quote:

---

I decided I don't really like templates, and am endeavoring to create my own site using Frontpage.

---

Please, God, no.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>Please, God, no.

You CAN call me 'Scott,' Tom. Really, I think we've moved beyond formalities.



Hey, it's an experiment. Can you recommend something better than Frontpage that doesn't cost me anything?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Better in what way?
Because, y'know, I consider NOTEPAD better than Frontpage for most web design.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Agreed. Frontpage is just awful.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
That said, our webmaster recently died and so I've been doing our website -- and it turns out she did it primarily in Frontpage. *cringe* So I've been working in Frontpage for the last two weeks.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Agreed.

FrontPage is buggy. Publishing from FrontPage, because of said bugginess, can be a nightmare. Installing FrontPage extensions on a site is buggy and problematic, and frequently has to be done over and over and over and over and over and over again. And it creates bloated code. I speak from personal experience - I used to use FrontPage, then after I switched to Dreamweaver, my pages cut in size from 1/2 to 1/3, which also corresponds to faster loading time.

I would also recommend notepad over FrontPage.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Better, to me, in this context, means "Quickly available, and paid for by someone else."

What's so awful about Frontpage? I'm not a pro, though I wouldn't mind learning. And that's part of this great adventure-- learning (on the cheap) what to do and what I like.

I'm keeping an open mind here. I'd use Notepad if I could, but alas-- I can't code worth diddly squat.

Edit: Thanks, quidscribis!
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
You're welcome, Scott. I used FrontPage for a couple of hellish years. Fahim convinced me to switch to Dreamweaver, and I've been much happier since. It has a steeper learning curve, but the benefits far outweigh that.

You *can* write code in notepad. I have a friend who designs code professionally, and it's what she does. For most people, though, it's much longer to do it that way simply because of typing everything in and figuring stuff out. I suppose I could do it that way if I had to, but luckily, I don't. I'd much rather use Dreamweaver.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Scott...hope over to Grenme and drum up Lead. She can be a huge help to you, I think.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Installing FrontPage extensions on a site is buggy and problematic, and frequently has to be done over and over and over and over and over and over again.

---

Well, in all fairness, we've been running FP2002 and Sharepoint extensions on IIS6 for a while now without any problems. So either I'm more competent than most sysadmins -- which I highly doubt -- or the new framework is a substantial improvement.

I use notepad for most of my code, actually. But Dreamweaver and Adobe GoLive are the two packages to beat. Frontpage does have some unique advantages, but it can create bloated, buggy code that's highly frustrating to clean up in the event that something needs to be changed.
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
This seems as good a place as any to say I'm finally learning Dreamweaver. Yay!
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Scott:

I told you I'd help you with PR matters. E-mail me. Don't have time to go into details now.

But the short version:

If you are paying for a hosting service anyway, you could always use an open-source content management system. The learning curve wouldn't be that much more than for Dreamweaver or FrontPage, and it would be much easier to maintain (and redesign).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If you've got someone to help, I strongly recommend a CMS.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
An example of an author's Web site using WordPress: Kathryn Abajian

If I had the money to pay for hosting, though, I'd be strongly considering Drupal.
 

---

Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
 
I would recommend WordPress, as well. I had no problems setting it up on the very first try. I can't say the same thing for MoveableType, although subsequent installs have been very successfull albeit experimental. There are a lot of good free forums out there like phpBB, YaBB, or OpenBB. Make sure and get a host that allows for PHP and MySQL for these ones.

And just to join the bandwagon, (where's my trumpet) I just spent the past week updating and validating a site that had been done in Frontpage. It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't fun. There is no love-loss between me and Frontpage in whatever incarnation it decides to take. I use Dreamweaver, btw.

Good luck with your new site.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Drupal will give you a forum, blog, home page and album functionality -- plus a whole lot more.

I know a graphic design firm and an academic info systems dept. that have built their sites using it so I trust that it's a fairly robust platform/community.

Don't know how easy it is to do the back-end stuff, though.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Link to some sites you like the look of, and some sites you like the layout of (often not the same thing at all). Especially if you like certain kinds of looks it may be possible for someone here such as myself to quickly whip up an example idea or two.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The general take on Joomla/Mambo v. Drupal is that Joomla is easier for non-developers to set up and maintain. It's got slightly easier to use tools for adding content. It also has more add-on modules available for it. I can attest to the fact that it's easy to develop for.

Drupal gives more fine-grained user access control, better categorization tools (Joomla is limited to two levels right now) and is a little more robust.

Either will likely work fine for you. If I were picking one now, I'd probably pick Drupal, because I figure if the power is there under the hood I can get to it.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Drupal's also already all set up for best practices usage of CSS to a degree Mambo's not, yet.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
This is true. But:

1.) there is a 508-compliant fork of Mambo that is far better in this regard. To date, it lags about two weeks beyond Mambo releases.

2.) The next version will have much better XHTML compliance.

3.) Even in the current main version, the areas where compliance is lacking are in very specific areas where it does not lead to serious issues.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not so much talking compliance, even with accessibility, as the ability to make best practices choices for layout across an entire site (including modules), which is lagging a bit further behind than those developments.
 

---

Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
 
Check out --link removed by request-- .

I know the person that runs it personally, and he can design a great-looking website for a reasonable price. There are LOTS of options available and he will even work with you about pricing and payment options. There's contact information on his page, so if you're curious, just give him a call or shoot an email. [/plug]

EDIT: He may also be able to host your site, if you wish. Check out the hosting page for info, or email/call him.

[ September 12, 2005, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: genius00345 ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm leery of any designer who does designs for businesses trafficking in blatantly copyright-infringing works: http://www.wehavehandbags.com/ (linked to from the web design examples).

Plus, most of his work appears to have been for himself (edit: which, along with working for friends, is much easier than and very different from working for an unknown client). And his sites are very inaccessible to anyone who has a screenreader or just bad eyesight (I'm a believer in an accessible web).
 

---

Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
 
Scott R:

If you really feel like you want to start off a website like that and you think it would be worth the expences then go for it. However, I would recommend that you try and find some sort of fanbase prior to building the site. I don't know if you have already as I'm afraid I'm not familiar with your writing but I know of at least one site where you may be able to do so:

www.fictionpress.com

It's a website for writers who want their work critiqued or simply want to share it with someone else. The best way of getting people to read your stories through all that clutter is to review and comment on a few of their stories yourself.

I'm sure there are better ways of getting more recognition as a writer but I can't say I know of them, hope that helps!
 

---

Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
 
fugu:

Actually, most of his web design projects were for NASCAR or other racing-related teams or drivers. Yes, he has created his own websites, and because they look good he has decided to use them as examples of his work. Aside from maintaining contacts in the racing business, he does not personally know any of these clients.

I'm not sure about the copyright thing...he was asked to design the site, but he isn't involved in any of the content other than layout and graphics.

He also believes that he wants his websites to look good and be professionally designed, rather than attempting to make each and every page accessible by every person. He does what he can to make the sites cross-compatible with mant browsers, but in terms of the eyesight-issue, you would be able to work out details with him beforehand as to exactly what specs you wish.

Sorry to have "plugged" a designer that seems to be getting some bad reviews here, but you gotta help out the people you know!
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its just in very bad form to design such a website, since the value of his own work is derived largely from the strength of the copyright on it.

He's got an okay artistic eye, but his style's a bit narrow for my taste (his sites look remarkably identical). His design skills are still in the early stages of development, though, as he makes a number of newbie mistakes. Also, the low prices will not serve him well in the long run, as it reflects a low confidence in the quality of his own work and the value it provides to customers. People like him, who lowball what skills they have, make it hard for serious designers providing a significantly better value and charging commensurately more to convince people what they do is worth it.

If he keeps at it and does some self-guided learning on design principles, he'll be a decent designer some day.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
fugu, we always had the hardest time convincing clients to pay for a designer. It was always the first item on the chopping block after systems analysis.
 

---

Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 

quote:

---

He also believes that he wants his websites to look good and be professionally designed, rather than attempting to make each and every page accessible by every person

---

quote:

---

>>Please, God, no.

You CAN call me 'Scott,' Tom. Really, I think we've moved beyond formalities.

---

He said God not clod.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Forum-- not sure about this one; how much mem/bandwidth does a forum need? I don't expect very much. . . Saxon? Jon Boy?

---

For my forum, the MySQL database takes up less than 25 MB. I currently use about 1.5 GB of bandwidth a month.
 

---

Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
 
fugu, if I may ask for my own curiosity, what "newbie mistakes" were you referring to? I don't have a lot of experience, but all I have ever noticed is minor typographical or grammar errors, and perhaps one or two broken links that are quickly fixed. If you've noticed something more major, I'm sure he'd like to know so that he can learn from them and improve his work. Thanks.

Also, how do you expect a beginning designer to jump-start a business if he's charging hundreds of dollars? Because people aren't familiar with the name, he'll need to get started somehow, and eventually people will be willing to pay more for the value and security they feel because they know the business.

I have noticed that many designs are similar, but I also know that the purposes of most of them are similar as well. For instance, an angular "parallelogram" design fits well with racing teams, and by the time you customize with photos, colors, and logos, just the shapes (and most of the time the fonts) echo the other sites.

I'm not meaning to start a big debate here, I just want to help him out as much as possible, and whatever you can supply as to improvements he could make are well worth my time.

Thanks again.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
My brother just got a graphic design degree. I worked with him to make a website, and it was quite hard because of the whole identity thing. He lives in another state so we collaborated over a long distance. I talked with the client and got an idea what he wanted. Then my brother and I emailed about it and my brother whipped something up. I showed it to the client and he said what he liked and didn't, and then my brother made changes. Eventually, we were able to make an identity that the guy liked. Then we flushed it out into a webpage.

It was hard, and we undercharged, and because of that it is hardly worth my time to do it again. But it was a side thing for me, but for my brother he would like that to be his main staple. And his main problem is so many people hire high schoolers who make a webpage but then don't maintain it, and people come to him wanting to pay him what they paid the high schoolers except he has a family and you get the idea.

genius00345: One grammar or spelling mistake is one too many. Broke links are pretty much fatal, a sure sign the webpage isn't being maintained. Another bad practice is to use the phrase "under construction". Another problem is that I clicked on 4 internal links and all 4 opened new windows. And the biggest mistake is that there is text sitting on top of text with an image over all of it. I can't read some of the text. He made enough "design" mistakes that I would never hire him. There are many books published and webpages that list these mistakes in the top 10. I would say this designer has never read any of this literature.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>He said God not clod. [Razz]

And it came to pass that there arose one like unto peanut butter, and she came willoning and walloning against the Inestimable.

And the Inestimable took her up by the nosehairs, yea, even the hairs of her nose, even the small crusty hairs, and made her to fly through the air and land in a vat of offal.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Taking a look at his logos: he put several 3color logos up on his website as jpegs, he has a solid color crossing a gradient, which is a trapping nightmare (gradients themselves are tricky enough), he has an overcomplex, ill-bounded image in a logo that might go on business cards or as a small emblem on a letter ( http://www.dakotapro.net/images_design/sickhabit_big.JPG ), many of his logos would not look good in b&w (this doesn't sound so big, but it is; its usually an indicator of how well a logo would print, plus nearly every log ends up in b&w at some point), he uses a swoosh ( http://www.dakotapro.net/images_design/ispy_big.JPG , http://www.dakotapro.net/images_design/jbr_big.JPG ) for no good reason, he has over-detailed imagery ( http://www.dakotapro.net/images_design/crewchief_big.JPG ), and he makes logos that look like showcases for photoshop effects ( http://www.dakotapro.net/images_design/beacon_big.JPG ).

There are others, but that's a starter list.

Re: the parallelogram thing, its all well and good that it seems "speedy", but part of the reason a person or company pays a professional logo designer is to get a logo which is individual and sets one apart from the crowd. The parallelogram look is so overdone in racing-related paraphenalia most designers I know would specifically avoid it excepting a really great concept (which none of his are). Producing over-similar logos is by definition doing a disservice to his clients (except insofar as they specifically ask for them, and even then alternatives should be presented).
 

---

Posted by disgruntled webdesigner (Member # 8603) on :
 
I appreciate the contructive critisizim. Hopefully it can help me become better.



[ September 12, 2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: disgruntled webdesigner ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think my points are made.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lots of people are paid. Some like to be paid a decent wage, which is why they have issues with your design prices. Some have pride in the quality of work they provide, which is why they have problems with the representation of your work as quality design.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, how do you expect a beginning designer to jump-start a business if he's charging hundreds of dollars? Because people aren't familiar with the name, he'll need to get started somehow, and eventually people will be willing to pay more for the value and security they feel because they know the business.

---

quote:

---

I make money so I must be doing something right fuguey or what ever your name is...

---

I doubt you want to use that as the measure of credibility in this discussion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There are objective elements to quality design. Standards compliance is one of them.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yes. And your clients are wrong. Luckily, you can rip them off as long as they stay uninformed. If I were still freelance, I'd E-mail them a link to this thread -- and then my portfolio.
 

---

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
 
Scott, I just sent you an email about this. Let me know if you don't get it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

ADMIN - PLEASE LOCK

---

Presumptious, aren't you?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Design is a profession that has evolved for many years and has undergone much study, with millions of man-hours by people with PhDs alone going into an understanding thereof. Whereas aesthetics are a matter of taste, design is not just about aesthetics, and those people studying it have a pretty darn good idea of what is and is not good design. I have related a few situations where you violate those constraints -- note I never said anything you made was ugly.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I read what people with PhDs write, and talk with others

And I dabbled in design briefly, now I just try to work closely with good designers. I've been part of a major online GD community for years now, which includes many highly paid, award winning designers, and I make a point of listening to what they say.

Plus I'm taking a Human Computer Interaction Design course at one of the top universities for the study of that in a scientific context -- this would be where I meet several people with PhDs in design and related fields.
 

---

Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
 
Well. I didn't think that one plug would create a mass riot.

I do understand the comments of both dw and fugu in this discussion. Yes, some elements of dw's design are repetitive and somewhat overused. Yes, fugu, each company does want a unique package. But I also agree with dw that when a client is paying him, he does not want to lose that client, so prefers to do as the customer specified rather than attempt to facilitate every element of proper design.

An analogy: Hasn't anyone ever been told by a teacher something to the effect of: "Oh, you don't have to spell it just right as long as I can recognize it?" or "I don't care if you write this essay in perfect five-paragraph format as long as it's readable?" Anyone seeing what I mean, here?

Please note that at DW's request, I have removed the original link to his site.
 

---

Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 

quote:

---

"Oh, you don't have to spell it just right as long as I can recognize it?" or "I don't care if you write this essay in perfect five-paragraph format as long as it's readable?"

---

quote:

---

On the topic of the ADA crap

---

quote:

---

Dagonee this is defamation of character and of my company...

---

quote:

---

I think I am entitled to atleast all of the parts relating to me being removed...

---

quote:

---

but if you have a heart you wouldnt keep critisizing and the parts pertaining directiclty to my web url would be rem

---

quote:

---

it is more motorsports related design where ada and spelling dont really count...

---

I understand what you're saying. But if you're really making "thousands" from this, I suggest you take me seriously: someday the market for which you're designing pages will mature, and they will expect spelling and ADA-compliance. The first site to offer those things will do noticeably better than the other ones, and the other ones will, no matter how unsophisticated they currently are, catch on. So it behooves you to design fully-compliant, spell-checked pages now, so that you can tell people when they ask that, yeah, you've been making standards-compliant pages for the last five years.
 

---

Posted by disgruntled webdesigner (Member # 8603) on :
 
I do spell check them, but when my clients send new PR's and stuff they dont always spell right... Also i'm learning css and stuff so I can make my sites faster loading and more ADA compliant.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, good. Despite the harsh welcome, we're all a bunch of really pro-web-design geeks here -- especially fugu -- and are always glad to see someone working to make a living in the industry. If you ever want to talk shop, drop on by. *grin* And I promise not to savage you TOO badly.
 

---

Posted by disgruntled webdesigner (Member # 8603) on :
 
Well thanks for the welcome

But like i said I make most of the money from racing design hehe.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Thanks, Eric-- I'll reply in detail soon.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Scott -- I'm serious, btw, that if you link to some examples of sites and layouts you like, there's a good chance I'll be able to work up some prototypes.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Fugu-- I appreciate the help. I kind of want to go about the design on my own, because I think website design would be a useful tool. I'm not looking to be an expert, and Heaven knows I'm not looking at making a business of it-- but it is something that interests me that I want to learn more about.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Feel free to post your efforts early and often, there will be plenty of constructive criticism

I suggest not worrying about what CMS you will eventually use, instead start with the design. You will later template-ize that design to work with your chosen CMS, but by having a "pure" form of it around, switching CMS's and testing design changes will be easier.

Also, depending on what you consider "the design", if you continue to not want to do coding directly in HTML (though I encourage you to try it), you might consider making a graphical mockup of what you want, then posting it here for someone to make a working version (that's more than just sliced graphics). Well-written HTML will make it far, far easier to integrate into a CMS, and what Dreamweaver or other applications make is at best adequate HTML when in full GUI mode.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What are the benefits to doing the design in HTML, rather than letting the design program (Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Arachnophilia, etc) make the HTML code for you?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, for one thing, you learn HTML. For another, you know that every single piece of code on your site was added for a reason. And for small but complex sites, it can even be much faster.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Also, you'll have a darn hard time adapting HTML generated by Dreamweaver or whatever to the templating system of a blog (for instance), whereas its relatively trivial for well-written HTML.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, you'll have a darn hard time adapting HTML generated by Dreamweaver or whatever to the templating system of a blog (for instance), whereas its relatively trivial for well-written HTML.

---

I don't have that problem, but then perhaps it's because of the specific program I use for blogging. I don't use a CMS either, but I don't really have enough content - other than the blogs - to worry about it.

Just saying. I mean, you obviously know what you're talking about and I'm just a mini-wannabe-HTML-geek. . .
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
It will also be dependent on the complexity of your design (behind the scenes; it may look simple but not be). And the more things you need to adapt it to, the more likely it will be something will be troublesome (and Scott's likely to use several disparate bits of software to construct his site).

Other benefits of crafted HTML include accessibility, which I'm a huge proponent of -- sites should be accessible to the hard of eyesight (a particularly relevant disability), and the best way to ensure that is with hand-crafted HTML.

Plus, sites with hand-written HTML have just plain better code, which will be an issue if you ever want to stop using software program X.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Scott,

I'd make the first site in HTML, because then you will know HTML. Dreamweaver is fine for doing things faster sometimes, but I still tweak it all the time. The other people in the office who use Dreamweaver have me fix their pages all the time because they don't know HTML.

If you have a yen to go crazy with the features, I'd suggest making a family web page that incorporates every frame, blinking text, and rollover out there, just to get it out of your system. It's not classic design, but they are really fun. That way you get practice, your family gets a site, and it's immune to criticism because personal sites don't have to unassailable.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
I'm going to throw another comment in here. I use Dreamweaver - came over from the darkside of FrontPage. While I'm no HTML guru, I do at least understand the basics. I know why most HTML tags are on my website. The only ones I don't understand completely are the ones that are Fahim-code specific, ie his blogging program or his commenting system or tagboard.

I probably could do handcoding by now - to a limited degree. I do tweak things in codeview. Dreamweaver has the ability to see the page in codeview, design view, or both at the same time, and by default, I tend to have both visible at the same time so I can learn better what's going on. And sometimes, it's much faster to correct code by hand than to do it through design.

In other words, even if you go with a program like Dreamweaver, there's still a lot you can learn about HTML coding, and if you haven't done it before, it can be an easier way to get started.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Dreamweaver can be an excellent program with which to create hand-written HTML.

Also, since you're learning from scratch, now would be an excellent time not to learn how to do everything with tables, which is an all too common affliction.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The last statement is a matter of opinion. Don't let fugu scare you off from tables.

Tables used to be a problem because of longer loading times, but that's less of an issue. They aren't always perfect, but the tradeoff of ease of implementation and their ability to adjust to the width of the user's screen often make up for it.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its a matter of an opinion shared by those people writing the HTML standards, and by those people writing the accessibility standards, and by those people doing research in maintainability

And while tables certainly are easy, CSS-based designs have no issues adjusting to screen width, and can even do crazy things like having lines of block level elements wrap as the screen gets smaller (such as images+captions in an image gallery), or making it possible to completely change the location, size, and/or shape of things on your page without touching the HTML.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Nice try. I realize it is an opinion you strongly hold, but it's still an opinion.

There's a tradeoff in rejecting tables, and CSS often offers a great deal less flexibility. For some things, that's great, and for others, it sucks.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
*grabs popcorn and watches*

Tell me more. This is interesting.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
To settle this question, fugu and I will arm-wrestle later.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
*laughs* Well, sure, but I'm curious about the intellectual side of this.

I use tables because I find them easy to manipulate. If I didn't use tables, I'd have to, what, use divs? Learn CSS? I'm in the process of learning bits and pieces of CSS, but I'm not quick about this stuff - don't know why.

So, I don't know, what would someone like me do instead of using tables?

(And katharina, a special thanks to you because I don't feel like quite as much of an idiot after reading your posts as I do after reading fugu's. )
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Holy crap, that was either a testament to my communication skills or else the most back-handed compliment I've ever read. O_O

I'm going with testament to my communication skills. I'm a teacher - if my audience doesn't understand me, then I have failed.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Benefits I've discovered since (mostly) going to CSS/div-based layout:

1. Flexibility. I can move the menu column to the right without touching the HTML. Why is this good? In dynamic pages, changing the HTML can introduce programming errors. Changing the CSS can't. Also, on static sites, it would allow global changes instead of changing each page.

2. In developing dynamic pages, proper separation of elements will allow complete flexibility with layout (at whatever granularity you implement with your divs). Allows programmers to basically ignore layout considerations and designers to ignore programming considerations.

3. Easy creation of printable versions, handheld versions, etc.

4. Order that information is streamed to browser is not totally tied to order it appears on screen. Allows screen readers to work well.

5. Much, much, much easier to change the layout later. Much.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I have to wonder what thing you can list that tables can do in a design that a more CSS based approach cannot do, assuming I read what you meant by flexibility correctly.

I didn't say it wasn't an opinion, I said people who are important to consider share my opinion .

As for the arm wrestling, you'd kick my butt; I don't exercise nearly enough while you seem to have been keeping at it of late
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
katharina - I knew that was going to blow up after I posted it.

What I meant was that as fugu's talking about tables being oh so bad, and I use tables, I'm thinking oh no! I must be an idiot! Then I see you defend them, and I think, Oh, I'm not so bad after all. And then fugu says more about tables being bad, and I think D'oh! Idiot! And then you post and I think, Oh, not so bad.

So, uhm, I'm mostly talking about my own insecurities here, and how . . .

Is that enough? *eep!*
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
kat: I just think it’s cute when you drop verbs.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Tables aren't some horrendous sin or anything; I just think, and have evidence for my position, that if you're going to learn how to design learning CSS-based design will yield benefits in the long run.

If you just want to put up a quick website you're not going to change much, and know tables but don't know CSS, sure, tables. It'll be faster for you. But the more people who use CSS designs the better, from my perspective, particularly as I hold it to be very valuable that sites are highly accessible.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Man, I hate when a thread I dismissed as irrelevant to me gets interesting halfway through. I missed all the fun, and now all the good stuff is edited/deleted (except for Dag/fugu/Tom's responses).

Ah well. I'm glad I don't know anything about web design. Much better to be aware of your ignorance, I always say.

Actually, that's the first time I've said it, but I think I'll put it in the rotation.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I liked that explanation better, fugu, and I actually agree with it.

I don't think tables is an egregious sin, however. In fact, there are a lot of benefits to it, especially for beginners. The kind of scorn being heaped upon them I prefer to reserve for the <blink> tag.

CSS should definitely be learned eventually, but it's like starting everyone out in optics in physics. We should know optics, but don't start there.

Besides, even with CSS, there will always be reasons to use tables, so it isn't wasted knowledge.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I can definitely see that position, but while CSS has a higher learning curve I find people who learn tables first have a really hard time breaking away from using them, and even then have a hard time breaking away from thinking in tables, which impedes utilizing CSS as it should be, so I advocate learning CSS from the get-go.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So the problem isn't with learning tables, but in refusing to learn anything else?

I have more confidence in Scott than that.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Heh. I started learning HTML in 1995 before CSS and I consider myself knowledgeable in HTML. But I haven't learned CSS for positioning things because tables have always been good enough. But I keep wanting to learn CSS because it can do things tables can't.

In other words, fugu is right. I would learn CSS first and avoid tables until you are comfortable with CSS.

And I've got to say this about Disgruntled WebDeziner's spelling comments: you have a computer with a spell checker. And if you are making so much money, you could pay some high school kid $20 to proofread your stuff. There is only one excuse for spelling errors and it is laziness and that is the impression a webpage with spelling errors conveys.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
For some perspective, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple still use tables for their Web sites.

1. Flexibility. I can move the menu column to the right without touching the HTML. Why is this good? In dynamic pages, changing the HTML can introduce programming errors. Changing the CSS can't. Also, on static sites, it would allow global changes instead of changing each page.

Agreed. Of course, using the library and template features of Dreamweaver will do the same thing.

2. In developing dynamic pages, proper separation of elements will allow complete flexibility with layout (at whatever granularity you implement with your divs). Allows programmers to basically ignore layout considerations and designers to ignore programming considerations.

Which is great when there is so much content that separate programmers and designers are needed. For many sites, they are all the same person.

3. Easy creation of printable versions, handheld versions, etc.

Agreed. The best argument against tables.

4. Order that information is streamed to browser is not totally tied to order it appears on screen. Allows screen readers to work well.

It is better for accessibility.

5. Much, much, much easier to change the layout later. Much.

The library and template features of Dreamweaver eliminate this advantage. It is easy to change the layout then as well.

It's also easier only if the content stays the same. If a web site is undergoing a major redesign, I would sincerely hope that they examine the content as well as the look and feel.

Basically, you get a much steeper learning curve and more complex system in exchange for printable versions and better accessibility. There's definitely a tradeoff.

[ September 13, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Its not about refusal, its about how people think.

It is provably harder to think of problems in a domain in a new way rather than learning to think of them in a particular way from scratch (coincidentally, I was at an interesting talk on how this might operate on a neuron level just yesterday).

Also, while there is a learning curve, CSS designs are in many ways easier to implement when you know CSS.

And no, Dreamweaver's template capabilities do not eliminate the chance that a change in HTML which is required to change a table-based design will create a programming error in a dynamic page. Plus, many sites are grown too organically to fully implement the library and template features, but can still be globally changed with CSS by simply adding in appropriate class and id values to existing pages.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Not every driver needs a BMW.

You haven't addressed the corporate web sites I mentioned. Maybe Microsoft needs a fugu session?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The library and template features of Dreamweaver eliminate this advantage. It is easy to change the layout then as well.

---

quote:

---

Which is great when there is so much content that separate programmers and designers are needed. For many sites, they are all the same person.

---

quote:

---

And while tables certainly are easy, CSS-based designs have no issues adjusting to screen width,

---

quote:

---

I have to wonder what thing you can list that tables can do in a design that a more CSS based approach cannot do

---

In pure CSS, not using JavaScript or IE's nifty calculated CSS values, I have not found a way to properly do the following:

1. Have a fixed-width column (or columns) and have another column take up the remaining space on the screen, depending on screen width.

2. Have different columns match their heights to the height of the column with the tallest content.

Both of those are easily done using tables. There are workarounds to simulate those effects in CSS (such as having the fixed-width columns overlay the variable-width column's margins), but they present other problems.

Frankly, I think that the people who designed CSS (and JavaScript, for that matter) did a really poor job of figuring out what website developers actually want to do and making that easy.

For example, if you create a DIV with some text in it, and use CSS to give it a width and put a nice border around it, you can use CSS to position it to the left or to the right, but you can't use CSS to put it in the center. Sure, you can put a DIV around it and set text-align to center, but that's adding an element layer.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Corporate websites are far more based on an if its not broke don't fix it approach, plus a tendency remain with what their existing designers know than to try to retrain or replace designers (those designers have considerable value based on their knowledge of and place within the organization, so anything they're resistant to isn't likely to change).

In many cases corporate websites are produced by CMSs, often very old ones. This is why CNN's site is so slow to change significantly (I've gotten some of the back story on it a while back), even though the designers want to -- the cost of doing so is too high.

There are other organizational pressures likely at work as well, but those are some of the big ones.

I could produce examples of major websites which did use strong CSS design principles, but I think you understand how pointless that back and forth would be.

EJS,
the width one is easy, see 10.3.3 here for how to create behaviors in elements such as divs: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#Computing_widths_and_margins

There's a similar entry on the page for heights which should elucidate how to accomplish the multi-column question.

And sure you can use CSS to put that element in the center, just set the margins to auto.

Now, qualifiers to the above: sometimes (minor, easy, well-documented) hacks are needed to make these work in IE because IE's CSS support sucks. Also, its typically easy to design around these issues.

Furthermore, there are even more useful CSS properties that nobody has implemented for various reasons, which make a lot of things even easier (particularly with columns; check out CSS 3). The people who designed CSS were very familiar with what people do in web design layout and chose accordingly. Failures in implementation can hardly be blamed on them.

Oh, and one would generally think adding a single div wrapping instead of an entire table with all its overhead would still be considered preferable
 

---

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
 
> And sure you can use CSS to put that element in
> the center, just set the margins to auto.

Ah. Of course, since that's one of those CSS things IE doesn't support, it's not much use, but at least I can place the blame properly now.

Still, it doesn't work for centering vertically, even in Firefox.

The link about widths does not appear to contain a solution. And the heights one does not solve the height question I posed, either, as far as I can tell.

As an example of what I mean, imagine a page consisting of a header and footer that go all the way across the screen, and a section in between divided into three columns. The two side columns have backgrounds that need to join with both the header and footer. The amount of content in the middle column can vary from page to page, so you cannot set an absolute height on the columns. You cannot, however, use 100% as the CSS height on the outer two columns to merely fill out to the length that the middle column is forced to by its content. 100% height is 100% of the window height. As far as I can tell, this cannot be done with pure CSS. It would take a working example to convince me that it can.

Yet it is very simply done with tables.

> The people who designed CSS were very familiar
> with what people do in web design layout and
> chose accordingly. Failures in implementation
> can hardly be blamed on them.

Well, maybe. But a spec that doesn't get implemented is fairly useless. The CSS reference materials I use are practical, not idealistic.

Don't get me wrong: I love CSS. But anyone who claims CSS can easily do whatever tables do is wrong.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Both of the links tell you exactly how height and width are calculated. For certain sorts of elements, that calculation must add up to the height or width of the containing box. Therefore to affect a given height or width, merely set all values other than height or width on the LHS of the equation to appropriate fixed numbers and watch the height (or width) change magically to the right amount.

This works best with the height q, its somewhat tricker with the width one (watch those margins, specifically).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
As for your challenge

http://www.redmelon.net/tstme/3cols2/

Didn't even have to do it myself (mine wouldn't have been as cross-platform, either).
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And I actually prefer this version of the page: http://www.redmelon.net/tstme/3cols2/noborder.htm

(edit: he actually cheats a little; the background colors for the side columns are on the main one; this technique, however, is expandable to background images by combining it with the sliding doors CSS technique, resulting in a background image on each side that reaches the full height of the content column (presumably with repeat-y).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think the key word in EJS's point was "easily," fugu. The fact that the site designer crows about this as an accomplishment pretty much proves the point being made.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oddly, it actually is quite easy, if you look at the source. Not as easily as tables, but nobody expects completely different approaches to have all the same strengths. That its easy didn't save it from being hard to discover, but then again, it took people quite some time to make tables dance like they do now.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
(BTW, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. *grin* You know I like CSS.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
So in replacing a system that can, in your words, dance, CSS requires hobbled work arounds, has a steep learning curve, and is spottily supported by the world's most popular software?

Woah baby, sign me up!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, in fairness to CSS, it only requires hobbled workarounds because it's spottily supported by the world's most popular software. And I suspect the learning curve would actually be shallower if people didn't generally learn tables first.

One of the reasons I suspect Russell is all about the standards compliance is that if all the major browsers were compliant, the major downside of CSS would go away.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Maybe it's the difference between early adopters and late adopters? I prefer tools that are cheap and that work, and I don't get any thrills from being the guinea pig.

I'll go to CSS all the way as soon as I don't have to be a missionary for them. My design tools are supposed to serve me, not the other way around.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*rolls eyes*

CSS can also do many things that tables can't dream of doing, and no designer I know who's proficient in both thinks tables can "dance" to anywhere near the degree CSS can.

This is one thing which has become particularly popular because it is so easy to do with tables that is harder (and in only some senses of harder) to do with CSS. Most sites do not use this approach. In many cases, this approach is bad because it doesn't adapt well to changing screen sizes (the columns can become far too small-seeming on a large screen) or increased text size due to bad eyesight (far too constraining line length).

edit: particularly as the only way you manage to make tables even seem to have some of the capabilities CSS does it by relying on those capabilities in Dreamweaver, where many people would, y'know, prefer not to purchase expensive software, or learn complicated software capabilities, when there are nice, free, syntax-highlighting text editors.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

As an example of what I mean, imagine a page consisting of a header and footer that go all the way across the screen, and a section in between divided into three columns. The two side columns have backgrounds that need to join with both the header and footer. The amount of content in the middle column can vary from page to page, so you cannot set an absolute height on the columns.

---

quote:

---

And I suspect the learning curve would actually be shallower if people didn't generally learn tables first.

---

quote:

---

So in replacing a system that can, in your words, dance, CSS requires hobbled work arounds, has a steep learning curve, and is spottily supported by the world's most popular software?

Woah baby, sign me up!

---

 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Should I have included the winking smiley?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
And I was using dance in the sense of requiring extensive adaptation to do something that's actually quite awkward
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Exactly.

(to explicate, you make outrageous, exaggerated remarks, I roll my eyes at them -- pretty much what happens in the real world).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
By you. This is not a compelling defense.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Rolling eyes at a bad joke is hardly considered rudeness.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There's a reason it is usually attributed to powerless teenagers.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Eye rolling as a sign of ignoring helpfulness is commonly attributed to teenagers. Eye rolling about bad jokes, like groaning, is commonly attributed to all sorts of people in colloquial situations.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I do not believe that the gesture means what you think it means.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Focus on me. I'm the only voice you read.

I've registered a domain. I have a server to put stuff on. Now what do I do?

I guess I go about developing things. . . right?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think I may over-use it, but I'm a big fan of emoticons and other ad-hoc markup. I use it for a number of sorts of situations. Some examples of other posters who use it on occasion in a variety of senses include TomDavidson, rivka, and jexx (hardly teenagers).
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
And I hate it every time they do it, too. It's so...dismissive - like the person you are talking isn't even worth framing a response too. Rather, that's what it is supposed to say, where what it really says to me is a sanitized version of flipping someone off.

Scott: Right.

If I may recommend something to read for design (not technique, but some basic principles) Don't Make Me Think is absolutely wonderful. It's comprehensive, funny, clear, and succinct. I've had it recommended at three different conferences. It will go a long way towards helping you make your design attractive and usable.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess I go about developing things. . . right?

---

No, first you map out what you want on your site.

Then you decide which of those you want on the front page and in what fashion.

Then you design the common elements of each page - nav bar, menu, find box, etc.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Hey Scott

There are two sorts of things you need to think about to start with: What will go on your site, and how will your site look.

A little bit of the first is needed before the second can be properly approached, but you're mostly there. Try to choose a list of stuff you want your site to do from the beginning, likely including a main page with a blog, a discussion forum, and possibly other stuff.

After you understand the first, think about a few things with regard to look -- some of this can be done without the first being too fleshed out.

How do you want the site structured? This will affect your menu, which will affect how you lay out your site.

Do you want a graphical logo? Many personal sites of this sort use a text name as a "logo" of sorts. This can be a good starting approach as you can always add a logo, while changing a logo messes with your personal branding.

If you want a graphical logo, make that or have it made early, as the rest of your site needs to integrate well with it.

Choose colors you like and that go together well (for the logo if you have one, but otherwise as well). These will be what you use in your site. Two, three, or four main colors should be chosen, though others may be used as accents.

Start to think about the basics of how you want your site to look. Sketch it -- the layout more than the graphics. If you want a graphic you're going to have to get from somewhere else or make, start thinking about that.

Ask for feedback from people you know, here and in person. Use programs like photoshop, illustrator, and indesign (or whatever you have access to for graphics; if you don't have any decent graphics/layout program, you can do some okay layout in powerpoint) to create mockups. Take digital pictures of your drawings and post those. Post iterations of your logo.

That should get you well on the path.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
(kat: that you think something is rude does not mean it is meant rudely. Jumping on someone for what is not ill-intentioned but is a personal hot-button can be rude as well).

I will try to use it less, though.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Aw, thanks, fugu.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Wait, wait wait . . . before you decide how you want the site to look, there is another question to answer: Who is your site for? (Is it for people who have already heard of you and are looking for more info? People who google "fantasy authors"? Will most people who find it be linked to it from somewhere else?)

Who your audience is makes a big difference in how your site should look and function.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dag's steps are exactly what I used to tell my clients:

1) Establish what kind of content you want. Do you want a blog? A photo gallery? A place to dump documents? A forum? A place to display articles? Will your front page be primarily a marketing tool for new readers, or will it be a jump directly into content for your hardcore fans? (If you answer "marketing," you get another question: who's your demographic? You need to know that before you can market effectively.)

2) Once you know this, decide how these things are going to fit together and flow into each other. If your front page is a marketing tool, do you want to provide a snippet of your latest piece of work, which links back to either a longer article or a direct opportunity to purchase it? How do people move from one spot to another on your site? Where do you believe casual visitors will primarily want to go? Where do you believe regulars will want to go?

3) Once you know that, you can decide how you're going to update this information, and how much work it'd be without automation (which will tell you what you have to automate). If you're going to be quoting snippets out of your newest article in five different places, you should probably arrange to automatically do that when a new article is uploaded. If you suspect your regulars are only interested in new articles, you should consider RSS or other push technologies. And so forth.

4) Now that you've established the content, the workflow, and the tools required, you can decide how the site is going to look. This is both one of the most trivial and most critical elements, and I strongly recommend that people reach that decision at first by looking at sites which they think do things right and figuring out what they like about them.

5) Now build.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Good heavens.

It's worse than plotting.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, you can also throw together a bunch of half-assed things that seemed cool at the time, but that would be the wrong way.

For an example of the schizophrenia this produces, drop by my personal homepage some time. It's profoundly wretched, in a deeply pathetic way.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Yes, but you have wonderful graphics.

:pat, pat:
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tom, fugu, kat, Dagonee, Eric-- thanks a mazillion for your help.

This type of thing is why I continue to come back to Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
 
fugu,

Using the borders on the center div to set the background and provide the spacing is just a variation on the technique I mentioned of using wide margins and overlaying the side columns. But I guess you're right, it is possible to do it in CSS.

My larger point is that it is much easier and more intuitive to do some things with tables than it is to do them with divs in pure CSS.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yep, definitely some things which are easier to do in tables. Good web design is what the CSS people focused on making easiest, not table-based norms of web design. And they didn't succeed in every way, but its a darn good try.

Actually, I think I'd be able to do it even without using the borders to do backgrounds for the columns, though I haven't tried it yet.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
All right, thinking out loud here:

*****

All pages display site header (home, blog, writer's resources, Frivel & Schleck, contact);

Home-- extracts from latest published work + link to buy (mag or novel, or anthology or whatever)

Schmaltzy welcome

Possible logo/graphic?

THIN Sidebar right-- cover of latest works; WotF, etc, containing link to buy. THIN sidebar left-- extracts of professional critiques of works displayed on right sidebar

Blog-- standard blog; displays extract of latest entry, plus links to blog archives.

Writer's Resources-- contains various links (ralan.com, Black hole) to writerly websites, plus breif explanation on each. Also, Writer's of the Future section; KD Wentworth's do's and don'ts for the contest; Link to Jay Lake's, "Write a Short Story a Week program.

Frivel & Schleck-- devoted to the art of light verse. Maybe publish a verse or two here. . .

Contact-- gives email information.

******

Is this a good beginning? I want my website to be a tool for readers who want to read more of me to find more of me...

I'm skipping on the forum right now-- who needs that much stress? Which is what I'd do . . .
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Some things you might think about:

How long is it going to be between work publishings, typically? Are you comfortable with the main page of your site having no new content in that period?

A good rule is that informational elements about the same thing should be grouped together -- is your separation of the work info from the critiques of it based on a good reason to depart from this?

Also, don't feel constrained to think in columns. You can do all sorts of other layouts; you might look at several of the designs in the CSS Zen Garden to see what's possible: http://www.csszengarden.com/ (edit: this doesn't mean your layout's not likely to be columnesque, but you can do some very creative things with how things appear in those columns)
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
If you have a yen to go crazy with the features, I'd suggest making a family web page that incorporates every frame, blinking text, and rollover out there, just to get it out of your system. It's not classic design, but they are really fun. That way you get practice, your family gets a site, and it's immune to criticism because personal sites don't have to unassailable.

---

I just had to comment on this - I once got a nasty e-mail from someone commenting on my site. He used to live in my area and had family living in my area. He dissed my little personal site as if it were a personal insult to him and his family that I had a vanity personal site that was just about me. He basically told me it was a waste of space.

I e-mailed him back and said I was sure his family would be proud of him for being so critical of his site. Now everytime I see that last name I think about him.

[/derail]

(and ... when I said before that I was going to update my site, I really meant that I was going to play Sims2 for an hour or so ... )
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
All this talk has got me wanting to make a webpage... I think I'll go pester people. And this time I'll tell them my prices have gone up. I think it is right, undercharing is doing them and me a disservice. If they pay me enough to make it worth my while, I'll be much more willing to make it for them and do a good job!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

How long is it going to be between work publishings, typically? Are you comfortable with the main page of your site having no new content in that period?

---

Why not just call me a lazy hack, fugu? Jeez! Why are you so mean? It's not MY fault you . . .


 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Uh, yeah, I can see the jump . . .

At least he only called you a lazy hack instead of a talentless hack . . .
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:sniff:

I'm not hurt at all. . . It only burns when I try to. . . you know. . . take a breath.

Seriously, those are some good points, fugu. I'll have to see how it looks when I implement them.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
And here I thought you were going to say "pee". Whew!

Hey, I didn't say you WERE a talentless hack, only that at least he didn't call you one.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

If you have a yen to go crazy with the features, I'd suggest making a family web page that incorporates every frame, blinking text, and rollover out there, just to get it out of your system. It's not classic design, but they are really fun. That way you get practice, your family gets a site, and it's immune to criticism because personal sites don't have to unassailable.

---

I missed this post. That's a great idea.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Just don't make an applet or flash animation with pixellated letters that spin across the screen continuously against a kitschy background, that's all I ask.

Please.
 

---

Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
 
I second fugu's request! (And add a plea of my own -- please, please, no harp music. Or that flutey-sounding thing that is not a flute. Please.)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I missed this post. That's a great idea."

That is in fact partly why my personal site is where bad design concepts go to die.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Thanks, Dag.

I totally want to make a dynamic cursor for my personal site.

Professional sites = pull out the criticsm. Personal sites = anything you want. The only people who will come are people who love you and strangers from whom you need nothing.

It could always be worse. I once worked with a guy on an e-commerce site who insisted that every product have its own midi theme song.
 

---

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
 

quote:

---

I once worked with a guy on an e-commerce site who insisted that every product have its own midi theme song.

---

LOL
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I love the sparkly stars that follow the cursor around at Madeleine L'Engle's site. Except that they don't work about half the time, and having a little red X-in-a-box following the cursor around is annoying.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ewww! Those are cute for about 30 seconds, and then they're just frequin' annoying!

Oh, and I'm not sure if I should be more exasperated with fugu's comment that I'm hardly a teenager (I know! I just had it rubbed Tuesday in that it's been almost 15 years since I graduated HS!) or with kat's comments about my posting style -- which, my dear, while I understand you were primarily responding to him, you really are in no position to criticize.

You don't like eye rolls? Fine; I'll do my best not to aim any in your direction. While I could defend using them, I am not going to. I do plan to continue their use when I consider them appropriate. Deal.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What on earth are you talking about?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
rivka, I meant nothing more than that your maturity level was obviously at least that of an early 20something
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Nice save.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
I know this is Scott R's thread. But at work we are setting up a Magnolia CMS server. I can handle the Tomcat stuff (mostly). But what I don't know is how to mod the CSS to make the site unique for our look. I'll be reading manuals with a coworker, but if anyone had any tips, I would appreciate it.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Pretty much you just create the CSS files, drop them into the appropriate directories, then point to them in your templates. They make an oblique reference to how this works in the introduction of the templating section of the developer documentation.

You'll need to look at the HTML their components generate to see how you'll neeed to do the styling.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I need to create a logo for my website, but I cannot draw worth anything. I don't want it to be anything really flashy; I'd prefer something along the lines of sakeriver.com's river. Something I can put on bookmarks that's distinctive yet humble. . .

Is there good, free software for this sort of thing? Right now, I'm just thinking of neat lettering, not a graphic of any sort. . . something distinctive that I can put on bookmarks.

This is what I came up with WordArt. Yes, I'm a Philistine. A dirty, stinking, Sarcen dog that eats what Microsoft slops into his bowl.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
At least you didn't use Comic Sans, Dauphin, or Papyrus. I'll give you points for that.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I think it's cute. If it had a jester's hat behind it it would be even cuter.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I thought about that, dkw, but I have some reservations:

I can't draw a jester's crown. Not even a little bit.

I don't want the site to be taken as a kiddie site--a lot of my fiction is dark stuff. I don't want the site to misrepresent my work, and then have to deal with all the traumatized parents of traumatized eight year olds.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I don't think it would necessarily have to look cartoony or childish.

But I can't draw one either.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Yeah, that's the BIG obstacle.


 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Can't believe nobody has mentioned the comprehensive source for website design solutions.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What font is it in, Scott?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Um. . . moldavian sanskrit?

Something like that. . .
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm pretty sure its Monotype Corsiva
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Looks like someone else is making a new website.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
With or without spikes?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Without; also, once you know what look you want, if you're interested I'd be happy to use the graphics software I have access to to make versions with cleaner lines (vector drawing programs are handy for this ) that are optimized for web use (a hint to start with: for images with few colors, always use gif or png; jpeg will be much larger for an image without significant artifacts).
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
www.lordofallfools.com

Tell me what you think! The site is still under developement. . . the Excerpt link works, as does the link to Amazon. Nothing else, though.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bone-crushingly... er, wait, that's not right.

I actually don't like three column layouts in general, although I know many disagree with me.

is the middle section going to be used for the current stuff - latest blog entires, news, etc.?

I like the logo.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Not bad at all, I like this sort of site . You'll be able to make it look much crisper if you make the text a very dark grey instead of black, and mess with the link colors (likely also a dark grey, but one that's noticeable as a grey, and prolly a heavier font-weight as well).

The white around the title on the excerpt page should likely be removed; consider a shade of grey for the title instead of black.

I suspect you'll want to spiff up the navigation a bit (some sort of rollover effect, maybe top and bottom borders or something), but that's pretty darn easy to do. Check out alistapart for several things on styling list-based menus.

I'd put a very very thin black border around the book image, keep it nice and bounded.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Re: three column, visually I'm sort of meh, but it does seem to have considerable benefits for certain organizational plans. I like it more when its messed with a bit (overlapping the columns with the text flowing around them, for instance).
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>I actually don't like three column layouts in general, although I know many disagree with me.


This was the simplest layout I could come up with that highlighted everything I wanted in one glance.

No scrolling on MY index page, thanks.

Not yet anyway.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What are you planning on changing, still? I don't want to mention anything that you are planning on changing already.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mention away.

I'm planning on changing everything, eventually.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I'd line up the tops of the columns. Right now they're sort of floating. What did you use to make the graphic? If it's something like Photoshop, you should anti-alias the edges so they're nice and smooth. And if you want a content editor, I know a guy who has recently become available.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Too grey. Too grey. Too grey. It looks like something designed by someone who likes Linux.

You're a Lord of Fools, dude! Do something motley! Seriously, it looks very staid and professional and not the least bit wacky. It's very readable and easy to navigate, but I'd throw a splash of color into your BODY tag. Since you've got those grey boxes floating there to hold your actual text, why not go a little wild with the background behind them?

I'd also make all three columns match height and reduce the space between them; it'd probably help if the leftmost column expanded -- under higher resolutions -- to make wrap unnecessary.
 

---

Posted by Art Vandelay (Member # 8690) on :
 
It seems like their should be a top border above the columns. Just a spaceholder to move the columns more to the middle of the page.

My unprofessional opinion.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I need to revise my website. http://www.corgipages.com I did the first iteration myself because I wanted the experience of learning how to do it, even though it was a bit hellish, especially because my primary educational resource was my significant other, who was less than forthcoming, since in the "old days" all he did was notepad hand coding himself, but he hasn't done it in years and is rusty.

I tried both Adobe GoLive and Dreamweaver, and I felt much more comfortable with Adobe because I was already familiar with their icons due to the ubiquitous nature of Adobe Acrobat. However, we had an older somewhat buggy version that caused me to switch to Dreamweaver eventually.

The website still isn't great but it serves its purpose. (Feel free to critique and use as an example here for anything you feel like.) I'm still a novice and I'll probably never be an expert, though I don't think I did anything too horribly embarrasing for a beginner. I know I need to get rid of my background, though I sentimentally thought it was a good idea at the time, because they are symbolic, Welsh quilting designs.

Interestingly, Lead, of all people, actually reccommends tables for dog pedigrees. http://www.kellyhide.dk/dogs/KellyhidesAmbrosius.html#ped

I know she hand codes them, and I cheated and used the feature in Dreamweaver on mine. http://sjonesce.home.comcast.net/LowRyder/Jake/JakesPedigree.htm

To me, as a novice, CSS, is like this giant black hole, that I don't understand at all. I'm afraid of the CSS box on Dreamweaver, because I'm afraid I'll break something.

This thread is inspiring me to do a revision. My biggest problem, I suspect, is based in the underlying structure of the site.

It's one web address which is masked, because I'm using my free ISP space for the actual storage since I'm a cheapskate and this *isn't* a professional job. It's divided into two "sides" the Kingsbury side and the Lowryder side. The Kingsbury side has more information because she has more canines. My opening page, with the two logos, where you can choose which to go to, now looks really cheesy to me.

Anyone have a better idea? Also, if I get rid of the frames (like I know I should) do I use templates to get each page to still have a directional bar somewhere and a header at the top of the page?

AJ
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>You're a Lord of Fools, dude! Do something motley!<<

The wacky logo isn't enough?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Oh-- and Tom, i'm THE Lord of All Fools.

Okay, well, not exactly THE. But I know him.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
It needs color on the left-side. Right now the only thing eye-catching is the book cover -- which might be what you want, except that it's got some other author's name on the front, not yours.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Banna, your banner is too wide. I hate side-scrolling.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Yeah, I need to figure that out (thank you for reminding me). I'm not sure why it does that, but I think if I get rid of the frames it will fix it.

I did the banner in photoshop and I think it's too detailed for what is actually needed. I got carried away with Gaelic fonts.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Man, Anna, I saw that dog pedigree table and just realized that application is a TEXTBOOK example of how useful XML could be. If you coded it right, you could set up a pedigree chart for three hundred dogs in this generation as easily as you could for five.

That aside, your site uses a tiled background and splash page inside a frameset. It's pretty much what they tell you not to do nowadays.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
BTW, Scott, while I actually like the logo, it does not suggest "fun-loving fool" to me. It suggests "Goth slasher." I wouldn't rely on it to bring the funny.

Art's suggestion of a top border above all three columns is an excellent one. You'll notice that most column formats include this, as it's a good way to include your site logo and primary navigation on all pages.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Did you read my initial post Tom? That's exactly what I know I need to change, though I'm a bit fuzzy on how exactly I'm supposed to do it. I *think* I need to investigate templates more from what kat said but I'm not sure how.

As far as the xml coding... I know fugu was looking at my pedigrees for doing some sort of application with them. However. I'm clueless. I don't even really know *what* XML is! (I know it means "something" markup language) I mean I think I know what it is supposed to *do*, as far as adding tags so that the data can be tracked easier but have no idea how to do it.

I freely admit I'm not a pro. And, since I'm not, when you discuss making changes, I'd appreciate a hint for *how* to go about making the changes, to at least get me started so I can figure it out, as my goal is to learn. I don't want to be a pro, but I do want to learn how to do things *myself* (insert little girl stamping foot here)

My goal on the first iteration was to avoid dancing bunnies, and get some sort of semi-coherent content together in one place. Which I did, although it was a struggle.

Now that I've been able to sit back and look at it more objectively I know it needs another revision. But I want to plan it out more. I had to just jump in with both feet and start trying stuff last time so that I could learn anything at all.

I know the mickey mouse short community college courses on webdesign are useless, or I'd sign up You guys are a much better resource.


AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Eliminating the frameset should probably be your first step, since it'll speed up the page a LOT and you don't seem to actually use frames for much, anyway.

What you want to do is research the use of either tables or CSS to duplicate the navigation you're using frames to create. If you go the table route, I recommend looking into SHTML; it'll make it easier for you to display the same header and footer on every page. If you go the CSS route, SHTML won't be as necessary.

Since you don't know much about tables at this point, I'd actually recommend that you devote time to learning CSS; it's easier to learn positioning with CSS than it is to unlearn using tables for positioning and move to CSS, and everyone's pretty sure that CSS is the way things are going to be positioned from now on.

And for a site as basic as the one you've laid out, I'd really go with hand code rather than muck around with Dreamweaver or GoLive; both are perfectly capable tools, but it's a lot more interesting to figure out what's going on under the hood by doing it by hand.

That said, here's how I'd go about making the changes:

1) Identify your primary navigation elements. You have a left-hand link bar and a top navigation/logo bar. That's pretty standard, which means that a lot of existing CSS templates out there would work for you (if you didn't want to do this from scratch).

2) Decide whether you really need a splash screen to redirect people to two different pages, or whether you could combine both of those into a single page.

3) Research how to use the DIV tag in CSS to create your navigation elements. To reproduce your site would only require a few DIVs. You can Google these keywords for step-by-step instructions from a number of sites.

4) Rewrite your content to include only the text you want, organized into the appropriate DIVs.

5) Write your CSS file to define the position, color, and size of your DIV elements (and other things like your BODY colors, text, links, etc.)
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
where do I go to learn CSS?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I don't think you reallize how dum I actually am when it comes to this stuff Tom.

As far as googling it, yes I can google CSS, but I'm not sure which sites are actually good for the "how to" and which are bad.

The rest sounds doable, provided I understand css programing syntax. And that is what I really have I have no clue about.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The syntax is easier than it sounds. Basically, it's just a matter of remembering the names of the various properties each element can possess (like font-size, background-color, etc.)

Looking at examples really helps, and should give you the idea faster than any explanation would.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Keep in mind that while CSS is the wave of the future, it's still the wave of the future. Tables are still standard.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
This reminds me that I need to get in more work on the KennelML I was developing, and associated tools.

AJ: Tables are better for pedigrees because pedigrees are tables, semantically (of a sort).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Keep in mind that while CSS is the wave of the future, it's still the wave of the future. Tables are still standard.

---

That's not really true.

Tables are still used for layout on many sites, but I doubt more new sites (ones not tied in some way to an existing template) are created with tables.

It's kind of like saying plaster and lathe is standard wall covering because it still exists in millions of homes (although of course the time frame is very different).

CSS certainly isn't just the wave of the future. It's used now, on many sites, and has measurable benefits for those sites.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
AJ-- I'm convinced that you're smarter than me, and I didn't have a terrible time doing basic CSS. The biggest help was this help site, by the Web Design Group. Fugu's recommendation of csszengarden.com was also a big help.

Let me also recommend Mezzoblue Zengarden as a place to explore and learn.

I don't know much still, but this has been a pretty fun project.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Were you seriously developing a kennel markup, Russell? I was joking, but I could see that kind of thing being very useful to dog breeders and enthusiasts -- especially if they usually lay out pedigree tables the way we see on Lead's site.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yep, I am (again). I'm somewhat frustrated because I must do the XML version, so's common dog software will be able to export/import it if they so choose, because the programmers are not going to be familiar with RDF in almost certainty.

The RDF version is much prettier.

It'll make things like generating pedigrees in many formats very, very easy.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
The nice thing about this is, that I can chalk it up to learning at work, because they want all of us to become proficient at least putting words on a web page. I've got a lull in work projects at the moment. Here it's either chaos craziness with projects or very little, and I'm now on the thin end of the cycle.

fugu gave me this website last night on IM. I think I need to do the HTML tutorial at least partially first, because my HTML skills are weak. I've never done direct coding, always let Dreamweaver do it for me. I understand and respect the value of it though.

I definitely have some sort of mental hangup on this stuff. I'm not sure why. Yes it isn't a "programming language" persay, but I've never really liked coding. Did Dr. Logo way back when as a kid and then beginning fortran in the required class in college. (Would have rather taken Basic but I couldn't fit it in my class schedule)

I know this is something I *need* to care about for both my personal and professional life. I think it's because it doesn't come as instinctively for me as straight math or chemistry does. I'm sure I'm perpetuating it in myself because I feel inferior. Even though my dad has had computers in the family since the 8088 PC, we never had internet access. Other than brief library research, I didn't use the internet or have e-mail until I went to college at 18 (1997). A large majority of my friends were on the world wide web at much younger ages, and know far more hard-core coding and programming because they had to know it to be on back then.

I had another, less technical friend reccommend this site to me for reference http://www.htmlgoodies.com/primers/html/article.php/3478141 however I know some of their information is outdated or faulty. I think the difference between the two tutorial programs though exactly demonstrates the difference in "sex appeal" in site and content. In this case the goodies site has a lot more sex appeal in how the tutorials are presented (in a more "for dummies" mode without making you feel dumb) while the w3 school site, is much more boring and technical albeit more comprehensive and correct.

Either way I'm going to start plowing through them and see where I get.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Fixed up the website a bit:

Blog is working, though I need to change the design-- it's not consistent with the rest of the site. Ditto the Contact link. (MUCH thanks to EJS, who helped get these two functional)

Fixed the headers' background.

Added a placeholder for the Writers' Resources section.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Shaping up nicely. Might want to delete the comment on your first blog entry.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I updated the site (www.lordofallfools.com) with some Free Foolishness, and now the nav bar on the left gets all whacked down.

But only in IE.

Why is that?

Also, I removed the link to the blog, which I couldn't figure out how to get to match the rest of the site; I'm considering using word press to make the rest of the site match the blog, if I can ever find a template that works and doesn't make me want to scratch my eyes out.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Ahh, figured it out. Missing ".

Dirty quotation marks. Always confounding my plans.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I love that you added content, but I'd put it in the middle. As it is, I hae to scroll down to see it, and there's lot of empty space in the middle and on the left. Since it is a list of links, maybe you could put it in the box on the left?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Kat-- that's not a bad idea.

Changed it.

Remember-- nothing is static. Everything will change.

Again.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I'd follow Kat's initial advice and put the freebie stuff in the middle (below the intro) with a teaser from each piece.

Also: I don't know how you are doing this, but you should be able to set up the site so that each section can be fed by a blog (or at least the middle section). This can make for much easier updating and archiving of material.

Also: The blog link doesn't appear on the main page -- only on the individual pages.

Keep at it, Scott. The building is hard work, but you have a major advantage over many, many Web sites out there: good content and the ability to create more good content.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
How do you do that, Zal?

I'm using wordpress as blog software-- I'd love to be able to just link the content of a blog to my design.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 


I told you everything would change.

Lord of All Fools

I added an entry page, also added content for my Resources section. The design of course is completely different.

I'll work on the F&S page next, and maybe even blog some.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I'm not a big fan of white text, but I have to say that I like the look of the site.

RE adding the blog to the main page:

I don't know. I haven't played around with Wordpress -- you should be able to point the xml feed of the blog to the main page so that it published the results of the feed. You then should be able to edit the feed so that it publishes the headlines and the first few sentences of each blog post (or just the headline, or a headline and a summary, or the headline and the full post).
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I like the new "Lord of all Fools" logo. I'm not sure about the little crayon dude, though.

Edit: and I dislike "entry" pages in general, although at least yours has a tiny bit of content on it.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
I'm liking it.

Your Enter image needs to be aliased.

Perhaps put your poem on the side of the image so that one doesn't have to scroll down.

What do you think of using red/yellow/green/purple jester colors?

http://images.google.com/images?q=jester+costume
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Human: I like the black and white look for right now.

dkw: The entry page was supposed to be a little more complex than that-- I was going to have the LOAF Face centered on the page, and when you scroll over it, it becomes the poem. Clicking on the poem would take you to the main page.

But that seemed a tad complex, and anyway, I can't program in Java.

More than anything else, I wanted to get the LOAF poem out in front of the website, as I feel it sets the tone rather well-- a little creepy, a little light.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

But that seemed a tad complex, and anyway, I can't program in Java.

---

Google the word "mouseover."
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Can you do a mouseover of text? Or does he have to make his poem an image? I believe if he uses div tags and css he can probably do a mouseover of text. Isn't that suppose to be called dhtml?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Here's what you do: make your a tag display: block, and wrap all the text in it in some tag (a span, perhaps). By default, have the background image on the a tag be the LOAF face (you'll need to set the size appropriately so this is entirely visible) and the span (or whatever) inside the a tag be invisible. Then define two rules, a:hover span and a:hover. The former makes the span visible, the latter removes the background image.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'd like to make a selectable menu of poems, similar to what OSC has in his online library.

How do I go about this? I've got it appearing right, but clicking the 'Go' button doesn't take me anywhere. I'm assuming I need a script of some type; how/where do I set this up?

EDIT: While I'm wishing for help, what I'd REALLY like to do is have the poems display on the same page as the drop down box. That way, the viewer can select, read, select another, read. . .

[ November 16, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
Try this.

It may help, or it may not. You know more about webdesign than I do, but this helped me.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I've got it appearing right, but clicking the 'Go' button doesn't take me anywhere.

---

code:

---

<style type="text/css">
	.visible {
		display: block;
	}
	.invisible {
		display: none;
	}
</style>
<script type="text/javascript">
function showPoem(poemId) {
	poems = document.getElementsByName('poem')
	for(var ii = 0; ii < poems.length; ii++) {
		poems[ii].className = 'invisible'
	}
	newPoem = document.getElementById(poemId)
	newPoem.className = 'visible'
}
</script>

---

code:

---

<form name="poemForm">
<select name="poemChooser"
onChange="showPoem(document.poemForm.poemChooser.options[document.poemForm.poemChooser.selectedIndex].value)">
<option value="poem1">Poem One's Title</option>
<option value="poem2">Poem Two's Title</option>
</select>
</form>

---

code:

---

<div name="poem" id="poem1" class="visible"><!-- this will be the poem
visible when the person goes to the page;
this should be the first poem in the dropdown,
as the dropdown only activates onchange,
meaning if the person tries to select
the first poem right off it won't work -->
<p>The first poem!</p>
</div>
<div name="poem" id="poem2" class="invisible">
<p>The second poem!</p>
</div>

---

You can see a working version of this code in place at http://rduhon.suso.org/poems.html
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Russell, you're a beautiful man.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
You're kind of cute too, Tom. Especially when you giggle like a Japanese school girl.



Thanks, fugu. I'll give the code a test tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Wow. That works REALLY well, fugu. Thank you sooooooooooooo much.

Check out the results here.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Hmm. . .

The code works fine in Firefox/Mozilla, but in IE, it adds new selections to the end of the old selections-- so the page keeps growing, and growing. . .

??
 

---

Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
 
Try this

code:

---

<script type="text/javascript">
function showPoem(poemId){
poems = document.getElementsByTagName('div');
	for(var ii = 0; ii < poems.length; ii++){
		var AttrDiv = poems[ii].attributes;
	    var Attr = AttrDiv.getNamedItem("name");
		if(Attr = 'poem'){
			poems[ii].className = 'invisible';
		}
	}
	newPoem = document.getElementById(poemId);
	newPoem.className = 'visible';
}
</script>

---

code:

---

<script type="text/javascript">
function showPoem(poemId){
poems = document.getElementsByTagName('span');
	for(var ii = 0; ii < poems.length; ii++){
		var AttrSpan = poems[ii].attributes;
	    	var Attr = AttrSpan.getNamedItem('name');
	    	var Val = Attr.value;
		if(Val = 'poem'){
			poems[ii].className = 'invisible';
		}
	};
	newPoem = document.getElementById(poemId);
	newPoem.className = 'visible';
}
</script>

---

-OR-

You can make sure all of the Div elements have a name attribute.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Historian-- thanks! That seems to have fixed the problem with IE, and it also works in Firefox.

dkw, kat-- you should be able to enjoy Frivel and Schleck in all its intended splendor now.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Great! It works great now.

Two more sugestions:

1. I think your graphics and logo are too big. I have to scroll for all the content, and it means that all the pages sort of look alike because the part that changes is under the fold. I think if you either make the jester and logo smaller or put them all on one side and skinnier, it would be easier to see the content.

2. Include the title of the Frivel and Shreck poems at the top of the text of the poem, unless these are of the kind of poems that don't really have titles and the titles in the list are for convenience's sake.
 

---

Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Historian-- thanks! That seems to have fixed the problem with IE, and it also works in Firefox.

---

No problem. Let's just say that I bit of history with javascript...
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Splendoricious.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Wow, dkw. That's a great word.


 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*files under annoying IE-isms.*

I really need to get together some way of running IE so I can test for that sort of silliness. I think I'll buy a cheap copy of XP through my school and run it in Virtual PC (we get that free at IU).

Glad I was able to help .
 

---

Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
 
Yeah... I've been cross browser coding for nearly 8 years and you never know when an oddity will pop up with CSS or Javascript. IE holds a special place for me. Everytime they release a new version I spend a week trying to figure out the least amount of javascript I need to write to cause it to crash. In IE 5 you could do it with one line of code dealing with the options of a select tag.

whoops.. notice a few of you just got the "Deer in the headlights look"...
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Cross browser coding. . .

Mmmmm. . .

One of the hardest things in this project has been making the website work for both IE and Mozilla. I'm a Mozilla/Firefox devotee, and only use IE when I have a microsoft app to use (OWA, for example). I forget that people still use IE. So I built the website using Firefox at my browser and didn't think twice about IE.

Imagine my chagrin when I saw it for the first time in IE, and everything was bigger than it was supposed to be, mashed together, and generally very, very ugly.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

whoops.. notice a few of you just got the "Deer in the headlights look"...

---

Or not. You'd be surprised by how many people here are coders. *grin*

Scott: that's why I, as a web designer, force myself to use IE as my primary browser. Because I have to design things for IE, simply as a consequence of its user base, and can't afford to forget. I'd actually prefer to use Firefox most of the time, but can't allow myself the luxury.

That said, I've got the IE7 beta on my desktop right now and am really, really hopeful about it.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'll keep that in mind for the next pages I develop. . . thanks, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QUOTE]
that's why I, as a web designer, force myself to use IE as my primary browser. Because I have to design things for IE, simply as a consequence of its user base, and can't afford to forget.

---

Well I sold my soul to MS long ago... I'm WISE(Windows, IIS, SQL, Explorer) coder, mostly converting custom applications to web-based applications. I've done a little LAMP(Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP), but not recently.

In 1998 Microsoft rolled out IE4 which was the first IE to have a robust javascript engine. MS teamed up with Windows Magazine and Wrox publishing to have a DHTML contest. I placed 3rd.

I do have a personal website that is completely a CSS based and ASP/Access driven blog.
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Funny. I sold my soul to Apple. I haven't used IE in.... has it been a year yet? I think I only have to launch Word once a month, maybe twice. I can count the number of hours I've used Windows over the past 5 years on one hand. I am not kidding. I have no idea how to use the OS. I would do better off with Linux.

We should get together and have tea.

Oh, Scott, your webpage looks fine in Safari as well.
 

---

Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
 
Tea it is then.. I got my programming start on and Apple ][ green screen, then a ][c amber and finally a ][e in glorious color.

My father gave me a TI-99 4/a and I started to learn basic.

Then promptly forgot about computers for more than a decade.

At somepoint I got interested in the internet and purchased a computer and access. The first webrowser I used was Netscape .48 Beta.

So yes, I'm an early Gen X'er. Goth before goth was goth...
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Hahaha! I first started on an Atari 400, then 800, then Apple ][ at school, then Commodore 64! I actually wrote a game where 2 arrow things (spaceships) flew towards each other. One was trying to crash into the other, which was trying not to be crashed into. My little brother lasted about 10 seconds before he told me it was stupid and wouldn't play it.

I remember my oldest brother talking about this thing called C and how it was so much better than BASIC but it required semi colons at the end of every line and made no sense to me...

Then this thing called IBM compatibles started coming out and nobody could figure out why anyone bought them because it didn't come with joystick ports! Oh the bickering was bad.

Then I quit using computers for about a decade too!

How things changed... Ironically, I started using Windows more than Mac as it was what everyone used. But I majored in music and all they had were Macs, so that is what I spent my time on. And then I got a student job handing out CD's to music students and used a Mac for the CD catalog (FileMaker), and it wasn't managed very strictly, so naturally I had to figure out how to change all the system graphics (for example I put a worm in the apple in the AppleMenu and changed the About this Computer graphic to say "Moc OS" (as in mockery... hehehe)). And I started fixing their CD catalog which was a mess, and then I got hired to do more FileMaker database stuff... It has been nothing but downhill from there... what happened to my music degree?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Updated the website a little bit-- removed the poem on the first page, so it goes right to the vital information; also changed the Blog page menu to (sort of) match the rest of the site.

And I even updated my blog with a rant on Ikea and the place of cheap furniture in marriage.

www.LordOfAllFools.com
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
I like the blog on Ikea, and I agree. I always end up reinforcing my cheap-mass-produced furniture with L brackets aplenty.

I should also mention that I got a lot of helpful hints for my website from this thread, although I ended up scrapping my homemade index page and creating my own wordpress template. So now I can use wordpress for my CM.

entropicalisle.com if you're interested.
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
Hah. I love that Ikea story, Scott. My girlfriend is in love with Ikea, and doesn't understand why I groan when she says we need to go there for the 4th time in two weeks.

--ApostleRadio
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I have to side scroll to read the welcome message.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Grr... I can't figure out why, dkw.

I tested on both my home computers, my work computer and every browser that I have available to me.

Is anyone else seeing the same thing as dkw?

Looking back, I see that kat mentioned the logo on the front page being too big...dkw, is that what's making the page too big?

[ April 17, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Could be, although it could also be that having two columns in the bottom part of the box with the welcome message means the text won't wrap(is that the right word -- I mean automatically line break to fit the screen) into short enough lines.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Thanks, dkw-- I'll take a look at it in a bit.
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
I'm not having that problem.

--ApostleRadio
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The only furniture kits I will buy these days (and let's be honest, Ikea doesn't sell furniture, they sell furniture kits) is from Sauder or O'Sullivan. Their wood is strong, their hardware is excellent, and their instructions and wonderful. And the finished product is both nice-looking and sturdy.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
We do like Ikea-- as I explain in the blog, through the magical use of hyperbole, I don't like it as much as my wife does.

We do like being able to feed 3/4s of the children a good meal for < $8 total, which is possible at our Ikea, with its nifty cafeteria.

And I like a lot of the demo set ups. We like to browse for ideas, and pick up some space saving stuff for closets and kitchen cabinets, and sometimes M. will look for fabric to make slip covers or curtains for the kids' rooms from. We've purchased some shelving from Ikea for use in the toy room, and it's worked out okay.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
The last furniture we bought was a small filing cabinet from O'Sullivan. We got a great price on it at BigLots. I'm very impressed with how sturdy it is, as opposed to all the junky assemble-it-yourself stuff that we have.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm redesigning the website-- Tom's comment that it was too dark or something back on page 1 of this thread has been working its way through my subconscious.

I've hit on a theme of sorts... but I'm having some problems with embedding links inside images.

Of course, this only happens with IE. With Firefox, it looks fine. The following lines are supposed to make the default blue square around links inside images match the color of the surrounding area:

quote:

---

a.buttonlink:link { text-decoration: none; color: #f5d95c; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; }
a.buttonlink:visited {text-decoration: none; color: #f5d95c; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; }

---

quote:

---

<A href="index.html" class="buttonlink"><img src="images/HomeLink2.JPG"></A></td>

---

code:

---

border-style: none;

---

code:

---

img { border-style: none; }

---

code:

---

 <style type="text/css">
	.visible {
		display: block;
	}
	.invisible {
		display: none;
	}
</style> 

---

code:

---

 <script type="text/javascript">
function showanswer(answerId){
answers = document.getElementsByTagName('span');
	for(var ii = 0; ii < answers.length; ii++){
		var AttrSpan = answers[ii].attributes;
	    	var Attr = AttrSpan.getNamedItem('name');
	    	var Val = Attr.value;
		if(Val = 'answer'){
			answers[ii].className = 'invisible';
		}
	};
	newanswer = document.getElementById(answerId);
	newanswer.className = 'visible';
}
</script>
 

---

code:

---

<form name="answerForm">
<select name="answerChooser"
onChange="showanswer(document.answerForm.answerChooser.options[document.answerForm.answerChooser.selectedIndex].value)">
<option value="answer1">answer One's Title</option>
<option value="answer2">answer Two's Title</option>
</select>
</form>

---

code:

---

<span name="answer" id="answer1" class="visible"><!-- this will be the answer
visible when the person goes to the page;
this should be the first answer in the dropdown,
as the dropdown only activates onchange,
meaning if the person tries to select
the first answer right off it won't work -->
<p>The first answer!</p>
</span>

<span name="answer" id="answer2" class="invisible">
<p>The second answer!</p>
</span>

---

What I'm finding is that I can't put more than one dropdown list on the same page. If I do, NEITHER of the lists' answers show up in the designated span area.

Any ideas why this is occurring?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Can you provide a link to a page with the problem?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
This first link shows the script working correctly.

This second link shows the problem I'm having.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Are you giving unique names and ids to each of the dropdown lists?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Changing the second sections form name, select name, and answer ID allows the display to work for the second section, but makes the first section's display invisible...
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You'll need to change the onChange event on each form field, too, to reflect the correct form field name. Notice that it currently passes this value back to the showanswer() function:

document.answerForm.answerChooser.options[document.answerForm.answerChooser.selectedIndex].value

If you've changed the name of the second dropdown list to, say, "answerChooser2" and haven't changed the above line to say "answerChooser2," you'll actually be passing the value of the first dropdown to this function.

I'm not much of a Javascript guy, but I think you could use this.options instead. It'd save you from having to "fix" each field manually.

Also note that, as written, EACH answer has to have a unique answer ID, not just within the question but on the page. If you have 10 questions with 5 answers each, you're going to need answerIDs from 1 to 50.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Right, and that's what I did; it still makes the first section's response invisible.

I inserted a second showanswer script, renamed it, and it still makes the first option invisible when I choose an item from the second dropdown list...


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
The Third Example, illustrating the above
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
That's due to the way you're currently collecting the names of the spans. You create a collection called "answers" and iterate through it. It then sets all the "answer" spans invisible, and sets only the span tag with the ID sent to the function visible.

So every time you select something, ALL the spans will vanish, and then the one you selected will appear.

If you want correct answers from other questions to remain visible at all times, you're probably going to want to use a different way of toggling visibility on a span or DIV. If you want ALL answers to stay visible once selected, just remove the line that sets them invisible and manually set the display CSS attribute of each span to "none" in the document itself. That way, this code will make them visible once selected.

If you want only answers within a given question to toggle visibility on and off, you're going to have to substantially modify that function.

------

BTW, be aware that the answers will all show in the source code. Is that acceptable?

[ September 13, 2006, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tom--

Thanks-- I'll give it a shot.

It's completely okay that the answers are visible in the source code.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
BTW, if you were going to substantially modify the function so as to enable the display of only the most recently selected answer per question, the easiest way to do that would be to use a naming convention for your answers and questions like so:

Q1 (dropdown), Q1A1, Q1A2, Q1A3, Q2 (dropdown), Q2A1, Q2A2, etc.

What you could then do is add to the showAnswer() function an IF statement that only applies invisibility if the current span has a name which starts with a string equivalent to the name of the firing dropdown list. You still wind up iterating through all the spans in the document (which isn't the most efficient way to do this), but it'd be a quick and dirty fix.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oh, one more thing: you won't need more than one function. I just looked at your example (to my shame; I should have done that first), and you're duplicating more than you need to be. I'll try to quickly work something up from my bed. (I'm home sick today.)

Basically, it looks like there's more functionality built into the function than I at first supposed, thanks to separate use of the "name" and "id" attributes on the span tags.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Dirty, maybe. Quick? Well, we'll see how long it takes me.

Thanks, Tom.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Grr. My host appears to be down temporarily, which is annoying mainly because I have functional code to give you.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay, looks like it's back up. Tell me if this page looks like what you want:
http://www.plastic-castle.com/TestScript3.html

If so, just grab the source and run.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
That's exactly it-- thanks, Tom!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm using a slide show script and a dropdown script-- both implement Java.

Dropdown Menu

Slideshow Script

(This is for a project at work...)

Is there a way that I can access the scripts (I have them both in external .js files) WITHOUT Internet Explorer popping up and blocking the code?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Err...nevermind.

I just read about the difference between local zones (on the harddrive) and zones on the internet.

It works fine on the company shared drive.

THANKS, HATRACK!
 

---