Non-technical introduction to Web Design

[abracad_1999]

Easy Web Site Design web.twinisles.com is a short introduction to Web
Design is aimed at the non-technical layman who wants to be able to
place his/her message out there in cyberspace - quickly and easily.

This site is designed specifically for the small businessman or perhaps
the hobbyist who just wants to let more people know about what they do
or think.

Easy Web Site Design doesn't get bogged down in the finer points of
coding or scripting, there are already a zillion sites and books out
there that do that and do it well, and from time to time we point you
in the direction of the very best should you want to learn more.

We concentrate on the basics. What makes an effective Web site? And how
do you start to build one?

http://web.twinisles.com

 

[Andy Dingley]

We concentrate on the basics. What makes an effective Web site?

Possibly the worst tutorial yet for "content free ad-whoring". OK, so
it's not as plain dumb stupid as some, but it's still a negligible
contribution to the overall web. Is there anything actually _useful_
on your site ?



And what the hell is this ? Combine the worst of JavaScript _and_ CSS
approaches to doing a simple roll-over ?

<div id="m8" class="off"> <a href="html4.html" class="mlink"
onMouseOver="m8.className='on';" onMouseOut="m8.className='off';">

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

Easy Web Site Design web.twinisles.com is a short introduction to Web
Design is aimed at the non-technical layman...
http://web.twinisles.com

Oh, how I hate those back to top links. (Yes, I
do, I realize that now.) What's so interesting
there at the top of the page? How can it be more
difficult to scroll upwards than downwards?

 

[Andrew Poulos]

Oh, how I hate those back to top links. (Yes, I do, I realize that now.)
What's so interesting there at the top of the page? How can it be more
difficult to scroll upwards than downwards?

Providing a number of different ways to navigate about a page is a good
thing.


Andrew Poulos

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Providing a number of different ways to navigate about a page is a good thing.

I don't agree. Providing things which duplicate existing browser
functions, and which you won't find on many another web page, is a
pernicious distraction.

 

[Andrew Poulos]

I don't agree. Providing things which duplicate existing browser
functions, and which you won't find on many another web page, is a
pernicious distraction.

"pernicious"???, you think that 'back to top' links could directly or
indirectly result in death?

BTW have you noticed that the W3C.org site uses them. There's even
instances where they (gosh) duplicate the top menu at the bottom of the
page.

Whether you get back to the top of a page by:
- selecting a link,
- dragging the scrollbar,
- clicking the scrollbar 'up' button,
- fiddle the wheel on a wheelmouse,
- use the arrow keys on the keyboard, or
- resize your browser window so that the entire page is visible at once
the choice has always been yours.


Andrew Poulos

 

[Neal]

"pernicious"???, you think that 'back to top' links could directly or
indirectly result in death?

Not really what he said. http://www.m-w.com gives:

highly injurious or destructive: DEADLY

However, in the synonym discussion, it shows the various degrees of
damage. Pernicious need not result in physical harm; it can relate to harm
to a structure or order as well, which is clearly what Alan meant, and
what is clearly meant by the citation in the definition <the claim that
pornography has a pernicious effect on society>.

Semantics, bah. Stick to topic.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

"pernicious"???, you think that 'back to top' links could directly or
indirectly result in death?

Eh? My dictionary defines "pernicious" as destructive; highly
injurious; spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way.

Your command of the original Latin is commendable, but unhelpful in
regard to current English usage.

BTW have you noticed that the W3C.org site uses them.

I have no influence over what W3C choose to do... I may or may not
agree with it, from case to case.

Whether you get back to the top of a page by:
- selecting a link,
- dragging the scrollbar,
- clicking the scrollbar 'up' button,
- fiddle the wheel on a wheelmouse,
- use the arrow keys on the keyboard, or
- resize your browser window so that the entire page is visible at once
the choice has always been yours.

Er, no. If the author doesn't provide links to the top, then they
aren't available; whereas the ones provided in the browser itself
(most usefully the Home key, of which you seem to be unaware) are
always available. And that's my point. You've not only distracted
your readers from the most appropriate solution - you're even unaware
of it yourself, it seems.

 

[Stan Brown]

Providing a number of different ways to navigate about a page is a good
thing.

Why?

It seems to me that all those extra links are distracting. The user
already knows how to get to the top of the current page (and yes,
teher are multiple ways in most browsers). Providing links is just
surplusage.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

 

[Karl Core]

Providing a number of different ways to navigate about a page is a good
thing.

This is not good advice. The navigation (look, position, action, labeling,
etc.) should reflect the expectations of the site's users and should be
consistent.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Please Support "Project Boneyard":
http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard

What exactly is it that you are imploring us to support?
- Distribution of the CD's.
- *Prevention* of distribution of the CD's.
- The media hype surrounding the first two.

[ F'Ups set to c.i.w.a.s-d ]

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Neal scribbled in the mud:

Semantics, bah. Stick to topic.

Why?