If you did run a course for a small group of people on this, and for
complete beginners, because I'm about as beginner as you can get, I
have a very basic understanding of HTML, I use GoLive or Dreamweaver
for work, I'd pay to participate, and, if I could get a reciept, it's
tax deductable! It would have to be a group thing though, because I'm
on a very low income I can't afford one on one tuition.
So if you do think it's worthwhile, and you can get some others
interested, as long as it's an evening or weekend timeframe, I'd be
very interested.
I'm not entirely reluctant to learn CSS, but at the same time I can't
make full use of it (as far as I know) on all our sites because the
other designer I work with, who's been here much longer than I have,
doesn't want to learn it too.
So let me know if you decide to run a crash course on it for a few
people, I'd definately be interested.
Kind regards,
Kelly
On 4/28/05, Onno Benschop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kelly Duffy wrote:
>
> >Sorry,
> >
> >I should have specified a bit more. My real issue at the moment is
> >monitor size only. I'm by no means a web programmer, my clients have
> >very basic sites, and CSS isn't really an option. I am currently
> >playing around with it, and I love the examples at
> >www.csszengarden.com however I'm not the only person in the company
> >and the main other designer doesn't know CSS and has no desire to
> >learn it so I'm not able to make use of it except for on a personal
> >level.
> >
> >I'm not worried about mobile phones and PDAs for most of the people
> >who'd be accessing our sites, they're just made for an average home
> >user, some specifically targeting the elderly and not particularly
> >technologically knowledgable, or for specific clients to access form
> >work.
> >
> >Browser compatibility isn't an issue wither, we use very basic things,
> >we don't go into Flash, secure sites for online payments, or anything
> >else other than pretty basic HTML. I check them on the basic browsers
> >for PC and Mac, Internet Explorer, Netscape, Safari, Mozilla and a
> >couple of others. Because our sites are so basic connection speed
> >isn't an issue anyway, I am on dial-up at home, it's slow, but it
> >means I can check them, and if I'm not happy with it the site's not
> >suitable for a good portion of our users.
> >
> >Overall I agree with you, which is why I'm playing around with CSS at
> >the moment, it's definately the way to go with most web development,
> >but it's not really an option for us at the moment.
> >
> >Thanks for the other link though, it will be really helpful for me, I
> >hate code myself but since it's something I need to get used to an
> >explanation of how it works will make it all a lot easier to
> >understand. There's also a lot of other info there I could really use.
> >It's unfortunate that making things look pretty just isn't enough for
> >me to do my job properly anymore!
> >
> >
>
> Uhm, your message displays a warped view of what is required or what is
> hard to complete. The concept that has been completely buried in the
> style-sheet - HTML - make it look pretty rubbish that has been going
> since tables were invented more than 10 years ago.
>
> My point is this:
>
> Precisely because it is so simple to use style-sheets and because it
> gives you all the great things in terms of compatibility,
> scalability, and interoperation, it makes no sense at all to use
> anything else.
>
> I don't want to turn this into a training session on how to do this, but
> your argument against style-sheets just don't stack up in my opinion. I
> don't know if you were around when the web was invented, but at the time
> we had HTML documents that used <h1> tags, <ul> and a few <hr> to make
> the text readable.
>
> Today, you can use that *same* HTML and make it look "pretty", by
> attaching a style-sheet to it and *you get all the rest for free*, just
> by doing it that way.
>
> Ok, I give in, because I suspect it is fear of the unknown that leads
> you down the wrong path. Let us consider the following simple web-page:
> [which to the observant isn't entirely complete]
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>My Story</title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <div class="table_of_content">
> <ul>
> <li><a href="#chap1">Chapter 1</a></li>
> <li><a href="#chap2">Chapter 2</a></li>
> </ul>
> </div>
> <div class="chapter">
> <a name="chap1"></a>
> <div class="title">This is Chapter 1 of my Story</div>
> <div class="story_text">
> <p>This is a little story with some text in it.</p>
> </div>
> </div>
> <div class="chapter">
> <a name="chap2"></a>
> <div class="title">This is Chapter 2 of my Story</div>
> <div class="story_text">
> <p>This is a another little story with some different text in
> it.</p>
> </div>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> When you stick this in a text file and save it as story.html, then open
> it up in a web-browser it looks pretty un-appealing:
>
> * Chapter 1
> * Chapter 2
>
> This is Chapter 1 of my Story
>
> This is a little story with some text in it.
>
> This is Chapter 2 of my Story
>
> This is a another little story with some different text in it.
>
> The point of this is that you now have a structured piece of information
> that you can now format and make pretty. For example, you could make the
> chapter headings look like a heading by adding the following style in
> between the <head> tags:
>
> <style type="text/css"><!--
> .title {
> font-weight:bold;
> color:red;
> }
> --></style>
>
> You could indent the body of each chapter with this:
>
> .story_text {
> margin: 0 10em;
> }
>
> And you could make the layout use two columns with this:
>
> .chapter {
> float:left ;
> }
>
> What I'm saying is that while you can get all excited about using your
> favourite HTML editor, most of the time they generate crap that is good
> for nothing and gets in the way of actually presenting the information.
> The concept that you're alone in your company and that you cannot change
> your environment also doesn't wash with me, because the above loads
> faster, is simpler to create, runs on more devices and is simpler to
> maintain, all of which makes your company's bottom-line look better.
>
> And to top it off, if you want to create a new look site, you change one
> style-sheet and the new look is rolled out. You can decide how much you
> want to charge your customer for the new look.
>
> So, pardon me for not buying your argument.
>
> Finally, I completely understand your reluctance. The Internet is full
> of information about style-sheets that is incomplete and out of date.
> While you're learning this stuff, much of it hinders your progress,
> rather than helps it.
>
> If there is any interest, I'd be happy to entertain the idea of setting
> up some training to cover the above, but understand that I do this for a
> living and while I'm happy to show the way in a forum such as this, it's
> an entirely different thing to expect me to become a central web-site
> developer help desk without some form of remuneration, seeing that I
> still have to pay the bills and helping around here isn't doing that in
> any way.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Onno Benschop
>
> Connected via Optus B3 at S25°34'41" - E152°35'34" (Graham's Creek, QLD)
> --
> ()/)/)() ..ASCII for Onno..
> |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno..
> --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno..
>
> Proudly supported by Skipper Trucks, Highway1, Concept AV, Sony Central,
> Dalcon
> ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 8888 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List --
> Archives - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/archives.shtml>
> Guidelines - <http://www.wamug.org.au/mailinglist/guidelines.shtml>
> Unsubscribe - <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> WAMUG is powered by Stalker CommuniGatePro
>
