|
|
Posted by Richard Thoms on 11/24/61 11:47
Jim Moe wrote:
> Richard Thoms wrote:
>
>>>- Uses a Transitional DTD. Should be Strict.
>>
>>I had strict on for a while and could not make it pass. It's definitely
>>something I want to work toward though.
>>
>
> HTML Strict mostly means moving the presentation aspects into stylesheets.
> You only have five errors anyway on the index page. Trivial to finish it.
I remember now why I choose Transitional. I have some 3rd-party stuff
on the site (like the shopping cart system) and they were not ready for
Strict. Because I have my doctype declaration in a common include file
(used for every page) I had problems. That's just being lazy, I can use
Strict for my pages and keep the Transitional for the 3rd party stuff.
BTW, what is the real benefit of Strict over Transitional? I guess it
just means that I'm safe in case browsers drop support for the
deprecated stuff??
>>>- Ancient tables-abused-for-layout style.
>>
>>That's me all the way! This is my first major web project and I just
>>couldn't get a handle or control of <div> and float. It is something I
>>want to learn more about and convert that way. Tables were much easier
>>for me to understand. But I'm learning!
>>
>
> You can get most of the way there by not nesting tables. Use a single
> table to layout the page, use HTML+CSS to do the rest. Later on the final
> step is much easier.
> Look into the "Cascading" part of CSS. It can reduce the size of the
> page noticeably. For instance, for the dropdown menu you have <div
> class="section"> that contains a list of <a>s, each with an explicit
> class="item2". Instead you can define ".section a {...}" which has all the
> rules in .item2. There is no longer a need for the .item2 class.
This will have to be for V2.0! The cascading part is pretty straight
forward but I need to learn more about the placement of <div>s. I'm
trying to put them in in certain situations.
Again, what is the advantage over tables? I guess quicker rendering??
>>>- Unreadable small font size: 12px, 75% of my preferred size.
>>
>>Others have commented the same. I'll fix both. Don't know if I can get
>>to 16px. You know I based some of this by looking at the ever popular
>>websites (yahoo, amazon, etc) and they run super small fonts. But I
>>agree that ABAP (as big as possible) should be the rule.
>>
>
> The general rule is: make it smaller on your display, not mine.
> Going with the herd can take you over a cliff.
I'm sorry, but I don't get the meaning of "make it smaler on your
display, not mine". For sure there are competing goals of large font
size and keeping as much content "above the fold".
On my development site I've implemented slightly larger fonts and using
"em" sizing now instead of "px" sizing but now I realize why I did not
like it.. Every browser looks slightly different, so much so that some
lines wrap on some browsers but look better on others (sigh). Seemed
like with "px" sizing that you get a more consistent look. Anyway, I
think I'm going to have to suck it up because this is an important
issue. As someone pointed out, I need to make this as accessible as
possible and that means making sure that IE and others will allow the
user to set the font size (something I found out px sizing dies not allow).
--
________________________________________________________________________
Richard Thoms
President - Top Service Pros, Inc.
Connecting Homeowners and Local Home Service Professionals
Homeowners, Find a Top Service Pro --> http://www.TopServicePros.com
Service Pros, Get Listed on the Web -> http://www.TopServicePros.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|