«

dorayme wrote:

> Here is a hint: there are times that important points should not
> be hinted at.
>

And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over
it, or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jenn wrote:

> the page was a suggestion or an idea... use it .. don't use it ...

True, but

> it
> doesn't matter to me either way.

That may be so, but you are missing the point. Your suggestion is a bad
suggestion web design-wise. Most people *want* their web sites indexed
by search engines. It is often how new visitors find the site. It is
like if your suggestion was to a writer a way to publish his novel which
had no means of advertising and distribution. If no readers are aware of
the book and cannot get there hands on it, what good is it for the author?

None. So it is the same for methods of web development that prevent a
site from being indexed. You may find countless examples of such methods
online and in old books, but sheer quantity does not improve their value
anymore than all those email offers for "special" stock tips or foreign
exiles needing your assistance for money transfers will make them great
investment opportunities.

> A person can keep trying to get the
> perfect page and never get the page working so anyone can appreciate it, or
> you can do something now and get the page up in a timely manner. If all
> someone wants to do is code for the google bot, I imagine there are other
> ways to do that and still use some of those ideas on dynamic drive.

Not much. Most of the scripts are pure rubbish. A quick glance can
betray their value when you see UserAgent sniffing over object detection
and arcane bits such as:

if( document.layers ) {...}

> Why
> re-invent the wheel? I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a page
> going that will work for a great many people and the browsers they use...

It is not really that hard, but you do have to know best design
practices. It is evolving so it is not something that you learn once and
then move on to something else.

> but might not work perfect for a small number of people. I don't think it's
> possible to have a perfect website and perfect code and the site look nice

Maybe not, but you can come close. But leaving out search engines is not
a *small thing*. Just remember JavaScript is *optional*. Keep repeating
it until it sticks. Your design should never depend on it to work if the
site is destine for the public. My old site does utilize JavaScript to
enhance the site and augment for IE's (v7 and under) CSS deficiencies,
but still functions without. I'm jettisoning that damn "Bouncing Betty"
navbar and flyout menus in my new design...you should jettison some of
your current beliefs that you hold so dear.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"rf" < wrote in message

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> which, like just about everything at dynamicdrive, fails miserably if
>>>>> Javascript is disabled. The thumbnails are not even *displayed* on
>>>>> that page without Javascript, although, stupidly, the credits for them
>>>>> are
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: the single most important visitor to your site does not have
>>>>> javascript enabled.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know anyone who disables javascript on purpose? FWIW.. most
>>>> people have no idea how to do that, let alone would disable js unless
>>>> they are just specifically looking to do so.. and then, such people
>>>> would know how to turn it back on.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I have with all this stuff is that there is no code that
>>>> will be perfect to work in every scenario for every browser and every
>>>> viewer that hits a page. If someone disables javascript on a page that
>>>> uses it, then it's too bad for them. If they want to view the page..
>>>> let them enable javascript.
>>
>>
>>> It's not people who I am concerned with. It's that most important
>>> visitor mentioned above. The search engine bot.
>>>
>>> If you use javascript to insert content (eg. images) onto a page, as the
>>> page you mention above appears to do, then google will never see that
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Besides, what that page does is a simple exercise to code in a fully
>>> cross browser mannar, and also in a mannar that degrades gracefully in
>>> the absense of javascript, so google will be able to index the site
>>> properly
>>
>>
>> the page was a suggestion or an idea... use it .. don't use it ... it
>> doesn't matter to me either way. A person can keep trying to get the
>> perfect page and never get the page working so anyone can appreciate it,
>> or you can do something now and get the page up in a timely manner. If
>> all someone wants to do is code for the google bot, I imagine there are
>> other ways to do that and still use some of those ideas on dynamic drive.
>> Why re-invent the wheel? I don't understand why it's so difficult to get
>> a page going that will work for a great many people and the browsers they
>> use... but might not work perfect for a small number of people. I don't
>> think it's possible to have a perfect website and perfect code and the
>> site look nice all at the same time with everything sheer perfection. It
>> doesn't exist.
>
> Yes Jenn, it does.
>
> A page with zero HTML errors. A page with zero CSS errors. A page with
> zero Javascript errors. A page that will display correctly for all current
> and future browsers including the one in next years telephone and will
> degrade gracefully for all past browsers all the way back to lynx. And a
> page that is also asthetically pleasing and conveys the content in exactly
> the mannar for which it was designed.
>
> Such pages do exist. People are creating them all the time. It is not easy
> do to but it is not very hard either. I created one just the other day.
>
> But it is true that these pages are a bit rarer than all the hundreds of
> millions of junk pages out there, including many of the junk scripts from
> dynamicdrive.


It's impossible to predict if a page will work in future browsers, and also
impossible to get a page to work 100% for 100% of the people. You will
spend so much time trying when you can move on to a different project.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)

"rf"
>
> "Jenn" wrote in message
>> for the photos, and no one has an answer and nothing has worked that
>> anyone else has suggested. I'm beginning to think all this talk about
>> perfect pages is just smoke in the wind. How long should it take to find
>> a solution? Do this.. don't do that.. if you do that it won't work if
>> you resize the font .. if you do the other thing it won't work in such
>> and such browser. You could take weeks only to find out there is no
>> perfect solution. How is doing it your way better, or faster, or
>> improved in any way or how I would do it if you can't even agree on a
>> solution that will be perfect? It's kind of frustrating to watch someone
>> ask a question and there be no solution at all.
>
>
> http://www.neredbojias.org/cgalx.html seems to me to be a pretty good stab
> at it


What use is a page with one column of images?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)

"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:hsbotd$mmm$...
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> Here is a hint: there are times that important points should not
>> be hinted at.


> And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
> an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over it,
> or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".
>


If you are wanting to have content for the google bot, adjust for it with
keywords within the code or some other technique.. Don't simply disregard
something because it contains a javascript.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)

"Lewis" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <y84Gn.24098$>
> rf <> wrote:
>> Hint: the single most important visitor to your site does not have
>> javascript enabled.
>
> People don't understand this. I had one hosting client ask me why their
> page didn't show up well on google. I sent then a screen shot of what
> google saw (a blank page) and explained that their reliance on
> javascript to display everything meant google couldn't see their page
> *at all*. That was two years ago, they still haven't changed their page.
>

ADD some keywords to the page.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)

"dorayme" <> wrote in message
news:dorayme-...
> In article <hsan64$a15$>,
> "Jenn" <> wrote:
>
>> Thus far I've seen many people make suggestions as to how to do that page
>> for the photos, and no one has an answer and nothing has worked that
>> anyone
>> else has suggested.

> There have been some good answers. That does not mean that these
> answers will suit everyone's website makers needs. But if it
> suits some and it works well for the users, that is perfection
> enough surely?
>
> About javascript, in the template of
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2jcs5r

I looked at the link, which is nice, tho, but I don't see any of what is
being suggested as perfection.

> there is js, but it is merely for the non-crucial purpose of
> centring the whole block of floats. If js is off in someone's
> browser, their experience is not devastated and in fact, in this
> case, hardly diminished, it is perhaps a nice touch, cream on the
> cake (the milkman was Bootnic, btw.)
>

I don't see any posts from Bootnic .. just attachments and I won't open
attachments.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)

Jenn wrote:
> "rf"

>> http://www.neredbojias.org/cgalx.html seems to me to be a pretty good stab
>> at it
>
>
> What use is a page with one column of images?

It is still usable, but the problem is that he has not bothered to
accommodate a workaround for the deficient browser IE7 and under.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jenn wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote in message
> news:hsbotd$mmm$...
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a hint: there are times that important points should not
>>> be hinted at.
>
>
>> And why exactly why as that? Obviously the the hint was miss, or is this
>> an example of being to "aggressive" to the "fairer"... If so, get over it,
>> or she will never have a chance to "get a clue".
>>
>
>
> If you are wanting to have content for the google bot, adjust for it with
> keywords within the code or some other technique.. Don't simply disregard
> something because it contains a javascript.
>
>

You are missing the point again. Using JavaScript to augment is okay,
requiring JavaScript to generate content is the no-no.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
"Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
news:hsbree$22j$...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> the page was a suggestion or an idea... use it .. don't use it ...
>
> True, but
>
>> it
>> doesn't matter to me either way.
>
> That may be so, but you are missing the point. Your suggestion is a bad
> suggestion web design-wise. Most people *want* their web sites indexed by
> search engines. It is often how new visitors find the site. It is like if
> your suggestion was to a writer a way to publish his novel which had no
> means of advertising and distribution. If no readers are aware of the book
> and cannot get there hands on it, what good is it for the author?
>
> None. So it is the same for methods of web development that prevent a site
> from being indexed. You may find countless examples of such methods online
> and in old books, but sheer quantity does not improve their value anymore
> than all those email offers for "special" stock tips or foreign exiles
> needing your assistance for money transfers will make them great
> investment opportunities.
>
>> A person can keep trying to get the
>> perfect page and never get the page working so anyone can appreciate it,
>> or
>> you can do something now and get the page up in a timely manner. If all
>> someone wants to do is code for the google bot, I imagine there are other
>> ways to do that and still use some of those ideas on dynamic drive.
>
> Not much. Most of the scripts are pure rubbish. A quick glance can betray
> their value when you see UserAgent sniffing over object detection and
> arcane bits such as:
>
> if( document.layers ) {...}
>
>> Why
>> re-invent the wheel? I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a
>> page
>> going that will work for a great many people and the browsers they use...
>
> It is not really that hard, but you do have to know best design practices.
> It is evolving so it is not something that you learn once and then move on
> to something else.

In my experience, what you can get to work in the shortest period of time
for the least amount of money for the client is a good practice. I've
worked on many small sites and some gigantic sites designed by committees
and had backend servers, too.... They aren't going for reaching the world
and every user on the web.. they are going for reaching a particular
customer. I've seen many many sites post in their footer something like
"This site viewed best in "browser name here".

>> but might not work perfect for a small number of people. I don't think
>> it's
>> possible to have a perfect website and perfect code and the site look
>> nice
>
> Maybe not, but you can come close. But leaving out search engines is not a
> *small thing*. Just remember JavaScript is *optional*. Keep repeating it
> until it sticks. Your design should never depend on it to work if the site
> is destine for the public. My old site does utilize JavaScript to enhance
> the site and augment for IE's (v7 and under) CSS deficiencies, but still
> functions without. I'm jettisoning that damn "Bouncing Betty" navbar and
> flyout menus in my new design...you should jettison some of your current
> beliefs that you hold so dear.
>
>

It's not even about *beliefs I hold dear*... it's about deadlines for me.
Management wants content up and functionality pronto. Google can index new
pages through other means if content is called by a layout or AJAX box that
Google may not index. It's like you (many people here) want to throw out
the baby with the bathwater... interesting and usable code that can enhance
the users experience ... and replace it with boring layouts and
functionality. I do, however, really like the new menu's that can be made
using CSS, tho. I haven't had a chance to use them yet where I work, but
possibly in the future.

I think many people here want to strive for perfection in code and
functionality, but that isn't very practical in the real world that I work
in.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)