[wackymacs]

My XHTML written website has been online for ages and really needs an update as it looks kinda old and crummy now and behind. Has anyone got any ideas on how i can spoof it up?

http://www.freewebs.com/joshcov23central/

[registered_user]

Well, I'd refocus it. It seems that you have a lot of areas you want to cover, and they're diverse. Why not put them into subdivisions? Think of yourself as the visitor. If I wanted to look at your web design, I probably wouldn't care about electronics and 3d art. I think I'd try to find a way to logically divide these sections of your work before I do anything else.

First, I'd figure out the divisions on paper.

Then I'd build a navigation scheme to reflect the new organization system.

Then I'd build the layout around that. This is a personal thing, you need to decide on a design that you like. Perhaps you'll follow the boxes theme you have going now, and incorporate that idea into the navigation and the title.

Lastly, I'd run the page through the w3c's validator and fix any problems it cited before I put the xhtml badge on it.

[philzilla]

without wanting to sound too harsh, i think you're missing the whole point about XHTML. your page is littered with font tags and messy tables. just having an XHTML DOCTYPE in there, and escaping tags correctly, doesn't mean it's valid XHTML markup.

i'll not mention the image map, honest

read this, and then read this, so you understand enough about XHTML & CSS to start using them correctly.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by philzilla:
without wanting to sound too harsh, i think you're missing the whole point about XHTML. your page is littered with font tags and messy tables. just having an XHTML DOCTYPE in there, and escaping tags correctly, doesn't mean it's valid XHTML markup.

Actually, what you've described would be perfectly valid XHTML markup; he's using the Transitional DOCTYPE, after all.

It is not semantic markup, and so some people (myself included) would believe that he is missing the point of HTML in general, but his XHTML would perfectly valid just the way it is.

Except, of course, that it's not actually valid at all. There are several reasons for this, but his abuse of tables (and use of font tags at all) are not among them.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ov23central%2F

It seems that his biggest problem is that he's not escaping the ampersands in his links.

[wackymacs]

I understand that my XHTML isn't 100% valid, unfortunatly i use Dreamweaver which lacks being accurate and therefore, my code canno't be made perfect without me hand coding. I have only put the XHTML badge on there and made a big thing about it being XHTML is because i like to be up-to-date, i support the W3C, and my website was recently HTML ...so its a kinda jump for me.

philzilla - You mentioned CSS, my website doesn't actually use CSS as you may have noticed, I just simply don't use CSS yet because i've tried using it in the past and i've had trouble with it not displaying correctly and my tables/cells going all over the place. Using the good ol' font tags is simpler and every browser can view it correctly.

To the others - Thanks for the suggestions, i am currently updating the site and it will be of more interest to others, it will provide more info and interesting services etc, and it will be more user-friendly because i've seperated the more personal stuff to the other things on the site.

[cowerd]

I thought the point of slapping an XHTML badge on your site was the fact that the code does validate. And your site doesn't. It also does not follow basic XHTML guidelines like lower case tags, and properly escaped empty elements. The badge does mean that you follow a spec and validate to that spec, not that you are "up to date."

Millenium, XHTML 1.0 spec recommends that the <blockquote> and <font> tags be deprecated in lieu of stylesheets.

[sandsl]

I understand that my XHTML isn't 100% valid, unfortunatly i use Dreamweaver which lacks being accurate and therefore, my code canno't be made perfect without me hand coding. I have only put the XHTML badge on there and made a big thing about it being XHTML is because i like to be up-to-date, i support the W3C, and my website was recently HTML ...so its a kinda jump for me.

Your code doesn't validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional so you can't use the badge - its a simple as that. By using the badge (and/or doctype) on an invalid site your undermining the W3C and the purpose of the badge itself.

Maybe that sounded a bit blunt but you need to know

As for improving your site, I'd say refocus, lose the OS9 related material, update examples of your work and loose the aqua menu. Take a look at coolhomepages.com for some inspiration if you need some.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cowerd:
Millenium, XHTML 1.0 spec recommends that the <blockquote> and <font> tags be deprecated in lieu of stylesheets.

Are you sure about <blockquote> being deprecated? That one still has a fair amount of semantic validity. <font> is another matter entirely, of course.

Either way, however, these are perfectly valid if you use XHTML Transitional. "Valid" only means that your XHTML conforms to the DTD you claim it conforms to. Granted, <font> and table-based layouts miss the point of HTML (not just XHTML) entirely. I do not use them on my own sites either; I have spent a very long time cultivating my CSS-fu. However, these tags are not invalid for an XHTML Transitional document.

[york28]

I think that your site would benefit from a cleaner, more lightweight design. Don't use images unless you really need them, same goes for tables.

This article at A List Apart should help you tame that Dreamweaver. It was written for version 4, though, and I think it's up to 7 now, but it still might be of some use.

Chances are, you're going to get a lot of suggestion that you do the code by hand, or at least edit it that way. There's good reasons for this, as it will lead to cleaner designs that are more standards-based. Many people, myself included, view XHTML as being best used with plenty of CSS and no font tags, tables (unless displaying tabular data), or other presentational code. While it is possible for a page to validate as XHTML while still having these things, it won't take advantage of the strengths of modern web standards.

Here's some sites to check out that use valid XHTML, and have a "clean" look:

Zen Garden
Zeldman
Daring Fireball
Fireland
My portfolio page (shameless plug)

Instead of using image maps for navigation, you can make really cool looking links without any images using CSS, or rollovers that will work in any browser, and still allow people that surf with images off to see your page. There are lots of articles at A List Apart that talk about how to duplicate old-school behaviors with current technology and techniques.

Good luck with your redesign!