Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

fisherKing · Jul 24, 2001, 08:05 PM

okay, i've just done a website for a friend.
bought (yes, bought) dreamweaver 4, learned while doing
(& have a lot more to learn).

so..
it's unfinished, but...
any feedback?

thanx!
http://www.zo9.com/

graphiteman · Jul 27, 2001, 08:09 AM

Looks OK, but there are a number of HTML errors in the site.

First of all, you need to include the <!DOCTYPE> declaration at the top of each page before the <HTML> tag:
<BLOCKQUOTE>code:<HR><pre>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
[/code]

The tags need to be replaced with style rules:
<BLOCKQUOTE>code:<HR><pre>
"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1" color="#666666">a
division of"3"> IIDP
[/code]
should read
<BLOCKQUOTE>code:<HR><pre>
"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 09pt; color: #666666">
a division of "font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">IIDP
[/code]

These errors are not your fault, but Dreamweaver's fault. Most of these types of programs do not generate proper HTML code.

dogzilla · Jul 27, 2001, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by graphiteman:
These errors are not your fault, but Dreamweaver's fault. Most of these types of programs do not generate proper HTML code.

The DOCTYPE declaration is a good idea, but it's important to realize that most pages currently on the web don't carry this declaration. MacNN doesn't, Google doesn't, Yahoo doesn't, and Altavista doesn't. The overwhelming majority of hand-coders don't include this tag either, so it's not an issue unique to WYSIWYG editors.

That being said, there are several extensions freely available for Dreaweaver that will help you get the DOCTYPE syntax right. You can find them at Macromedia's Dreamweaver exchange and searching for DOCTYPE (I'd post the full URL, but this BBS mishandles it).

As for the style issue: note that there are still older browsers in use which do not support the CSS syntax, so you'd lose formatting on those browsers. However, IMHO we should start ignoring those browsers. Dreamweaver offers you a full set of CSS Style management tools *as well as* a full set of "old-style" text formatting - it's up to you which to use as Dreaweaver will not force a loss of backwards compatibility.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: dogzilla ]

fisherKing · Jul 27, 2001, 06:58 PM

thanx, this is all new to me.
did this in six weeks, when i started i didn't have a clue.
will investigate all tips & advice!

bipto · Jul 28, 2001, 04:01 PM

These errors are not your fault, but Dreamweaver's fault. Most of these types of programs do not generate proper HTML code.

"Yes, it's Dreamweaver's fault that the author of the site did not use styles," he said sarcastically.

Herr Newton · Jul 28, 2001, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by graphiteman:
First of all, you need to include the <!DOCTYPE> declaration at the top of each page before the <HTML> tag:

Ummm... no you don't. It's actually considered more harmful (i.e., errs more against standards) to include a doctype on a page which doesn't validate than to not include a doctype at all. If you're doing some funky stuff as workarounds, or just can't bring yourself to code to standards, it's actually better to omit the doctype as it kicks IE5 Mac, IE5.5 Win-32, IE6b, and Mozilla based browsers into compatibility mode.

graphiteman · Jul 28, 2001, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Herr Newton:


Ummm... no you don't. It's actually considered more harmful (i.e., errs more against standards) to include a doctype on a page which doesn't validate than to not include a doctype at all. If you're doing some funky stuff as workarounds, or just can't bring yourself to code to standards, it's actually better to omit the doctype as it kicks IE5 Mac, IE5.5 Win-32, IE6b, and Mozilla based browsers into compatibility mode.

The point is that the page should already be standards-complient (i.e., the iCab face smiles, the W3C validator reports no errors), so the <!DOCTYPE "..."> tag should not make a difference.

Also, IMO, the above browsers should always run in "compatability mode".

graphiteman · Jul 28, 2001, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by bipto:


"Yes, it's Dreamweaver's fault that the author of the site did not use styles," he said sarcastically.

What I am saying is that DreamWeaver should be using styles exclusively unless told otherwise by the user.

fisherKing · Jul 29, 2001, 12:14 AM

whew!
i'm teaching myself this stuff.
doing a dreamweaver seminar end august.
did everything on my own, buttons, etc.

when i've learned more, i'll fix & improve things.

still, proud of what i've done.

as of today, everything (links, audio samples, etc) works!

thanx for input.

Raman · Jul 29, 2001, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by graphiteman:
Looks OK, but there are a number of HTML errors in the site.

These errors are not your fault, but Dreamweaver's fault. Most of these types of programs do not generate proper HTML code.

Hate to tell you but 1) these are not errors 2) most production browsers ignore the doctype (this means i'm not talking about icab or any other esoteric browser) 3) Not all browsers support CSS 4)Just because is depreciated doesn't mean you can't use it.

Subzero Diesel949 · Jul 30, 2001, 02:26 AM

It looks OK.

I don't find DOCTYPE to be important; as aforementioned many highly visible sites don't have that tag in their coding.

What's also a problem is that each browser (Netscape, MSIE, and iCab - which is what it should be) wants to do its own thing, and we can all agree that the hardest part about publishing web sites is seeing how it looks under each browser and tweaking the code, even if it means violating standards, in order to get the layout to render properly (speaking from the web designer's perspective, not as in HTML standards).

graphiteman · Jul 30, 2001, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Raman:


Hate to tell you but 1) these are not errors 2) most production browsers ignore the doctype (this means i'm not talking about icab or any other esoteric browser) 3) Not all browsers support CSS 4)Just because is depreciated doesn't mean you can't use it.

1) According to the HTML 4.01 DTD, these are errors.
2) Just because it is igonored doesn't mean it should be omitted.
3) Most browsers should have at least a partial implementation of CSS by now (and the items used are basic CSS tags that 99% of browsers understand).
4)If is used, the <!DOCTYPE> tag should read <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 FINAL//EN"> as the tag was not depreciated in HTML 3.2.

graphiteman · Jul 30, 2001, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Subzero Diesel949:
It looks OK.

I don't find DOCTYPE to be important; as aforementioned many highly visible sites don't have that tag in their coding.

What's also a problem is that each browser (Netscape, MSIE, and iCab - which is what it should be) wants to do its own thing, and we can all agree that the hardest part about publishing web sites is seeing how it looks under each browser and tweaking the code, even if it means violating standards, in order to get the layout to render properly (speaking from the web designer's perspective, not as in HTML standards).

As stated above, just becuase it is ignored doesn't mean <!DOCTYPE> should be omitted.

That's what CSS is for. All browsers should render everything roughly the same with CSS. (And the HTML was never designed for the high amount of typographical control that people want. It was ment as an organized structure for documents on the web.)

Herr Newton · Jul 30, 2001, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by graphiteman:


The point is that the page should already be standards-complient (i.e., the iCab face smiles, the W3C validator reports no errors), so the <!DOCTYPE "..."> tag should not make a difference.

1) One should always try to code to standards, but one cannot always code to standards. In the latter case, you shouldn't put a doc-type on the page. 2) What ever doctype declaration you slap on the page makes one heck of a difference. I can markup a page with HTML 3.2 to the standard and put a HTML 3.2 doctype on the page and it's valid html 3.2 which any competent validator or browser will recognize and parse as such. But if I put a HTML 4.01 strict doctype on that same page, the validator and the browser should freak.

graphiteman · Jul 30, 2001, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Herr Newton:


1) One should always try to code to standards, but one cannot always code to standards. In the latter case, you shouldn't put a doc-type on the page. 2) What ever doctype declaration you slap on the page makes one heck of a difference. I can markup a page with HTML 3.2 to the standard and put a HTML 3.2 doctype on the page and it's valid html 3.2 which any competent validator or browser will recognize and parse as such. But if I put a HTML 4.01 strict doctype on that same page, the validator and the browser should freak.

What I mean is that the browser should render the page standards-compliant, even if there isn't a <!DOCTYPE> tag. If one is detected, it should render it according to the declaration. If there is no <!DOCTYPE> tag, it should render it according to the latest HTML standard.

dogzilla · Jul 30, 2001, 06:57 PM

[This is long. You've been warned.]

You know, this issue illustrates one of the core questions facing any web developer today - the question of whether to limit yourself to developing for standards, or to take full advantage of browser capabilities to create a compelling web experience.

I think the desire to stand out stems form the obvious reality that the web is an "attention economy" - to keep users, your site needs a way to draw surfers in. Most people really don't have compelling content - this is true everywhere (print, radio, television, stage plays/musicals) and so have to rely on other methods to attract viewers/readers/listeners. Let's face it: there's nothing basically interesting about the story "The Lion King" or "The Phantom of the Opera" - today, we all know these stories by heart. However, they're huge stage hits almost purely because of their presentation. And if anyone wants to argue that 'NSync or Christine Aguillera or "Planet of the Apes" are popular because of their original and unique content....well, you get the point.

I think the same situation exists with web sites. If you are strictly standards-compliant, it becomes difficult or impossible to create an innovative presentation, mainly because there are no truly standards-compliant browsers in widespread use. Set against this is the need most of us have to satisfy our customers (who invariably want something "cutting edge" and could care less about standards compliance, even after it's explained to them).

So the question becomes, do you create a web site with limited presentation (and, more often than not, fairly boring content provided by the customer) that is fully standards-compliant, or do you target the 95% of your audience that uses a recent version of Netscape and Internet Explorer and basically say "Hell with it" to handheld browsers, speech browsers, and other non-PC access methods.

Another thought I've had on the non-PC web access methods: Given the reality of the web today, if I was creating, say, a web browser catering to blind users, why wouldn't I create a browser that did the work of parsing existing content instead of relying on the webpage's author to have used standards-compliant code? And the technology to do this not only exists, but is highly refined (see search engines).

One last thought: it seems to me that the web is the *only* medium that is expected to degrade gracefully depending on the end-user's settings. For example, if I create a print brochure, I'm not really expected to make sure that it still reads well after it's been rained on, or viewed in dim lighting, or viewed through sunglasses. Or to make sure that the song I've recorded will still sound good when heard on a circa-1965 transistor radio. In these cases, the end-user's choice in playback medium dictates the quality of their experience, and if they want the full experience, it's expected that they will acquire the appropriate equipment.

I'm not expounding a particular opinion here - I haven't quite made up my mind on which way I lean. I'm bringing up these issues to see what other web developers think, and to see if there's other points I've missed.

fisherKing · Jul 30, 2001, 08:43 PM

interesting ideas.
my client wanted this site to be accessible by anyone, so no flash (not that i know that yet), etc.

feedback (from family, friends) is pretty informative.
some people didn't even go inside until i added text to tell them where to click!

and some can't get to the music files...

obviously, we have a long way to go, to create a unified experience for everyone.

next site i do, i'm gonna make it more challenging.
but the client's wishes have to be met!

micmacmedia2001 · Aug 1, 2001, 01:04 AM

I can't believe that anyone would say that CSS HAS to be employed. I'm sorry but in Netscape the small font sizes are next to unreadable and can't be changed to a larger size. That is a major problem. Say that your Web site attracts 100,000 visitors/month - what if 5% of the visitors have trouble with your site? You're talking about ignoring potentially 5,000 visitors. That is just dumb business. Yes there are some sites that are walking/talking commercials and they need to be cutting edge and hip and different but most sites are either selling something or providing information and that's what most people really want. I don't want to have to worry about whether I have the latest plugin or try to figure out how to bypass a Flash animation that I've seen a carbon copy of on a hundred other sites. I think that you try to make as many people happy as possible but within reason. A lot of great stuff can be done with plain 'ole HTML with a little care and effort.

Chas

graphiteman · Aug 1, 2001, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by micmacmedia2001:
I can't believe that anyone would say that CSS HAS to be employed. I'm sorry but in Netscape the small font sizes are next to unreadable and can't be changed to a larger size. That is a major problem. Say that your Web site attracts 100,000 visitors/month - what if 5% of the visitors have trouble with your site? You're talking about ignoring potentially 5,000 visitors. That is just dumb business. Yes there are some sites that are walking/talking commercials and they need to be cutting edge and hip and different but most sites are either selling something or providing information and that's what most people really want. I don't want to have to worry about whether I have the latest plugin or try to figure out how to bypass a Flash animation that I've seen a carbon copy of on a hundred other sites. I think that you try to make as many people happy as possible but within reason. A lot of great stuff can be done with plain 'ole HTML with a little care and effort.

Chas

If the Style Sheet is done properly, then it will show up normally on the page. The small text problem comes when PeeCee users design a page with 96dpi screens - the unreadbale text is quite readbale to them. And these people want the page to show up exactly the way they designed it.

As of HTML 4.0 and XHTML 1.0, the text styling tags (, , , etc.) do not exist in the DTD, so StyleSheets are the only way to style a page according to the W3C.

dogzilla · Aug 1, 2001, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by micmacmedia2001:
...

Chas,

I just wanted to say that I really dig your portfolio. Nice work, and varied solutions.

Millennium · Aug 1, 2001, 11:55 AM

I can't believe that anyone would say that CSS HAS to be employed.

The standards do.

I'm sorry but in Netscape the small font sizes are next to unreadable and can't be changed to a larger size.

Then don't use the relative font size keywords (note: Netscape4 is actually following the suggestion that the relative keywords differ by a factor of 1.5, which most browser makers, including those who made NS6, thought was ridiculous). Specify them by some other means instead. Using pixels for screen and point for type tends to work very nicely.

If you are strictly standards-compliant, it becomes difficult or impossible to create an innovative presentation...

Patently false. There are things I can do in CSS that were impossible in previous incarnations of HTML. There are also things I can do with twenty bytes of CSS code which would have required several K of hacks before.

So the question becomes, do you create a web site with limited presentation (and, more often than not, fairly boring content provided by the customer) that is fully standards-compliant, or do you target the 95% of your audience that uses a recent version of Netscape and Internet Explorer and basically say "Hell with it" to handheld browsers, speech browsers, and other non-PC access methods.

How's about Option 3: Use innovative presentation that targets everyone. It can be done. Heck, it's easier to do it with CSS than with older methods, and moreover it's much easier to maintain if done right.

Another thought I've had on the non-PC web access methods: Given the reality of the web today, if I was creating, say, a web browser catering to blind users, why wouldn't I create a browser that did the work of parsing existing content instead of relying on the webpage's author to have used standards-compliant code?

Because in presentation-choked HTML, it's not possible. Go to http://www.cnn.com and look at the HTML source. Now, using only that source, tell me in what order the content should be read. Certainly not the order it's written in the HTML. And there are no clues given. So an aural browser could read the text, but it would make little or no sense.

And the technology to do this not only exists, but is highly refined (see search engines).

Search engines don't do the same thing an aural browser (to give an example) would do. A search engine only cares about the raw text; it does not try to comprehend the content. A user doesn't have that convenience.

Someone needs to come out with a good aural browser for MacOS and/or Windows (not a screen-reader, a Web browser; there's a difference). Then you could get an idea of what I mean (as a sidenote, such a browser could be useful to those people who've retrofitted their cars with Mac-based MP3 players; they could then add Web-surfing to their repertiore).

One last thought: it seems to me that the web is the *only* medium that is expected to degrade gracefully depending on the end-user's settings.

Name another medium where the end-user even has settings.

For example, if I create a print brochure, I'm not really expected to make sure that it still reads well after it's been rained on, or viewed in dim lighting, or viewed through sunglasses.

Being rained on implies actual damage to the work; Web browsers don't do that. As for being viewed in dim lighting or wearing sunglasses, that depends. If you were creating, say, a brochure for a tourist attraction that included a cave, certainly you'd want the brochure to be readable in dim lighting (so people wouldn't have to leave the cave to read it). Likewise, a brochure for a place popular during the summer had better be viewable while wearing sunglasses, because many people will be wearing sunglasses while outside.

It all depends on the audience. This is somewhat limited with physical media: your audience will be limited by location, and possibly by other factors like age. And because of that, you can make some assumptions. But on the Web, your audience is everyone. You can't even assume your audience can read (consider small children, blind users, people who may be able to speak but not read the language of your content, and drivers who must keep their eyes on the road for safety reasons).

In these cases, the end-user's choice in playback medium dictates the quality of their experience, and if they want the full experience, it's expected that they will acquire the appropriate equipment.

There is no such thing as a "playback medium" in physical media. The work and the medium are intertwined; I can't take a brochure, stuff it into a Walkman, and have it read me the text. The only "appropriate equipment" is at least one functional eye.

On the Web, it is different. Because there is no physical medium to which the content is tied, presentation can vary wildly. It would be like being able to snap my fingers and turn your paper brochure into parchment, papyrus, clay tablets, microfilm, or whatever, and I'm only counting visual media in this example.

4)Just because is depreciated doesn't mean you can't use it.

Yes it does. That's what deprecated means.

I don't find DOCTYPE to be important; as aforementioned many highly visible sites don't have that tag in their coding.

That doesn't make it right. In fact, some could say it makes it even more wrong, simply because it leads Web developers who "don't get it" to make the same mistake themselves.

graphiteman · Aug 1, 2001, 02:24 PM

At least one person understands what I am trying to say.

Thanks for joining the fight for web standard compliance, Millennium.

micmacmedia2001 · Aug 1, 2001, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by dogzilla:


Chas,

I just wanted to say that I really dig your portfolio. Nice work, and varied solutions.

Thanks, I just revised my site this week so it's good to get some feedback. I guess I'm in the minority here on the use of CSS. I guess I'll have to do a little research to see if it's as wonderful as Millennium says it is.

Good discussion...

Chas

ReggieX · Aug 5, 2001, 01:28 AM

DOCTYPE does matter: IE5 on the Mac will render your page differently if you screw with the DOCTYPE. All the more reason to include it, since from what I hear, most Mac folks use IE.

Me, I'm posting with Opera, and my site looks great in everything because it's sooo totally lo-fi. But it's exactly how I want it to look.

Reg

graphiteman · Aug 5, 2001, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by micmacmedia2001:


Thanks, I just revised my site this week so it's good to get some feedback. I guess I'm in the minority here on the use of CSS. I guess I'll have to do a little research to see if it's as wonderful as Millennium says it is.

Good discussion...

Chas

Trust me, it is.

If you want a good book on CSS, check out "Cascading Style Sheets 2.0" by Eric A. Meyer. It covers just about everything there is to know about CSS, including print and aural style rules. It's published by Osborne. ISBN 0-07-213178-0

micmacmedia2001 · Aug 6, 2001, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by graphiteman:


Trust me, it is.

If you want a good book on CSS, check out "Cascading Style Sheets 2.0" by Eric A. Meyer. It covers just about everything there is to know about CSS, including print and aural style rules. It's published by Osborne. ISBN 0-07-213178-0

Thanks for the tip, I'll be buying it today...

Chas