"Play By The Rules"

[cubeddesign]

whats wrong with tables? sure they are bigger.. but most people have cable internet anyway.. 10 extra shouldnt kill a 56k user??


so what if I use the font tag?? sure why would anyone care if i used the font tag instead of css..



I just dont have a clue why it would matter if i used <b> instead of <strong>??

[oracleguy]

Because there are rules that evolve, and that means older methods get retired and replaced by better ones.

You can use the font tag just fine if you use an old enough doc type that has support for it, then you aren't doing anything wrong.

Using tables for layout is an abuse of what they are ment to do. Tables for displaying data, e.g. test results. Using tables for layout can also compromise accessibility too.

10k per page is a lot. Especially if you are viewing it on something slower than 56k like a PDA or cell phone. And with CSS, even if your stylesheet is 10k, it only needs to download it once so you save a lot of time and more importantly server bandwidth. Plus saying most people have cable is very incorrect. 56k and slower is still the majority.

Some of these things are just the way it is. HTML is more forgiving than some languages like VB, C++, Java, Cobalt, etc. where it actually compiles the code and it has to be exactly right.

Let me give you an analigy, using <b> instead of <strong> there technically isn't anything wrong with that. It is just the way the rules are written. Just like you can't pass someone on the right hand side while driving. There is "technically" nothing wrong with that, it is just there are rules against it and thats the way it is.

The analigy might be slightly flawed but you should catch the drift of what I'm saying.

[MotherNatrsSon]

The simplest answer is "out with the old, in with the new".

I may be a little off but the idea seems to be that you will eventually no longer have to code for different browsers because there will be a "standard" way of doing coding that all browsers will be able to understand.

The bottom line is also if that is what you know how to do, and works, for the time being use it. Just have to remember that you will have to make changes as you learn the "standards compliant" way of doing coding.

I am very sjeptical myself of the whole thing. I do not know who died and left these people in charge of "remaking" the internet, but never the less they are and so if you are going to be a "professional" web coder, you will need to be a little closer to the bleeding edge of the technology to keep in business.

I have not looked at your site review thread again since my first post, but the people that are giving you their pinions are for the most part "professionals" in the biz and if you want to be "in the biz" you are going to have to roll with the changes or get out, basically.

Don't feel no way about it. Don't let it discourage you because many of them have passed across the same ground you are on in their learning proess as well.

MNS

[brothercake]

Some elements have semantic meaning - <table> means "tabular data" so to use it for anything else is a misue of its semantics.

(I'll take it as read that semantics matter .. but I can go on if you want convincing on that point ;))

Anyway, some tags have little or no semantic meaning, and that's why their use is discouraged. <b> means "visual boldness", but to a non-visual user-agent that's meaningless; <strong> is better because it just means "strong emphasis", which can be interpreted in different modes - visual boldness, or audible loudness, or whatever.

<font> is even worse .. as I can demonstrate:

<p><font color="red" size="5" face="verdana,sans-serif">Hello world</font></p>

That's quite some emphasis - in fact it looks like a title; but in a browser that doesn't understand <font> you don't get any emphasis - just normal text. <font> has no semantic meaning at all. It would be (and always has been) better to go:

<h1>Hello world</h1>

Then with CSS you can make it red verdana.

<font> filled a gap when we didn't have CSS but wanted style and color. But more fool us for our impatience, I say; it's an abomination of a tag and should have never have been invented.

The overall moral of the story is - use tags for their correct semantic purpose, and don't use tags at all which don't have semantic meaning, or whose semantic meaning is purely visual.

[CrzySdrs]

I think that its a good thing that we keep updating what should be used for coding the web. If we didn't the we would have a stagnant environment, nothing new could be done.

When was the last time you used a slide rule? Old things constantly are replaced by newer more effiicient things. As a new convert of CSS I have found that it just makes more sense then using the font tag. It allows you to have better control over the entire layout of your website all the while keeping the layout of your page seperate from the "beautification" of your page.

Another plus of changing your code to conform to the new standards is greater compatibility with different browsers and different platforms not capable of digging through your "junk" code and cleaning it up enough so that is capable of viewing.

Bandwidth is always an issue, as was previously mentioned not all users have Cable and DSL. This means that we must continue to keep the users who do not have the speed up to speed.

There are many reasons to use the new rules, I say just do it and stop complaining.

[ronaldb66]

There's nothing wrong with tables, if they are used for structuring data in a tabular manner (which is what they're there for).
Using tables for layout means unnecessary code bloat, and it fixes the layout aspect of a page to the page itself, every single one of them. If the layout needs changing, every single page needs to be changed. If layout is added through an external style sheet, only one (or a few) style sheet needs to be changed to change the layout throughout the whole site.

Which is all relatively uninteresting if you have a two-page homesite with grandma's apple pie recipe and a photo of your cat, but if you have to maintain a multi-page site it adds up. Big time.

Same goes for the font tag: it usually has to be applied several times on every page, especially when tables are used for layout ;) . Again, changing a font or a text color means editing every single page on several places, while applying font and text styling using style sheets means changing anything means changing one or two style sheets to effect the whole site.

[808s]

Well personally I like CSS and xhtml, but so far I havent been impressed with designs people can do with it.

Tables are great for a good stanard layout and also I cant use layers on any of our company sites, so I have to stick with tables.

At the end of the day you can usually make the same looking page using either tables or css.

[ronaldb66]

What do you mean by "layers"?

Anyway: that fact that CSS designs can't impress you (though I think you haven't looked far enough) has nothing to do with the possibilities of CSS but with the (in)abilities of the designers using it, and maybe with the ubiquitous "Browser That Everyone Uses" failing to properly support acknowledged industry standards.
And yes, CSS can do anything tables can do - layout wise, and then some more. A lot more!

Lastly - which I already indicated: it's not just about having pages looking the same, it's also about page size, ease of maintenance, flexibility, portability... and there, table layouts lose every time.

[Catman]

What's wrong with tables for layout?

Here's a hint: Take a look at the www.codingforums.com homepage or any other page using tables for layout using lynx. Pretty much unreadable.

A properly designed page using divs and CSS for layout will degrade nicely where page using tables cannot.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by ronaldb66
What do you mean by "layers"?

A <div> is a layer because you can have a "layered" effect by changing the z index, stacking order.

I will also agree with 808s that the sites I have seen in CSS and xhtml are generally dull, and as usual when someone says theat they get shown Zen Garden. I can count on my fingers, out of millions of pages, the ones that "look" good. They usually end up with the latest color scheme(blue,gray,orange) on a white background with crappy little dashes and lines people think are fonts.

But I do understand the need for some sort of "standards". I just think we may be shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot design wise if pages are now going to be pretty generic.

MNS

[ronaldb66]

Again, that has nothing to do with CSS. Read the Zen Garden page itself: so far, it's mostly been coders and other techy people understanding CSS well enough to create well-built, well-working, but not rarely rather plain CSS sites.
Only when skilled graphic designers get their hands on it, truely understand what can be accomplished with CSS and are willing to let go of there favorite fonts and traditional printed media design paradigms, beautiful designs as seen on Zen Garden can emerge.

Still, not every site has to look like that to reach its goal: providing its users with what they need and look for, which for business sites is far more important then to be "innovative" or "unique".

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by ronaldb66
Again, that has nothing to do with CSS. Read the Zen Garden page itself: so far, it's mostly been coders and other techy people understanding CSS well enough to create well-built, well-working, but not rarely rather plain CSS sites.
Only when skilled graphic designers get their hands on it, truely understand what can be accomplished with CSS and are willing to let go of there favorite fonts and traditional printed media design paradigms, beautiful designs as seen on Zen Garden can emerge.

Still, not every site has to look like that to reach its goal: providing its users with what they need and look for, which for business sites is far more important then to be "innovative" or "unique".

The unfortunate part about Zen Garden is that it employs "tricks" I prefer to call "hacks" in the CSS to get the look it does. If tables are for tabular data, shoudn't headers be headers? Seems like a very similar call there to me. Are we taking a different road only to end up in the same destination?

When are people going to quit gearing everything for the corporate business world? On an intranet, let them devise their own standards and leave the internet for people.

MNS

[ronaldb66]

... it employs "tricks" I prefer to call "hacks" in the CSS to get the look it does.
What tricks? You mean, hiding the heading's text and replacing it with an image? Call it a trick, or hack, or technique; what matters is that the document itself remains as is, and without any styling, or with a simplified version geared towards less graphically capable browsers you still end up with a usable page.

I'd say: take up their challenge, copy the HTML and CSS sources and have a go at it yourself to experiment with the possibilities.

[808s]

The real problem is with the browsers. The next lot of browsers, of which netscape doesnt seem one. Will be xhtml. If this happens, nearly all of the world websites will not show up.
The reason there all becoming xhtml is, they want 1 browser for all platforms (TV, PC, Phone, PDA) and that means the error checking going. Meaning xhtml becomes strict. Now so far, the company I work for have never coded in xhtml, and I doubt many others havent.
Would be interesting to now how many people are prepared for this change (if it ever happens, been 2 years now).

Hopefully if the xhtml is all standard, then maybe css will come into line as well.

[MotherNatrsSon]

nearly all of the world websites will not show up.

And that will be the death of the web. It will be "strictly" corporate and for those that have the $$$ to keep up with all the hardware/software.

MNS

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
They usually end up with the latest color scheme(blue,gray,orange) on a white background with crappy little dashes and lines people think are fonts.

That sounds an awful lot like my website. Hmmm... don't like it?

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
...and leave the internet for people.

Let me translate this phrase: "Leave the designing of websites up to people who don't care to learn how to do it the way it's supposed to be done." -- To which I astoundingly disagree, but I'm not about to beat another dead horse to show that I don't agree with something MNS says...

However, by doing it right, we will leave the availability to use the internet and actually be able to use and read webpages without jumping through hoops for the people.

Originally posted by 808s
...nearly all of the world websites will not show up.

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
And that will be the death of the web. It will be "strictly" corporate and for those that have the $$$ to keep up with all the hardware/software.

What on earth are you talking about? XHTML 2.0? First of all, it's not finalized. That will still take some time. Even then, by the time XHTML2 becomes the standard everyone is using (or rather, if), browsers like MSIE and Netscape 3 & 4 will be 10 year old. Are you really trying to say that 5 years from now, someone wouldn't be able to pay $100 for a crappy computer that can run IE6 or Mozilla 1.5? Yeah, that really sounds like the internet will be left to the money-grubbers of the world.

Your premise is invalid. According to jkd ("Gecko Guru") and Brothercake ("Accessibility Guru") you'll be able to add an XSLT stylesheet to an XHTML 2 document to make it XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 compatible (which are fully backwards-compatible languages)... as long as we shell off the whole "this browser is better" mentality and make it a point to support as wide a range of browsers and devices as possible through the use of web standards.

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
The unfortunate part about Zen Garden is that it employs "tricks" I prefer to call "hacks" in the CSS to get the look it does. If tables are for tabular data, shoudn't headers be headers? Seems like a very similar call there to me. Are we taking a different road only to end up in the same destination?I see no hacks or semantic ruins at the Zen Garden, rather, I see the beauty and ingenuity of CSS. The headers are still headers, they have just been transformed into images which represent the headers.

Perhaps a read of this article (http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/css/replace-text/) may help to make things click.

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
And that will be the death of the web. It will be "strictly" corporate and for those that have the $$$ to keep up with all the hardware/software.

I have to sorta agree with Skyzyx here. For example, I have this Pentium 1 233 notebook I use at home for my home business. I use it to do some web surfing and mainly for working with customers in the field. It runs Windows 95 and Office 2000 just fine along with IE5.5 and Mozilla 1.4.

I mean it isn't like we are running Half Life 2 here. We are just talking about a browser here. I mean like for Mozilla 1.4, look at the system requirements (http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.4/installation.html#win) they aren't very steep at all. And it isn't like Mozilla or IE costs anything either. The software is free and it doesn't require very new hardware either.

I just don't see how the internet will become something only for "those that have the $$$ to keep up with all the hardware/software."

[brothercake]

Originally posted by
Skyzyx
you'll be able to add an XSLT stylesheet to an XHTML 2 document to make it XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 compatible (which are fully backwards-compatible languages)... as long as we shell off the whole "this browser is better" mentality and make it a point to support as wide a range of browsers and devices as possible through the use of web standards.
Yes :thumbsup:
Originally posted by pardicity3
I see no hacks or semantic ruins at the Zen Garden, rather, I see the beauty and ingenuity of CSS. The headers are still headers, they have just been transformed into images which represent the headers.
I almost concur ... but MNS has a point here you know - that image replacement trick is a *bit* of a hack - not in the way he said (I don't think it's a hack in that sense because the <h1> semantics are preserved) - but unfortunately it creates an accessibility problem: while it's fine for most users, and still fine for users with non-CSS or text-only browsers, if you're using a browser which does support CSS but has images turned off ... you don't see anything at all; the heading just isn't there :(

Don't get me wrong - everything else on that site gets a big thumbsup from me ... it's just that particular technique ... makes me reluctant to use it, however kewl it is ...

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by brothercake
I almost concur ... but MNS has a point you know - that image replacement trick is a *bit* of a hack; I only say that because it has an accessibility issue - while it's fine for most users, and still fine for users with non-CSS or text-only browsers, if you're using a browser which does support CSS but has images turned off ... you don't see anything at all; the heading just isn't there :(Tis true, tis true indeed. Though, I was pointing out that comparing the use of header images to the [ab]use of table's is not very correct. I was attempting to show that while using tables for non-tabular data is destroying the meaning of tables, using header images for headers does not seem to destroy the meaning of a header.

Though, I do agree with you on the downfalls of this technique, brothercake. It's a shame there is no work around as of yet (still thinking :)). Actually, part of the reason I posted the link to that stop design article is because it discusses the downfalls as well as the advantages.

[brothercake]

Originally posted by pardicity3
I was pointing out that comparing the use of header images to the [ab]use of table's is not very correct. I was attempting to show that while using tables for non-tabular data is destroying the meaning of tables, using header images for headers does not seem to destroy the meaning of a header.
Yeah agreed - that's the real beauty of CSS in my mind, because it doesn't matter what you do visually, you can't harm the semantics of the document if they're right to begin with :)

We gotta remember where this argument is really coming from - if IE supported XHTML and CSS2 properly we wouldn't even be having the debate - it's only IE-centricity that makes people hesitate because they fear adopting standards means it won't work in IE anymore.

Which is true at first, but only at first - it's just about a shift of mindstate; we still have to hack and tweak to make things work x-browser, but what changes is what, why and how.

Instead of "IE-centric visual markup which is physically hacked so it also works in netscape 4" we're now producing "w3c-centric semantic markup which is non-physically hacked so it also works in IE". By "non-physically" hacked I mean, things which don't impact on the semantics of the document compliant user-agents see; things which don't involve editing the XHTML at all - IE-only CSS included using conditional-comments; Javascript parsers which re-write chunks of the DOM so that IE renders it properly; that kind of thing.

Morgan Freeman has a line in "Deep Impact", which sums up the whole TagSoup vs Standards debate rather well I think:
I know it seems like we have each other over the same barrel, but it just seems that way.

[Roy Sinclair]

The problem with tags like <b>, <i>, and <font> is that they have no semantic meaning at all. They are strictly formatting tags, the <table> tag when used for layout has the same problem but it's ok when used for tabular data.

The key reason for making websites using semantic tags is that they won't have to be redone simply because someone comes up with another new device. Tools like XSLT and CSS can be used with semantic information to format that information in a way that allows it to be rendered on a new device.

The problem with people who are resisting this change is that they are thinking only in terms of web browsers running on PC computers. When you add in the possibility of making your pages available and usable for people on cell phone screens, PDAs, Tablets and the like you gain a wider possible audience. Information that's "marked up" semantically automatically gains the possibility to reach a larger audience, information "marked up" with formatting information may still be viewable on those devices but the reasoning behind why any part of the information has special formatting isn't going to be available to anything trying to convert that information for display on other devices (which may or may not support that kind of formatting).

Semantically marked information is also more searchable, I would hazard to say that a page marked up semantically stands a better chance of getting a good rating in a search engine simply because it has a higher signal to noise ratio.

[Skyzyx]

I wrote a quick article on the whole standards vs tag soup thing. It's a cut-the-crap, to-the-point, big, big picture article, but I want to know what you guys think. Here's a snippet:

"I keep hearing web designers and coders complaining about web standards. Some think that web standards are too hard to follow. Others think that web standards are part of some sort of right-wing international conspiracy to shove the common man out of the world of web design so that they can control the technology and charge people handsomely for newer hardware and software. Others still have never even heard of web standards, and have no idea what CSS positioning is. The rest of us just get it."

More... (http://host44.ipowerweb.com/~skyzyxco/articles/playbytherules.htm)

[oracleguy]

Very well written. A+ :)

[brothercake]

Very good .. it's so hard to find the right tone .. to embrace the sceptics without giving leave to the cynics ....

Is it just me ... or is anyone else just sick of the debate? I mean, it's obvious we're right, where's the debate ??

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by brothercake
Very good .. it's so hard to find the right tone .. to embrace the sceptics without giving leave to the cynics ....

Is it just me ... or is anyone else just sick of the debate? I mean, it's obvious we're right, where's the debate ??

Wheter you are "right" or not is yet to be seen. You will "win" as long as Microcrap adopts standards without any proprietory crap in the next piece of work they produce. Personally I do not see why they would.

I am for the standards, my only "complaint" is with how homogenized a majority of sites look when made to standards(yes Zen Garden is an exception).

MNS

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I am for the standards, my only "complaint" is with how homogenized a majority of sites look when made to standards(yes Zen Garden is an exception).

http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23475

The sites listed in here have excellent and diverse designs and they follow coding standards.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by oracleguy
http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23475

The sites listed in here have excellent and diverse designs and they follow coding standards.

There are a couple besides Zen Garden that do not have the "homogenized" look to them. A majority are still blue, gray, orange or yellow, on a white background and have those awful little broken lines they think are fonts.

The ones I consider "designed" are Zen Garden, Belaire Displays, Inc.com, Zeldman's, and one I did not see there
http://www.peterbailey.net/

MNS

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
There are a couple besides Zen Garden that do not have the "homogenized" look to them. A majority are still blue, gray, orange or yellow, on a white background and have those awful little broken lines they think are fonts.Just for fun, point me to some non-standards/XHTML/CSS sites that aren't "homogenized." I still believe the designer and not the code makes the design. In fact, that's the whole premise of XHTML and CSS, the code should have nothing to do with the design.

Another thought: perhaps you are opposed to the new trends in design, rather than pages which are written with a different style of code?

Oh, and I am starting to agree with brothercake :thumbsup:. I never have understood why I feel I need to justify myself when I know I am right...

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by pardicity3
Just for fun, point me to some non-standards/XHTML/CSS sites that aren't "homogenized." I still believe the designer and not the code makes the design. In fact, that's the whole premise of XHTML and CSS, the code should have nothing to do with the design.

Another thought: perhaps you are opposed to the new trends in design, rather than pages which are written with a different style of code?

Oh, and I am starting to agree with brothercake :thumbsup:. I never have understood why I feel I need to justify myself when I know I am right...

Actually, I am not opposed to the "trends" and am pretty familiar with them. I have a "mentor" that is a designer, does "0" coding and has won awards as designer of the year etc. for a few years running. She knows design forwards, backwards and inside out. Funny thing is she has a hard time coding a link if she had to. She does the sketches, typography, and creates an image of what the page WILL look like and hands it to a coder with the instructions to code the page so when a user goes to that url they see exactly what she designed.

I am saying that the code seems to be "limiting" the design because the only way it all works is in a narrow little window that is more and more defined by the coding or you would see a greater variety of sites than what is out there now.



Wheter you are "right" or not is yet to be seen. You will "win" as long as Microcrap adopts standards without any proprietory crap in the next piece of work they produce. Personally I do not see why they would.

MNS

[Skyzyx]

MNS,

There are different kinds of design though. There is graphic design, there is web design, there is page layout (another form of design), there is painting, there is photography... there are all sorts of genres of design.

Using a standard set of coding techniques, current browsers can now render webpages identically (or nearly identically at the least). The problem is with older browsers. Older browsers are not usually capable of doing all the things that current generation browsers are. You need to remember what type of medium the web is. It is not a perfect medium for all things (although most of us wish it was). The web (for a designer) is an experience in coding and graphics together. Sometimes more of one than the other.

I believe that one of the main reasons for many dull XHTML+CSS designs is that it is primarily coders who are the first ones making the move to the dynamic duo (XHTML+CSS). Most of the designers are still hung up on old-school methods of web design. Give it a few years, and the designers will catch up with the coders, en masse.

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
I believe that one of the main reasons for many dull XHTML+CSS designs is that it is primarily coders who are the first ones making the move to the dynamic duo (XHTML+CSS). Most of the designers are still hung up on old-school methods of web design. Give it a few years, and the designers will catch up with the coders, en masse.

That is pretty much how I feel on it too. That is why a person is very lucky if they can be a good artist and a good coder too. Most really good coders aren't very good artists (myself included).

[cg9com]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Wheter you are "right" or not is yet to be seen. You will "win" as long as Microcrap adopts standards without any proprietory crap in the next piece of work they produce.

You're thinking too small.

[ronaldb66]

... and on that note, I'd like to throw in Owen Briggs' Design Rant (http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/design_rant/index.html).

To all you "disbelievers" out there:

Read it. Read it in full. All five pages. Understand what the man is saying. Then get back. Oh, and don't get started on his "boring white background"; there's something about that in the article as well.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Won't read it because it has those broken lines he "thinks" are fonts. Perfect example of a useless site. I see those little broken lines at a site and I can't click my mouse fast enough to get out of there. Just for the sake of the fact you posted it, I will go and get out my broken line deciphering tool and see if I CAN read it at all. YUCK!!!

MNS

After jacking up the fonts to 150% I was able to read it. This line tells me this guy hasn't a clue about design, because the colors, shapes, and spaces are part of the design:

This is the end of the rant. Someone is going to ask why I haven't talked about font types and colour and space. I'm not going to. That's style. This was about design.

All he is talking about is data. And that is why he ended up with a page with a white background with broken lines for fonts is because he is not a "designer" at all.

Your text, absolutely essential images, and linkage. That's the HTML file. Don't dress it up beyond heading and paragraph tags. Make sure the content makes linear sense, top to bottom. Package it so your message is clear to the most simple text browser.

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Won't read it because it has those broken lines he "thinks" are fonts. Perfect example of a useless site. I see those little broken lines at a site and I can't click my mouse fast enough to get out of there.What screen resolution are you on and what size is your monitor? Just wondering, because here on my 17" flat screen (comparable to a 19" CRT) with a 1280x1024 resolution the fonts are very readable. I suppose if you are using a different browser than I am (Moz 1.4 windows) it could be different. But I find it odd that the text at zeldman.com (a site you have given praise for in the past) is the same size and in some places smaller.

Oh, and another thing, browsers allow you to resize text for a reason. People develop with different set ups and default text size is very inconsistent from browser to browser. Perhaps you should be happy that, by using CSS, the author of that site has provided an environment in which one can change text size without damaging the layout.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by pardicity3
What screen resolution are you on and what size is your monitor? Just wondering, because here on my 17" flat screen (comparable to a 19" CRT) with a 1280x1024 resolution the fonts are very readable. I suppose if you are using a different browser than I am (Moz 1.4 windows) it could be different. But I find it odd that the text at zeldman.com (a site you have given praise for in the past) is the same size and in some places smaller.

I am on a Mac using Netscape 7, OS 9 with a 17" monitor and 1024 x 768 resolution.

They are very different. I will attach screenshots of both so you can see what I see. They are both taken without any test resizing.

MNS

[MotherNatrsSon]

Zeldman's

MNS

[Skyzyx]

Let me re-iterate for MNS...

Originally posted by pardicity3
Oh, and another thing, browsers allow you to resize text for a reason. People develop with different set ups and default text size is very inconsistent from browser to browser. Perhaps you should be happy that, by using CSS, the author of that site has provided an environment in which one can change text size without damaging the layout.

[pardicity3]

I see. There differences come up because of the different conventions the two sites use to specify font size. Zeldman uses pixels (un-resizable in IE/win) and noodleincident uses a different convention (combo between em's and %'s).

But it all brings me back to the fact that browsers are inconsistent and that is why people should be thankful for changeable text sizes.

Oh, and I shall attach a screenshot of the rant site with my 17" LCD 1280x1024.


Didn't see your post before I posted Skyzyx. Thanks though for the re-iteration :thumbsup:

[allida77]

The above discussion is my only problem with coding to standards. It is not a users fault that they use a particular browser. By developing strictly for the w3c you are saying I only care about people using standard compliant browser. So because I use ie on mac I have to change font-size? That is just poor design. Basically you have people who actually care about all users of their site and then you have some who only care about a small percentage because for the other users its their fault for not using the right browser and should adjust accordingly.

If the rant site font problem could be fixed and still get a gold star from the w3c then I apologize but you kinda see my point.

[Vladdy]

While Owen's article is right on the money, he made one big mistake in his style-sheet: he changed the default paragraph font size from 100%. Different scaling on different browsers cased the problems discussed above.

Still it is better than specifying font size in fixed pixels so that users of inferior IE can not adjust it at all.

[pardicity3]

There is no way of achieving the same text size throughout all browsers. It is currrently impossible. I hate when I am using IE and am unable to resize text because someone specified it in pixels. I would much rather have the text be too small and then be able to resize it.

It's not the coder punishing the user. It's the coder understanding the user's needs and thus coding for the user by allowing resizable text.

Resizable text is not poor design, it is brilliant design! A site that utilizes resizable text is now open to all kinds of users and all kinds of browsers.

By developing using standards one is not "saying I only care about people using standard compliant browser." Rather, they are saying the opposite: I want everyone--no matter how they are accessing my page, no matter what browser they are using, no matter the tools they have at their disposal--to be able to access the content of my page and adjust it to their needs.

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by oracleguy
Very well written. A+ :)
Originally posted by brothercake
Very good .. it's so hard to find the right tone .. to embrace the sceptics without giving leave to the cynics ....

Anybody else have any thoughts on the article at-hand? Do you agree? Do you disagree?

Although I think this is an interesting discussion, the "Netscape, Why bother??" and "Whats wrong with <table>, <font>, and <b>... Does it really matter???" threads have already covered much of this discussion, and they are recent.

Is there anything specific that I should add to this or a future article regarding the world of web standards? I will probably borrow heavily from topics in the aforementioned posts as premises in a new article. What are your thoughts?

[allida77]

Sorry I will end the above discussion. To your article:


If you are hell-bent on continuing to use tables for layout, font tags, and non-semantic markup, then this is not the industry for you.


The first part of that sentence is very important. I would include it in your analogy so people can identify.


Its a little strong but its a good article and a nice analogy. Maybe you should also go into some of the rules. I would mention " tag soup" specifically so people understand what it is.

BTW I disagree

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
Anybody else have any thoughts on the article at-hand? Do you agree? Do you disagree?

Is there anything specific that I should add to this or a future article regarding the world of web standards? I will probably borrow heavily from topics in the aforementioned posts as premises in a new article. What are your thoughts?

Well I think you have the roles and/or words "coder" and "designer" confused to an extent. A "designer" does not have to think about standards at all. The coder does.

Let's role play for a moment. Let's say we work for a design company. I am the designer, you the coder. I have many meetings with the client and present different sketches and ideas of what they are telling me they want their site to look like and how they want things to function. The client and I decide on a final design and after creating the images of what every page on that site will look like, I give you a cd or zip disk with the images that have been approved by the client. Your job, using all your coding knowledge, is to make that site and have it look exactly like it was designed to look, cross browser, cross platform, including every little gizmo and gadget people may view the site in. Now, if you come back to me and say that the design is impossible using "standards". You then give me a cd or zip with the pages as close as you come and I get to go see the client and attempt to "sell" them on something that is different than what they wanted and the fnal design that was agreed to. My "mentor" has had this exact scenario played out and from a "design" point of view, it is nothing more than homogenous limitations.

I understand that there are some that do both coding and design, but being really good at both seems a rare thing. I have to do both at the moment, but if and when I can, I will do the design and pay someone to code it exactly like I designed it.

I believe that one of the main reasons for many dull XHTML+CSS designs is that it is primarily coders who are the first ones making the move to the dynamic duo (XHTML+CSS). Most of the designers are still hung up on old-school methods of web design. Give it a few years, and the designers will catch up with the coders, en masse.

LOL. Yes but when it is a coder that tells you it is not possible to do a design AND stay in the standards there must be some problem.

MNS

[brothercake]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Yes but when it is a coder that tells you it is not possible to do a design AND stay in the standards there must be some problem.
There is, and it's generally one of two things:

- the designer has fundamentally misunderstood the nature web design; this is inexperience or lack of knowledge on the part of the designer; or

- the coder doesn't know how to do it, which is inexperience or lack of knowledge on the part of the coder;

In both cases, education and practise are the answer :thumbsup:

[Eskimo]

I have found that most developers that use <font>,<b,i,u>,<table> have never had to maintain a large site for any period of time. Worse yet, maintaining many large sites for long periods of time.

CSS gives the power to change your entire site from one file, with no server side code. How is this NOT desirable?

I'm to lazy to chase down hundreds of tags in order to change them, granted I could grep and replace them, but even thats to much work for my lazy rump.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Eskimo
I have found that most developers that use <font>,<b,i,u>,<table> have never had to maintain a large site for any period of time. Worse yet, maintaining many large sites for long periods of time.

CSS gives the power to change your entire site from one file, with no server side code. How is this NOT desirable?


I'd like to see one of these "large" sites that someone changed the css in and not have a problem on a few of the pages that need to be corrected anyway. Reading the html/css forum here for awhile, one learns fast it isn't that "perfect" and that argument is moot.

MNS

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
Your job, using all your coding knowledge, is to make that site and have it look exactly like it was designed to look, cross browser, cross platform, including every little gizmo and gadget people may view the site in.

First of all, there are more little "gizmos and gadgets" that just desktop browsers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You need to understand that.

Also, the scenario you presented is based on an entirely false premise: that it is possible to "have it look exactly like it was designed to look" on every single web device. That's not how it works... standards or not.

The web is an information source, not a flawless, perfect painting canvas. You cannot just design whatever you want and expect it to look identically across all platforms, gadgets, gizmos or whatever. I'm not going to see a piece of art on my Palm. I'm not going to see it on my Samsung S-105 cell phone. It's not going to happen. But instead of blocking out these non-standard devices, we can embrace them by using web standards!

The web is an information source. Whether you like it or not, that's what it is. You need to treat it as though the text on the page is the most important thing -- tables, font tags, and non-semantic markup and all -- and use colors and styles and images to make it look good.

For "designers" and "coders" to work together coders need to code as best they can to make it look right in the devices/browsers that are capable of displaying it right, and the designers need to understand what kind of medium the web is............. information.

I wholeheartedly believe that the web is getting better, one web designer/coder at a time who comes to understand the concepts of web standards. Many, many, many people aren't yet aware of web standards, but they can be taught. People who continually argue against the use of web standards are the ones who are going to hold the web back. You are going to be the one that keeps it from knowing it's full potential, like that one overprotective mother hovering over her son all his life.

Play by the rules, or get out!

[allida77]

. People who continually argue against the use of web standards are the ones who are going to hold the web back.

I would never tell someone not to use web standards, but if I ever ran into a case where I am losing my design because it does not "validate" then I would say do what works. I think there is to much of generalization of web sites. Most sites have target audiences, well thought out design (some more then others), and I would not sacrifice either just to be validated.

If I wanted my site to be legible to non-standard devices then I would redirect to a different interface. It is alot different dealing with a 2-3 inch interface compared to a 19inch.

So I do agree with using these standards but you should not forget about the people that actually visit and use your site because they could care less about standards or browsers.

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
... People who continually argue against the use of web standards are the ones who are going to hold the web back. ...

Luddites of 21st century :D :D :D :thumbsup:

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
The web is an information source, not a flawless, perfect painting canvas. You cannot just design whatever you want and expect it to look identically across all platforms, gadgets, gizmos or whatever. I'm not going to see a piece of art on my Palm. I'm not going to see it on my Samsung S-105 cell phone. It's not going to happen. But instead of blocking out these non-standard devices, we can embrace them by using web standards!


Exactly, by following web standards and thus using semantic markup you can ensure you design looks good on multiple platforms. So if I look at your page on my Nokia 3595, it isn't going to be using your style sheet and displaying all your fancy images, but it will be formating itself based on the instructions built into the browser. So if it sees "<h1 class="title">My Page Title</h1> It will know to make this large, but if you were to do: <p><font size="4" color="blue">My Page Title</font></p> It will just display it as normal text because it can't realize that it is the page title.

Thats why using using CSS for layout and formatting along with semantic is so important. If your page has a 100 font tags that my cell phone is just going to ignore anyways, why should I have to download them on my limited bandwidth?

[Eskimo]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I'd like to see one of these "large" sites that someone changed the css in and not have a problem on a few of the pages that need to be corrected anyway. Reading the html/css forum here for awhile, one learns fast it isn't that "perfect" and that argument is moot.

MNS

Well, thats blatantly wrong...

One should learn fast that planning ahead would solve those "issues". If your foundation is poorly structured, don't blame the CSS/HTML for working exactly the way it should.

I have been reading this forum for a while, before it was here, my bookmarks still says WA. One thing this forum has made evidently clear to me.

There is two ways to do things: Right and Again.

I'm to lazy to do things again.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Skyzyx
First of all, there are more little "gizmos and gadgets" that just desktop browsers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/b] You need to understand that.

That is exactly why I said "gizmos and gadgets"

Also, the scenario you presented is based on an entirely false premise: that it is possible to "have it look exactly like it was designed to look" on every single web device. That's not how it works... standards or not.

I don't think that is a false premise. It can be done.

The web is an information source. Whether you like it or not, that's what it is. You need to treat it as though the text on the page is the most important thing -- tables, font tags, and non-semantic markup and all -- and use colors and styles and images to make it look good.

I'd say the web is used for commerce and communication much, much more than just information. If you have a business on the web, how you present your business by design is a very important "image", not a "document" or letter.

For "designers" and "coders" to work together coders need to code as best they can to make it look right in the devices/browsers that are capable of displaying it right, and the designers need to understand what kind of medium the web is............. information.

It may be information to some but to most it is a "medium" that transfers an "image" of a company or person. The corporations may use it mostly as an information highway, but I see more on the web that is not just information.

I wholeheartedly believe that the web is getting better, one web designer/coder at a time who comes to understand the concepts of web standards. Many, many, many people aren't yet aware of web standards, but they can be taught. People who continually argue against the use of web standards are the ones who are going to hold the web back. You are going to be the one that keeps it from knowing it's full potential, like that one overprotective mother hovering over her son all his life.

Actually, I am arguing FOR web standards and agree that the only way out of the mess we are in is in that direction. My concern is that the design part of the "picture" is being excluded for raw data and "information" ie; the white background with text.

Play by the rules, or get out!

My web site(except for 2 pages that it screws up the scripts on) are validated as HTML 4.0:rolleyes:

MNS

[oracleguy]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I don't think that is a false premise. It can be done.

:confused: How can that be? It is impossible. Have you ever looked at a website using a PDA or a cell phone? Most don't display images for a start. I cannot see how "it can be done."

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by oracleguy
:confused: How can that be? It is impossible. Have you ever looked at a website using a PDA or a cell phone? Most don't display images for a start. I cannot see how "it can be done."

My apologies, excluding the gizmos and gadgets, pada's and cellphones.

MNS

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I'd say the web is used for commerce and communication much, much more than just information. If you have a business on the web, how you present your business by design is a very important "image", not a "document" or letter.The image-based "pretty" design rarely has anything to do with a business's image, it's the content design that conveys the most important design.

Much like yourself (as far as I can tell atleast) I work for a small business. Our website is simple and easy to navigate (though, it's not coded based on standards--I didn't make it :)--which makes for terrible updates). We use very minimal images and have most of our black text on a white background. Gasp! No, not really... in fact most of our costumers comment on how much the enjoy our site simpley because the layout is logical and the simplicity of navigation goes to make a pleasurable experience.

This helps our business. See, we are resellers of industrial equipment. Our costumers could theoretically buy straight through our suppliers, leaving us out of the picture. Granted, it's not the only reason, but most of our costumers purchase through use because they can navigate our website, whereas our suppliers (much bigger companies who pay loads to have a professionally done "cool looking" website) web sites are confusing and impossible to navigate.

We have conveyed our message through our content, not through our pretty design. People on the internet are looking for content, and that is how you impress them. I remember months of attempting to impress my friends by showing them the cool looking sites that I found (ex: http://www.2advanced.com). All of them could have cared less, because frankly, they didn't care how the site looked. So much for the pretty design pulling them in...

Alas, I promised myself to cease arguments about this stuff, but look how long that lasted.

About the real meaning of this thread...

Skyzyx,

Very good job. I think your theme of playing by the rules is more than appropriate. It's a very good analogy and I think a very good argument for standards. Well done!

[Skyzyx]

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate it. :p

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by pardicity3
The image-based "pretty" design rarely has anything to do with a business's image, it's the content design that conveys the most important design.

Much like yourself (as far as I can tell atleast) I work for a small business. Our website is simple and easy to navigate (though, it's not coded based on standards--I didn't make it :)--which makes for terrible updates). We use very minimal images and have most of our black text on a white background. Gasp! No, not really... in fact most of our costumers comment on how much the enjoy our site simpley because the layout is logical and the simplicity of navigation goes to make a pleasurable experience.

This helps our business. See, we are resellers of industrial equipment. Our costumers could theoretically buy straight through our suppliers, leaving us out of the picture. Granted, it's not the only reason, but most of our costumers purchase through use because they can navigate our website, whereas our suppliers (much bigger companies who pay loads to have a professionally done "cool looking" website) web sites are confusing and impossible to navigate.

We have conveyed our message through our content, not through our pretty design. People on the internet are looking for content, and that is how you impress them. I remember months of attempting to impress my friends by showing them the cool looking sites that I found (ex: http://www.2advanced.com). All of them could have cared less, because frankly, they didn't care how the site looked. So much for the pretty design pulling them in...

Alas, I promised myself to cease arguments about this stuff, but look how long that lasted.

About the real meaning of this thread...

Skyzyx,

Very good job. I think your theme of playing by the rules is more than appropriate. It's a very good analogy and I think a very good argument for standards. Well done!

I think you were being redundant or something. We agree.
how you present your business by design is a very important "image", not a "document" or letter.

The content and blocks of text and shape those blocks have and the font used are all part of the design "image"....

MNS

EDIT:
My new sig
" if you want to be "in the biz" you are going to have to roll with the changes or get out, basically."

[Roy Sinclair]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
My apologies, excluding the gizmos and gadgets, pada's and cellphones.

MNS

But that's the point! You can't exclude them, they are here now in small quantities and it looks like there will be more and more of them as time goes on.

The best "design" for a web page viewed on a PC may be totally unusable on a PDA. The whole idea of separating the design part of a web page from the content part is so that you can make a different design for devices with different capabilities and limitations. CSS allows you to have a default design for unknown devices and device specific designs for each device type you find that needs it's own design. Without having to create a copy of the content for each of those devices and having to redirect users based on the type of device they're using.

If your site looks bad or is totally unusable to a visitor using a PDA while a competitor's site is usable you just lost a chance with that potential customer.

My concern is that the design part of the "picture" is being excluded for raw data and "information" ie; the white background with text.

That's not to idea at all. The idea is to keep the design but have it separated from the content. That allows for updating the design without having to touch the content and it allows for multiple designs to meet the needs of multiple kinds of devices. However for your content to work best in this kind of environment you also need to mark up the content with semantic tags which is why we keep stressing that as well.

[MotherNatrsSon]

But that's the point! You can't exclude them, they are here now in small quantities and it looks like there will be more and more of them as time goes on.

If by coding to standards, and your page being viewable on the web, why make exceptions for these devices? Why not make them conform to the same standads as any other web based browser?

MNS

[mordred]

Well, I'm late to the party (as always), but I decided to add my worthless musings about Skyzyx' article and the points made in this thread anyhow.

First of all, the article was nice and easy to read, concise and well worded. But I don't agree with the sport rules analogy, and with the underlying tone of the article. Rules in sports serve to establish a fair competition, and it is teams or individuals that compete against each other. How does this translate to the web? Do web developers compete against each other similar to the Olympics? IMHO it's the audience who decides which approach win's their favor. And I suppose we can safely assume that the majority of users couldn't care less what technology is used to deliver, as long as it works efficiently.

W3C standards are helpful to solve developer problems, not necessarily the user's problems (put aside accessability standards). Standards are no silver bullet meant to solve everything. And if people have problems implementing those standards, shouldn't that imply that they are sort of difficult? Perhaps they could be made easier to grasp. I guess not everyone new to the web immediately understands what problems the semantic web, CSS, DOM etc. try to solve.

Which leads me to the tone of your article. I especially don't like the teaser - "play by the rules or get out". Why this aggressivity? "play by the rules and see how the web gets better" is not that polarizing and attacking people who happen to have a differing opinion. Ok, the teaser is catchy and illustrates the point of your article quite well. But look at the standards project: What they did do was to *promote* standards, not to *force* them down the throat. I would have liked to see a more inclusive instead of exclusive tone in your article, because I firmly believe this is the better way to bring standards to the masses, to the web in general. And isn't that the real purpose? :)

[Roy Sinclair]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
If by coding to standards, and your page being viewable on the web, why make exceptions for these devices? Why not make them conform to the same standads as any other web based browser?

MNS

Because they aren't the same kind of device. Some devices can't display your nice big company logo graphic that heads your web page but are perfectly capable of displaying a nicely formatted text logo. It wouldn't be very good for a user to hit your site and then not be able to tell what company's information they are looking at simply because the only place that information can be found is in the logo which doesn't show up.

Also even devices with graphic image capability might still find your big company logo inappropriate simply because the screen is too small for that logo to even fit. Subsituting a small iconic logo or simple text logo would make more sense and make your page look better for any such users.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Ok. I know because of my stats that I have had people on phones and pda look at my site. Not having either device, is there a place I can "see" what my site looks like on them?

Skyzyx:

Thanks for writing the article and starting this thread. All of you may not realize it, but you are teaching me alot in this thread. I do appreciate that.

MNS

[allida77]

I looked at Skyzyx's site on my phone and it said I needed to update my browser. I went to Zeldman and it threw an error. If your are designing for a hand-held you should have different pages for them. There is no way you want to send the same amount of k to it. I can go to CNN.com and it comes up fine and shows pictures, yahoo is the same and they are nothing like their http pages. I know I said this before but I would not sacrifice my http design for a few hand-held users.

[Skyzyx]

:D ;) :p

I can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate or if you actually think the way that it seems you do. Either way, these discussions are a great way to get the blood pumping.

MNS, I wouldn't/couldn't have written this article without you. Thanks.

Now if you'll all excuse me, the blood vessel in the middle of my forehead is about to pop... :thumbsup:

[MotherNatrsSon]

I can't tell if you're playing devil's advocate or if you actually think the way that it seems you do. Either way, these discussions are a great way to get the blood pumping.

MNS, I wouldn't/couldn't have written this article without you. Thanks.

I am not playing "devil's advocate". I do feel and see design part of things seeming to be suffering, but as I have stated before, I do support the standards and have implemented them to the best of my ability. As that ability grows, I am sure I will make more changes.

Your welcome....thank-you!

Wish I could buy a round and everyone sit and have a drink together and just chill.....

allida77

Would you look at my site and tell me what you get on your phone? www.feminineoptions.com Thanks

MNS

[Eskimo]

MotherNatrsSon - I'd buy the first round!

The designs of websites aren't hurting due to standards. There are very few interfaces I have seen that actually NEED tables. Most of the reason they are so over used for image based interfaces can be traced back to WYSIWYG editors like Macromedias Fireworks and PhotoShop that will create the slices and HTML for you, thus making it very easy for ANYONE to design. I realize that they are not the original software that did this, I still have a shareware Slice.exe that I keep around for humor.

My thoughts on why the designs of sites are becoming more and more bland (this opinion is based on the posts I have read here, I myself feel there are plenty of beautiful sites that aren't) are based on the number of new (would be) web designers that have flooded the market. Anyone with a copy of FrontPage can put a site up with filled with animated .gifs while trying to underline words to make them links.

I would rather do the wrong thing, for the right reason, than the right thing, for the wrong reason. I guess that means I will miss out on some contracts. Thank god money isn't my sole purpose in life.

I have been lurking around this forum for years, not posting very often because of my extreme lack of ability to write a concise post, my thoughts just race through my head faster than I can write. Everytime I'm I get halfway through I just close the browser and go back to work. But its nice to see a thread like this.

[brothercake]

Originally posted by allida77
If your are designing for a hand-held you should have different pages for them. There is no way you want to send the same amount of k to it. I can go to CNN.com and it comes up fine and shows pictures, yahoo is the same and they are nothing like their http pages. I know I said this before but I would not sacrifice my http design for a few hand-held users.
You don't necessarily have to make separate pages or design sacrifices to deliver content to handhelds; you can do most of it without making any changes at all .. just make sure that:

- your page is semantic XHTML - no visual code; no tag soup; it must be bad-*** strict

- all your stylesheets have a media attribute - either "screen" or "print" ... never ever ever use media="all" (I bang on about this all the time ... don't use it ... it's evil)

What happens then is that a PDA, which is not screen or print (it's "handheld") gets your plain layout, which will be nicely linearised and easily able to fit onto a tiny screen :thumbsup:

Unless it has large images in it ... that's something else, which I don't have an easy answer to ... design images can all be tiled in as CSS backgrounds so they just won't be there, but content images are gonna be hard <img/> includes, and might be large in filesize as well as dimensions. Not sure what to do there ... some server-side process whereby you can sniff for a handheld and serve b/w or lo-res images, maybe, or a text equivalent ...??

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I think you were being redundant or something. We agree.


The content and blocks of text and shape those blocks have and the font used are all part of the design "image".... Peh! I do a very poor job of explaining myself sometimes :). In other words, I think the rant site is layed out great. It's incredibley easy to read, the navigation is clea and easy, and the layout is visual appealing. All those things are true, and yet the majority of the page is black text on a white background. Point being.... well I don't really know what my point is, I guess I was saying pages don't have to be all pretty to attract an audience, though it seems that would be a little redundant, wouldn't it?

[allida77]

MNS your site does not come up. The only one I can get to come up is Skyzyxs. The web on it is buggy sometimes so who knows.

On the handheld:
For a smaller site it would be fine to do what brothercake suggested I guess but if you have a large site this is just not feasible. You can not send that much k or it will crash. You would not want to send a large page and css to most handhelds or they will never show up.

About they images you could do that. You can easily sniff handhelds (with .net I know) on the server and just manipulate the image depending on the request.

[MotherNatrsSon]

I do not have any "special" set-up for pda or cell phone either. I see in my stats that a browser for pda/phones called "Web Collage" has been to my site a few times. I was just curious if they actually could see anything.

I do not do any "sniffing" for anything because the site is so simple that anyone on a computer can see it. I do not like the idea of doing more coding just so people can use their pda or phone to see my site.

Thanks for checking for me! I appreciate it.

MNS

[cubeddesign]

i never started this thread under this title how did it get renamed?

[Ben@WEBProp]

MNS- I just got a new cell phone with browser capability. So far, I have used it a few times to check weather, news, and ringer downloads. If I was bored at some train station or something (although I have never been on a train) I would probably use this feature to surf around. Other than boredom, people will not use it as thier main browser type, so you are right, don't code for it unless you think there is something that people will vitally need at any instance.

I will check your site at lunch to see the layout, what is the URL?

-Ben

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Ben@WEBProp
MNS- I just got a new cell phone with browser capability. So far, I have used it a few times to check weather, news, and ringer downloads. If I was bored at some train station or something (although I have never been on a train) I would probably use this feature to surf around. Other than boredom, people will not use it as thier main browser type, so you are right, don't code for it unless you think there is something that people will vitally need at any instance.

I will check your site at lunch to see the layout, what is the URL?

-Ben

www.feminineoptions.com

Thanks for checking it out. It is html 4.01 transitional but no "special" coding for phone or pda.

MNS