Website Building

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by reepicheep11@gmail.com, Mar 16, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!

    -Clueless
    , Mar 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sandy58 Guest

    On Mar 16, 10:45 pm, wrote:
    > Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    > not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    > Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!
    >
    > -Clueless


    Chloe, does your Mummy know your on here? Be afraid. Be VERY
    afraid!! :)
    sandy58, Mar 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sandy58 Guest

    On Mar 16, 10:45 pm, wrote:
    > Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    > not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    > Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!
    >
    > -Clueless


    OK, Chloe. Here's all you will ever need to know on this link. Take
    your time & back-up alla time. Good luck. :)
    http://www.bellsnwhistles.com/bells03.html
    sandy58, Mar 17, 2008
    #3
  4. Guest

    , Mar 17, 2008
    #4
  5. Art2U Guest

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:38:04 -0700, wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >>Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    >>not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    >>Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!

    >
    > Haven't done this in a long time I learned HTML (on the web) and used
    > a text editor to create my pages.
    >
    > Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one at
    > http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.
    >
    > Also find a newsgroup that caters to web pages,


    a good start for you:

    http://www.w3schools.com/

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

    http://validator.w3.org/

    http://www.thepattysite.com/

    -Art- (not Art)
    Art2U, Mar 17, 2008
    #5
  6. Art2U Guest

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:33:49 -0400, Art2U wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:38:04 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    >>>not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    >>>Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!

    >>
    >> Haven't done this in a long time I learned HTML (on the web) and used
    >> a text editor to create my pages.
    >>
    >> Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one at
    >> http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.
    >>
    >> Also find a newsgroup that caters to web pages,

    >
    > a good start for you:
    >
    > http://www.w3schools.com/
    >
    > http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
    >
    > http://validator.w3.org/
    >
    > http://www.thepattysite.com/
    >
    > -Art- (not Art)


    oh! and your public library... always a good source...
    -Art- (not Art)
    Art2U, Mar 17, 2008
    #6
  7. Art2U wrote:

    >> Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one
    >> at http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.


    ...but be aware there are an awful lot of *bad* web page "creators" out
    there.

    > a good start for you:
    >
    > http://www.w3schools.com/


    ...just to clarify, w3schools is not connected in any way with the W3C.
    There are also numerous errors in what is dispensed there.

    > http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
    > http://validator.w3.org/


    Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test often
    with several browsers.

    > thepattysite.com

    ...probably not for the novice.

    The following is a frequently-recommended tutorial for the beginner. No
    matter what tool one uses, one still needs to know the ways of raw HTML
    and CSS, so as to prevent the auto-tool from producing bad code.

    http://htmldog.com/

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #7
  8. Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

    >>> Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one
    >>> at http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.


    Whoops, sorry I mis-attributed the above. It was pennywise who said
    that.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #8
  9. TJ Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Art2U wrote:
    >
    >>> Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one
    >>> at http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.

    >
    > ..but be aware there are an awful lot of *bad* web page "creators" out
    > there.
    >
    >> a good start for you:
    >>
    >> http://www.w3schools.com/

    >
    > ..just to clarify, w3schools is not connected in any way with the W3C.
    > There are also numerous errors in what is dispensed there.
    >
    >> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
    >> http://validator.w3.org/

    >
    > Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test
    > often with several browsers.


    All due respect Beau, but I find validation to be more trouble than it's
    worth for a *personal* website. I do agree you should check rendering in
    different browsers though. I have a little site that I maintain for friends
    and family that I check with IE 6 and 7, Firefox, Opera, and Safari each
    time I update. As long as it renders the same in each one, I'm done. :)

    The index page of my site fails to validate with 23 errors. The most
    egregious being that I don't declare a "DOCTYPE" at all. Then there's some
    stuff about not having "alt" tags on images, and other stuff about margin
    attributes not being recognized, etc.

    I'm sure I could "fix" it so it validates, but IMO it's not "broken" since
    it renders just fine in all the browsers mentioned above, which contitutes
    probably about 99% of the browsers currently in use.

    For the record though, at least I'm doing better than www.microsoft.com.
    That page has 29 errors! :)

    > No matter what tool one uses, one still needs to know the ways of raw
    > HTML and CSS, so as to prevent the auto-tool from producing bad code.
    >
    > http://htmldog.com/
    TJ, Mar 17, 2008
    #9
  10. Guest

    wrote:

    >Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    >not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    >Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!


    Haven't done this in a long time I learned HTML (on the web) and used
    a text editor to create my pages.

    Most people just use a program to help create their sites, find one at
    http://tucows.com/ should be a lot of free ones available.

    Also find a newsgroup that caters to web pages,
    --

    http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/geronimo.gif
    , Mar 17, 2008
    #10
  11. Ish Guest

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:45:30 -0700, reepicheep11 wrote:

    > Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am not
    > very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this. Could
    > anyone give me any tips? Thanks!
    >
    > -Clueless


    http://www.hippiepro.com/

    HTML editor. see code in one windoe, see page
    in other window as you edit, ie what you see is what you get.
    Ish, Mar 17, 2008
    #11
  12. TJ wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test
    >> often with several browsers.

    >
    > All due respect Beau,


    Understood.

    > but I find validation to be more trouble than it's worth for a
    > *personal* website. I do agree you should check rendering in
    > different browsers though. I have a little site that I maintain for
    > friends and family that I check with IE 6 and 7, Firefox, Opera, and
    > Safari each time I update. As long as it renders the same in each
    > one, I'm done. :)


    That's fine. I have no problem with that. It all depends on what value
    of "correct" the author wishes to attain. It may or may not be important
    to the hobbyist, and the family.

    > The index page of my site fails to validate with 23 errors. The most
    > egregious being that I don't declare a "DOCTYPE" at all. Then there's some
    > stuff about not having "alt" tags on images,


    alt attributes are important for the blind, and for those who choose not
    to download images (people on slow dialup)..

    > and other stuff about margin attributes not being recognized, etc.


    Not using a doctype throws browsers into "Quirks Mode", where the
    browser gets to try and decide what you meant. <g> Depending on what
    you have used, or how you coded it, may display differently among
    browsers - with Internet Explorer usually getting it wrong.

    Using a Strict doctype without errors gives the best chance for
    identical rendering. (and HTML rather than XHTML, which IE still does
    not parse correctly)

    > I'm sure I could "fix" it so it validates, but IMO it's not "broken"
    > since it renders just fine in all the browsers mentioned above, which
    > contitutes probably about 99% of the browsers currently in use.
    >
    > For the record though, at least I'm doing better than
    > www.microsoft.com. That page has 29 errors! :)


    <lol> That's because Msoft doesn't care about other browsers, and its
    webmasters haven't heard of the W3 yet. Oh, and because they use
    IE-proprietary bits in their code.

    My philosophy is to attempt to show/get/help folks (especially newbies)
    to understand, or realize, there is more to web authoring than to just
    type text into FrontPage, drag in some images, click "Center All" and be
    done. ;-)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #12
  13. Ish wrote:

    > reepicheep11 wrote:
    >> Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I
    >> am not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing
    >> this. Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!

    >
    > http://www.hippiepro.com/
    >
    > HTML editor. see code in one windoe, see page
    > in other window as you edit, ie what you see is what you get.


    That one appears to cost $80 (U.S. I assume), and last updated in 2006.
    Do you have any recommendations for a free one? Thanks.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Vista
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #13
  14. why? Guest

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    >Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am


    This matters why?

    >not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.


    Why the story? :)

    Just ask about what you need.

    >Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!
    >
    > -Clueless


    Look for the past posts in this newsgroup
    http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/topics
    about HTML. Lots of links to tutorials, some repeated below.

    If you are doing this on your PC, you don't need a lot to get started.

    A folder to store the website files in, a browser to view the results,
    an editor even notepad to create the pages.

    If you want to view the webpages from your PC as http:// URLs in the
    browser then you can try something like a mini web server
    http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/network/sswww.htm
    From what I remember you tell this program the folder your files are in
    then you can use http:// to view your pages.


    If it's stuff you want other people to see,
    some webspace from your ISP, free space with ads or even pay for some
    webhosting.

    To get the files from your PC some systems have a control panel that
    lets you point to the files on your PC and copies them to the web
    server. A very common method is also an ftp utility, file transfer
    protocol, from your PC.

    Just about all the tutorials, editors and utilities like ftp can be
    obtained for free or at low cost.


    You may find these handy to get started,

    www.htmldog.com

    www.w3schools.com , does have issues with errors but the basics are
    there.

    Use maybe 1 browser other than IE to view the resulting webpages,
    http://www.seamonkey-project.org/
    Seamonkey is a browser and editor component as well.
    or
    www.opera.com
    Browser


    If it's about design and looks,
    http://webstyleguide.com/

    You could also consider the way pages render on different browsers.

    There are standards / guides published by www.w3.org (nothing to do with
    the above)

    They have a way to validate pages, it's something to consider perhaps
    for later, but worth knowing about now.

    For HTML
    http://validator.w3.org/
    for style sheets CSS
    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

    Although quite in depth, the standards guides are here
    HTML 4.01
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
    again some basics about colors, measurements and what an HTML document
    looks like, HTML , Header, Title etc, in section 7.1


    CSS 2.1
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

    CSS is a way to apply color styles, colors and other presentational
    information to the webpage, while HTML is the content and structure.


    If you are considering accessibility for disabled people,
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/

    Me
    why?, Mar 17, 2008
    #14
  15. why? Guest

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    >Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am
    >not very computer savvy and do not know how to go about doing this.
    >Could anyone give me any tips? Thanks!
    >
    > -Clueless

    Forgot to mention default templates to get started
    http://molly.com/templates.php

    Try starting off with
    Conforming HTML 4.01 strict template

    Me
    why?, Mar 17, 2008
    #15
  16. Evan Platt Guest

    On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:18:27 GMT, why?
    <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:

    >
    >On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
    >
    >>Hello, I am a young teenager looking to build a website. However, I am

    >
    >This matters why?


    Either a sympathy vote, or entrapment to weed out the pedos. :-D
    --
    To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.
    Evan Platt, Mar 17, 2008
    #16
  17. TJ Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > TJ wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test
    >>> often with several browsers.

    >>
    >> All due respect Beau,

    >
    > Understood.
    >
    >> but I find validation to be more trouble than it's worth for a
    >> *personal* website. I do agree you should check rendering in
    >> different browsers though. I have a little site that I maintain for
    >> friends and family that I check with IE 6 and 7, Firefox, Opera, and
    >> Safari each time I update. As long as it renders the same in each
    >> one, I'm done. :)

    >
    > That's fine. I have no problem with that. It all depends on what value
    > of "correct" the author wishes to attain. It may or may not be
    > important to the hobbyist, and the family.
    >
    >> The index page of my site fails to validate with 23 errors. The most
    >> egregious being that I don't declare a "DOCTYPE" at all. Then
    >> there's some stuff about not having "alt" tags on images,

    >
    > alt attributes are important for the blind, and for those who choose
    > not to download images (people on slow dialup).


    This is another thing I never understood. How does telling a blind person
    (or someone who choses not to display images) what the picture depicts, help
    the blind person "see" the picture? Let's say I post a pic of my wife and
    myself in a canoe on Cedar Creek. How does an "alt" tag help a blind person
    see the picture? And do the blind really need to know that there's a
    transparent 1x1 pixel (spacer) gif in the upper right corner? According to
    the w3c they do. Unless maybe that's covered in one of the many "doctypes"
    I can't make heads or tails of? More on doctypes below, if you're
    interested.

    >> and other stuff about margin attributes not being recognized, etc.

    >
    > Not using a doctype throws browsers into "Quirks Mode", where the
    > browser gets to try and decide what you meant. <g> Depending on what
    > you have used, or how you coded it, may display differently among
    > browsers - with Internet Explorer usually getting it wrong.


    When I check after updating, I find that Opera gets what I "meant" wrong
    more often that any other browser. Usually it's just a small tweak, and
    then everything's OK.

    > Using a Strict doctype without errors gives the best chance for
    > identical rendering. (and HTML rather than XHTML, which IE still does
    > not parse correctly)
    >
    >> I'm sure I could "fix" it so it validates, but IMO it's not "broken"
    >> since it renders just fine in all the browsers mentioned above, which
    >> contitutes probably about 99% of the browsers currently in use.
    >>
    >> For the record though, at least I'm doing better than
    >> www.microsoft.com. That page has 29 errors! :)

    >
    > <lol> That's because Msoft doesn't care about other browsers, and its
    > webmasters haven't heard of the W3 yet. Oh, and because they use
    > IE-proprietary bits in their code.
    >
    > My philosophy is to attempt to show/get/help folks (especially
    > newbies) to understand, or realize, there is more to web authoring
    > than to just type text into FrontPage, drag in some images, click
    > "Center All" and be done. ;-)


    I agree. But asking newbs to validate *personal* pages is a bit overboard,
    IMO. :) Heck. I don't think I'm stupid (maybe I am) but I cannot
    understand the differences between all the different doctypes that the w3c
    says are "allowable". The definitions offered are about as clear as mud.
    And it's for that reason that I don't bother to declare one. Yet my site
    still renders properly.

    My other problem is with the hard-liners who insist that *all* websites
    should validate. To me, validating a personal page is a waste of time. So
    long as I check and make sure it renders properly in various browsers what's
    the point? Honestly, I don't know anybody (myself included) who hits a
    site, doesn't see the yellow and white, "This site is w3c compliant" gif,
    and leaves if it's not there. Do you?

    Validation has it's purpose for sure. And the way I understand it, it is to
    make sure that EVERY new/old/obscure browser in the world will be able to
    render what you write without cause for concern. And I guess that's fine if
    you're selling something and don't want to exclude less than 1% of your
    audience. But for a personal site ... It's a waste of time.

    The only way I'll instantly ditch a site is if there's a midi getting jammed
    down my throat, and/or, a *horizontal* scroll bar. :)
    TJ, Mar 17, 2008
    #17
  18. TJ wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> TJ wrote:
    >>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>> Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test
    >>>> often with several browsers.
    >>>
    >>> All due respect Beau,

    >>
    >> Understood.
    >>
    >>> but I find validation to be more trouble than it's worth for a
    >>> *personal* website. I do agree you should check rendering in
    >>> different browsers though. I have a little site that I maintain
    >>> for friends and family that I check with IE 6 and 7, Firefox,
    >>> Opera, and Safari each time I update. As long as it renders the
    >>> same in each one, I'm done. :)

    >>
    >> That's fine. I have no problem with that. It all depends on what
    >> value of "correct" the author wishes to attain. It may or may not be
    >> important to the hobbyist, and the family.
    >>
    >>> The index page of my site fails to validate with 23 errors. The
    >>> most egregious being that I don't declare a "DOCTYPE" at all. Then
    >>> there's some stuff about not having "alt" tags on images,

    >>
    >> alt attributes are important for the blind, and for those who choose
    >> not to download images (people on slow dialup).

    >
    > This is another thing I never understood. How does telling a blind
    > person (or someone who choses not to display images) what the picture
    > depicts, help the blind person "see" the picture?


    Blind people use readers .. speech browsers, so the reader will tell
    them what is in the content.

    > Let's say I post a pic of my wife and myself in a canoe on Cedar
    > Creek. How does an "alt" tag help a blind person see the picture?


    <img alt="TJ and wife in a canoe" ..

    If the blind person thinks that it would be worthwhile to "see" it, s/he
    may ask a sighted visitor to describe the image further.

    > And do the blind really need to know that there's a transparent 1x1
    > pixel (spacer) gif in the upper right corner? According to the w3c
    > they do.


    Spacer gifs should use an alt attribute of: alt=""
    so the speech browser (or regular browser with images off) does *not*
    render anything, as the image is not pertinent to the content.

    (Sites using spacer images are using presentational markup. They should
    be replaced with CSS. <g>)

    > Unless maybe that's covered in one of the many "doctypes" I can't make
    > heads or tails of? More on doctypes below, if you're interested.


    S'far as I remember, alt attributes are required for validation in all
    doctypes.

    >>> and other stuff about margin attributes not being recognized, etc.

    >>
    >> Not using a doctype throws browsers into "Quirks Mode", where the
    >> browser gets to try and decide what you meant. <g> Depending on
    >> what you have used, or how you coded it, may display differently
    >> among browsers - with Internet Explorer usually getting it wrong.

    >
    > When I check after updating, I find that Opera gets what I "meant"
    > wrong more often that any other browser. Usually it's just a small
    > tweak, and then everything's OK.


    Opera is one of the best browsers available, and for years was the only
    one that passed the Acid2 test. The most recent Safari now also does
    that. IE doesn't even come close.

    <snippage>

    >> My philosophy is to attempt to show/get/help folks (especially
    >> newbies) to understand, or realize, there is more to web authoring
    >> than to just type text into FrontPage, drag in some images, click
    >> "Center All" and be done. ;-)

    >
    > I agree. But asking newbs to validate *personal* pages is a bit
    > overboard, IMO. :)


    Heehee... this could be so. If all I wanted to do was publish a group
    of photos of my cat, it probably isn't going to matter.

    > Heck. I don't think I'm stupid (maybe I am) but I cannot understand
    > the differences between all the different doctypes that the w3c says
    > are "allowable". The definitions offered are about as clear as mud.
    > And it's for that reason that I don't bother to declare one.


    It's pretty simple. There are (for nearly all usages) two sets of three
    each. HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. All others are for specialties. The
    three are Transitional, Strict, and Frameset.
    http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

    Transitional is for 'transitioning' legacy documents (those with HTML
    presentation, like <center>, <font size="2"> ...) and where you aren't
    yet ready to move all presentation into CSS; and Strict is for new work
    where you have separated the presentation from the content, using the
    CSS, and the HTML only contains content markup. Frameset is of course
    self-explanatory, but frames are not recommended. Google "frames are
    evil."

    > Yet my site still renders properly.


    It does depend on how the pages are constructed. Simple, one-column
    pages usually present no problem. Complex CSS presentations usually
    won't.

    > My other problem is with the hard-liners who insist that *all*
    > websites should validate.


    Well, there are hard-liners everywhere. I'm not one of them, though I
    would advise that a site that *does* validate and isn't in Quirks Mode
    stands a better chance to be seen the same in all browsers.

    > To me, validating a personal page is a waste of time. So long as I
    > check and make sure it renders properly in various browsers what's
    > the point? Honestly, I don't know anybody (myself included) who
    > hits a site, doesn't see the yellow and white, "This site is w3c
    > compliant" gif, and leaves if it's not there. Do you?


    No, of course not. <g> Nor would I leave a site that *did* display the
    W3C images.

    > Validation has it's purpose for sure. And the way I understand it,
    > it is to make sure that EVERY new/old/obscure browser in the world
    > will be able to render what you write without cause for concern. And
    > I guess that's fine if you're selling something and don't want to
    > exclude less than 1% of your audience. But for a personal site ...
    > It's a waste of time.


    Your opinion is understood.

    > The only way I'll instantly ditch a site is if there's a midi getting
    > jammed down my throat, and/or, a *horizontal* scroll bar. :)


    Oh yes! Unsolicited sound is a prime reason to hit the Back button.
    What if it's the middle of the night and my wife is asleep in the next
    room?

    Horizontal scrollbars might not cause me to leave if there was something
    important at the site. However, I have run into a few sites that have
    the scrollbar even when I am maximized on my 22" widescreen. That is
    simply poor authoring.

    My reasoning is simply that it's a good idea to help people take some
    pride in their work, and produce good web sites.

    Oh, and to tell them "Never use Microsoft Publisher" to make a site.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #18
  19. TJ Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > TJ wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>> TJ wrote:
    >>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >>>>> Good advice. Validate often. Use a HTML 4.01 Strict doctype. Test
    >>>>> often with several browsers.
    >>>>
    >>>> All due respect Beau,
    >>>
    >>> Understood.
    >>>
    >>>> but I find validation to be more trouble than it's worth for a
    >>>> *personal* website. I do agree you should check rendering in
    >>>> different browsers though. I have a little site that I maintain
    >>>> for friends and family that I check with IE 6 and 7, Firefox,
    >>>> Opera, and Safari each time I update. As long as it renders the
    >>>> same in each one, I'm done. :)
    >>>
    >>> That's fine. I have no problem with that. It all depends on what
    >>> value of "correct" the author wishes to attain. It may or may not be
    >>> important to the hobbyist, and the family.
    >>>
    >>>> The index page of my site fails to validate with 23 errors. The
    >>>> most egregious being that I don't declare a "DOCTYPE" at all. Then
    >>>> there's some stuff about not having "alt" tags on images,
    >>>
    >>> alt attributes are important for the blind, and for those who choose
    >>> not to download images (people on slow dialup).

    >>
    >> This is another thing I never understood. How does telling a blind
    >> person (or someone who choses not to display images) what the picture
    >> depicts, help the blind person "see" the picture?

    >
    > Blind people use readers .. speech browsers, so the reader will tell
    > them what is in the content.


    Understood. But how would an "alt" tag describing an image of us in a canoe
    help a blind person?

    Don't misunderstand me. Of all the senses I could conceivably lose, the
    last I would care to part with would be my sight. But still ... I just
    can't understand the benefit of "alt" tags to a blind person when it comes
    to images. What you descibe above puts me in mind of a robotoic voice
    saying something like, "Below there is an image of people in a canoe".
    >
    >> Let's say I post a pic of my wife and myself in a canoe on Cedar
    >> Creek. How does an "alt" tag help a blind person see the picture?

    >
    > <img alt="TJ and wife in a canoe" ..
    >
    > If the blind person thinks that it would be worthwhile to "see" it,
    > s/he may ask a sighted visitor to describe the image further.


    OK. (unless said blind person was born that way, in which case it's
    doubtful any description would matter)

    >> And do the blind really need to know that there's a transparent 1x1
    >> pixel (spacer) gif in the upper right corner? According to the w3c
    >> they do.

    >
    > Spacer gifs should use an alt attribute of: alt=""
    > so the speech browser (or regular browser with images off) does *not*
    > render anything, as the image is not pertinent to the content.


    Evidently I've overstepped my bounds as I don't maintain my website for the
    blind. Thankfully, all my friends and family are sighted, and they're the
    only ones who view it. Which is kinda what I was trying to relay about the
    w3c.
    >
    > (Sites using spacer images are using presentational markup. They
    > should be replaced with CSS. <g>)
    >
    >> Unless maybe that's covered in one of the many "doctypes" I can't
    >> make heads or tails of? More on doctypes below, if you're
    >> interested.

    >
    > S'far as I remember, alt attributes are required for validation in all
    > doctypes.


    Well that's just silly, IMO. You're telling me that in order to "validate"
    I have to ascribe alt tags to images that make up the borders of my page?
    Why? For what possible reason? Even blind people don't need to know that
    "topleft01.jpg" is an image located at the top-left of all my pages. Do
    they? :)

    >>>> and other stuff about margin attributes not being recognized, etc.
    >>>
    >>> Not using a doctype throws browsers into "Quirks Mode", where the
    >>> browser gets to try and decide what you meant. <g> Depending on
    >>> what you have used, or how you coded it, may display differently
    >>> among browsers - with Internet Explorer usually getting it wrong.

    >>
    >> When I check after updating, I find that Opera gets what I "meant"
    >> wrong more often that any other browser. Usually it's just a small
    >> tweak, and then everything's OK.

    >
    > Opera is one of the best browsers available, and for years was the
    > only one that passed the Acid2 test. The most recent Safari now also
    > does that. IE doesn't even come close.


    I've heard that IE8 passes that test, but I haven't personally confirmed it.
    >
    > <snippage>
    >
    >>> My philosophy is to attempt to show/get/help folks (especially
    >>> newbies) to understand, or realize, there is more to web authoring
    >>> than to just type text into FrontPage, drag in some images, click
    >>> "Center All" and be done. ;-)

    >>
    >> I agree. But asking newbs to validate *personal* pages is a bit
    >> overboard, IMO. :)

    >
    > Heehee... this could be so. If all I wanted to do was publish a
    > group of photos of my cat, it probably isn't going to matter.
    >
    >> Heck. I don't think I'm stupid (maybe I am) but I cannot understand
    >> the differences between all the different doctypes that the w3c says
    >> are "allowable". The definitions offered are about as clear as mud.
    >> And it's for that reason that I don't bother to declare one.

    >
    > It's pretty simple. There are (for nearly all usages) two sets of
    > three each. HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. All others are for specialties.
    > The three are Transitional, Strict, and Frameset.
    > http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
    >
    > Transitional is for 'transitioning' legacy documents (those with HTML
    > presentation, like <center>, <font size="2"> ...) and where you aren't
    > yet ready to move all presentation into CSS; and Strict is for new
    > work where you have separated the presentation from the content,
    > using the CSS, and the HTML only contains content markup. Frameset is
    > of course self-explanatory, but frames are not recommended. Google
    > "frames are evil."
    >
    >> Yet my site still renders properly.

    >
    > It does depend on how the pages are constructed. Simple, one-column
    > pages usually present no problem. Complex CSS presentations usually
    > won't.


    Simple CSS.

    >> My other problem is with the hard-liners who insist that *all*
    >> websites should validate.


    > Well, there are hard-liners everywhere. I'm not one of them, though I
    > would advise that a site that *does* validate and isn't in Quirks Mode
    > stands a better chance to be seen the same in all browsers.
    >
    >> To me, validating a personal page is a waste of time. So long as I
    >> check and make sure it renders properly in various browsers what's
    >> the point? Honestly, I don't know anybody (myself included) who
    >> hits a site, doesn't see the yellow and white, "This site is w3c
    >> compliant" gif, and leaves if it's not there. Do you?

    >
    > No, of course not. <g> Nor would I leave a site that *did* display
    > the W3C images.
    >
    >> Validation has it's purpose for sure. And the way I understand it,
    >> it is to make sure that EVERY new/old/obscure browser in the world
    >> will be able to render what you write without cause for concern. And
    >> I guess that's fine if you're selling something and don't want to
    >> exclude less than 1% of your audience. But for a personal site ...
    >> It's a waste of time.

    >
    > Your opinion is understood.
    >
    >> The only way I'll instantly ditch a site is if there's a midi getting
    >> jammed down my throat, and/or, a *horizontal* scroll bar. :)

    >
    > Oh yes! Unsolicited sound is a prime reason to hit the Back button.
    > What if it's the middle of the night and my wife is asleep in the next
    > room?
    >
    > Horizontal scrollbars might not cause me to leave if there was
    > something important at the site. However, I have run into a few sites
    > that have the scrollbar even when I am maximized on my 22"
    > widescreen. That is simply poor authoring.
    >
    > My reasoning is simply that it's a good idea to help people take some
    > pride in their work, and produce good web sites.
    >
    > Oh, and to tell them "Never use Microsoft Publisher" to make a site.
    TJ, Mar 17, 2008
    #19
  20. TJ wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > <bunch of snippage>
    >> Blind people use readers .. speech browsers, so the reader will tell
    >> them what is in the content.

    >
    > Understood. But how would an "alt" tag describing an image of us in
    > a canoe help a blind person?


    As the speech browser would read it to hir. Since you've deemed it
    "content" by using it in the page, the speaker will relay it to the
    listener, via the alt attribute.

    Oh, true background images are not 'visualized' by the browsers, and do
    not require alt attributes.

    > Don't misunderstand me. Of all the senses I could conceivably lose,
    > the last I would care to part with would be my sight. But still ...
    > I just can't understand the benefit of "alt" tags to a blind person
    > when it comes to images. What you descibe above puts me in mind of a
    > robotoic voice saying something like, "Below there is an image of
    > people in a canoe".


    More like, "TJ and wife in a canoe" would be appropriate.

    >> If the blind person thinks that it would be worthwhile to "see" it,
    >> s/he may ask a sighted visitor to describe the image further.

    >
    > OK. (unless said blind person was born that way, in which case it's
    > doubtful any description would matter)


    ...but the sighted person could still describe the scene, and if the
    blind person did not know what a canoe was, describe that. Depends on
    what s/he wants.

    >> Spacer gifs should use an alt attribute of: alt="" so the speech
    >> browser (or regular browser with images off) does *not* render
    >> anything, as the image is not pertinent to the content.

    >
    > Evidently I've overstepped my bounds as I don't maintain my website
    > for the blind.


    Don't worry, you're not alone. Very few authors actually stop to
    consider that some small percentage of their visitors may have vision
    problems.

    > Thankfully, all my friends and family are sighted, and they're the
    > only ones who view it. Which is kinda what I was trying to relay
    > about the w3c.


    You could view your pages in a text-only browser (or use one of Opera's
    options to simulate plain text) to see what blind folks will "see." (and
    what search engines see as well.) User Mode -> Emulate text browser

    >> S'far as I remember, alt attributes are required for validation in all
    >> doctypes.

    >
    > Well that's just silly, IMO. You're telling me that in order to "validate"
    > I have to ascribe alt tags to images that make up the borders of my page?
    > Why? For what possible reason? Even blind people don't need to know that
    > "topleft01.jpg" is an image located at the top-left of all my pages. Do
    > they? :)


    Yes, but the appropriate alt attribute would be, as mentioned: alt=""
    Just two empty quote signs. The speaking browser will bypass it. So will
    a GUI browser, when images are off. As the validator, or the browser,
    isn't intelligent enough to understand the *usage* of your image (a
    bit'o'fluff border image, a canoe photo, a navigation aid that says
    "Next Page"), it requires an alt attribute for all images, even if they
    are empty ones.

    >> Opera is one of the best browsers available, and for years was the
    >> only one that passed the Acid2 test. The most recent Safari now also
    >> does that. IE doesn't even come close.

    >
    > I've heard that IE8 passes that test, but I haven't personally
    > confirmed it.


    I heard that mentioned as well, but have a wait-and-see attitude about
    it. <g> And I have no computer that will run it .. or IE7 for that
    matter. If I make a template layout change, I use browsershots.org

    >> It does depend on how the pages are constructed. Simple, one-column
    >> pages usually present no problem. Complex CSS presentations usually
    >> won't.

    >
    > Simple CSS.


    Then you shouldn't have any problems.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patriot

    Building to Building wireless

    Patriot, Nov 4, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    533
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. Tim Jacob

    Wireless building-to-building 101

    Tim Jacob, Feb 15, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    589
    =?Utf-8?B?dGFpcGFuNTQx?=
    Feb 17, 2006
  3. WeeWilly

    Website Building???

    WeeWilly, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Jeffrey
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. Tim

    Building a website for my pictures

    Tim, Nov 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    678
    Floyd Davidson
    Dec 28, 2005
  5. Jim
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    892
    Barb Bowman
    Oct 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page