another semi web site shot to hell?
in [Design]
|
From: Robert Latest on 29 Sep 2006 05:58 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:56:21 GMT, Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote in Msg. <VFWSg.11261$7I1.9190(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> > But writing straight HTML is almost like writing assembler code. No. Writing straight HTML is more like just writing text. If I were you I'd re-write your present page in HTML (which would be the easiest thing in the world), and later I'd beef it up bit by bit adding pictures and stuff. Really, all you need to do is take your current pages, save them as "text only", sprinkle the results with a few tags like <p>, <blockquote>, <a> and run the result through "tidy" (avaliable for free from w3c.org). Tidy will complain a bit and add an obscure header and pretty-print the HTML automatically, and that will give you a starting point for a fully conforming, MS-free web page. robert
From: Robert Latest on 29 Sep 2006 06:03 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:02:05 +0200, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in Msg. <451c1c25$0$6505$e4fe514c(a)dreader11.news.xs4all.nl> > It's not an error, the reading area is just too wide to be comfortable. > Or are you still viewing in VGA mode, 640x480? My screen is 1280 wide. > If you put text in columns rather than using the entire page, it is > easier to read. Wrong advice. It is up to the reader to adjust the browser width to his taste. The page author should make no assumptions about screen width. What if Joerg would put in line breaks to make the lines shorter? This would look shitty on anybody's browser if the reader were to set his window narrower than his line length. What if someone preferred to read the page in larger font? Then the lines would become too wide again. Really, on the Web the actual typesetting is up to the reader, not the author. robert
From: YD on 29 Sep 2006 06:43 On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:53:20 GMT, Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote: >Hello Jim, > > >>>> ... You can code that in raw >>>>HTML, especially with a site as lean and clean as yours: >>>>http://werbach.com/barebones/ >>>> >>>>I'd guess that the majority of errors that that checker reports are >>>>artifacts of letting Microsoft get their claws into your site. ;-) >>>> >>> >>>But writing straight HTML is almost like writing assembler code. I am >>>currently poring over a stack of assembler pages. No fun for an analog >>>guy. Filter stuff no less, yech. >>> >>>I'd prefer a simple writer. Have to look, I think one came with my >>>hosting package. The ideal scenario would be if such a writer could also >>>read web pages (including hyperlink jumps). Word can do that nicely but >>>none of the others I tried could which is a bummer if you want to try >>>things out. >>> >> >> FrontPage is pretty easy to use... provided you don't want any fancy >> functions... which I don't. >> > >Yabbut, it's from MS and they could not even make Word and IE compatible. > >Maybe I'll give it a spin anyway. After all, they created Works which is >a fine and robust SW that I use to maintain all my biz databases, lab >stock database and so on. FP and FPE create totally unreadable code when opened in a text based editor. Spacing and alignment all wrong with strange line breaks all over the place. Unnecessary <div> and <font> tags at every new paragraph and so on. The one I use for text based editing is the freeware Max's HTML Beauty, http://www.htmlbeauty.com/. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years but works well. Haven't yet found a freeware WYSIWIG editor that really creates clean code. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Frank Bemelman on 29 Sep 2006 08:35 "Robert Latest" <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:4o49aqFcsjjuU2(a)individual.net... > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:02:05 +0200, > Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote > in Msg. <451c1c25$0$6505$e4fe514c(a)dreader11.news.xs4all.nl> > >> It's not an error, the reading area is just too wide to be comfortable. >> Or are you still viewing in VGA mode, 640x480? My screen is 1280 wide. >> If you put text in columns rather than using the entire page, it is >> easier to read. > > Wrong advice. It is up to the reader to adjust the browser width to his > taste. The page author should make no assumptions about screen width. > > What if Joerg would put in line breaks to make the lines shorter? This > would look shitty on anybody's browser if the reader were to set his > window narrower than his line length. What if someone preferred to read > the page in larger font? Then the lines would become too wide again. When placed in columns (tables), they just wrap around quicker. Try http://news.zdnet.com/ and play with the width of the page, or with the fontsize. Does not create any mess at all. Just one of the million examples... > Really, on the Web the actual typesetting is up to the reader, not the > author. Buy why builds the entire web community their pages using tables with columns as the underlying structure? -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Robert Latest on 29 Sep 2006 09:29
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:35:33 +0200, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in Msg. <451d130d$0$11674$e4fe514c(a)dreader14.news.xs4all.nl> >> Really, on the Web the actual typesetting is up to the reader, not the >> author. > > Buy why builds the entire web community their pages using tables with > columns as the underlying structure? Oh, I thought you meant columns. What you're talking about are panes. The actual content is still in a single column. No, that's indeed pretty ubiquitous: Have a navigation pane down the left and adjust window width to make actual content easily readable. But it's still essentially a single content layout. robert |