|
|
Posted by al jones on 02/08/07 03:19
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:28:06 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> In article <d75b4$45ca47c1$40cba7a1$9985@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
>
>>> Judgements of what is easy are invariably due to hindsight,
>>> something OP has not got.
>>>
>>
>> I sorry, basic HTML is just not that difficult. Doing elaborate styling
>> and effects is another matter. But most little personal sites that folks
>> bang out with these junk WYSIWYG editors is
>>
>> picture
>> text
>>
>
> What is simple or not is best understood in relation to
> background conditions. You would be surprised how easily stuck
> some folks can get over server issues, paths, url endings. The
> html bits are simple enough for includes, setting the whole thing
> up and seeing it working without a good guiding hand can be a
> little tricky because one so easily comes across forks the
> branches of which are not obviously decidable given the naive
> background of the poor mug that has to do the choosing.
>
> I do it this way:
>
> 1. Curse the poor schmuck in spite of his free tutorial.
> 2. Try various options in turn like a monkey on a typewriter till
> I hit bingo.
> 3. I go back and think nicer things of the schmuck, even refer to
> him as a mensch, because success has mellowed me.
What is simple or not, also depends on the persons interest and background.
While I did program (as late as the late '80s) in COBOL and business
BASIC's I'm now a truck driver so really have virtually no profesional
intercourse with the 'computing field'. Personally I don't want to have to
know more than I need to to make my site work - I have no plans on
competing with any of you guys professionally.
I'd note that there are often seem to be two trains of constructive answers
given IMHO; the one which provides specific answers to specific
(hopefully) questions (this is me, I would like to think) and those which
tend to be general topical discussions (reserved for you gurus :) ).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|