone benefits, expecially for webmasters/developers and that benefit also extends to there clients. In terms of conception by the client/contact web developer/initialise project to the finished product. Using standards and compliancy will also greatly enhance accessibility, the most important requisite, (After Design ), a site requires. It's no good if a site is only accessible by 45% of the traffic that passes through it! Ok I'm being maybe a bit extreme there but it helps see the point more. (And I have seen sites in that kind of mess).
They want a 100% ratio. I'd personally have to agree. The closer I can get my client to that 100% traffic ratio the better. That equals a better return in sales percentage for my client. The only way I can ensure this is by following standards.
It's really like any industry, electricians? They have standards? yes? or No? Pick any industry, Acountancy? Shops?, Building? Why then should the web industry be any different?
After looking over the courses that are available in Ireland such as FAS need a radical re-evaluation and updating. Firstly they need to dump those wysiwyg editors. Most I've used, mainly the industry leaders, macromedia and frontpage, I've had to open the html page in notepad to fix mistakes. Upgrade the coding standard used from html 4.0/4.01 to xhtml. Lets face it, html 4.0 is nearly 10 years old or more now 96? or 97? it first came out if I remember right.
If I was asked - I'd recommend a course as follows
Notepad/XHTML 1.1 - (as a grounding for moving upto xhtml 2.0), css 1.0 - (As a grounding for moving upto css 2.0 [css 2 technically to be used in conjunction with xhtml 2.0]).
Correct structure of document, includes - identification, meta tag structure and what they are/do, correct body of document layout, implementation of media, (Images etc).
css - what it is and how it works with the above.
Design - Methods, importance of good graphical layout etc
Then move into areas such as SEO or site submission/promotion.
It's where these courses need to start working towards. Currently they are way out dated.
One of the added bonus's of moving upto xhtml 1.1/css 1.0 for me? I finally got a life again. html 4.0/4.01 took twice, sometimes nearly three times as long to write and was a pain in the royal, wouldn't go back there in a hurry. One of the biggest differences I found was it's simplicity, it took me what 6 mnths? to get the basics rightin html 4.0/4.01 - as opposed to writing symantically correct and valid xhtml/css in little under two-three months.
Obviously that only the basics and I'd allready had a few years decent groundwork in html/php but still the difference to a beginner student, I would say would be massive and the long term benefits to the beginner students currently or deciding on a course in web developement, not only in the terms of learning but the level of professionalism they would achieve.
Definately an issue that the teaching bodies in Ireland, such as FAS, need to look at and address. Not only them though, they all need to update there coding stndards and there courses.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
bpmurray wrote:Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that CSS & XHTML are quite separate attempts at standardization. In fact, I would have assumed that CSS3 should be used with XHTML 2.0, not CSS 2 (or 2.1).
eah, I'm kinda sure. Way I remember it was
html 4.0 with all the junk in the html along with a habit of leaving quotations out > " " < The first ideas of style came about here and that was html 4.01 with the css first written inline (I.E. using the style tags in your header). It was here that external linking of the text/css link began or least it was where I first remember it appearing. I have seen it being externally linked in html 4.0 but all I can say for sure it first happened in html 4.01.
Around end 98? - beginning/mid? of 99 XHTML started to appear. I think it was around 2001/2 when it really started to be used or seen as the way forward to replacing the html 4.0/4.01 modules.
That used the same css as html 4.01 which was css 1. As I remember certain changes took place during the transition from from xhtml 1.0 to 1.1 and the css started to be called css 2.0.
xhtml 2.0 is being implemented and W3C have had papers up on it for at least the last 12months. Sure I read something either in those articles or over at web pro world forums about css 2.0 being meant to be used with the forth coming xhtml 2.0.
So my understanding of it was
html 4.0 - attribute values etc in the html code
html 4.01 - emergence of css (technically, css 1.0) as an inline style
html 4.01/xhtml 1.0 transitional - emergence of css 1.0 and either as an inline style or off line txt link
xhtml 1.0 strict - utilising fully css 1.0 either inline or via txt link but strictly to be semantically correct, style should be sourced via txt link
xhtml 1.1 - still using css 1.0 though with indications of developments in css so as to mean enough changes to warrant issueing under a new heading, css 2.0
xhtml 2.0 - still yet to be fully implemented (Still problems with the off line form handling I believe?) but fully utilising the newer developed css 2.0
To be honest, I only really came into html around mid to late html 4.01, so know little of the html 2.0/3.2 variants and I never really stuck that long with it as xhtml transitional 1.0/xhtml strict 1.0 was just being implemented and quickly saw the advantage of switching.
But from what I've read over at W3C thats how I saw the structure of how its evovled. Open to correction on that though
Still, I think its great to see folk taking the time to follow the standards and keep upto date with current W3C recommendations. At the end of the day, XHTML/CSS is far easier to work with than any of the previous formats. It's simpler to identify any problems and to narrow down the cause and fix it than in any previous version of html. 0 -
-
-
-
Still is - I see it used a lot in php template applications more than basic xhtml though...rsynnott wrote:Actually, as far as I remember, there was originally a separate (XML-based) style sheet system intended for use with XHTML. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Serbian wrote:To say that it took 'twice, sometimes nearly three times as long' to write HTML 4.01 is a bit of a ridiculous thing to say, as the mark-up is only slightly different.
em heres an example ..
assume we've done our header and are ready to start on the body of the page.
So your saying that it takes the same time to write (Not copy/paste as a lot of coders do) some thing like this<body> <!-- table 1 --> <table width="" border="" align=""> <tr> <td width="" height="" bgcolor=""> </td> </tr> </table> <!-- end table 1 --> </body> </html>
As it would take to write the following..
[code]
<body>
<!-- begin div 1 -->
<div id=""></div>
<!-- end div 1 -->
</body>
</html>
[code]
(Obviously in the second div version the css handles all the values such as width, border, height etc).
I can do whatever I want to both versions of the html but I've reduced the amount of html I need to write to achieve the same objective.
The difference is 134 characters typed (not including spaces) as opposed to 66 (excluding spaces) .
So em yeah I stand by what I say - twice longer at least to write html 4.0/4.01 than xhtml 1.0/1.1..
And yes you can use tables in xhtml but who would really want to? I have a rushed content page up at the moment on a site I'm working on and I've temporarily popped in a set of tables but rest assured by the time the sites fully finished and active these will be long gone...
Sorry, some like tables, some don't, personally I can't stand the things and prefer a nice clean, simple div layout.
But my main point is that it takes a lot longer to type html 4.0 than xhtml. I think that simple example adequately prooves that - twice the amount of characters to type? Twice as long to type it... 0 -
-
-
-
feckin heck, your a sensitive bunch - jeez - :rolleyes:
hello robbie - wondered where you were have a nice BIG - there now, isn't that better?
cult? huh? wtf? Totally lost me that one
@ musician - yes your right and it was unfair for me to slip the table width etc in. Obviously I should not have.
So take the above example without the style attributes and it still takes longer to write 1 than the other for the same result. From a corparate point of view that should equal quite a big saving in content turn around.
can't be bothered with another slanging match so I'll bid my leave of this thread,
Have a nice discussion on the rest 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement