learning web design

[francois]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
Should I learn HTML hand crafting firt with CSS and then move to
Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
XHTML?

Thanks in advance
François

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Re: learning web design

francois wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
> Should I learn HTML hand crafting firt with CSS and then move to
> Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
> XHTML?[/color]

XHTML is really the same old HTML we've come to know and love, just
re-implemented in an XML-based syntax instead of something resembling an
SGML-based one.

The most important thing to know about Javascript is how and when *not* to
use it. Generally it is best to learn the server side technologies first,
and then move on to learn Javascript as a supplement to them.

You ask about CSS. Most definitely, *do* take the time to learn CSS. Be
careful that whatever source material you are using to learn HTML from,
does not refer to the old and deprecated presentational HTML attributes and
elements. Any book copyrighted on or before 2001 will probably at least
tangentially cover these; I have an HTML quick reference card that claims
to be from 2001-05 that refers to this deprecated cruft and makes no
mention of CSS whatsoever. Anything written in the last couple of years
should only make reference to the old junk for the purpose of understanding
older documents and should make it clear that CSS is the new method of
suggesting presentation.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: learning web design

> francois wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Hi everyone,[/color]
>
> I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
> Should I learn HTML hand crafting firt with CSS[/color]

I just started with webdesign myself (about two months ago). I read various
newsgroups a lot and learned a lot from them
news:alt.html.c ritique
news:alt.www.webmaster
news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.site-design
news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
and a Dutch ng about design for the web.
And you've discovered ciwah already :-)

Also I downloaded CSS2 specification from

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/css2.zip

and played around with it. After my first few steps on the internet
publishing my pages, I requested feedback and learned very much from that.
I've my pages running for about two months now, plain html and css.
[color=blue]
> and then move to
> Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
> XHTML?[/color]

Others know about xhtml much more than I do, same for JavaScript. All I know
for certain is that I once made the mistake using JS for my menu's and after
feedback on that I will never ever do that again. JS, untill now, I have
found no need for it. Though when gaining more knowlegde it might get
useful.

--
Groet,
Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/index.html

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: learning web design

Barbara de Zoete wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Others know about xhtml much more than I do, same for JavaScript. All I know
> for certain is that I once made the mistake using JS for my menu's and after
> feedback on that I will never ever do that again. JS, untill now, I have
> found no need for it. Though when gaining more knowlegde it might get
> useful.
>[/color]

very wise

javascript can be extremely useful...badly written and
conceived javascript can seriously mess up not just the
site but also cause the visitor serious problems...so
it's best to stay a bit behind the curve with javascript

you can take a risk or two with html or css...in that you
may mess up at your end but the visitor can just hit the
back button and be unaffected...wi th poorly executed
javascript you can make life a little more difficult for
them...this is not a good thing (tm)

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[Stephen Poley]

Re: learning web design

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:16:17 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<skquinn@xeviou s.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The most important thing to know about Javascript is how and when *not* to
>use it.[/color]

And after that, how to avoid wrecking the rendering of your HTML when
you do use it and the reader doesn't have Javascript.
[color=blue]
>Generally it is best to learn the server side technologies first,
>and then move on to learn Javascript as a supplement to them.[/color]

Seconded. PHP is probably a good place to start (after HTML and CSS) as
you can start with an HTML page and add things to it, of gradually
increasing complexity.
[color=blue]
>You ask about CSS. Most definitely, *do* take the time to learn CSS.[/color]

Probably best to start with CSS1, which is reasonably simple and
reasonably well supported, and then move onto CSS2, which is a superset
of CSS1.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Tim]

Re: learning web design

On 10 Aug 2003 18:51:05 -0700,
frank_bogus@hot mail.com (francois) wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
> Should I learn HTML hand crafting first with CSS and then move to
> Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
> XHTML?[/color]

With any trade, it's always best to (properly) learn how to do something
by hand, first. Then, you understand the processes, and how everything
works.

Learn HTML first, that's the backbone of the lot. XHTML is a tightening
up of the rules (so learn "strict" HTML, avoiding "loose" authoring
using depreciated techniques).

XHTML is still in it's infancy, and doesn't work "right" on a number of
servers and browsers, yet. The specs for HTML are covered in a lot of
detail, including wordy explanations and some examples. XHTML is
explained very tersely, and requires you to understand the background
that it doesn't explain.

Once you've learnt the HTML structure, learn CSS. Use it to do things
with the HTML that you can't do with HTML by itself (i.e. styling).
Also learn to use it to improve things, without making pages reliant on
CSS to be coherent.

Avoid JavaScript, until you really need to use it (and you usually
don't). To run programs on other people's computers, you really do need
to understand the different environments that they're going to run on,
and "programmin g." People's PCs are different, and their browsers are
different; it's hard to write a program that can take all of that into
account, and work well. You also shoot yourself in the foot if you rely
on JavaScript (which you can't), when browsers don't, or won't, run your
script.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[dc]

Re: learning web design

Below is a re-post on CSS and so called W3C "standards" that you should read
for future reference when asking about XHTML and HTML, expecially
considering on where you should start when learning web design and where you
want to go.

Note: there has been no R.O.I. on XHTML and I know of no single business
that has saved any money doing it that way, nor made any money from actual
end customers off of XHTML.

Remember, there is a lot of HYPE in the XML area and anything that starts
with an X.

One note should be that after all these years, less than 6% of the web sites
are W3C compliant....an d not a single of the big sites are compliant,
yahoo.com, macromedia.com, ibm.com, apple.com, etc.....

dc
decloak, Inc.
_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _
Multi-Navigation Templates and Menus

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/NestedTemplates/Templates.aspx

REPOST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Zeldman's book points to ESPN as an their big example. Yet, after reading
carefully and completely the entire article, Page 1 and, just as important,
Page TWO (2).

Advantages - Page 1

http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/espn-interview/01/

Disadvantages - Page 2

http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/espn-interview/02/

Here is the WIRED Article as well, another Zeldman or CSS example case

http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/wired-interview/

If you read between the lines, and question their numbers and logic, you got
to ask yourself is there really that much advantage, and to who and really
how much advantage. They, Wired says their color scheme change EVERY week!
However, I haven't noticed it and I don't think people have time to totally
change their entire look and feel to their web site each and every week or
the year and I don't think people will appreciate it either.

Very little time saved in the end and there are NO numbers or example code
to backup saving in bandwidth. Nor are their any 3rd party independent
testing.

Lots of HYPE by the designer community because they can supposedly be MORE
creative which does NOT always mean MORE intuitive or MORE easy-to-use. Big
difference.

What would really be interesting is to do a R.O.I. by a independent 3rd
party.



dc
decloak, Inc.
_______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ _
Multi-Navigation Templates and Menus

http://www.decloak.com/Products/Dreamweaver/NestedTemplates/Templates.aspx

"francois" <frank_bogus@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:666e2042.0 308101751.18b90 45a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
> Should I learn HTML hand crafting firt with CSS and then move to
> Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
> XHTML?
>
> Thanks in advance
> François[/color]

[Barbara de Zoete]

how not to learn (WAS: learning web design)

toppost fixed
[color=blue]
> dc wrote:[color=green]
>> francois wrote:
>>
>> I'm new to webdesign and there are some things that I'm wondering.
>> Should I learn HTML hand crafting firt with CSS and then move to
>> Javascript or move to XHTML? Is HTML an essential prerequisite for
>> XHTML?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Remember, there is a lot of HYPE in the XML area and anything that
> starts with an X.[/color]

Agreed with.
[color=blue]
> One note should be that after all these years, less than 6% of the
> web sites are W3C compliant....an d not a single of the big sites are
> compliant, yahoo.com, macromedia.com, ibm.com, apple.com, etc.....[/color]

As I understood it, knowing what you want with a site comes first. Then
technical knowledge on how you want to get your content to your visitors
comes second. Third is learning as you go.

Starting with html as the OP is new to webdesign, one might as well start
doing it right. These larger sites you name are (some of them) old and (all
of them) huge. This makes redoing a site not very economically attractive,
because it will be very timeconsuming.
Doing it right starting with nothing, AFAIK, is making up ones mind on which
standard one wants to use and then stick to that standard. If one sticks to
a standard, one knows that many (not all) browsers will render a page well
enough to get the message across.

What standard to choose is up to the designer and he / she decides after
making up his / her mind on what the page is supposed to do for the visitor.
Maybe OP decides to go all flash. Fine, if he gets to the desired public
with that.

I had a page running somewhere early 90's. All html then. Since about two
months I got re-interested in the internet. I found the combination of html
and CSS (starting with CSS1 and later adding CSS2) *very* useful. It took me
about a month to understand CSS (besides a regular job and a study). It's
not all that difficult. When I started, I missed the bit about strict versus
transitional html. So my pages are now transitional. Besides that, I woudn't
do it any different if I had to start all over again.
I'm not arguing CSS over everything else here. I'm merely trying to say that
*if* one has the opportunity to start with nothing, make up your mind about
what standard and then stick to it. It will work for you if you learn how to
use it well.

BTW: I just took one quick glance at your NestedTables/Tables.aspx page ;-)
Glad I'm not the one who has to keep it up to date.

<snip the repost>

--
Groet,
Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html

[Andy Dingley]

Re: learning web design

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:39:59 -0500, "dc"
<dc-re-m-o-v-e-me-@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Note: there has been no R.O.I. on XHTML and I know of no single business
>that has saved any money doing it that way, nor made any money from actual
>end customers off of XHTML.[/color]

One of my projects, whilst at HP. We saved about $2,000 on just one
task, because our extremely complex and dynamic site generated XHTML.
We needed to do something. Quickly. And because we'd happened to use
XHTML, we were able to do this in (literally !) half an hour with
XSLT.

[francois]

Re: learning web design

Thank you everyone for your replies. It's much appreciated. I am a
little bit struck by the unanimous agreement about Javascript. I take
the point. I will master the CSS and then move to PHP later. And also
hang out here.

François

[Jim Dabell]

Re: learning web design

Tim wrote:

[snip][color=blue]
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:57:58 +0100,
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> One of my projects, whilst at HP. We saved about $2,000 on just one
>> task, because our extremely complex and dynamic site generated XHTML.
>> We needed to do something. Quickly. And because we'd happened to use
>> XHTML, we were able to do this in (literally !) half an hour with
>> XSLT.[/color]
>
> How did XHTML manage to let you do that, any better than well authored
> HTML?[/color]

[I'm not speaking for Andy, just speaking in general]

You can use it as a source document for an XSLT. Sure, the process of
converting from well-structured HTML to XHTML isn't difficult, but it's an
extra step that you just don't have to think about when you use XHTML.

[color=blue]
> Apart from a little bit more gumph before, and in, the head of a
> document, and a few more slashes, there's little technical difference
> between what's written in XHTML and HTML.[/color]

There's a very big technical difference, which is that XHTML is an XML
application, and so you can use generic XML tools with it, such as XSLT
processors.

--
Jim Dabell

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: learning web design

On Tue, Aug 12, Jim Dabell inscribed on the eternal scroll:
[color=blue]
> There's a very big technical difference, which is that XHTML is an XML
> application, and so you can use generic XML tools with it, such as XSLT
> processors.[/color]

But I was under the impression that XSLT processors can output HTML if
that's what one wants. And, on average, the browsers that are out
there are sill slightly more compatible with HTML4.01 than they are
with Appendix-C XHTML/1.0, and a lot more compatible than they are
with XHTML(tm)/1.1.

So, whatever the benefits of XML-based languages, I'd prefer to
actually send out to the WWW, well-disciplined HTML/4.01, rather than
the XHTML-ified tag soup that I'm seeing more and more of recently.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: learning web design

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:36:42 +0930, Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan> wrote:
[color=blue]
>How did XHTML manage to let you do that, any better than well authored
>HTML?[/color]

Half an hour's work with XSLT, applied to the pre-existing output of
the untouched site.

The alternative would have been to connect to the database directly,
which would have been a few days work and needed some understanding of
the data model.

[Jim Dabell]

Re: learning web design

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, Aug 12, Jim Dabell inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>[color=green]
>> There's a very big technical difference, which is that XHTML is an XML
>> application, and so you can use generic XML tools with it, such as XSLT
>> processors.[/color]
>
> But I was under the impression that XSLT processors can output HTML if
> that's what one wants.[/color]

Oh, of course. There's nothing preventing you from generating HTML, plain
text, RTF, or whatever you like. I was referring to XHTML as a _source_
format. Another example would be a CMS that stored XHTML fragments in a
PostgreSQL database. You could take advantage of something like this:

<URL:http://www.throwingbea ns.org/tech/postgresql_and_ xml.html>


--
Jim Dabell

[Jim Ley]

Re: learning web design

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:57:28 +0100, Jim Dabell
<jim-usenet@jimdabel l.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, Aug 12, Jim Dabell inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> There's a very big technical difference, which is that XHTML is an XML
>>> application, and so you can use generic XML tools with it, such as XSLT
>>> processors.[/color]
>>
>> But I was under the impression that XSLT processors can output HTML if
>> that's what one wants.[/color]
>
>Oh, of course. There's nothing preventing you from generating HTML, plain
>text, RTF, or whatever you like. I was referring to XHTML as a _source_
>format.[/color]

Yes, which means you can freely use that XHTML to generate HTML 4.01
via simple XSLT's which you actually publish...

The issue being that publishing XHTML isn't very well supported

I'd also suggest that using XSLT as a source is pretty poor, and if
you're interested in doing this I'd really recommend keeping your
content in a more semantically meaningful manner.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/