WE'VE MOVED!
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
We are proud to announce our NEW community destination. Engage with resident experts and fellow entrepreneurs, and learn everything you need to start your business. Check out the new home of StartupNation Community at startupnation.mn.co
Options
Fresh out the Dev Server: Please critique
Sign In or Register to comment.
Comments
Part of my track record. 1300 pages. 1000 graphics. [Oversaw design and implementation, including information mapping, template design, content architecture.] There is a convenient "validate XHTML" link at the bottom of each page.
The font size is locked. This is bad design.
Embedding content in an Iframe creates three sets of scrollbars, including addition horizontal scrollbars. This is very bad design, bad implementation.
You`re using centered texts for paragraphs. This is bad design. English readers are used to justified text or ragged right edge.
The table sizes are hard coded. This is bad design.
The namespace definition is missing some important data. Bad design.
You`re using <br/> elements for paragraph spacing when you should be using CSS margins. This is bad design. Very sloppy.
There are tons of hard coded values in the code. This won`t scale.
Your tables mix inline parameters and CSS classes. Bad design.
Font sizes are inconsistent for similar information on different pages. Very sloppy.
You use a lot of unnecessary tags. You use <div> tags where you should use <span> tags.
The HTML isn`t properly nested. It`s poorly formed.
TwilightPics2007-4-4 9:32:30
(just my $0.02...)
(just my $0.02...)That`s part of the problem... browsers such as IE 6 are tolerant of poorly coded table based layouts, which make it seem acceptable to use them.
When you say "poorly coded" do you mean malformed HTML? Or do you consider any table-based layout to be poorly coded?
IE 6 in general is very forgiving of malformed HTML. But IMO well-coded table-based layouts are a valid alternative to CSS. (as long as it looks the same to the end user!)oleg2007-4-4 12:43:21
TwilightPics2007-4-4 13:12:28
I don`t know what I`m doing.
I don`t care.
(just my $0.02...)Oleg,Thank you.. see the problem with twilight is he/she I can`t tell by the picture is a newbie here and wants to sound like "it" [please identify your gender or post a bigger picture of yourself, I`m using the word "it" because I don`t know what you are] knows everything. Table based layouts have been around since the begining of the Internet, It will never be replaced until everyone jumps on the Table-less designs, which I have experience terrible things with since most old browsers don`t understand them. I can recall two years ago I designed a CSS- table-less Web site. One day before I launched I had to redesign it all over again because Netscape, Safari, and Firefox didn`t know how to handle it. I remember submitting it to the forum and BOY did I get bad feed back...and people were sending me images of what the site looked on their computer.So again CSS and table-less format is fairly new and I would hate to re-structure or re-design the web site.
I can recall two years ago I designed a CSS- table-less Web site. One day before I launched I had to redesign it all over again because Netscape, Safari, and Firefox didn`t know how to handle it. I`m not surprised. Even today you can`t properly code a site, why would you have been any better two years ago?
...CSS and table-less format is fairly new...Wrong, CSS has been around since the mid 90`s, and really started to take hold in `97 when the W3C started to embrace it.Look, I used to design with tables too, that was before I knew any better. I learned about the benefits of table free designs for both myself and my clients and I have never looked back since. Every person I`ve encountered who swears by tables are always those who don`t fully understand web development/coding, and use programs such as Dreamweaver or FrontPage to make the site look how they want, without giving a hoot about coding (again, I was that way at one point).TwilightPics2007-4-4 14:39:21
The real issue here is the underlying sloppiness of the page source, regardless of the end results. I cannot imagine that any experienced, skilled web designer would want to produce a web site with such sloppy code. Whether or not tables are used. Sloppy code causes major problems with rendering, scaling, and transformation onto different devices. Heavy pages, in terms of size on server and in memory, increase bandwidth costs for no gain. A heavy page is a monolithic data structure that really should be properly granulated for good performance across a variety of aspects. Monolithic data structures cause performance problems because the cost for the browser to traverse the HTML data structure is often N-log or N-squared. If you have a three line file, and you add a fourth line, the browser has to re-traverse the entire data structure each time the page is rendered. So if you`re adding lots and lots of lines because you`re not using CSS properly, then any functions that run on the page have to traverse a lot more code. I believe the web browser has to traverse the entire data structure each time the page is rendered - which could happen each time the user moves the mouse.
Using CSS isn`t really just about convenience either. A CSS file provides a library of functions that tell the browser how to display the page. Without a correct implementation of CSS/HTML, the web designer has to use a lot of duplicate code. This of course, even if cut and paste is used, is bad practice. A CSS class is the equivalent of a function in C++. Everyone who has ever written any C++ knows that duplicating functions is bad design because you end having to fix errors or make changes in numerous places. This of course, leads to errors that don`t get fixed, and higher maintenance costs.