Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: CSS for positioning

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: CSS for positioning

 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Jenn wrote:

> 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.


Ignore validation and you can pretty much guarantee it will fail. Do you
think that is a wise strategy? Also dismissing what you do not
understand is your problem, it is not that difficult to get a page to
work in all browsers. Of course avoiding pixel-perfect layouts can go a
long way and embrace a more flexible approach to design.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
In article <hsbotd$mmm$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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".


It is sometimes unwise to be hinting at things rather than being
all nice and clear, spelling it out or simply saying nothing.

It is very easy to say things for the knowing approval of the
usual gallery of rogues here (I do not deny the fun in this) but
when a lone Oklahoman mum wanders in here without the same
background as you wicked rogues, it is no use bleating afterwards
that she did not get the hint and it is no good arguing with the
chief rogue gallery eagle-eyed watcher, dorayme.

You already did your bit in making things clear. 10 points. But
you are getting points off now for not understanding that it
would have been better that the person who did the hinting should
have spelled it out in this particular case. (Not that it was
crime of the century, mind you).

You see, you and rf are here playing a sort of routine here. He
hints and it drops down a black hole and you come and shine a
light, the whole act probably being a little humiliating. (When,
btw, is your next two man act on? Send me some free tickets)

I am telling you again, you must attend my Tues and Thurs
finishing classes. You did not show up this morning and neither
did rf. I brought in some beers too for if you happened to do
well in class.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hsbvbv$iju$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>> "Jonathan N. Little"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:hsbotd$mmm$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>> 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.
>


Try validating these sites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/
www.tvguide.com/
www.foxnews.com/
www.yahoo.com/
www.nbclosangeles.com/
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.msnbc.com
www.latimes.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
www.usatoday.com/
http://cbs.com/

I ran all of these sites through the validator and none were perfect, yet
they are found by google very easily, and from the looks of their code they
are using javascript and in some cases AJAX boxes to call up content. Why
is it they do this if best practices dictate perfect code and no javascript
to call up content?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
(posting from aioe.org - eternal-september is down)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
sheldonlg wrote:
> On 5/11/2010 12:07 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:


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

>
> Can you expand upon that distinction?
>
> Expandable menu?


Yes you can use JavaScript to expand menus *if* you have a
non-JavaScript method like server-side "In This Section" generated links
to allow navigation when JavaScript is not available.

> Validation scripts prior to submission?


Fine to do a "preflight" check before a form is submitted but it *never*
replaces server-side validation! All user data *must* be validated
server-side before used.

> AJAX to bring in data for a table?


Only if you have a form submit button as backup if JavaScript is not
available.

> Page selection through a "director script" and a resulting ?page=something?


JavaScript is not required for that.

> I'd like to know more specifically what to avoid so as to maximize
> Google traversal. IOW, some simple examples of things.
>


Disable JavaScript and traverse your site. If you cannot then you have a
problem.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
Jenn wrote:
> "Lewis"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message<y84Gn.24098$(E-Mail Removed)>
>> rf<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Why? Maybe in 1995 that would suffice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_el...ords_attribute


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy J Starcher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:43:38 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> 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.


It is not uncommon for corporate firewalls to disable Javascript for
security reasons. It is not uncommon for web proxies to disable
Javascript for privacy reasons.

How many times has Microsoft issues a release saying "We found a new bug
in ActiveX/Javascript/whatever! To protect yourself, please disable
scripting until patch Tuesday!" Answer: Too many times to count.


> 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.



Perfect? Who said anything about 'perfect' .. not to mention that word
has little meaning. Usable, on the other hand, is a far more
understandable and achievable goal.

With the exception of my web applications, all of my documents are fully
usable for users with Javascript disabled. May not be as pretty, nor
quite as convenient, but no essential feature of why my web site exists
stops working with Javascript disabled.

Once again, I suggest you get a copy of FireVox and Lynx (or links) and
spend some time browsing the web...

And ... as others have said ... the most important visitor to your
website doesn't have Javascript .....
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
In article <hsbujm$n5s$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "dorayme" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In article <hsan64$a15$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
> > "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>


Why is it not perfect enough ("perfection enough" was the phrase
I used) for thumbs that are all the same size with very short
captions?


> > 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.


Never mind this milkman. <g> I was just saying how here is a case
of js doing a job that is nice but not crucial and so it is not
super important if a few people have their js off, they still get
to see the photos of anyone using this simple template.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
"Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hsc0k5$c0j$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jenn wrote:
>> "Lewis"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In message<y84Gn.24098$(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> rf<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> Why? Maybe in 1995 that would suffice:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_el...ords_attribute
>
>



What's you're point? Gigantic websites such as the news links I posted like
msnbc.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc... all use keywords on their pages. I'm
sure I could find many many more sites like those just by doing a google
search.. which would also mean that those sites are crawled by google very
well.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy J Starcher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
On Mon, 10 May 2010 23:16:33 -0500, Jenn wrote:

> "Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> You missed the hint! The Google spider does not have javascript enable.


> so? does that mean you don't put any javascript on a website? No.


It means that the site should be usable without Javascript. You may, if
you wish, use Javascript to add features and make the site easier to use.

Let me give you a concrete example (once again, my online store)

http://parts.mopedepot.com/pbook.php...&book=0&page=7

Visit this page with Javascript turned on.

You can see the colored circles that highlight active sections of the
image map. Hover over one of the circles and you get a summary of what
that part is.

If you click on one of the colored circles, the table on the left reduces
and shows just the selected parts.

Try #2 towards middle of the image.

Now, turn Javascript off and visit the page.


Now, the colored circles are missing as are the popups that show the part
detail, if you click on one of the numbers it will reload the page and
give you the reduced table that you saw before.

So, there isn't a single aspect of that page that requires Javascript,
but having Javascript I was able to throw in some extras.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2010
dorayme wrote:
> You see, you and rf are here playing a sort of routine here. He
> hints and it drops down a black hole and you come and shine a
> light, the whole act probably being a little humiliating. (When,
> btw, is your next two man act on? Send me some free tickets)


What this hell is it with all this damn gender bashing? I am getting
quite fed up with it! It is *total* irrelevant! The only organ a play
here is the brain, and if more individuals would utilize them the
discussion would progress less acrimoniously. Can we get back to
discussing HTML?

Here is a little tidbit that I have discovered about things. Yes, there
is always more than one way to do something successfully, but there are
always some ways which are wrong and will be unsuccessful.

Also, if you postulate something to be true and you can backup your
argument with viable evidence and proof then you have a valid position.
If it is based solely on your belief--it is no proof of validity.
"Believing" is for clinging to a position in the absences of facts and
should remain restricted to the topics of religion and metaphysics,
which is definitely OT for this NG.


--
Take care,

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

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Datalist and CSS positioning Eric ASP .Net 1 09-14-2005 03:38 PM
OT ...CSS positioning ASP .Net 1 04-07-2004 12:58 PM
Re: CSS positioning help - Mozilla brucie HTML 8 06-29-2003 05:39 PM
Re: CSS positioning help - Mozilla David Graham HTML 1 06-28-2003 05:15 PM
Re: css positioning vs. tables PeterMcC HTML 0 06-23-2003 04:45 PM



Advertisments