iggypop
06-03-2003, 08:54 AM
http://impressur.com
Hi all, thank you for the critic :)
Hi all, thank you for the critic :)
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : my first website review please
AdamGundry
06-03-2003, 08:59 AM
First, validate your HTML (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fimpressur.com%2F) and fix the errors. You might want to use HTML 4.01 instead of HTML 4.0.
Oh, and provide an alternate navigation method to Javascript - about 13% of users do not have it enabled.
Adam
Oh, and provide an alternate navigation method to Javascript - about 13% of users do not have it enabled.
Adam
Bullschmidt
06-03-2003, 02:58 PM
Was alright, but to me the lefthand column seemed a little wide and the words in it could be smaller. Also the words in the menu at the left seemed like they should be left-aligned or centered but not right-aligned. Just my $0.02, help it helps.
iggypop
06-03-2003, 03:46 PM
i knew something looked bad there. it was kind of to wide. thanks once again.
iggypop
06-03-2003, 08:18 PM
no more critiques? wow so i guess website (http://impressur.com) is perfect!:D
iggypop
06-03-2003, 08:39 PM
Question to adam. What if i won't validate my page? what difference does it make? what if instead of <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> i input something like that? <!-- meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 1.0" -->
does it really matters?
P.S no frontapge was involved :) created with notepad, baby
thank you for your time. iggy
does it really matters?
P.S no frontapge was involved :) created with notepad, baby
thank you for your time. iggy
brendandonhue
06-03-2003, 08:53 PM
If you don't use a doctype, the browser will decide which to use for you, and if its default doctype is not the one you designed it with, it will not appear correctly.
iggypop
06-03-2003, 09:03 PM
so adam told me to change from 4.0 to 4.01. For what? if i always used 4.0 and change it to a 4.01 than i shouldnt get the error anyway. i think i will change doctype to a fronpage one just for fun,. I hate standarts! Iggy
havik
06-03-2003, 10:47 PM
Standards are annoying at times but I think it's neccesary :D
Havik
Havik
iggypop
06-03-2003, 11:19 PM
really? if you think that validation is important how about that? MarkUp Validation Service-- check this one out please do you think this guys dont know? (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmicrosoft.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29) . Just wondering.
khaki
06-03-2003, 11:35 PM
all that you have succeeded in doing with that link is to set the anti-Microsoft critics into a lather :rolleyes:
just forget what everyone else has done (there are a LOT of sites out there that have not been updated in a while).
if you code to the standards... you'll be fine.
if you "hate the standards"...
then stop asking for critiques :rolleyes: ... no one likes a belligerent smart-*ss.
prefers the real Iggy....
;) k
just forget what everyone else has done (there are a LOT of sites out there that have not been updated in a while).
if you code to the standards... you'll be fine.
if you "hate the standards"...
then stop asking for critiques :rolleyes: ... no one likes a belligerent smart-*ss.
prefers the real Iggy....
;) k
iggypop
06-03-2003, 11:40 PM
i love microsoft and i think they know little stuff like html. just asking people's opinion.
iggypop
06-03-2003, 11:43 PM
i am just trying to figure out what is this drama for. and why most sites are not using it.
iggypop
06-03-2003, 11:46 PM
it is my first website, remember. just trying to figure out the errors i behaved.
spufi
06-04-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by iggypop
it is my first website, remember. just trying to figure out the errors i behaved.
Put a 4.01 Strict Doctype in your page, validate your page, and there's your errors.
it is my first website, remember. just trying to figure out the errors i behaved.
Put a 4.01 Strict Doctype in your page, validate your page, and there's your errors.
jeffmott
06-04-2003, 01:57 AM
MarkUp Validation Service: http://microsoft.com/We already know Microsoft is lazy. I say lazy rather than dumb because, being one of the largest software companies, I'm sure they do have some people who do know what they're doing. But you have to realize that Gates is more businessman than computer scientist. That means Microsoft's policy is the greatest profit for the least work, and eliminating the competition. In this case, Microsoft benefits from not following the HTML specification. Since IE currently hold ~90% of the market, MS purposely introduces proprietary code so that Web sites will work in IE and break everywhere else.What if i won't validate my page? what difference does it make?What you also have to realize is that the specifications and validation are not there just to annoy people. They come from the people who invented, and continue to develop, HTML and the World Wide Web. And there are real reasons for the errors they return to you.
For exampleLine 23, column 18: there is no attribute "BACKGROUND" (explain...).
<table background="images/tablebg.gif" width="100%" height="100" border=0 cellpa
^
Line 23, column 59: there is no attribute "HEIGHT" (explain...).
...ges/tablebg.gif" width="100%" height="100" border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacingHTML was never designed for specifying the "look" of a document and it is not well suited for the job. You have much more control over the visuals of your site (and it becomes much more maintainable) if all style definitions are kept separate from the HTML document. In addition, using structural markup because you like how it visually renders in your browser wreaks havok in other browsers, especially ones for the blind.Line 47, column 78: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "Mode"
...com/linkxpro/linkxpro.asp?Task=Click&Mode=HTML&MemID=2930&SzID=1&PageID=1570"In this case you have variable names such as Mode, MemID, and SzID. But what if one of the var names started with quot, amp, copy? The answer is they get converted to their character entity. Hence, the W3C's validator warns you of a potential problem that you have overlooked.
So anyway, the whole point here is that, whether you are aware of them or not, there are very real reasons for everything the W3C says you should or shouldn't do. You should set a standard for yourself to always write pages that pass validation. Your pages will be much more accessible and can eliminate any potential problems before they actually become a problem.
HTML 4.01 Specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/)
For exampleLine 23, column 18: there is no attribute "BACKGROUND" (explain...).
<table background="images/tablebg.gif" width="100%" height="100" border=0 cellpa
^
Line 23, column 59: there is no attribute "HEIGHT" (explain...).
...ges/tablebg.gif" width="100%" height="100" border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacingHTML was never designed for specifying the "look" of a document and it is not well suited for the job. You have much more control over the visuals of your site (and it becomes much more maintainable) if all style definitions are kept separate from the HTML document. In addition, using structural markup because you like how it visually renders in your browser wreaks havok in other browsers, especially ones for the blind.Line 47, column 78: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "Mode"
...com/linkxpro/linkxpro.asp?Task=Click&Mode=HTML&MemID=2930&SzID=1&PageID=1570"In this case you have variable names such as Mode, MemID, and SzID. But what if one of the var names started with quot, amp, copy? The answer is they get converted to their character entity. Hence, the W3C's validator warns you of a potential problem that you have overlooked.
So anyway, the whole point here is that, whether you are aware of them or not, there are very real reasons for everything the W3C says you should or shouldn't do. You should set a standard for yourself to always write pages that pass validation. Your pages will be much more accessible and can eliminate any potential problems before they actually become a problem.
HTML 4.01 Specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/)
iggypop
06-04-2003, 08:49 AM
Guys thank you for your advises.
iggypop
06-04-2003, 11:29 AM
guys another question. if horisontal line we use <hr>
how i define vertical line?
how i define vertical line?
AdamGundry
06-04-2003, 11:52 AM
Slightly tricky - there is no direct equivalent. You could wrap the content in a <div> and use CSS to specify a border on one side only, or there are various other ways of doing it.
Adam
Adam
spufi
06-04-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by AdamGundry
Slightly tricky - there is no direct equivalent. You could wrap the content in a <div> and use CSS to specify a border on one side only, or there are various other ways of doing it.
Adam
This is the way that I do it. I've also played around with using borders a little bit to where I use them to create colored <hr> type lines, and even give them their own borders on top of that. I can get something like a red line with a black border on it. I haven't done it for vertical lines, but with some extra code I don't see why it can't be done. I haven't tried so don't quote me on that. ;)
Another cool effect I was working on for a template was having two divs put together with one inside of the other. The outer one had a border on the right and bottom. The inner and smaller div had a border on the left and top. It gave it a look of a box with borders going slightly past the box on the bottom left and top right sides. Sadly, I never finished the template and I can't seem to find it. Grrr.
Slightly tricky - there is no direct equivalent. You could wrap the content in a <div> and use CSS to specify a border on one side only, or there are various other ways of doing it.
Adam
This is the way that I do it. I've also played around with using borders a little bit to where I use them to create colored <hr> type lines, and even give them their own borders on top of that. I can get something like a red line with a black border on it. I haven't done it for vertical lines, but with some extra code I don't see why it can't be done. I haven't tried so don't quote me on that. ;)
Another cool effect I was working on for a template was having two divs put together with one inside of the other. The outer one had a border on the right and bottom. The inner and smaller div had a border on the left and top. It gave it a look of a box with borders going slightly past the box on the bottom left and top right sides. Sadly, I never finished the template and I can't seem to find it. Grrr.
jackbobpin
06-04-2003, 07:42 PM
the "prayer request page" didn't work for me. it may just be my puder. I hope it is. (Or do I?)
iggypop
06-05-2003, 12:02 AM
My yesterday hobby was to check every page i saw in the validator. one of them madee me laught it is here (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebdeveloper.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29). maybe it is better not to validate your page and noone can see your errors? really. if at company website went true QA and it supports NS4, they dont check for validations. interesting topic. i checked about 20 corporate websites today and none of them pass anything there. iggy
spufi
06-05-2003, 12:28 AM
Ask yourself this. Is there a trend moving towards using the W3C standards, away from the standards, or staying the same? Once you answer that, you'll know what to do.
*psst* It's moving towards. :D
Plus, you still can't get past the fact that if you don't use a Doctype a browser gets to go, "Well, this person doesn't know what they are doing. Let's try to figure out what they meant and hope for the best."
It's also like writing a program in something like Java, or C++. Complie it without checking for errors and then trying to run it and thinking it will give you the correct output. It may, but it might not either.
Also note that when checking for validation, some things trip up the validator even though it's correct. Some links can trip up the validator if the link includes things like a question mark, which is all too common when dealing with things like server side code and CGI. Sometimes you have to weed through the errors to see what really is an error.
Finally, a number of the so-called webmasters go through training that never talk about validation. Sometimes getting newer things taught in schools take some time.
Oh yeah, if you ever have to work with another person's code, you'll be thankful for the person who did validate his code over the person who didn't. Trust me.
*psst* It's moving towards. :D
Plus, you still can't get past the fact that if you don't use a Doctype a browser gets to go, "Well, this person doesn't know what they are doing. Let's try to figure out what they meant and hope for the best."
It's also like writing a program in something like Java, or C++. Complie it without checking for errors and then trying to run it and thinking it will give you the correct output. It may, but it might not either.
Also note that when checking for validation, some things trip up the validator even though it's correct. Some links can trip up the validator if the link includes things like a question mark, which is all too common when dealing with things like server side code and CGI. Sometimes you have to weed through the errors to see what really is an error.
Finally, a number of the so-called webmasters go through training that never talk about validation. Sometimes getting newer things taught in schools take some time.
Oh yeah, if you ever have to work with another person's code, you'll be thankful for the person who did validate his code over the person who didn't. Trust me.
iggypop
06-09-2003, 08:34 AM
thanks
iggypop
06-09-2003, 10:09 AM
ok my page is validated (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fimpressur.com) but now i have something screwed up with my cascading sheet. let me look :) thank you for your help.
iggypop
06-09-2003, 11:41 PM
how do i create vertical line almost like <hr> i thin i saw somwhere i need to use table layout for that... any suggestions?
khaki
06-10-2003, 08:15 AM
hi igs...
something like this maybe?
<div style="background-color:#c00;height:300px;width:1px;position:absolute;left:50px;top:10px;"></div>
;) k
something like this maybe?
<div style="background-color:#c00;height:300px;width:1px;position:absolute;left:50px;top:10px;"></div>
;) k
spufi
06-10-2003, 10:37 AM
Just showing there is more than one way of doing it. Here's the difference. The advantage mine has is that you can change the solid property of the border to something like dashed. khaki's allows you to add a border around the colored line which can be useful in it's own way. Of course, if you just want a solid line, then obviously either works. ;)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/htm14/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Vertical lines</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<style type="text/css">
.mvl { border-right:1px solid #000; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:60px; top:10px; }
.kvl { background-color:#C00; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:50px; top:10px; }
.mvl2 { border-right:1px dashed #000; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:70px; top:10px; }
.kvl2 { background-color:#C00; height:300px; width:2px; position:absolute; left:80px; top:10px; border:1px solid #000;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mvl"></div>
<div class="mvl2"></div>
<div class="kvl"></div>
<div class="kvl2"></div>
</body>
</html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/htm14/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Vertical lines</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<style type="text/css">
.mvl { border-right:1px solid #000; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:60px; top:10px; }
.kvl { background-color:#C00; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:50px; top:10px; }
.mvl2 { border-right:1px dashed #000; height:300px; width:1px; position:absolute; left:70px; top:10px; }
.kvl2 { background-color:#C00; height:300px; width:2px; position:absolute; left:80px; top:10px; border:1px solid #000;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="mvl"></div>
<div class="mvl2"></div>
<div class="kvl"></div>
<div class="kvl2"></div>
</body>
</html>
iggypop
06-10-2003, 10:49 AM
is it working in netscape 4? oops, i checked in ie6 and i didnt see anything... let me look :)
iggypop
06-10-2003, 10:54 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="20%" CELLPADDING=0>
<TR><TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
<TD><P>Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now</P></TD>
<TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<TR><TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
<TD><P>Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now</P></TD>
<TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
spufi
06-10-2003, 10:55 AM
If you are looking at my code make sure you have the version with the correct <style> tag. I accidently types "ccs" instead of "css." The lines won't show if it says "ccs." I did edit my post, so just recopy it in.
iggypop
06-10-2003, 11:15 AM
pretty cool, but it wont work in ns4 :( so here i sis table layout, looks ok on netscape.. even ns3!! so here s the code:
<TABLE WIDTH="30%" CELLPADDING=0>
<TR><TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
<TD width=200><nobr><P>Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now</P></TD>
<TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="30%" CELLPADDING=0>
<TR><TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
<TD width=200><nobr><P>Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now</P></TD>
<TD WIDTH=1 BGCOLOR="black">
<SPACER TYPE="block" WIDTH=1></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
spufi
06-10-2003, 01:15 PM
Unless I missed something, here's a more bare minimum and correct version of your code that should still work.
<TABLE WIDTH="30%" CELLPADDING="0">
<TR>
<TD WIDTH="1px" BGCOLOR="#000"></td>
<TD width="200px">
Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="1px" BGCOLOR="#000"></td>
</TR>
</TABLE>
I would also like to add some stats from The Counter.com.
Number of Netscape 4 Users in April.
4,989,545
Number of Netscape 4 Users in May.
536,637
If this keeps up, the only people using Netscape 4 will be people using it to make sure their web pages look good in it. I have a feeling that's the way it is now, but anyway....
<TABLE WIDTH="30%" CELLPADDING="0">
<TR>
<TD WIDTH="1px" BGCOLOR="#000"></td>
<TD width="200px">
Some text<br>some text<br>some text<br>another line here<br>that's it for now
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="1px" BGCOLOR="#000"></td>
</TR>
</TABLE>
I would also like to add some stats from The Counter.com.
Number of Netscape 4 Users in April.
4,989,545
Number of Netscape 4 Users in May.
536,637
If this keeps up, the only people using Netscape 4 will be people using it to make sure their web pages look good in it. I have a feeling that's the way it is now, but anyway....
iggypop
06-10-2003, 01:48 PM
i wish ns4 goes soon... but for now we cant avoid it its still exists out there. At least it is not as bad as ns3
iggypop
06-20-2003, 10:55 AM
thank god its friday
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.