Menu
Community /Pin to ProfileBookmarkYou know where some of the bugs will lie, so you can just avoid those bits sometimes.
Wouldn't [i]that[/i] be a perfect world!?Even the wc3 don't maintain the standards they impose on the rest of us.
The wc3 has no governing power over browser vendors, I seriously doubt there will be a world where only xhtml standards are used in browser dev. No browser currently fulfills all criteria for xhml standards each vary on how they handle dom issues.
Agreed, the person came here for help and tips, not for a front row seat in the obligatory battle between the W3C and the dark side. ?
To my knowledge (I'm still very much a beginner), there are 3 schools of thought on how to make interoperable sites that look the same in different browsers.
[1] The W3C camp:
The W3C developers (of which I count myself as one) as you might imagine lean much more towards using the W3C recommendations to get their work done. Using standards compliance in an effort to make the page look the same for everyone and if that is not possible, at least have it still work for everyone and deliver its content to the users and end users. I'm very much in favour of this method because of the emphasis on accessibility. As a person with a rather unusual internet access setup accessibility is very important to me and it's really frustrating when (what I would consider) incompetent or lazy designers disallow me access to information or product. There's plenty of sites that have missed out on my cash now due to them hiring (what I would call) idiots. There are however varying degrees of standards compliance between developers though and different trains of thought about what should and should not be used in whatever circumstances. For example most of the W3C camp seems to have gone crazy for xhtml and use it all over the place. Personally I think it's a bit of a stupid idea because they all just serve their content as text/html anyway. So that means they're not actually using xhtml at all. They're just using an intentionally broken html that they can use as a buzzword.
[2] The oldschool camp:
I would be suprised to see many of these around these days. In "the bad old days", pages used to be written many times over or have many versions of a page merged into one. There was almost a different version of html for each browser out there, Javascript doubly so. So people would just spend endless hours making the same page over and over (or just the single file "hacked" to bits) to deliver a page that would probably still have strange quirks and was most likely, rather ugly. Most of these people went off to either camp 1 or 3.
[3] The "[i]I don't give a f*** so long as I get away with the money[/i]" camp:
I'm sure you can figure out these guys by the name. According to these people blind, deaf and otherwise disabled people don't exist and nobody uses a different browser because "everyone" uses IE. Either that or they are well aware of others, but don't really care. They know the chances of their client not using IE is quite slim so they can just knock out any old crap, get the money from the client before they realise they got screwed and run. Although there are clients that are just as bad as the developers themselves.
Anyway back to practices.
doctypes....
I don't doc type my html it can wreak havoc with browsers generally most older
browsers will read most xhtml I format for transitional xhtml with the exception of heavy dom structures (which I choose to avoid with a passion)
div's
I love divs especially layers being aware of limitations of certain browsers I choose not to use layers if the layer contains inner html. In my opinion if it doesn't serve the site
no matter how cool it looks don't go with it.
fonts
Fonts are a stylistic viewpoint but really how many fonts does a site really need?
Stick to three non-decorative fonts. If the font is an absolute then it should be in bitmap or flash format where it can be embedded so all viewers will see it the same.
Layout
I hate designing in css. I do because I have to. and I do as little as I have to with it.
Keep your layout simple is my advice. A site that is too busy distracts from the content. Content is what brings someone back.
Framsets and Iframes
another thing I avoid. Before the advent of caching css framsets were used to save reload time. One of the causalties is searh engines. Whilst late comer browsers have embraced iframes they still don't have the full functionality of framesets and I've had some issues with Mozilla flavored browsers.
Plugins
Unless it's flash I hate em. java applets are buggy at best and after the whole MS/Sun
debacle most people wont update thier jre. Real is extremely invasive. Quicktime even when it is installed is extremely slow. Win media 8,9,10 will only work in browser IF the user has xp and is using ie and has set up user options to play in browser.
That's just too much to content with.
Flash.
I love flash.(well swishmax inexpensive alternative) I'm a seasoned user who understands the intricacies moreso then average joe flash user. Ergo I know how to make it work for a site not against it. Because the capabilites are endless flash designers in the past have a tendency to out do themselves. It doesn't help that the worlds most expensive web designers Use flash extensively and are more concerned with visual appeal then download time.... (take a look at[url=http://ford.com/en/default.htm]Ford[/url] By [url=http://2advanced.com]2A[/url] )
to me designing in swish is easier then designing in html or a graphics program
create text move text create image move image. It's not boxes and arrows I can send and recieve data thru the swf or several swf's on the same page. as well recieve audio
from the server and video
SWF format I try not to make my be all end all. It can't and it shouldn't be.
While it can be a bit of work to make pages with swf content search engine friendly
it's not impossible. And say what you want about the medium it looks the same in all browsers.
You don't doctype your HTML? That immediately makes your web site invalid.. and yes, it [i]might[/i] affect really old browsers, but, as you said, most people use IE6.
You hate designing in CSS and do as little as you have to with it? CSS is [i]meant[/i] for layout design. It may be a little more complex than using tables, but it pays off.[COLOR=deeppink]Frets... I am going to have to disagree with you on a lot of thigns here. Doc types are quite neccessary, all of the time. If the browser does not know what kind of code you are using it is going to go into quirks mode and then you really do not know how it is going to handle anything. CSS is the best way to lay out a site because of the fact that it is separate from the contnet. When a browser cannot render css the browser will get a nonstyled form of the website. Yes css involves playing, but then end result is better than any other method of layout out a website.
Also, the inherent inaccessibility of flash renders it pointless a lot of the time. Using it to layout a website is a terrible practice and leaves you doing more work in the end if you are making a plain html version of your site too. It will also hurt your bandwidht. Flash is fine for banners and things like that, but the designer has to know about it's major accessibility limitations.[/COLOR]
For a long time, it just wouldn't install. I installed some flash stuff, but after not having any at all for so long, I realised just how much utter crap is in flash. Spam, adverts and just generally tacky looking design. There's still plenty of times where it asks me to install some flash gizmo, but it never works and to be quite honest I'm not arsed. I can easily live without 40% of junk on the web.do you guys actually put a doctype when you test a very simple page on your computer?for example when you run a test for someone on this forum, and you know you wont keep the page anyway, or you wont use it and wont even think about putting it on the internet? A few replies.
I didn't say I don't design layout in css I just stated I hated it and use it as little as possible when considering layout. I handle layout in swf. its consistent, I can do it faster and I'm working in a true wysiwyg environment. The goal of css is that of separating content from layout so one can focus on each independently is that correct? Why not focus on layout in a visual environment? I too visit zen garden.
However I have noticed something about switching css It takes longer. I can use the same dynamic external text in several different swf's and have entirely different presentations. What's more If the content changes I only need to change the content with out touching markup (including the html) the content itself can be edited in something as simple as notepad. &mycontent=Put the text you want to show here&
As far as doctype declarations for the record.
Neither the HTML 4.01 specification nor ISO 8879 (SGML) says anything about using the document type declaration as a layout mode switch.
Contrary to popular belief the wc3 has no governing power. The only power as to what will or will not be presented is the browser itself. Remember the last great meeting of the minds where all the big name vendors stated that they would support the w3c and do away with allowing various html formats?
What happened next? MS walked away and said we'll decide what standards we will use in our browsers. Netscape recently released NS8 which still reads html4 and earlier standards. No browser vendor is going to be the bold one who says no you can't read that it's too outdated. All they will do is lose there share of the browser market. One thing I've noticed not only in this but several other threads here. Is the focus. I don't expect anyone to agree with the way I handle things. I expect critisim and I can respect the knowledge that modes the opinions of detractors to my methodology.
That's all fine and well.
However no one else has presented a straight foreward viewpoint of how they do thier work aside from me. It's one thing to nitpick about the efforts of others it's quite another to formulate methodology that someone can use as a reference point.
well, i re-read the first page of this thread, and i think that Mr Herer, [I]exempli gratia[/I] gave a straight answer of his methodology.
But then again, the thread starter asked about how pros did solve problems, so post#3(ray326) is actually the only one that focuses on the subjectI don't have Flash installed because most of the sites that I have seen that use Flash don't know how to create their Flash files properly and create huge files to perform simple tasks. That means I miss out on properly coded Flash sites too but I can live with that.
Absolutely. Why would that be a problem? When I tell my editor to create a new page the default (below) automatically contains all the raw material needed. Unneeded elements like the script or external style sheet in head are easier to manually delete than to manually create. ?
Ok then, here's my general method of working.
I used to have the same sort of start out setup as Ray (and most other developers). A default document template that is opened every time you start a new file, but now I've got more into PHP5 and object oreientation (which I'm gradually getting more an more into) I've started using a slightly different take on things.
Regardless of whether server side scripting is required or not now, I still use it anyway. I'm working on a reasonably sized CMS and I'm sure you'll be astonished to hear that the clients' "requirements" change faster than a burning cat changes its location. So, because of this, I rebuilt to make the whole thing consist almost entirely of server side inclusions ( require_once(); include(); ) and automatically loaded classes and files (require_once("xhtml11.html"); or $doc = new document("401strict"); for when PHP5 finally gets its DOM level 2 API ). That way I can make project-wide changes in seconds rather than days.
Another benefit of doing this (and the reason I always use server side scripting regardless of requirements) is that using such a method also means I slowly build up a library of porable code that I can use to pretty much instantly start a new project (and thus a new document) with very little required.
As Ray said, it's easier to manually delete the default document template than it is to manyually write, but when you do have to write it, it's far easier to write <?php require_once("docstart401strict.php"); ?> than it is to write another one out fully. I can also chuck in other pre made bits and bobs too. Even if there will be no server side scripting support on the intended host, I still make the docs with server side scripting so I can quickly make the doc, then just grab the source it spits out and paste it into a new file to save as html.
I generally advocate the use of html over xhtml, but I am using xhtml on my current project to learn about and experiment with XML. 
@NogDogJun 10.2005 — #Yes, I always use a strict 4.01 doctype now, with a template much like Ray's. I figure I might as well start out from the get-go with IE in as close to standards mode as it gets. This means it will be more likely to display about the same as FF, and since FF is my default browser I'm less likely to be "surprised" when I get around to checking it out in IE.
How?
It seems through looking at endless tips and advice, there still seems to be a bug that will prevent a site from looking the same in any browswer or resolution. How do professional web designers make accessible sites to everyone with no bugs? Especially, considering some use complex layouts with alot of pictures and divs going every which way.
I guess Im just asking for more tips and advice. :rolleyes:
Sign in
to post a comment26 Comments(s) ↴
0
@the_treeJun 07.2005 — #reply?
0
@ray326Jun 08.2005 — #[I]professional web designers[/I] know their sites will not look the same in all browsers (will not [I]look[/I] at [B]all[/B] in some browsers) so they create their designs accordingly. That means they create the web site to deliver its content to all browsers and to [I]look right[/I] in the ones that support W3C standards.reply?
0
@buntineJun 08.2005 — #
professional web designers know their sites will not look the same in all browsers (will not look at all in some browsers) so they create their designs accordingly. That means they create the web site to deliver its content to all browsers and to look right in the ones that support W3C standards.
[/quote]
Wouldn't [i]that[/i] be a perfect world!?
reply?
0
@ray326Jun 08.2005 — #Wouldn't that be a perfect world!?[/QUOTE]Yea, and it requires knowledgeable customers -- something in really short supply out there. ?
reply?
0
@FretsJun 08.2005 — #The wc3 has no governing power over browser vendors, I seriously doubt there will be a world where only xhtml standards are used in browser dev. No browser currently fulfills all criteria for xhml standards each vary on how they handle dom issues.
reply?
0
@buntineJun 08.2005 — #Your right. There are no standards. Lets not turn this into an argument, though. ?reply?
0
@Stephen_PhilbinJun 08.2005 — #Your right. There are no standards. Lets not turn this into an argument, though. ?[/QUOTE]
Agreed, the person came here for help and tips, not for a front row seat in the obligatory battle between the W3C and the dark side. ?
To my knowledge (I'm still very much a beginner), there are 3 schools of thought on how to make interoperable sites that look the same in different browsers.
[1] The W3C camp:
The W3C developers (of which I count myself as one) as you might imagine lean much more towards using the W3C recommendations to get their work done. Using standards compliance in an effort to make the page look the same for everyone and if that is not possible, at least have it still work for everyone and deliver its content to the users and end users. I'm very much in favour of this method because of the emphasis on accessibility. As a person with a rather unusual internet access setup accessibility is very important to me and it's really frustrating when (what I would consider) incompetent or lazy designers disallow me access to information or product. There's plenty of sites that have missed out on my cash now due to them hiring (what I would call) idiots. There are however varying degrees of standards compliance between developers though and different trains of thought about what should and should not be used in whatever circumstances. For example most of the W3C camp seems to have gone crazy for xhtml and use it all over the place. Personally I think it's a bit of a stupid idea because they all just serve their content as text/html anyway. So that means they're not actually using xhtml at all. They're just using an intentionally broken html that they can use as a buzzword.
[2] The oldschool camp:
I would be suprised to see many of these around these days. In "the bad old days", pages used to be written many times over or have many versions of a page merged into one. There was almost a different version of html for each browser out there, Javascript doubly so. So people would just spend endless hours making the same page over and over (or just the single file "hacked" to bits) to deliver a page that would probably still have strange quirks and was most likely, rather ugly. Most of these people went off to either camp 1 or 3.
[3] The "[i]I don't give a f*** so long as I get away with the money[/i]" camp:
I'm sure you can figure out these guys by the name. According to these people blind, deaf and otherwise disabled people don't exist and nobody uses a different browser because "everyone" uses IE. Either that or they are well aware of others, but don't really care. They know the chances of their client not using IE is quite slim so they can just knock out any old crap, get the money from the client before they realise they got screwed and run. Although there are clients that are just as bad as the developers themselves.
reply?
0
@FretsJun 08.2005 — #[b]buntime[/b]? Your right I apologize a sincere request shouldn't be treated as an invitiation to spark unneeded debate that helps no one.Anyway back to practices.
doctypes....
I don't doc type my html it can wreak havoc with browsers generally most older
browsers will read most xhtml I format for transitional xhtml with the exception of heavy dom structures (which I choose to avoid with a passion)
div's
I love divs especially layers being aware of limitations of certain browsers I choose not to use layers if the layer contains inner html. In my opinion if it doesn't serve the site
no matter how cool it looks don't go with it.
fonts
Fonts are a stylistic viewpoint but really how many fonts does a site really need?
Stick to three non-decorative fonts. If the font is an absolute then it should be in bitmap or flash format where it can be embedded so all viewers will see it the same.
Layout
I hate designing in css. I do because I have to. and I do as little as I have to with it.
Keep your layout simple is my advice. A site that is too busy distracts from the content. Content is what brings someone back.
Framsets and Iframes
another thing I avoid. Before the advent of caching css framsets were used to save reload time. One of the causalties is searh engines. Whilst late comer browsers have embraced iframes they still don't have the full functionality of framesets and I've had some issues with Mozilla flavored browsers.
Plugins
Unless it's flash I hate em. java applets are buggy at best and after the whole MS/Sun
debacle most people wont update thier jre. Real is extremely invasive. Quicktime even when it is installed is extremely slow. Win media 8,9,10 will only work in browser IF the user has xp and is using ie and has set up user options to play in browser.
That's just too much to content with.
Flash.
I love flash.(well swishmax inexpensive alternative) I'm a seasoned user who understands the intricacies moreso then average joe flash user. Ergo I know how to make it work for a site not against it. Because the capabilites are endless flash designers in the past have a tendency to out do themselves. It doesn't help that the worlds most expensive web designers Use flash extensively and are more concerned with visual appeal then download time.... (take a look at
to me designing in swish is easier then designing in html or a graphics program
create text move text create image move image. It's not boxes and arrows I can send and recieve data thru the swf or several swf's on the same page. as well recieve audio
from the server and video
SWF format I try not to make my be all end all. It can't and it shouldn't be.
While it can be a bit of work to make pages with swf content search engine friendly
it's not impossible. And say what you want about the medium it looks the same in all browsers.
reply?
0
@Stephen_PhilbinJun 08.2005 — #And say what you want about the medium it looks the same in all browsers.[/QUOTE]Except for if (like me) you don't have flash. In which case you get told to install it or go away.
reply?
0
@SanimJun 09.2005 — #doctypes....
I don't doc type my html it can wreak havoc with browsers generally most older
browsers will read most xhtml I format for transitional xhtml with the exception of heavy dom structures (which I choose to avoid with a passion)
Layout
I hate designing in css. I do because I have to. and I do as little as I have to with it.
[/QUOTE]
You don't doctype your HTML? That immediately makes your web site invalid.. and yes, it [i]might[/i] affect really old browsers, but, as you said, most people use IE6.
You hate designing in CSS and do as little as you have to with it? CSS is [i]meant[/i] for layout design. It may be a little more complex than using tables, but it pays off.
reply?
0
@PeOfEoJun 09.2005 — #Also, the inherent inaccessibility of flash renders it pointless a lot of the time. Using it to layout a website is a terrible practice and leaves you doing more work in the end if you are making a plain html version of your site too. It will also hurt your bandwidht. Flash is fine for banners and things like that, but the designer has to know about it's major accessibility limitations.[/COLOR]
reply?
0
@ray326Jun 09.2005 — #You don't doctype your HTML? That immediately makes your web site invalid.. [/QUOTE]Maybe he feels quirks mode is a browser's [I]natural[/I] state and doesn't want to take it out of its element.
It may be a little more complex than using tables[/QUOTE]And the key word there is [B]may[/B]. I find it a lot easier to build a good layout with CSS and simple HTML than with complex, illogical HTML with embedded presentation.
reply?
0
@Stephen_PhilbinJun 09.2005 — #and why don't you install it?[/QUOTE]
For a long time, it just wouldn't install. I installed some flash stuff, but after not having any at all for so long, I realised just how much utter crap is in flash. Spam, adverts and just generally tacky looking design. There's still plenty of times where it asks me to install some flash gizmo, but it never works and to be quite honest I'm not arsed. I can easily live without 40% of junk on the web.
reply?
0
@LiLcRaZyFuZzYJun 09.2005 — #reply?
0
@FretsJun 09.2005 — #I didn't say I don't design layout in css I just stated I hated it and use it as little as possible when considering layout. I handle layout in swf. its consistent, I can do it faster and I'm working in a true wysiwyg environment. The goal of css is that of separating content from layout so one can focus on each independently is that correct? Why not focus on layout in a visual environment? I too visit zen garden.
However I have noticed something about switching css It takes longer. I can use the same dynamic external text in several different swf's and have entirely different presentations. What's more If the content changes I only need to change the content with out touching markup (including the html) the content itself can be edited in something as simple as notepad. &mycontent=Put the text you want to show here&
As far as doctype declarations for the record.
Neither the HTML 4.01 specification nor ISO 8879 (SGML) says anything about using the document type declaration as a layout mode switch.
Contrary to popular belief the wc3 has no governing power. The only power as to what will or will not be presented is the browser itself. Remember the last great meeting of the minds where all the big name vendors stated that they would support the w3c and do away with allowing various html formats?
What happened next? MS walked away and said we'll decide what standards we will use in our browsers. Netscape recently released NS8 which still reads html4 and earlier standards. No browser vendor is going to be the bold one who says no you can't read that it's too outdated. All they will do is lose there share of the browser market.
reply?
0
@FretsJun 10.2005 — #That's all fine and well.
However no one else has presented a straight foreward viewpoint of how they do thier work aside from me. It's one thing to nitpick about the efforts of others it's quite another to formulate methodology that someone can use as a reference point.
reply?
0
@LiLcRaZyFuZzYJun 10.2005 — #However no one else has presented a straight foreward viewpoint of how they do thier work aside from me.[/QUOTE]
well, i re-read the first page of this thread, and i think that Mr Herer, [I]exempli gratia[/I] gave a straight answer of his methodology.
But then again, the thread starter asked about how pros did solve problems, so post#3(ray326) is actually the only one that focuses on the subject
reply?
0
@felgallJun 10.2005 — #reply?
0
@ray326Jun 10.2005 — #do you guys actually put a doctype when you test a very simple page on your computer?for example when you run a test for someone on this forum, and you know you wont keep the page anyway, or you wont use it and wont even think about putting it on the internet?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. Why would that be a problem? When I tell my editor to create a new page the default (below) automatically contains all the raw material needed. Unneeded elements like the script or external style sheet in head are easier to manually delete than to manually create. ?
<i>
</i><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
<meta name="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title>Conforming HTML 4.01 Template</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="" />
<style type="text/css">
html, body {
margin:0;
padding:0;
border: 0;
background:#fff;
color:#000;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:1em;
}
</style>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>
reply?
0
@Stephen_PhilbinJun 10.2005 — #I used to have the same sort of start out setup as Ray (and most other developers). A default document template that is opened every time you start a new file, but now I've got more into PHP5 and object oreientation (which I'm gradually getting more an more into) I've started using a slightly different take on things.
Regardless of whether server side scripting is required or not now, I still use it anyway. I'm working on a reasonably sized CMS and I'm sure you'll be astonished to hear that the clients' "requirements" change faster than a burning cat changes its location. So, because of this, I rebuilt to make the whole thing consist almost entirely of server side inclusions ( require_once(); include(); ) and automatically loaded classes and files (require_once("xhtml11.html"); or $doc = new document("401strict"); for when PHP5 finally gets its DOM level 2 API ). That way I can make project-wide changes in seconds rather than days.
Another benefit of doing this (and the reason I always use server side scripting regardless of requirements) is that using such a method also means I slowly build up a library of porable code that I can use to pretty much instantly start a new project (and thus a new document) with very little required.
As Ray said, it's easier to manually delete the default document template than it is to manyually write, but when you do have to write it, it's far easier to write <?php require_once("docstart401strict.php"); ?> than it is to write another one out fully. I can also chuck in other pre made bits and bobs too. Even if there will be no server side scripting support on the intended host, I still make the docs with server side scripting so I can quickly make the doc, then just grab the source it spits out and paste it into a new file to save as html.
I generally advocate the use of html over xhtml, but I am using xhtml on my current project to learn about and experiment with XML.
reply?
0
@NogDogJun 10.2005 — #reply?