Kind of true yeah. It's rare that anyone can learn html and just stop there. Mainly (I assume) because people assume that html is more than it actually is. html can put a form on a page yeah, but it can't do anything with the data given to it. Before learning html people just seem to assume that html does everything and that the creation and processing of the forms (and just about everything else on the web) is done via html. So naturally when someone thinks of a page, then gets half way through it only to find they can't do it without other stuff too, then naturally they will progress. The fact still remains though that html its self is very simple (, even more simple when used semantically and with CSS).
The difficulty comes from other languages really if ya think about it. Think what you said through.
Basically what you're saying there is that html is hard because it's simple.. That html would be easier if it was harder. As though because html is simple, it can't do everything. So you have to go and learn harder languages to be able to do what you assumed html did in the first place and that because these other more complex scripting laguages are more difficult, that it makes html more difficult by some obscure bi-directional proxy.
Yes, they would. If they saw the kind of code we are trying to discourage. But with minimal, semantic, valid, clean code they wouldn't.
If you read a post of mine in another thread. In my opinion it's not so much the validity of the mark up that counts (although I still consider validity to be of high import), but more the the fact that it should be clean, clear and concise. If the mark up was all 3 of these, then why would someone look at it and think "F*** that. It's too complicated.
Of course, you wouldn't see PHP on a page, since it's server side.
But yes, the web has become very much user-friendly. It's become so rich in terms of multimedia, that to create what people think of as a website can, indeed, become rather complex. Of course, this is because as people want more out of the web, it does get more complex. Think of the development of the web as the development of cars. Yeah, a Model T actually was very simple. You get down the basics of making the carriage and the motor and you're done. But in today's modern car, it's a hell of a lot more complex.
Even so, very nice websites can be made simply with HTML and CSS. Of course, the confusion of it all is directly related, once again, to the lack of resources. I know myself, when I first started out with HTML, I was ten. Now, actually, It wasn't until about two years ago that I started with forms and more complex things, and realized that HTML couldn't do anything but create forms.
Of course, while learning, I was always jumping around from one guide to the next. With guide A being incomplete, guide B being complete, but annoyingly simple, and guide C being complete but brain bruisingly technical. What's really needed is a good, complete guide to making a valid, semantic, full CSS website. And, though W3Schools is an excellent website for learning the actual languages, most people are looking for something more. We need to start somewhere, we need guides to show how to put what we know together and make something. And the guides out there that do that, don't show how to do it properly. It'd be a lot simpler with better guides.
Way offtopic probably, but I can't be bothered with back reading, apparently. I actually agree with the original poster. HTML is simple, and allows people to post a lot content by someone other than a company onto the web, and easily. In fact, I think that as standards enthusiasts with nothing better to do, the next time we see a good site done badly (non-corporate, of course) offer to do it over! Ask them to zip up the files, and say you'll spiff up their site. I promise that the next time I read a fanfic off of some geocites site, I will contact the webmaster, and tell them of their wrongdoings, and offer my assistance. Who's with me, lol?
Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion, and feel free to delete this if I'm repeating someone else.
There's a few good points in the previous posts - what people need is a good way of learning; Books are out because most people program crappy code because they don't want to spend money on something like a book. What people need is a website that teaches semantic code - just like W3 Schools.
However, unlike W3 Schools, which teaches things seperately (CSS, HTML, JS etc.) there should be a site that runs people through making a website teaching the things as they need it, whether it's CSS, HTMl or JS or simple PHP or whatever.
It would be great if a few people for WebDev got together to make a site like that.
I know I would.
Originally posted by JavaHead Jonnie It would be great if a few people for WebDev got together to make a site like that.
I know I would.
I actually started to do that at one time, but it was one of those projects that never got finished. I had written out an outline/TOC, so I wish I had kept it. I guess I'll rewrite that. By the way, this isn't going to turn out like the internet bible, is it? I hope not, especially since this is more realistic.
Finally, new thread (in general), or continue it here?
Im sure people who want to learn how to make websites would want to learn correctly. I know the book I was using Sam's Teach yourself HTML and XHTML didnt explain it very well and was hard for me to get anywhere because i find it hard to stick with stuff especially books. Thankfully I had good old Mr Herer to point me into the right direction of what to learn and where from. I know I cant do anything fancy but I still can make my sites valid XHTML and CSS which i try to do each time I practice making something, and yes there are some hitches along the way but as we all do I learn from my mistakes. So this sounds like a good idea would be very handy for people wanting to learn correctly.
Yes, learning right the first time makes for an excellent base. Afterwards, it's just trial and error, but sites like ALA and the various blogs exist so we can learn from others mistakes. (There'll have to be a resource section, of course.)
I'm just making my very first ever web site.
Made it all in css, with not a single table tag in the whole thing, and now - thanks to reading this bloody site - I've been lured into getting it validated. I didn't even know what "getting a page validated" was five minutes ago (some links to validation sites on this thread might help), but after a quick yahoo search I found http://validator.w3.org
I'm happy to say that 8 of my twelve pages passed on their first go WOOOO! and the others were all missing the alt attribute in some image tags.
I can now display a FOUR COLOUR w3C offical graphic on my page, with a little link to validate it when I feel like it.
I'm very happy. I think I'll have another beer.
Incidentally, I just ran Yahoo's front page through the checker and they have 261 errors. Ha! That's why they dont have the w3c icon on their page. No beer for them, bastards.