Posted by Chaddy2222 on 02/02/41 11:49

Chris Gunn wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:50:27 -0600, "Chaddy2222899"
> <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry, but this is a confession that you have never spent the time to
> >> polish your skills. If you cannot use percentages and create balanced
> >> compositions that are attractive at all screen widths, you should not try to
> >> call yourself a web designer.
> >
> >I would say that it has more to do with the auto margions then useing
> >Percentages. Besides, the design will get stretched at hisher
> >resolutions anyway.
>
> Howdy,
>
> You apparently don't understand how screen width settings and minimized
> browser windows work.
Well, actually, I do!

>
> Visit http://www.bizynet.com/Projects/800-Test.htm for a set of tables
> illustrating the various screen widths. You can use them to calibrate your
> minimized browser window instead of changing your computer settings. Very
> handy for web designers.
But thanks for the link though, I am sure it may come in handie.

> I assume you know how to drag the edges of things around. If not, click
> your mouse on any empty part of the desk top screen and press F1. It has a
> nice search but you should probably start at the top and read everything.
Ha, yeah that's fine, but what if I don't use a mouse.

> >It tells me that you have not read the web accessibility guidelines set
> >out by the W3C. There valid reasons for having text re-sizeable mainly
> >concerning people who need to use a larger text size.
>
> I get real tired of people swallowing what these W3C folks try to foist off
> on unknowledgeable designers. IExplorer is the big dog and they set the
> standards. W3C are only a puppy dog tail trying to wag the dog. It doesn't
> work except with people who don't understand how the Internet works.
Hmmm. I tend to not agree with that, while I can see your point, yes it
is true that that most pages do work without valid code, is it not
better to have a standard to write to?

> If you do some careful testing, you'll find Microsoft very rarely pays
> attention to W3C academic ramblings. On top of that, Microsoft will not
> break millions of web pages because W3C says an established HTML tag is
> supposed to go away. Pure HTML 3.2 coding and the attributes added by
> IExplorer and Mozilla are here to stay.
If that is the case, then why is it that http://www.microsoft.com
validates to W3C standards??, I have the impression, that MS have
noticed the fact that if they don't start sticking to some kind of
standard that they will be left behind, though admitedly that will be a
little while before anyone starts to use none Microsoft products
constantly, they have a good market share and that includes the
dominents of IE.

> The word "deprecated" simply means W3C is of the opinion that you should
> stop using it and does not, in any way, imply that it will stop working.
Yes, hence the CSS V tables for layout argument, really both do work
well, although I am converting my website to CSS at the moment.
I think in terms of having cleaner HTML CSS for layout does work
better.

> >The difference in the way browsers render pages has nothing to do with
> >the guidelines, well it does, but each browser applies them slightly
> >differently, if they all applied the standards then their would not be
> >any problems. Oh and it's useually the other way around, as FireFox
> >does apply the standards correctly, well more so then IE.
>
> This is one of the differences between a beginner and a web designer's
> qualifications. A real web designer *KNOWS* what HTML tags work and how in
> each of the browsers. FireFox has some interesting bugs and Netscrap has a
> bunch more. IExplorer has problems with height percentages in some uses and
> other work arounds you need to know.
Perhaps you might look at CSS as well then?, although CSS seams to have
more bloody bugs, and a bigger need for hacks then HTML ever will. It's
part of the reason why I have been tossing up weather to go down the
path of CSS.

>
> >Why would I bother when I can use the official and free W3C one at
> >http://validator.w3.org
>
> There is nothing "official" about them. They have no designated authority
> to dictate anything. Only ICANN has any kind of authority on the Internet
> and W3C can only make suggestions. They have no more authority than I do
> and I've been around a lot longer than they have.
Yes, but I would rather have their "suggestions" then nothing at all.

>
> Because their validator is honked up and feeding you bad information and it
> fails to properly explain why. There is also a free version of HTML
> Validator available but if you want to charge money as a web designer, you
> need to buy it.
If that's the case, then people in government organisations, would have
not have made it a law that websites, made for the Australian
Government have to be W3C compliant!.

>
> Try validating http://www.bizynet.com/Projects/Notebook.htm on
> http://validator.w3.org. Every one of the errors reported are invalid and
You seam to have a lot of unneeded tags their. You really should look
at useing CSS, I am and I think it will be the correct way to go.

Try it again at http://www.htmlvalidator.com and you'll see the
> real results based on what IExplorer and the other browsers use for
> standards.
What, so are you suggesting that we should use browser specific
code...?

>
> I have no intention of crippling my web page code or my client's sales based
> on W3C's silly purist
If you are happy with that oppinion then I guess that you won't be able
to change it. However, you can right pritty good code, so that web
pages look good in all browsers, but really their is a lot more to web
design then just makeing your site look good.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

[Back to original message]