Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- Critics please
January 29, 2007, 8:39 pm
rate this thread
I would like to hear critics from you about my site. It's my first
"serious" ASP attempt to make commercial site. I've tried to keep it
simple as possible (because I personaly don't like sites with bunch of
crap where you need 5 minutes just to figure out what to click to go
Feel free to be rude as much as you want :-)
Site is on croatian language, but have english section.
Re: Critics please
A few things,
Uses tables for layout, why? This wouldnt have been too hard to do with CSS.
No DOCTYPE specified, so I didnt even bother running it through the
Those fluttering flags (animated gifs) REALLY bug me.
Font sizes specified in PX, use % instead and let your users set there own
font size if they want.
Visually not bad, but some judicious use of padding wouldnt go amiss.
Re: Critics please
Paul Watt wrote:
Thanks for comments.
Can you (or anybody else) answer me a few questions. You asked why am
I using tables instead of CSS. I've noticed on a few sites, people are
suggesting CSS instead of tables (actualy, most people agree that it's
best to combine tables and CSS).
Can you tell me what is benefit of CSS instead of tables (or can you
point me to some link with good explanations)? I'm using tables since
I've made my first web page, and it works fine for me, so I didn't
bother to changing it. But if CSS have advantages, I will learn how to
Can smb. tell me differences between transitional and strict, and HTML
and XHTML doctypes. I'm planning to rebuild a site and to validate
every page, but I just don't know what doctype to choose.
Thanks in advance
Re: Critics please
And lo, Shija didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
Those "most people" are mostly right. When you hear "use CSS instead of
tables", most neophytes think it means that CSS *replaces* tables, and are
confused when they don't find any information on how to actually go about
What it really means is that you should "use semantic markup", and all
semantic means is that you should use HTML tags where their *meaning*
For instance, if you are using a table to fine-tune the layout of your
page, is that really what a "table" is for? Of course it isn't. A table
is for aligning rows and columns of data to display information. If you
are using a table for a purpose other than this, you aren't using it
correctly. Instead, CSS can be applied to generic elements like div, or
other relevant elements like ul and li, to achieve the same layout.
Does this mean you *can't* use tables for layout? Well, because of the
dismal high-end CSS support of Internet Explorer (even IE7) there are some
layouts - especially those that require element collapsing to the widest
single item in a column - which require tables to work cross-browser. In
this case it is enough to know that you *are* going against recommendation
and realise why you are doing it.
CSS is a great deal more flexible overall than tables when it comes to
layout. Like I mentioned above, if you want your layout to work
cross-browser then CSS doesn't yet *completely* overlap what tables are
capable of, but very very close already.
CSS also allows you to separate the content of your document from the
appearance, and, if you use an external stylesheet, lets you easily change
bits of your design on all your pages by editing a single file.
You can start by doing a search for "CSS tutorial" and you'll find many
resources to help you begin your quest.
The Transitional and Frameset DOCTYPEs were created because the W3C took a
new direction for HTML4, reducing the dependance on presentational
elements and attributes and depending more on the growing phenomenon of
CSS. They thought that the move from HTML 3.2 to the optimal HTML4 Strict
DOCTYPE would be too jarring and so created the other two types which
retained some of the elements and attributes that so many sites in those
days relied upon.
These days, when creating a new site which you intend to validate, there
is no reason not to go with a Strict DOCTYPE. It retains no HTML3.2
baggage, and will quickly teach you good habits about document creation
that will help you in the future.
XHTML is mainly an exercise in self-improvement. It really offers nothing
to the end user over HTML Strict, but rather offers you, the author, the
opportunity to learn about the XML format and truly forces you to pick up
some extremely valuable habits.
While XHTML doesn't actually have that many more rules than HTML, those
rules are far reaching, such as quoting every attribute, correct tag
order, and self-closing tags. XHTML is essentially HTML formatted as a
valid XML document.
Use it for the sake of learning XML, but don't use it because you think it
will offer your customers a better experience. HTML Strict is perfectly
fine if you can't spend the time to learn XHTML. In fact, unless you have
really spent time learning all the ins-and-outs of XHTML, it can actually
be a bad thing to use it: http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
Stick with HTML Strict. It's what you already know.
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine