Hi everybody!
Well, through the aid of everyone on this forum and the book that was in that one guy's signature, I learned me some CSS. (not proper inglish
)
I ask you all now- Am I using my css correctly?
The sites that use the best of my CSS skills are these:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.team847.com/">http://www.team847.com/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.team847.com/new">http://www.team847.com/new</a><!-- m --> layout/index2.php
The top link is out of date by a couple weeks, and the lower link is a new layout using the peak of my skills. The lower one validates in HTML and CSS, the top one just in HTML (cause in CSS it gives me this dumb error).
Thanks!Looks good to me. One thing I'd suggest for that Q&A on the side is consider using a dl.
<dl>
<dt>Why did the robot cross the road?</dt>
<dd>Why not?</dd>
<dl>
Lots of semantic tags means lots of selector fodder.Thanks!
That part of the page is the PHP random load script- it loads a random answer. A list would work much better. Why a dl?DL is a Definition List. The DT tag is a Definition Term and the DD tag is the Definition Description. It's all about using HTML tags that best represent the stuff they contain.
A definition list provides a nice connection between your question (the DT) and its answer (the DD).I added more pages to the new layout and used a ul.
Are there any differences between a dt and a ul except for their differences in why they are used over the other?By default, UL and OL lists have a list marker, like a bullet or a number, whereas DL lists look EXACTLY the same, minus the list marker. Other than that, no, there is no difference. It's mainly one of meaning.
UL lists, each list item is related by topic, but each is its own thought.
OL lists are related by topic and the order in which they appear is important.
DL lists show relationships between one block of text and another.OK, so there is a difference.... The sample code that ray posted would be much easier to style. I'll use it instead.
So, other than that everything looks allright? I officially know how to use CSS now and I'm no longer a CSS noob?Consider yourself certified.
One thing I'd recommend you consider from a "construction" standpoint on that page is the actual partitioning of the page with divs. The content across the top of the page belongs more together horizontally than being sliced across vertically by the divs that define the main page layout. I think you would've had fewer problems if you'd used a banner div across the top with three vertical divs under it.I ain't a noob no more no more no more no more
Bit late for another site redesign... It's 3 weeks before the site is scheduled to be done... But you're right- The content across the top would be much easier to manage if it were across the top. Guess I still need to work on getting site designs right.There's always a way to improve and something new to learn. Keeps things interesting.Where do you think I should go next? I'm thinking photoshop?You're not a newbie. You've still got LOTS to learn. Most of us older forum members have LOTS to learn, and we've been doing this for several years. Look at the CSS References sticky in this forum. As a general rule, A List Apart Online Magazine is good for many different angles on Web design: <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alistapart.com">www.alistapart.com</a><!-- w -->
Photoshop is considered the psuedo standard for Web design. It might be usefull to buy books about how to use Photoshop, and also about design itself.Yeah, I should learn photoshop...
What about XHTML?I would focus on Javascript before XHTML.I thought JS was a pox on the web though.....Not when properly used.
Well, through the aid of everyone on this forum and the book that was in that one guy's signature, I learned me some CSS. (not proper inglish
)I ask you all now- Am I using my css correctly?
The sites that use the best of my CSS skills are these:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.team847.com/">http://www.team847.com/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.team847.com/new">http://www.team847.com/new</a><!-- m --> layout/index2.php
The top link is out of date by a couple weeks, and the lower link is a new layout using the peak of my skills. The lower one validates in HTML and CSS, the top one just in HTML (cause in CSS it gives me this dumb error).
Thanks!Looks good to me. One thing I'd suggest for that Q&A on the side is consider using a dl.
<dl>
<dt>Why did the robot cross the road?</dt>
<dd>Why not?</dd>
<dl>
Lots of semantic tags means lots of selector fodder.Thanks!
That part of the page is the PHP random load script- it loads a random answer. A list would work much better. Why a dl?DL is a Definition List. The DT tag is a Definition Term and the DD tag is the Definition Description. It's all about using HTML tags that best represent the stuff they contain.
A definition list provides a nice connection between your question (the DT) and its answer (the DD).I added more pages to the new layout and used a ul.
Are there any differences between a dt and a ul except for their differences in why they are used over the other?By default, UL and OL lists have a list marker, like a bullet or a number, whereas DL lists look EXACTLY the same, minus the list marker. Other than that, no, there is no difference. It's mainly one of meaning.
UL lists, each list item is related by topic, but each is its own thought.
OL lists are related by topic and the order in which they appear is important.
DL lists show relationships between one block of text and another.OK, so there is a difference.... The sample code that ray posted would be much easier to style. I'll use it instead.
So, other than that everything looks allright? I officially know how to use CSS now and I'm no longer a CSS noob?Consider yourself certified.
One thing I'd recommend you consider from a "construction" standpoint on that page is the actual partitioning of the page with divs. The content across the top of the page belongs more together horizontally than being sliced across vertically by the divs that define the main page layout. I think you would've had fewer problems if you'd used a banner div across the top with three vertical divs under it.I ain't a noob no more no more no more no moreBit late for another site redesign... It's 3 weeks before the site is scheduled to be done... But you're right- The content across the top would be much easier to manage if it were across the top. Guess I still need to work on getting site designs right.There's always a way to improve and something new to learn. Keeps things interesting.Where do you think I should go next? I'm thinking photoshop?You're not a newbie. You've still got LOTS to learn. Most of us older forum members have LOTS to learn, and we've been doing this for several years. Look at the CSS References sticky in this forum. As a general rule, A List Apart Online Magazine is good for many different angles on Web design: <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.alistapart.com">www.alistapart.com</a><!-- w -->
Photoshop is considered the psuedo standard for Web design. It might be usefull to buy books about how to use Photoshop, and also about design itself.Yeah, I should learn photoshop...
What about XHTML?I would focus on Javascript before XHTML.I thought JS was a pox on the web though.....Not when properly used.