Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Jonathan N. Little]

I think what you perhaps don't realise is that a number of web
designers are just graphic design hacks!.
They treat the web like it is one large JPG, they try and fix
everything in the one spot, kind of like what you would get on a
printed page.

I can agree with that. It really is not too difficult to design a site
that is flexible for the web, but you do have to design with the
flexible in mind. Many just approach from the wrong direction. They have
the mistaken concept that stylish creative design == pixel-perfect fixed
design.

Part of the problem is folks started (or learned from sites referencing)
a time when the table-hack was the only way to go. Note I said "hack",
because that is just what is was, a hack to extend the limits of HTML in
the emerging field of web design. All the pervasive use that
OS-component-that pretends-to-be-a-web-browser that has such poor and|or
buggy CSS support does not help the situation.

In other words, they simply do not understand the media they are
working with.
It takes a lot of work to get a site to work correctly in a range of
browsers and browsing environments and some people just plainly fail
to recognise this.

That's why we get all these requests for "What is the best WYSIWYG
editors?" or "I don't know anything about HTML or CSS (and don't what to
learn) and want to create the best dynamic website, how can I?" That
last one is not an exaggeration. We get posting like it all the time. It
not too difficult to built a simple modest site for a newbie with HTML,
CSS and notepad. It will take some effort! To do large, complicated,
creative sites does require investment in learning the trade. How
ridiculous to think otherwise? It would be like saying "I want to build
a grand home, but I do not know, nor do I want to learn carpentry, how
do I do it?" I would say to both, "Hire someone who does know how"

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:50:11
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:

Flash IS content. A website is HTML and CSS. Everything else is
content. So if you want to see Flash content, then you need the Flash
player. If you want to see Java content, then you need Java, if you
want to see WMV content then you need Media Player.

Everyone seems to forget Flash IS content.

Not me. When I Flash, there's plenty of content!

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:25:47
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:

Neather is audio for a particular part of the disability community,
but the deff don't need descriptions of live audio content.
The slide show is visual.
You can't really be done any other way.

Eh? If an image "should be" accessible content, why should a sequence of
images not be? Furthermore, I made a great slideshow in javascript, which,
of course, is not perfectly accessible, either.

 

[Chaddy2222]

I can agree with that. It really is not too difficult to design a site
that is flexible for the web, but you do have to design with the
flexible in mind. Many just approach from the wrong direction. They have
the mistaken concept that stylish creative design == pixel-perfect fixed
design.

That is quite true, just look at all the Flash only sites.

Part of the problem is folks started (or learned from sites referencing)
a time when the table-hack was the only way to go. Note I said "hack",
because that is just what is was, a hack to extend the limits of HTML in
the emerging field of web design. All the pervasive use that
OS-component-that pretends-to-be-a-web-browser that has such poor and|or
buggy CSS support does not help the situation.

Oy! I still use tables for some layout *(limited things though pics
mainly) and I am useing IE6 at the moment.

That's why we get all these requests for "What is the best WYSIWYG
editors?" or "I don't know anything about HTML or CSS (and don't what to
learn) and want to create the best dynamic website, how can I?" That
last one is not an exaggeration. We get posting like it all the time. It
not too difficult to built a simple modest site for a newbie with HTML,
CSS and notepad. It will take some effort! To do large, complicated,
creative sites does require investment in learning the trade. How
ridiculous to think otherwise? It would be like saying "I want to build
a grand home, but I do not know, nor do I want to learn carpentry, how
do I do it?" I would say to both, "Hire someone who does know how"

Exactly.
Why do you think I started the Free Web Design Online project a few
years ago? too many volonteers designing sites for non profits without
a clue of what they were doing!.
So hopefully i'll be able to help a few of them out.
BTW I now have proper hosting and a domain name.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:25:47
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:


Eh? If an image "should be" accessible content, why should a sequence of
images not be? Furthermore, I made a great slideshow in javascript, which,
of course, is not perfectly accessible, either.

Well they could be, but the portfolio is a purely presssontational
thing.
BTW it also saves on HTTP requests as the images are all in the SWF
file.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I wonder if there's any way of tagging Flash content.
Some kind of description that you can attach to the embedded object.

Flash is completely accessible to modern readers.

 

[1001 Webs]

Flash is completely accessible to modern readers.

Wrong, Travis.
The correct sentence is:
"Flash is completely accessible to modern readers, as long as they
have the Shockwave Flash plugin istalled"

 

[Travis Newbury]

Wrong, Travis.
The correct sentence is:
"Flash is completely accessible to modern readers, as long as they
have the Shockwave Flash plugin istalled"

So the user of a modern reader is choosing to not be able see the
Flash content. So I could use the same argument "The entire web is
inaccessible to me because I choose not to use a browser...."

So should I as a website designer not use Flash because someone
chooses not to see it... I think not.

 

[mbstevens]

Wrong, Travis.
The correct sentence is:
"Flash is completely accessible to modern readers, as long as they
have the Shockwave Flash plugin istalled"

....and as long as the _version_ of the plugin is what is required.
I have Fox with Flash on Ubuntu. Plays a lot of stuff fine, but
chokes on movies at, for instance, the Onion.

 

[Ed Jensen]

I am puzzled why you think (and apparently need justification) that web
authoring tools, be they CSS or tables or whatever, should be at fault
when an author is not skilled enough to use them.

You're not comprehending what I've been saying. Everyone else seems
to understand, even if they don't agree. I suggest you go back and
re-read what I've written carefully.

There are good sites and bad sites using *all* the technologies
available to us. Just because *you* do not know how to make a good site
with CSS, is certainly no reason to blame the tool.

I never claimed to be a web developer, therefore my skill (or lack
thereof) is completely irrelevant, but hopefully insulting me has made
you feel a little better about yourself.

If you re-read my first post on the subject, you'll notice that I
explicity stated that I formed my opinion from the viewpoint of a user
of the web, not as a developer of the web pages/sites.

What I've observed is simple: in general, web pages that use table
driven layouts seem to work much better than web pages that use CSS
driven layouts.

Do some research; read tutorials and books; and stop blaming something
else on your own inadequacies.

Are you an asshole in real life too, or just on the Internet?

Any further response from you on this subject shall be placed in the
moot (or troll) category.

nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah?

You're pretty pathetic.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Speaking from the viewpoint of a USER of the web rather than from the
viewpoint of a DEVELOPER of web sites:

I prefer web sites built with table-based layouts. I have trouble
reading the tiny, tiny fonts that are all the rage on the web these
days. I almost always increase the font size a step or two.

The tiny font problem has nothing to do with CSS; it is the fault
of the developer who specified ridiculously small fonts. The
problem predates CSS, when it was common to see <font size=-1> (or
even -2) to use smaller fonts.

Small fonts are just as often used with table layouts as with CSS.

Table-based layouts seem to handle my font size increases without any
problems (for the most part).

So can CSS layouts.

CSS-based layouts seem to have trouble handling my font size
increases. This usually results in sections overlapping other
sections and, in many cases, some sections being completely obscured.
Sometimes, sections even vanish entirely, apparently being rendered
into some kind of void.

That is a fault of the developer, not of CSS.

Right about now, I'm sure Ivory Tower types are blaming this on web
developers writing bad CSS or something.

That certainly IS the problem.

But the fact of the matter is, if a tool makes it hard to do things
right, then the tool should probably be considered fundamentally
broken.

It is not hard to do the right thing with CSS. It is, perhaps, too
easy to do the wrong thing. What is worse, is that there are too
many people who want to do the wrong thing, or who do not know that
it is the wrong thing. But they can (and do) do that just as easily
with tables as with CSS.

As a result, I tend to consider CSS fundamentally broken for the task
of layout.

Do you have a problem with these sites which are laid out with CSS:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org> <http://woodbine-gerrard.com>?

 

[Travis Newbury]

...and as long as the _version_ of the plugin is what is required.
I have Fox with Flash on Ubuntu. Plays a lot of stuff fine, but
chokes on movies at, for instance, the Onion.

Well you have a few choices;
Download the newest plugin (or wait until the make it, then download
it).
Switch to a real operating system (yes that was factitious).
Write a letter to the sites that don't work, complain, and hope there
are enough visitors with your problem that complain so they change.
or, move on to a different website (that will teach them to fool with
the likes of you...).

The way I look at it is this. If you choose not to see content for
what ever reason then too bad for you. You made your choice. If you
can's see it because it is either not accessible or the pluguin isn't
available or your internet connection is too slow, or any other reason
beyond your control, then well, it sucks to be you. But why should I
have to suffer and not see it just because you can't?

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Shame Viper only hunts spammers, not idiots.

I disagree.

He wouldn't be able to distinguish between idiots and non-idiots any
more than he can between spammers and non-spammers.

 

[mbstevens]

The way I look at it is this. If you choose not to see content for
what ever reason then too bad for you.

Or too good. I have acquaintances that keep sending links to comical movies that
are not worth the download. I usually don't bother. The only time I have
found Flash personally useful is on science and how-to sites. It's a matter of
taste.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I never claimed to be a web developer, therefore my skill (or lack
thereof) is completely irrelevant, but hopefully insulting me has
made you feel a little better about yourself.

If you re-read my first post on the subject, you'll notice that I
explicity stated that I formed my opinion from the viewpoint of a
user of the web, not as a developer of the web pages/sites.

In the first post in this thread that I see from you on my newsserver,
and the one I responded to, you said:

Quotes:

I've been in the software development field for a long time,

...as have I, since the 70s, so how was I to know that didn't include web
development? It does for me.

and I've come to realize that when almost everyone is using a tool
incorrectly, it's almost always because the tool itself is poorly
designed.

If almost everyone is getting their CSS based layouts wrong, something
is probably wrong with CSS based layout technology in general.

It is still simply a matter of knowledge/training/ability/mindset of the
developer, and not the fault of the tool. As already mentioned, there
are just as many bad table-layout sites as there are CSS-layout sites.

 

[André Gillibert]

I don't believe there are. Not globally wrong at least. You have to
define the type of site to decide what might be wrong. For example,
for a site like google, Flash is a wrong way. For a site like cartoon
network, simple text and static images is wrong.

I think you mean: There're no technology whose all usages are wrong.
If you mean: Any web developing style is ok, then, I disagree.

Inaccessible, invalid, fixed-layout, flashy sites, with huge (e.g. 1MiB
pages for 2 KiB of data) pages, obfuscated (for "security" reasons) and
90% of the visible area overriden by invasive off-topic ads and using only
the SPAN and A HTML elements (because CSS can almost give any layout from
any page), full of JavaScript links (with href="#"), with a single URI for
the whole website (using POST data or AJAX to identify the location), with
no site map, without any structure of the pages or the content of the
pages, have probably been developed the "wrong" way.

Simple example of wrong creation way for web sites: Using monkeys as web
developers.

 

[1001 Webs]

The tiny font problem has nothing to do with CSS; it is the fault
of the developer who specified ridiculously small fonts. The
problem predates CSS, when it was common to see <font size=-1> (or
even -2) to use smaller fonts.

Small fonts are just as often used with table layouts as with CSS.


So can CSS layouts.


That is a fault of the developer, not of CSS.


That certainly IS the problem.


It is not hard to do the right thing with CSS. It is, perhaps, too
easy to do the wrong thing.

That's the problem as I see it too.
For example. there are too many options just to assign font-size.
Why, in the name of God don't they stick to percentages or whatever?
, but c'mmon this is just absurd
Or a conspiracy ...
BTW, right now I am rewriting my style sheet with font-size: small;
etc., but I'm not that sure it will render well I I

have copied it from w3.org's front page:
http://www.w3.org

I can't go wrong that way, right?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Or too good. I have acquaintances that keep sending links to comical movies that
are not worth the download. I usually don't bother. The only time I have
found Flash personally useful is on science and how-to sites. It's a matter of
taste.

You have no arguments from me there. The entire web is a matter of
taste

 

[Travis Newbury]

I think you mean: There're no technology whose all usages are wrong.
If you mean: Any web developing style is ok, then, I disagree.

Nope, I mean I think you should be able to design your website anyway
you want. Obviously some choices will result in few revisiting your
site, but that does not mean it is wrong. Only stupid.

Inaccessible, invalid, fixed-layout, flashy sites, with huge (e.g. 1MiB
pages for 2 KiB of data) pages, obfuscated (for "security" reasons) and
90% of the visible area overriden by invasive off-topic ads and using only
the SPAN and A HTML elements (because CSS can almost give any layout from
any page), full of JavaScript links (with href="#"), with a single URI for
the whole website (using POST data or AJAX to identify the location), with
no site map, without any structure of the pages or the content of the
pages, have probably been developed the "wrong" way.

Why? It may be dumb, but not wrong.

Simple example of wrong creation way for web sites: Using monkeys as web
developers.

Again, why? Stupid yes. Wrong? Not hardly

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

That's the problem as I see it too.
For example. there are too many options just to assign font-size.

Why, in the name of God don't they stick to percentages or whatever?
, but c'mmon this is just absurd
Or a conspiracy ...
BTW, right now I am rewriting my style sheet with font-size: small;
etc., but I'm not that sure it will render well I I

have copied it from w3.org's front page:
http://www.w3.org

I can't go wrong that way, right?

Right, if you use it the way they do, which means not for regular
text. They use it only for things such as copyright notices and
legalese.