Web book... HeadFirst or Deitel?

[mouse]

I have some knowledge of HTML but almost none of CSS, only a little of
Javascript etc. Basically I am looking for a book to solidify my
knowledge of web design technologies. The two books which stood out at
the bookshop today were;

Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML by Freeman
Internet & World Wide Web How to Program by Deitel

Both of these look very good. The second in particular looks
comprehensive with coverage of numerous technologies, while the first
is limited in scope to HTML/XHTML/CSS but it reputedly very clear and
easy to learn from.

My choice would be to buy the Freeman now, work through it to gain
understanding of essentials, then wait until November when the new
Deitel comes out and buy that then to expand my knowledge to other
technologies. What do people think of that strategy? It would involve
some replication of effort since HTML/XHTML/CSS would be covered in
both books, but the Freeman is such a "nice" book and the Deitel
covers so many extra technologies that I think this might be a good
strategy. Anyone read both of these books? Comments?

 

[Stan McCann]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

I have some knowledge of HTML but almost none of CSS, only a little
of Javascript etc. Basically I am looking for a book to solidify my
knowledge of web design technologies. The two books which stood out
at the bookshop today were;

Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML by Freeman
Internet & World Wide Web How to Program by Deitel

I've seen neither book; I have looked at numerous books however while
searching for appropriate textbooks when I was teaching (retired now).
I'll warn you that most textbooks, even those published very
recently, teach 1995 methods rather than modern. It was very
frustrating trying to teach modern methods with these books.

Instead of books, why not:

HTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
CSS: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
PHP: http://us3.php.net/manual/en/index.php

 

[Jack]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in


I've seen neither book; I have looked at numerous books however while
searching for appropriate textbooks when I was teaching (retired
now). I'll warn you that most textbooks, even those published very
recently, teach 1995 methods rather than modern. It was very
frustrating trying to teach modern methods with these books.

Instead of books, why not:

HTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/ XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

You can't use either of those as teaching resources! Even as reference
documents they are hard to read!

CSS: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

The W3C material on CSS is better - but still not really suited to teaching.

The Oh Really "Rhino" book on Javascript (Flanagan) is very good. Some
would argue that it's the best. The reference sections are second to
none. It's a fat book, but the subject is complicated.

I can't speak for any books on HTML or CSS; I've never seen a good one.
In that respect I concur with Stan, although I've inspected only handful
of books on those subjects. I have found web-research to have been a lot
more helpful.

PHP: http://us3.php.net/manual/en/index.php

I don't like PHP as a server-side scripting language; all PHP systems
I've seen have been a mess, and I think the fault lies with the
language. I don't want to start a debate on that; but I think that a
newbie web-developer doesn't want to be getting into server-side
programming at all, really. That can wait.

If what you are talking about is specifically web design as graphic
design and UI design, as distinct from engineering design, I know there
are good books on that subject, because I have seen them. I can't give
any references, and would welcome recommendations from others.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML by Freeman

Why would you want to learn XHTML?

HTML 4.01 (STRICT) is the way to go.

 

[Stan McCann]

You can't use either of those as teaching resources! Even as
reference documents they are hard to read!

I disagree about the HTML. While I was teaching HTML, I introduced my
students to the W3 references within a few class periods. Specifically
to the element reference list where they could see all elements listed
and easily find out more about any of them.

I do agree, and probably shouldn't have included it, that the XHTML is
confusing and probably counter productive for a newbie. Most of the
books I reviewed were teaching XHTML and I had to tell my classes some
of the difference and to avoid it.

The W3C material on CSS is better - but still not really suited to
teaching.

This, I really disagree on. By the time my classes got to CSS, this
was the best reference for them. From the horses mouth so to speak and
not really difficult to understand with a little explanation.

The Oh Really "Rhino" book on Javascript (Flanagan) is very good.
Some would argue that it's the best. The reference sections are
second to none. It's a fat book, but the subject is complicated.

In my more advanced classes where the students did learn javascript, I
used "JavaScript, second edition" by Don Gosselin. Not too bad of a
book. I'm not much into javascript though; we did some simple picture
pre-loading and that was about it.

I don't like PHP as a server-side scripting language; all PHP
systems I've seen have been a mess, and I think the fault lies with
the language. I don't want to start a debate on that; but I think
that a newbie web-developer doesn't want to be getting into
server-side programming at all, really. That can wait.

Again, I concede that I probably should have left this out. I do like
PHP, but you are correct that newbies don't need to get into
programming too soon.

To the OP, sorry about recommending some stuff that really isn't for
beginners.

 

[Jack]

I disagree about the HTML. While I was teaching HTML, I introduced
my students to the W3 references within a few class periods.
Specifically to the element reference list where they could see all
elements listed and easily find out more about any of them.

OK; well I haven't taught for more than a decade and a half, and I'm
happy to defer to your more recent experience. I agree that *as a
reference*, the W3C reference docuemntation is indispensable. But I
still say that it doesn't make a very good textbook.

I think a better reference could be compiled; but any such document
obviously runs the risk of being superceded (or over-ruled) by the
normative reference. So I agree that the W3C material is the only
*reference* that students should be pointed at.

I do agree, and probably shouldn't have included it, that the XHTML
is confusing and probably counter productive for a newbie. Most of
the books I reviewed were teaching XHTML and I had to tell my classes
some of the difference and to avoid it.

I'd go quite a bit stronger than that; the XHTML reference is completely
useless for anything, if it is separated from the documents to which it
refers. It's effectively a "shell" document.

This, I really disagree on. By the time my classes got to CSS, this
was the best reference for them. From the horses mouth so to speak
and not really difficult to understand with a little explanation.

OK. If you've had success teaching with the W3C CSS documentation as
your core "textbook", then I'm a little surprised; but presumbly you
used self-authored additional material that filled in all the gaps. I'm
guessing that you may be rather a good teacher.

In my more advanced classes where the students did learn javascript,
I used "JavaScript, second edition" by Don Gosselin. Not too bad of
a book. I'm not much into javascript though; we did some simple
picture pre-loading and that was about it.

I hate Javascript with passion. Writing code for an interpreted platform
without knowing what implementation of the interpreter you have to work
with is a sucker's game. I've been compelled to play this game, and it's
no fun.

Javascript implementations tend to be better (in terms of consistency
and so on) than CSS implementations, but because of the extra complexity
of a language implementation, the consequences of any deviation from the
standard tend to be more severe.

 

[Stan McCann]

OK; well I haven't taught for more than a decade and a half, and I'm
happy to defer to your more recent experience. I agree that *as a
reference*, the W3C reference docuemntation is indispensable. But I
still say that it doesn't make a very good textbook.

Correct. I used the W3C site as a reference as you say. I also had
the students validate their work with the W3C validator.

I'd go quite a bit stronger than that; the XHTML reference is
completely useless for anything, if it is separated from the
documents to which it refers. It's effectively a "shell" document.

Yes, stronger. I went so far as to take points off assignments for
using the closing slash required in XHTML. Even though it validates, I
explained that it is wrong for HTML.

OK. If you've had success teaching with the W3C CSS documentation as
your core "textbook", then I'm a little surprised; but presumbly you
used self-authored additional material that filled in all the gaps.
I'm guessing that you may be rather a good teacher.

Thank you; I like to think I was a good teacher. At least, most of my
students liked me and enjoyed my classes.

Again though, maybe the word reference is better than textbook. I gave
the students a lot of supplemental material.

Javascript implementations tend to be better (in terms of
consistency and so on) than CSS implementations, but because of the
extra complexity of a language implementation, the consequences of
any deviation from the standard tend to be more severe.

I don't like javascript either and don't use it (except for a small
last updated function on some of my pages). It would have been unfair
of me though, to not give the students at least some exposure to it
along with penalties for not using <noscript>. All pages had to
explain what is missing without javascript. I was also pretty strict
about explaining, not telling the user what he/she MUST do as so many
sites do.

It was all good fun, I loved teaching so much that at one time, I
applied for a full time CS instructor postion knowing that I would take
a 3-5k reduction in my salary. I managed the computer center and was
webmaster at the branch as my full time job; teaching was only part
time.

 

[Andy Dingley]

The W3C material on CSS is better - but still not really suited to teaching.

I'd agree that it's not suitable for teaching, but it's even worse than
the HTML TR for readability.

OTOH on of the authors (Lie & Bos) also did a very readable book on CSS
that is useful as a teaching guide.

The Oh Really "Rhino" book on Javascript (Flanagan) is very good.

Apart form being 9 years out of date.

Head First is pretty good, and certainly current.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Why would you want to learn XHTML?

What a stupidly patronising comment.

Firstly, the OP is presumably a learner (hence their question) so why do
you think they want to learn XHTML ?

Secondly, what's _wrong_ with learning XHTML ? And why do you consider
it acceptable to criticise their question without even illuminating the
answer?

HTML 4.01 (STRICT) is the way to go.

Maybe. But only if you already have the quite significant level of XHTML
understanding necessary to understand why.

 

[Nick Kew]

Apart form being 9 years out of date.

That would seem to put it in the generation of ORA books that were
"not like the others" in a positive way

Not that I have any intention of reading it.

 

[phildpickering]

Hi,

I've read Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML and highly recommend the
book... with a couple of reservations. If you know HTML already then
the first seven chapters are going to be more of a refresher course.
However, what the authors do is make sure that before you start
applying CSS to your pages you have good, standards-compliant XHTML
markup. The Head First series also take a rather light-hearted approach
to subjects... you have to chill-out and take the cheesy jokes and fun
stuff not too seriously. I've not read the Dietal web book, but if it's
anything like their other books I imagine it is rather dry and
academic; but I do like the way they set many additional
mini-assignments at the end of each chapter, giving you plenty of
opportunity to start practising your new skills.

After reading this book you may want to start tackling some other web
topics, such as JavaScript, but to be honest, I don't think there's one
book out there which covers everything about HTML and CSS. On top of
that, if your learning style is anything like mine, you will need to
read at least a couple of books on the subject before it starts to sink
in... and you'll need some "real" practice in using the technologies
before moving up to the next level.

I don't think there is a shortage of decent books on HTML and CSS
now... sure, there are some real rubbish ones on the shelves in many
bookstores, but if you go on Amazon these are a dozen that I've either
read (or are on my wish list) which appear to teach, modern
standards-compliant methods:

Web Designer's Reference (Grannell - Friends of Ed)
Web Standards Solutions (Cederholm - Friends of Ed)
CSS Mastery (Budd - Friends of Ed)
Build Your Own Web Site The Right Way Using HTML & CSS (Lloyd -
SitePoint)
HTML Utopia, 2nd Edition (Andrew - SitePoint)
CSS Anthology (Andrew - SitePoint)
Designing with Web Standards, 2nd Edition (Zeldman - New Riders)
Bulletproof Web Design (Cederholm - New Riders)
Eric Meyer on CSS (Meyer - New Riders)
More Eric Meyer on CSS (Meyer - New Riders)
The Zen of CSS Design (Shea - New Riders)
Spring into HTML & CSS (Holzschlag - AWP)

And some new books on the horizon, written by highly-respected web
designers:

XHTML & CSS - A Web Standards Approach (Griffiths - New Riders)
Beginning CSS Web Development (Collison - APress)
Transcending CSS (Clarke - New Riders)

Hope that helps you out, and best of luck,

Phil