Looking for (X)HTML/CSS valid web sites

U

Uncle Pirate

If you own or simply know some valid web sites, you are welcome to
submit them to FreshCSS. My site is growing and I would like to find
more interesting sites for the following months.

Thanks. ;)

I can't say it's beautiful but it is valid:
http://abateofnm.org/
I don't work on every page myself so not all is valid, but much is and
I'm trying to get more each day. The entire site is scheduled for
redesign, hopefully this summer. I will have some artists
advising/assisting me with "design" while I will take care of the
technical details and implementation.
http://alamo.nmsu.edu. Take a look at http://alamo.nmsu.edu/computer
for a different layout, some of which may be used in the upcoming
overall site redesign.
 
E

Els

Travis said:
www.tbs.com and compare that to the site in your signiture.
http://locusmeus.com

I prefer the TBS site hands down in both looks and style. Remeber,
this is an opinion, yours may differ.

Correct ;-)
But I feel the TBS look is what
I consider "finished" Your site while it might be accessible to all
,and validate or whatever, doesn not have the same "finished"
porfessional look.

I'll leave the "finished" idea for what it is, but don't tell me it
isn't boxy? There's nothing more than boxes on that page.
Could it be done with CSS, sure it could. But it isn't because the
designers have not taken a hold of CSS yet. Maybe someday they will.

Very easy to do with CSS I think, and I don't find it very "designed"
really, is it really on purpose that the bottoms of the 'what's so
funny' and the 'featured video' boxes aren't aligned?
ps. Cute kid

Thanks, there's two of 'em actually ;-)
 
T

Travis Newbury

Kim said:
Only that the tbs.com isn't valid HTML, which is what the OP was looking
for.

I wasn't offering to the OP as a validated site. The thread evolved.
 
D

dorayme

From: "Andrea said:
Are you sure???? I use Mozilla 1.7.x and Firefox 1.0.x on a Win2k for my
tests and I can assure you that there are no problems shrinking the window!
If I load FreshCSS on these browsers and then I shrink the window (for
example at only 300x400 pixels) there are no strange effects and I can move
normally into the site using horizontal/vertical scrollbars. So, for me is
ok.

If you have found some very specific/particular/strange case, send me a
screenshot through email, specifing the O.S./browser versions. You can email
me removing uppercase letters and hyphens from my email address.


And no probs I can see in Mozilla (Wacom 1.3) for OS9 on Macs either...

dorayme
 
T

Travis Newbury

kchayka said:
It looks pretty boxy to me. These boxes just have rounded corners.
Big deal.

Well that is the great thing about having a personal opinions.
 
K

kchayka

Travis said:
Well that is the great thing about having a personal opinions.

Hmmm... seems you kinda blew off the fact that you keep complaining
about how boxy CSS layouts tend to be, but when asked to show something
you think is better, it turns out to be just more boxes. Ho hum.

I now feel pretty comfortable ignoring anything further you have to say
about boring CSS layouts. :)
 
T

Travis Newbury

kchayka said:
Hmmm... seems you kinda blew off the fact that you keep complaining
about how boxy CSS layouts tend to be, but when asked to show something
you think is better, it turns out to be just more boxes. Ho hum.

No I didn't. I don't feel they have the same boxy look and feel you
obviously do. When you put them side by side you don't seem to see a
difference in the quality of the design. I do.To me, the TBS site is
much more appealing than the other site.
I now feel pretty comfortable ignoring anything further you have to say
about boring CSS layouts. :)

Since it is a personal opinion, you _should_ ignore what I say and use
your own judgment. As I said before, y
that's the great thing about having personal opinions.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:

Yuk. Ignoring the horizontal scrollbar (which just hides half of the ad
anyway), that site looks like a hodge-podge of boxes (yes, boxes)
splashed randomly across the screen. There doesn't seem to be any sort
of system or order to it.
I prefer the TBS site hands down in both looks and style. Remeber,
this is an opinion, yours may differ.

So it seems. :)
 
H

Henry

Andrea said:
Hi, I hope not to disturb you in this ng. I am Andrea, the owner and
webmaster of www.freshcss.com, a web site entirely dedicated to Cascading
Style Sheets. My site has, among other things, a gallery section, that is a
showcase of web sites found to be well designed, beautiful and valid
according to the latest web standards.

Unfortunately, I am discovering that it's very hard to find beautiful and,
at the same time, HTML/XHTML+CSS valid web sites! Too many web agencies/web
designers doesn't care about validation and web standards. So, for me,
looking for valid web sites is similar to looking for a needle in a
haystack!!!

If you own or simply know some valid web sites, you are welcome to submit
them to FreshCSS. My site is growing and I would like to find more
interesting sites for the following months.

Thanks. ;)



I was lurking here for several months trying to learn css and after few
attempts to make full table less web site (successful but ugly) I've
decided to go back to tables, photoshop and flash.


Web design like any bussines is all about money and time.

Time is money. No one will question that one.

If you have to spend heaps of time fighting with css's and deliver the
ugliness, you can't compete with guys who have mastered Front Page or
Dreamweaver. No chances.

No beautiful design nor profit.

Full css sites are very seldom beautiful.

So using all that validation (of course it helps) and w3c buttons....
forget it man!

Some nice (seldom) looking pages are confirmation, that an idea of
tableless layout will be not accepted by the industry.

I knew it several months ago and I thought I'm to stupid to use only css.

Maybe I'm, but how many designers are as stupid as I'm?

:(
 
A

Andy Dingley

Time is money. No one will question that one.

That's the second big advantage of the CSS approach, second only to the
ease of coping with varying window sizes.
 
H

Henry

Andy said:
That's the second big advantage of the CSS approach, second only to the
ease of coping with varying window sizes.



If above would be true, it would be very hard to convince most people to
go back to tables.

You would be not able to stop people using css!

;)
 
H

Henry

Toby said:
But don't you aspire to quality? Rather than whatever you can knock out
the fastest.



Yes. Reasonable quality within a reasonable time.

All within a reason.

You will never put $5,000 paint on Toyota Corolla 1974 model.

But you will put it on Jaguar 1974 E-Type.

Will you go and convince every Corolla owner to paint his car for $5000?

;)

The web market is ruled by the profit.

There are exeptions from that rule, which is still dominating.

Regards...
 
G

GuyBrush Treepwood

If above would be true, it would be very hard to convince most people to
go back to tables.

You would be not able to stop people using css!

;)

Really? Look at my signature. :)
 
A

Andy Dingley

If above would be true, it would be very hard to convince most people to
go back to tables.

It is - of people who really understand CSS, how many go back to tables?

As someone who is still "trying to learn CSS" and "can't compete with
guys who have mastered Front Page", I might suggest you have a fecking
clue what you're blathering about.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

I do not write pages to sell widgets. I only have to please myself. So
if you like my pages, fine. If not, you have several billion others to
choose instead. Here are some pages that validate as XHTML 1.1 and CSS
as you can easily see by clicking on the W3C links. The page at
http://www.cwdjr.net/calendar/perpetual_calendar3.html is a 60000 year
perpetual calendar calculator I wrote. It uses JS math to calculate the
calendar for any one of 60000 years. US official holidays are
calculated and indicated in red. These start at about the time the
holiday first became official. Thank God Easter is not an official
holiday, because you have to consider lunar cycles to calculate it.
There is a link to a printout version. Make a mistake in data entry and
see what happens. Validation reaches a new low. My parrot greets you
with an insult. After another insult from HAL, you are sent back to
reenter the data. If you view the page on a narrow browser window, the
text moves from the right to the bottom of the page. An example of a
music player page is at http://www.cwdjr.net/souearly/songs2.html . You
will need a recent WMP installed for this. It will work on dialup, but
you must allow some time after clicking a play button for the sound to
start - buffering time will depend on the speed of your connection. The
many buttons are all mini scripted WMP players. The codes for playing
the music have both ActiveX and embed paths. Although the most recent
IE, Netscape, Firefox, and Mozilla browsers can have ActiveX support
for the WMP only, it is an optional plugin for all except IE and
Netscape. Instead of having the WMP player light show pop up, I wrote
my own dhtml show for this page. These pages each consist of several
modules - mostly script ones - linked to the main page. Also, since
script is required, the pages will tell you to turn on your script if
it is not on. This is done by using CSS to write a message to turn on
the script. Then, if the script is on, script is used to hide the
message.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
I do not write pages to sell widgets.

Congratulations. Who are you replying to, and what does it have to do
with anything?

IOW, please quote the appropriate parts of the message you are replying
to.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,756
Messages
2,569,533
Members
45,006
Latest member
LauraSkx64

Latest Threads

Top