View Full Version : My portfolio

06-08-2007, 05:18 AM

Tell me guys what do you think of it?

Note that half of this website is'nt even done yet, various wc3 errors pop-out and i'm going to fix them.

06-08-2007, 06:09 AM
Hmm I browse around with javascript disabled so your redirect doesn't work for me. I really don't think you need the redirect. Also what is up with the tables for page layout? I guess you haven't read the link in my sig yet?

06-08-2007, 06:14 AM
Hmm I browse around with javascript disabled so your redirect doesn't work for me. I really don't think you need the redirect. Also what is up with the tables for page layout? I guess you haven't read the link in my sig yet?

Heh I have a javascript redirecting default to the Dutch page, cause i've set up the directory in 2 ways: EN & NL. By default it supposed to put you to the NL page and if there are people that don't understand dutch they have an option to either have the english version.

I can either put the dutch part just straight on the root of the website itself, and if there's an english language needed point them to /EN/index.html for example.

And about the Tables thing, i have'nt read your page yet but it sounds interesting. :thumbsup:

06-08-2007, 06:16 AM
Ah i see the main reason with the Tables now.

Considering the whole website excluding images is'nt more then 20KB of data, what other reason shall i not use Tables? I've readed a few how's & why's but it does'nt convince me to remove those things.

It's not like my website is enormus of size, or people are still using 9600Baud modems :P

06-08-2007, 06:24 AM
Search engines have an easier time reading semantical code. Its a bit difficult for them to sift through the tables. There is also the thing about separating style from structure. As a web designer though you should be up to date with standards. If you want to be stubborn by all means go ahead. I wouldn't hire you. You say its less than 20kb of data and then you say people are using old modems. Believe it or not a tableless layout loads faster than a layout done in tables. Another thing I noticed is the orange gradient. The quality seemed to degrade when you exported it. You can see where the colors fade. You actually read the whole article in my sig? Some more reasons of why tables are bad: http://phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html

Check out www.csszengarden.com every layout on there uses the exact same HTML. Only thing changing is the CSS.

As to the redirection maybe you can use php for it rather than JS? http://techpatterns.com/downloads/php_language_detection.php

06-08-2007, 07:57 AM
I can understand why you tell me to remove those tables.

On big websites / slow computers it will defenitly cause problems (slowness) but to be honest this website renders in less then 0,25 seconds.

I'll be reading those Guides when i have the time for it, thanks tho ;)

Most of my customers dont really care about the engine, they care about the looks and that their website is up and running / doing good in all types of browsers.

I'll will work on it tho ;)

06-08-2007, 08:17 AM
What engine, a search engine? A search engine has nothing to do with your users. A search engine is like google. The better laid out your site is the better chances of you being indexed faster and higher allowing potential clients to reach your site easier.

06-08-2007, 08:34 AM
U got me wrong i menth the actual HTML code.

If people want to be up in the searchranking that bad i tell them to get an adwords account.

06-08-2007, 11:54 AM
You're still not getting the point tho. Tables for layout is not semantic and in this day and age you really should be using up-to-date code to style and layout your web site. There are no if's or but's, tables for layout is stupid and wrong and really should be avoided. Think of what a table is for, and why you would use it in, for example, finance... a table would layout out tabular data, figures and numbers etc. In web standards it's exactly the same.

And you would actually be doing your customers and yourself a service... search engine wise it is important. If your customers want their customers to find the site they need semantic code to give them a head start in the ranks for SEO. If you coded properly you would find it much easier and quicker to build web sites, as well as the fact that there would be very little HTML to deal with, so any potential problems are very easily found out.

It simply makes sense to code properly... that is the be all and end all.

06-08-2007, 12:33 PM
So can u give an example of an proper table thing compared to a little piece of code? It might help me understand that better u know.

06-08-2007, 12:54 PM
I'll look for some good example later... for now have a read of this (http://www.webhost-advisor.com/articles/why-use-css-layouts.php)

06-08-2007, 02:06 PM
Alright. I've bin working out the errors in WC3, but the last one i appearantly don't know off is the following:

WC3 validator (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jvanderlinde.net%2FNL%2Findex.html)

It saz basicly that the attribute "background" is nowhere defined, i tried to put it in the current .css file which looks like this:

}.background {
background-image: url(images/images_03.gif);
height: 72px;
width: 372px;

But still does not work the way i want :( Any tips?

06-08-2007, 05:15 PM
Background is not allowed in HTML which perfectly proves the point we've been trying to make... style sheets are for style, which means adding colours, layouts and backgrounds to the elements on your page. That td should realistically be a div that contains a background image of whatever it is you're wanting to display. IN this case you've put a background image in the CSS but not referred to it properly in the HTML.

the . before the word 'background' in CSS means that the background style you have created is a class and should therefore be referred to in the HTML as:

<TD COLSPAN="3" class="background">