|
|
Posted by Stan McCann on 08/05/06 17:40
Jack <mrdemeanour@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in
news:eb2fqu$pm7$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:
> Stan McCann wrote:
>> Jack <mrdemeanour@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> [me] wrote in
>> news:eb25sn$dpr$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk:
>>> 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.
>
> 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 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.
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.
--
Stan McCann, RETIRED!!, "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|