Re: CSS for positioning

[Jonathan N. Little]

Here is a hint: there are times that important points should not
be hinted at.

And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over
it, or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

the page was a suggestion or an idea... use it .. don't use it ...

True, but

it
doesn't matter to me either way.

That may be so, but you are missing the point. Your suggestion is a bad
suggestion web design-wise. Most people *want* their web sites indexed
by search engines. It is often how new visitors find the site. It is
like if your suggestion was to a writer a way to publish his novel which
had no means of advertising and distribution. If no readers are aware of
the book and cannot get there hands on it, what good is it for the author?

None. So it is the same for methods of web development that prevent a
site from being indexed. You may find countless examples of such methods
online and in old books, but sheer quantity does not improve their value
anymore than all those email offers for "special" stock tips or foreign
exiles needing your assistance for money transfers will make them great
investment opportunities.

A person can keep trying to get the
perfect page and never get the page working so anyone can appreciate it, or
you can do something now and get the page up in a timely manner. If all
someone wants to do is code for the google bot, I imagine there are other
ways to do that and still use some of those ideas on dynamic drive.

Not much. Most of the scripts are pure rubbish. A quick glance can
betray their value when you see UserAgent sniffing over object detection
and arcane bits such as:

if( document.layers ) {...}

Why
re-invent the wheel? I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a page
going that will work for a great many people and the browsers they use...

It is not really that hard, but you do have to know best design
practices. It is evolving so it is not something that you learn once and
then move on to something else.

but might not work perfect for a small number of people. I don't think it's
possible to have a perfect website and perfect code and the site look nice

Maybe not, but you can come close. But leaving out search engines is not
a *small thing*. Just remember JavaScript is *optional*. Keep repeating
it until it sticks. Your design should never depend on it to work if the
site is destine for the public. My old site does utilize JavaScript to
enhance the site and augment for IE's (v7 and under) CSS deficiencies,
but still functions without. I'm jettisoning that damn "Bouncing Betty"
navbar and flyout menus in my new design...you should jettison some of
your current beliefs that you hold so dear.

 

[Jenn]

"rf" < wrote in message

Yes Jenn, it does.

A page with zero HTML errors. A page with zero CSS errors. A page with
zero Javascript errors. A page that will display correctly for all current
and future browsers including the one in next years telephone and will
degrade gracefully for all past browsers all the way back to lynx. And a
page that is also asthetically pleasing and conveys the content in exactly
the mannar for which it was designed.

Such pages do exist. People are creating them all the time. It is not easy
do to but it is not very hard either. I created one just the other day.

But it is true that these pages are a bit rarer than all the hundreds of
millions of junk pages out there, including many of the junk scripts from
dynamicdrive.

It's impossible to predict if a page will work in future browsers, and also
impossible to get a page to work 100% for 100% of the people. You will
spend so much time trying when you can move on to a different project.

 

[Jenn]

"rf"

"Jenn" wrote in message


http://www.neredbojias.org/cgalx.html seems to me to be a pretty good stab
at it

What use is a page with one column of images?

 

[Jenn]

And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over it,
or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".

If you are wanting to have content for the google bot, adjust for it with
keywords within the code or some other technique.. Don't simply disregard
something because it contains a javascript.

 

[Jenn]

People don't understand this. I had one hosting client ask me why their
page didn't show up well on google. I sent then a screen shot of what
google saw (a blank page) and explained that their reliance on
javascript to display everything meant google couldn't see their page
*at all*. That was two years ago, they still haven't changed their page.

ADD some keywords to the page.

 

[Jenn]

There have been some good answers. That does not mean that these
answers will suit everyone's website makers needs. But if it
suits some and it works well for the users, that is perfection
enough surely?

About javascript, in the template of

http://tinyurl.com/2jcs5r

I looked at the link, which is nice, tho, but I don't see any of what is
being suggested as perfection.

there is js, but it is merely for the non-crucial purpose of
centring the whole block of floats. If js is off in someone's
browser, their experience is not devastated and in fact, in this
case, hardly diminished, it is perhaps a nice touch, cream on the
cake (the milkman was Bootnic, btw.)

I don't see any posts from Bootnic .. just attachments and I won't open
attachments.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

"rf"


What use is a page with one column of images?

It is still usable, but the problem is that he has not bothered to
accommodate a workaround for the deficient browser IE7 and under.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If you are wanting to have content for the google bot, adjust for it with
keywords within the code or some other technique.. Don't simply disregard
something because it contains a javascript.

You are missing the point again. Using JavaScript to augment is okay,
requiring JavaScript to generate content is the no-no.

 

[Jenn]

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

True, but


That may be so, but you are missing the point. Your suggestion is a bad
suggestion web design-wise. Most people *want* their web sites indexed by
search engines. It is often how new visitors find the site. It is like if
your suggestion was to a writer a way to publish his novel which had no
means of advertising and distribution. If no readers are aware of the book
and cannot get there hands on it, what good is it for the author?

None. So it is the same for methods of web development that prevent a site
from being indexed. You may find countless examples of such methods online
and in old books, but sheer quantity does not improve their value anymore
than all those email offers for "special" stock tips or foreign exiles
needing your assistance for money transfers will make them great
investment opportunities.


Not much. Most of the scripts are pure rubbish. A quick glance can betray
their value when you see UserAgent sniffing over object detection and
arcane bits such as:

if( document.layers ) {...}


It is not really that hard, but you do have to know best design practices.
It is evolving so it is not something that you learn once and then move on
to something else.

In my experience, what you can get to work in the shortest period of time
for the least amount of money for the client is a good practice. I've
worked on many small sites and some gigantic sites designed by committees
and had backend servers, too.... They aren't going for reaching the world
and every user on the web.. they are going for reaching a particular
customer. I've seen many many sites post in their footer something like
"This site viewed best in "browser name here".

Maybe not, but you can come close. But leaving out search engines is not a
*small thing*. Just remember JavaScript is *optional*. Keep repeating it
until it sticks. Your design should never depend on it to work if the site
is destine for the public. My old site does utilize JavaScript to enhance
the site and augment for IE's (v7 and under) CSS deficiencies, but still
functions without. I'm jettisoning that damn "Bouncing Betty" navbar and
flyout menus in my new design...you should jettison some of your current
beliefs that you hold so dear.

It's not even about *beliefs I hold dear*... it's about deadlines for me.
Management wants content up and functionality pronto. Google can index new
pages through other means if content is called by a layout or AJAX box that
Google may not index. It's like you (many people here) want to throw out
the baby with the bathwater... interesting and usable code that can enhance
the users experience ... and replace it with boring layouts and
functionality. I do, however, really like the new menu's that can be made
using CSS, tho. I haven't had a chance to use them yet where I work, but
possibly in the future.

I think many people here want to strive for perfection in code and
functionality, but that isn't very practical in the real world that I work
in.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

It's impossible to predict if a page will work in future browsers, and also
impossible to get a page to work 100% for 100% of the people. You will
spend so much time trying when you can move on to a different project.

Ignore validation and you can pretty much guarantee it will fail. Do you
think that is a wise strategy? Also dismissing what you do not
understand is your problem, it is not that difficult to get a page to
work in all browsers. Of course avoiding pixel-perfect layouts can go a
long way and embrace a more flexible approach to design.

 

[dorayme]

And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over
it, or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".

It is sometimes unwise to be hinting at things rather than being
all nice and clear, spelling it out or simply saying nothing.

It is very easy to say things for the knowing approval of the
usual gallery of rogues here (I do not deny the fun in this) but
when a lone Oklahoman mum wanders in here without the same
background as you wicked rogues, it is no use bleating afterwards
that she did not get the hint and it is no good arguing with the
chief rogue gallery eagle-eyed watcher, dorayme.

You already did your bit in making things clear. 10 points. But
you are getting points off now for not understanding that it
would have been better that the person who did the hinting should
have spelled it out in this particular case. (Not that it was
crime of the century, mind you).

You see, you and rf are here playing a sort of routine here. He
hints and it drops down a black hole and you come and shine a
light, the whole act probably being a little humiliating. (When,
btw, is your next two man act on? Send me some free tickets)

I am telling you again, you must attend my Tues and Thurs
finishing classes. You did not show up this morning and neither
did rf. I brought in some beers too for if you happened to do
well in class.

 

[Jenn]

You are missing the point again. Using JavaScript to augment is okay,
requiring JavaScript to generate content is the no-no.

Try validating these sites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/
www.tvguide.com/
www.foxnews.com/
www.yahoo.com/
www.nbclosangeles.com/
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.msnbc.com
www.latimes.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
www.usatoday.com/
http://cbs.com/

I ran all of these sites through the validator and none were perfect, yet
they are found by google very easily, and from the looks of their code they
are using javascript and in some cases AJAX boxes to call up content. Why
is it they do this if best practices dictate perfect code and no javascript
to call up content?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Can you expand upon that distinction?

Expandable menu?

Yes you can use JavaScript to expand menus *if* you have a
non-JavaScript method like server-side "In This Section" generated links
to allow navigation when JavaScript is not available.

Validation scripts prior to submission?

Fine to do a "preflight" check before a form is submitted but it *never*
replaces server-side validation! All user data *must* be validated
server-side before used.

AJAX to bring in data for a table?

Only if you have a form submit button as backup if JavaScript is not
available.

Page selection through a "director script" and a resulting ?page=something?

JavaScript is not required for that.

I'd like to know more specifically what to avoid so as to maximize
Google traversal. IOW, some simple examples of things.

Disable JavaScript and traverse your site. If you cannot then you have a
problem.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

ADD some keywords to the page.

Why? Maybe in 1995 that would suffice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element#The_keywords_attribute

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Do you know anyone who disables javascript on purpose? FWIW.. most
people have no idea how to do that, let alone would disable js unless
they are just specifically looking to do so.. and then, such people
would know how to turn it back on.

It is not uncommon for corporate firewalls to disable Javascript for
security reasons. It is not uncommon for web proxies to disable
Javascript for privacy reasons.

How many times has Microsoft issues a release saying "We found a new bug
in ActiveX/Javascript/whatever! To protect yourself, please disable
scripting until patch Tuesday!" Answer: Too many times to count.

The problem I have with all this stuff is that there is no code that
will be perfect to work in every scenario for every browser and every
viewer that hits a page. If someone disables javascript on a page that
uses it, then it's too bad for them. If they want to view the page.. let
them enable javascript.

Perfect? Who said anything about 'perfect' .. not to mention that word
has little meaning. Usable, on the other hand, is a far more
understandable and achievable goal.

With the exception of my web applications, all of my documents are fully
usable for users with Javascript disabled. May not be as pretty, nor
quite as convenient, but no essential feature of why my web site exists
stops working with Javascript disabled.

Once again, I suggest you get a copy of FireVox and Lynx (or links) and
spend some time browsing the web...

And ... as others have said ... the most important visitor to your
website doesn't have Javascript .....

 

[dorayme]

I looked at the link, which is nice, tho, but I don't see any of what is
being suggested as perfection.

Why is it not perfect enough ("perfection enough" was the phrase
I used) for thumbs that are all the same size with very short
captions?

I don't see any posts from Bootnic .. just attachments and I won't open
attachments.

Never mind this milkman. <g> I was just saying how here is a case
of js doing a job that is nice but not crucial and so it is not
super important if a few people have their js off, they still get
to see the photos of anyone using this simple template.

 

[Jenn]

Why? Maybe in 1995 that would suffice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element#The_keywords_attribute

What's you're point? Gigantic websites such as the news links I posted like
msnbc.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc... all use keywords on their pages. I'm
sure I could find many many more sites like those just by doing a google
search.. which would also mean that those sites are crawled by google very
well.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

so? does that mean you don't put any javascript on a website? No.

It means that the site should be usable without Javascript. You may, if
you wish, use Javascript to add features and make the site easier to use.

Let me give you a concrete example (once again, my online store)

http://parts.mopedepot.com/pbook.php?section=7&sectionid=7&book=0&page=7

Visit this page with Javascript turned on.

You can see the colored circles that highlight active sections of the
image map. Hover over one of the circles and you get a summary of what
that part is.

If you click on one of the colored circles, the table on the left reduces
and shows just the selected parts.

Try #2 towards middle of the image.

Now, turn Javascript off and visit the page.


Now, the colored circles are missing as are the popups that show the part
detail, if you click on one of the numbers it will reload the page and
give you the reduced table that you saw before.

So, there isn't a single aspect of that page that requires Javascript,
but having Javascript I was able to throw in some extras.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You see, you and rf are here playing a sort of routine here. He
hints and it drops down a black hole and you come and shine a
light, the whole act probably being a little humiliating. (When,
btw, is your next two man act on? Send me some free tickets)

What this hell is it with all this damn gender bashing? I am getting
quite fed up with it! It is *total* irrelevant! The only organ a play
here is the brain, and if more individuals would utilize them the
discussion would progress less acrimoniously. Can we get back to
discussing HTML?

Here is a little tidbit that I have discovered about things. Yes, there
is always more than one way to do something successfully, but there are
always some ways which are wrong and will be unsuccessful.

Also, if you postulate something to be true and you can backup your
argument with viable evidence and proof then you have a valid position.
If it is based solely on your belief--it is no proof of validity.
"Believing" is for clinging to a position in the absences of facts and
should remain restricted to the topics of religion and metaphysics,
which is definitely OT for this NG.