In a recent thread,<br />
<br />
(My First Proper Web Design Job) <br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3009">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... eadid=3009</a><!-- m --> ,<br />
<br />
some argument arose about what to worry about, when designing a web page.<br />
<br />
What do you think?<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
<br />
These forums are also a bad place to talk about standards and compliance. Such things are for those who already know their stuff and are ready to take on the challenge of getting technical. People come here who are needing to learn the most basic stuff.<br />
<br />
A baby has to be allowed to first scooch along the floor, then crawl, then stand and walk along while holding on to the furniture, then toddle a few steps and to fall. All of these are important in the process towards learning to run the 100-yard dash in under 10 seconds flat.<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't really agree with this standpoint. I think for a beginner starting from scratch it is just as hard/easy to learn how to do thing the correct way then to learn how to do something the incorecct way.<br />
However if you teach people the wrong way to do ythings the will later have the trouble of unlearning the wrong way and relearn how to do it correctly.<br />
<br />
Thus if I may use your child analogy, sure a baby has to learn how to crawl and walk before it can run, but the best way to teach it is to walk is NOT by tying together it's knees and feets with a rope, even if that would make it easier for it to stand straight.<br />
<br />
If you teach it to rely on the rope for support, once you remove it, they will not start walking, but fall back back to the floor becuse the don't have the skills not the mucles to stand up on their own.<br />
<br />
Teaching people how to stand on their own 2 feet is a much better approch and will get them to the 100 yard track much faster.<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
<br />
some argument arose about what to worry about, when designing a web page.<br />
<br />
What do you think? [/B] <br />
<br />
My prefered option is not available.<br />
<br />
I always try to make my pages as standards compliant as possible. However that doesn't nessecarily prevent me from using proprietary code to achive things that is not possible at all using a standards method. In each such case it's a balance between the negative side of dropping the feature vs the possible problems it can give down the line or in alternative browsers and browser medias.<br />
<br />
Also, I fail to see the point in implementing things on a (live) website that is not supported in ANY browser. That feels mostly like a waist of time and bandwidth.<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
Well, you still haven't gotten it through your head that just because something isn't standards compliant that that doesn't make it wrong.<br />
...<br />
This is my last post in this thread -- because I know I'll get nowhere with trying to explain reasonable facts to you. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next thing your are going to say is probably something like "just becuse it's illegal to murder someone, it doesn't make it wrong..."<br />
I probably won't get that into my head either
<!--content-->Web Design is a technical skill and "baby learning to walk" analogy is least applicable here (or shall we also say that it's perfectly ok to run over a few people, dent a few cars and flatten some fences while learning how to drive 
)<br />
<br />
As with any other technincal skill, there are two basic options:<br />
1. Learn the theory, history of the subject, underlying principles, etc. It is a slow start but the only way to reach the top potential.<br />
2. Slap things together based on "heard somewhere" and "seen somewhere" without understanding how it works and why. Its sure a fast way, but those who follow it are destined to remain bottom feeders.<br />
<br />
Unfourtunately the second way is encouraged in web design by browsers accepting sloppy coding, WYSIWYG editors, and all the outdated "tutorials" .<br />
If everyone bothered to read HTML (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/</a><!-- m -->) and CSS (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/</a><!-- m -->) specs before attempting their first "HelloWorld.html", web would be a much better place.<!--content-->Well, I see this was a mistake to put this question up. I'll make sure to remember for next time never to ask people about their opinions.<br />
<br />
This is rather a useless thread anyway, because I see on the horizon the time, when browser wars (over HTML) will end, because browsers will be 99% or better standard compliant. Look at Opera7 for example, ppk said it's even better than Mozilla at standard compliance!<br />
ppk: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html">http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
Sorry, forumers, I'll think for longer on my next thread.<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
Well, I see this was a mistake to put this question up. I'll make sure to remember for next time never to ask people about their opinions. <br />
<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
The world would be a dull place if everybody thought alike. People have different opinions and forums are there to discuss them and share ideas. Of cource some people get angry at others if they don't have the same opinion as they, but that is their personal problem and not a valid reason to stop debating things
<br />
<br />
<br />
Look at Opera7 for example, ppk said it's even better than Mozilla at standard compliance!<br />
ppk: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html">http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
<br />
ppk bases that statement on running a very small and limited testsuite that gives a pretty random number of CSS capabilities.<br />
<br />
To say that it's better then Mozilla is IMO not correct, at least in my experience on real wepages and complex CSS implementations. But it does indeed bring it very close, much closer then anything else have been to Mozilla the last couple of years.<!--content-->well, MY major concern is CONTENT of the page...then the desing and the outline...ppl will come back to you site if you have the enough content to attract them again and again...<br />
But before you form an opinion about my post, please go through this interesting article that changed my opinions about web pages...save it a .html and view it<br />
bye<!--content-->My major concern is whether I will lose my page. I save all my pages to my harddrive.<!--content-->
<!--content-->Without a doubt, Content Is King.<br />
That is separate from what I was talking about. I meant HTML-wise design in this poll, but content is the purpose of HTML. Independent of how you use HTML, the content reqirement prevails.<br />
<br />
By the way, a link to the htmlhell page is here:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html">http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html</a><!-- m --><br />
I recommend for those that use the MARQUEE tag and alike; Mr. Raymond can explain better than me.<br />
<br />
Now, the question I set:<br />
When you are coding the HTML to envelope your content, which do you go by? Specifications, or browser compatibility? And if you go by a little of each, the question does include the word "main".<br />
<br />
If you selected the third option, I'd like to say to you:<br />
Hmmm... (No one at this time, that's good)<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
If you selected the third option, I'd like to say to you:<br />
Hmmm... (No one at this time, that's good) <br />
<br />
What if the first tutorial was eg <br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/</a><!-- m --><!--content-->I know html. I'm becoming more and more familiar with specific ways to do different things as the days go by. I was lucky that my company hired me, someone with basic web experience that they could teach. <br />
When I design for a site, I use the old magazine/newspaper form of planning the page--I draw layouts. Graph paper and pencils are my friends. I have preliminary sketches that go through fine-tuning throughout the process. My cubicle is wall-papered in these designs.<!--content-->Sorry, for the break. I like to do a combination of the first two choices. I try an element, and learn it. Then, I look at what the browsers see it as. Usually, that means I have to redo something. I think this is important for someone still learning. It lets me, an HTML beginner, see what I can do and what types of code I can write. Later on, I think I'll know more, think more abstractly and be able to produce sites in a more confident way. Learning HTML was easy, but the rest is going to be harder. I am finally almost comfortable with tables, and I just made my first solo Javascript with no errors. One day, I hope to be as good as the rest of the codeslingers out there who can design a W3c compliant page in no time.<!--content-->I go with functionality and look/feel when im making a site.<!--content-->Originally posted by stargal98 <br />
When I design for a site, I use the old magazine/newspaper form of planning the page--I draw layouts. Graph paper and pencils are my friends. I have preliminary sketches that go through fine-tuning throughout the process. [/B] <br />
<br />
That is an excellent design approach for webpages. There is a reason papers look the way the look, it makes them accessible to people. And it's tried and proven methods that have been fine tuned for the last couple of hundred years.<br />
<br />
Sure you have a few differences in capablilites between webpages and newspapers, but if you start with a newspaper design as your base you can't go too wrong.<!--content-->Hi,<br />
<br />
I for one find this forum post both interesting and useful. Sorry Dave
<br />
<br />
man... lol<br />
<br />
Allan<!--content-->
<br />
(My First Proper Web Design Job) <br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3009">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... eadid=3009</a><!-- m --> ,<br />
<br />
some argument arose about what to worry about, when designing a web page.<br />
<br />
What do you think?<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
<br />
These forums are also a bad place to talk about standards and compliance. Such things are for those who already know their stuff and are ready to take on the challenge of getting technical. People come here who are needing to learn the most basic stuff.<br />
<br />
A baby has to be allowed to first scooch along the floor, then crawl, then stand and walk along while holding on to the furniture, then toddle a few steps and to fall. All of these are important in the process towards learning to run the 100-yard dash in under 10 seconds flat.<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't really agree with this standpoint. I think for a beginner starting from scratch it is just as hard/easy to learn how to do thing the correct way then to learn how to do something the incorecct way.<br />
However if you teach people the wrong way to do ythings the will later have the trouble of unlearning the wrong way and relearn how to do it correctly.<br />
<br />
Thus if I may use your child analogy, sure a baby has to learn how to crawl and walk before it can run, but the best way to teach it is to walk is NOT by tying together it's knees and feets with a rope, even if that would make it easier for it to stand straight.<br />
<br />
If you teach it to rely on the rope for support, once you remove it, they will not start walking, but fall back back to the floor becuse the don't have the skills not the mucles to stand up on their own.<br />
<br />
Teaching people how to stand on their own 2 feet is a much better approch and will get them to the 100 yard track much faster.<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
<br />
some argument arose about what to worry about, when designing a web page.<br />
<br />
What do you think? [/B] <br />
<br />
My prefered option is not available.<br />
<br />
I always try to make my pages as standards compliant as possible. However that doesn't nessecarily prevent me from using proprietary code to achive things that is not possible at all using a standards method. In each such case it's a balance between the negative side of dropping the feature vs the possible problems it can give down the line or in alternative browsers and browser medias.<br />
<br />
Also, I fail to see the point in implementing things on a (live) website that is not supported in ANY browser. That feels mostly like a waist of time and bandwidth.<!--content-->Originally posted by Dave Clark <br />
Well, you still haven't gotten it through your head that just because something isn't standards compliant that that doesn't make it wrong.<br />
...<br />
This is my last post in this thread -- because I know I'll get nowhere with trying to explain reasonable facts to you. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next thing your are going to say is probably something like "just becuse it's illegal to murder someone, it doesn't make it wrong..."<br />
I probably won't get that into my head either
<!--content-->Web Design is a technical skill and "baby learning to walk" analogy is least applicable here (or shall we also say that it's perfectly ok to run over a few people, dent a few cars and flatten some fences while learning how to drive )<br /><br />
As with any other technincal skill, there are two basic options:<br />
1. Learn the theory, history of the subject, underlying principles, etc. It is a slow start but the only way to reach the top potential.<br />
2. Slap things together based on "heard somewhere" and "seen somewhere" without understanding how it works and why. Its sure a fast way, but those who follow it are destined to remain bottom feeders.<br />
<br />
Unfourtunately the second way is encouraged in web design by browsers accepting sloppy coding, WYSIWYG editors, and all the outdated "tutorials" .<br />
If everyone bothered to read HTML (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/</a><!-- m -->) and CSS (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/</a><!-- m -->) specs before attempting their first "HelloWorld.html", web would be a much better place.<!--content-->Well, I see this was a mistake to put this question up. I'll make sure to remember for next time never to ask people about their opinions.<br />
<br />
This is rather a useless thread anyway, because I see on the horizon the time, when browser wars (over HTML) will end, because browsers will be 99% or better standard compliant. Look at Opera7 for example, ppk said it's even better than Mozilla at standard compliance!<br />
ppk: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html">http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
Sorry, forumers, I'll think for longer on my next thread.<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
Well, I see this was a mistake to put this question up. I'll make sure to remember for next time never to ask people about their opinions. <br />
<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
The world would be a dull place if everybody thought alike. People have different opinions and forums are there to discuss them and share ideas. Of cource some people get angry at others if they don't have the same opinion as they, but that is their personal problem and not a valid reason to stop debating things
<br /><br />
<br />
Look at Opera7 for example, ppk said it's even better than Mozilla at standard compliance!<br />
ppk: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html">http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/css2tests/index.html</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
<br />
ppk bases that statement on running a very small and limited testsuite that gives a pretty random number of CSS capabilities.<br />
<br />
To say that it's better then Mozilla is IMO not correct, at least in my experience on real wepages and complex CSS implementations. But it does indeed bring it very close, much closer then anything else have been to Mozilla the last couple of years.<!--content-->well, MY major concern is CONTENT of the page...then the desing and the outline...ppl will come back to you site if you have the enough content to attract them again and again...<br />
But before you form an opinion about my post, please go through this interesting article that changed my opinions about web pages...save it a .html and view it<br />
bye<!--content-->My major concern is whether I will lose my page. I save all my pages to my harddrive.<!--content-->
<!--content-->Without a doubt, Content Is King.<br />That is separate from what I was talking about. I meant HTML-wise design in this poll, but content is the purpose of HTML. Independent of how you use HTML, the content reqirement prevails.<br />
<br />
By the way, a link to the htmlhell page is here:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html">http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html</a><!-- m --><br />
I recommend for those that use the MARQUEE tag and alike; Mr. Raymond can explain better than me.<br />
<br />
Now, the question I set:<br />
When you are coding the HTML to envelope your content, which do you go by? Specifications, or browser compatibility? And if you go by a little of each, the question does include the word "main".<br />
<br />
If you selected the third option, I'd like to say to you:<br />
Hmmm... (No one at this time, that's good)<!--content-->Originally posted by King Pellinore <br />
If you selected the third option, I'd like to say to you:<br />
Hmmm... (No one at this time, that's good) <br />
<br />
What if the first tutorial was eg <br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/</a><!-- m -->
<!--content-->I know html. I'm becoming more and more familiar with specific ways to do different things as the days go by. I was lucky that my company hired me, someone with basic web experience that they could teach. <br />When I design for a site, I use the old magazine/newspaper form of planning the page--I draw layouts. Graph paper and pencils are my friends. I have preliminary sketches that go through fine-tuning throughout the process. My cubicle is wall-papered in these designs.<!--content-->Sorry, for the break. I like to do a combination of the first two choices. I try an element, and learn it. Then, I look at what the browsers see it as. Usually, that means I have to redo something. I think this is important for someone still learning. It lets me, an HTML beginner, see what I can do and what types of code I can write. Later on, I think I'll know more, think more abstractly and be able to produce sites in a more confident way. Learning HTML was easy, but the rest is going to be harder. I am finally almost comfortable with tables, and I just made my first solo Javascript with no errors. One day, I hope to be as good as the rest of the codeslingers out there who can design a W3c compliant page in no time.<!--content-->I go with functionality and look/feel when im making a site.<!--content-->Originally posted by stargal98 <br />
When I design for a site, I use the old magazine/newspaper form of planning the page--I draw layouts. Graph paper and pencils are my friends. I have preliminary sketches that go through fine-tuning throughout the process. [/B] <br />
<br />
That is an excellent design approach for webpages. There is a reason papers look the way the look, it makes them accessible to people. And it's tried and proven methods that have been fine tuned for the last couple of hundred years.<br />
<br />
Sure you have a few differences in capablilites between webpages and newspapers, but if you start with a newspaper design as your base you can't go too wrong.<!--content-->Hi,<br />
<br />
I for one find this forum post both interesting and useful. Sorry Dave
<br /><br />
man... lol<br />
<br />
Allan<!--content-->