My Site: Php/css/xhtml Helpz

[spacepanda]

Hey everybody? Whats good?

I am currently creating my website, Ben.charliecorp.com, and I am in the design stage for the layout. Basically what I am doing is making a blog layout because I am using MT (Movable Type) to fully integrate and enrich my website.

Here is the layout right now:
http://www.ben.charliecorp.com/jacklayou t.jpg

It is still in the design process.

Pretty much I need somone later on down the road who is good with php and css for reference and help if I need it. Umm.. Somone with expertise in making Blog layouts and templates would be good too, so if yall could get back to me or somthing so I can get help when needed, that'd be rd.

My aim is:
yuriomanto

[DarkScythes]

The main site and everything is a bunch of images and no texts D:

DO NOT WANT

[Migashi]

Hmm, I have been there and done that, a long time ago.

A single image does not make for a very good website... what you need is either a Table website, or a CSS layout... hell, maybe a table layout using CSS?

Anyway, most favors I do are for gain... If I helped you build a layout, or helped you in any way, what would be my gain?

Migashi is rich in PHP CSS HTML RSS and Graphic design... I'm also rich in vitamin C, B12, Iron, Zinc, and I have an absurd amount of water in my system...

PM me with answers to my questions!

[spacepanda]

Perhaps you guys missred me.

That example I threw out was just a pic of what my layout sort of will look like, I still need to add more to it, etc. The mainpage on my site is just a filler coz im lazy.

I dont need somone to make the site for me, I just need somone who is good with coding and stuff incase i get stuck later on.

I dont plan on making my site one single image -.- im going to slice it up and make it my blog layout. that means yes css.

[Rustygames]

You want us to "stand-by" in case you need help in the future?
Thats kinda dumb, why not just post here IF you actualy need help :P

[smulse]

At 7/27/07 02:22 AM, Migashi wrote: what you need is either a Table website, or a CSS layout... hell, maybe a table layout using CSS?

Any questions that his guy had to ask you should have gone out the window with that statement.

Migashi is rich in PHP CSS HTML RSS and Graphic design...

I can safely say you fail (at HTML and CSS at least).

Please don't ever recomend a table based layout in this day and age, especially not on these forums!

[Rustygames]

At 7/27/07 04:54 AM, smulse wrote:

At 7/27/07 02:22 AM, Migashi wrote: what you need is either a Table website, or a CSS layout... hell, maybe a table layout using CSS?

Any questions that his guy had to ask you should have gone out the window with that statement.

Migashi is rich in PHP CSS HTML RSS and Graphic design...

I can safely say you fail (at HTML and CSS at least).

Please don't ever recomend a table based layout in this day and age, especially not on these forums!

I use table based layouts. One day I will try and get my head around what you young'ns are on about but for now, tables are much more structured for me, probably because thats what I l;earnt and it's all I know. But it's perfectly acceptable to use tables, my website looks fine and I have a decent job, where I use table layouts for everything. Lighten up on us table users for once :(

[different]

I'll stop going on about table based layouts when they're no longer used.

The traditional ALA layout was a maze of intricately nested HTML table cells. When updating it in the past, even I couldn't follow the purpose of some of those complexly interdependent column spans and row spans - and I had created the damn thing.

Could we have that in English, please? I ached like a boy on Prom Night at the thought of replacing 10,000 maniacal table cells with two or three clean, simple HTML DIVs.

PERTINENT QUESTIONS

1. Why hadn't this problem cropped up in the old ALA table-based layouts? Because table-based layouts are sloppy to begin with. With a table-based layout, if your menu area is too narrow, the browser simply fudges the proportions. CSS-compliant browsers will not fudge proportions to save you from your own stupidity.

2. If the ideal width was actually 52%, then why is the content DIV declared at a width of 67%? Simple: 67% is a bogus value to fool Windows IE5 into displaying the actual value more or less correctly.

The separation of style from content is at ALA today, but tomorrow, or the day after, it will be at all sites. Far from seeming revolutionary, difficult, dangerous, or non-user-friendly, it will simply be the way the medium functions. It is, after all, the way the web was always meant to work.

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/journe y/

[Rustygames]

I let you guys bum divs til the cows come home even though I dont like them, why cant you accept that I use tables, you use divs, end of.

[different]

I guess such arguments like 'save bandwidth', 'improve user experience', 'easier redesigns', 'greater accessibility' and so on are wasted on such narrowmindedness.

Tables were never meant for laying out a site in the first place. If they were, perhaps I would advocate table based design.

[Rustygames]

At 7/27/07 05:52 AM, different wrote: I guess such arguments like 'save bandwidth', 'improve user experience', 'easier redesigns', 'greater accessibility' and so on are wasted on such narrowmindedness.

Tables were never meant for laying out a site in the first place. If they were, perhaps I would advocate table based design.

Why is it im the narrow minded one of we both have a disagreement?

I will get to div's when it is necessary to do so, at the moment tables more then suffice and are much more predictable in my opinion

[different]

At 7/27/07 05:54 AM, Rustygames wrote: Why is it im the narrow minded one of we both have a disagreement?

Because you are not considering all of the options, only your option that you are using. I've worked with tables before and it was nightmarish. Not easy whatsoever.

Developing a site without tables takes less time than one with.

[authorblues]

At 7/27/07 05:41 AM, Rustygames wrote: I let you guys bum divs til the cows come home even though I dont like them, why cant you accept that I use tables, you use divs, end of.

seriously though, ranting and raving from different aside, it is important for us, in this day and age, to stress the semantic nature of XHTML. these defined tags exist not just so that graphical layouts work, but so that screen readers for the impared can make sense of it as well.

that being said, tables exist for tabular data. tables exist to present data in where row labels and column labels intersect to provide data in those cells relevant to the given information. a list of statistics, such as high score listing, a list of visitor percentage against browser types, and more are still acceptable using tables.

however, graphical designs have nothing to do with tabular data, and can often confuse screen readers and XHTML parsers into interpretting the markup in a way you did not intend. it is for this reason that we try to meet certain guidelines, and the FIRST of which on any list is the move from tables to divs+CSS.

i hope youll understand where im coming from. not that i expect you to run out and change today, but this should explain a bit better why people are so militant about their "down with tables" mindset, the least of whom being different, since hes a semantics-whore.

[authorblues]

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

[different]

At 7/27/07 09:24 AM, authorblues wrote: but this should explain a bit better why people are so militant about their "down with tables" mindset, the least of whom being different, since hes a semantics-whore.

Not without good reason.

[thecoshman]

At 7/27/07 09:26 AM, authorblues wrote: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

It is technically against the law (at least in UK) to make a site that is not accesable for people with vision problems. If you make a site that not every one can acces, say your choice of colour makes it hard to read for colour blind people,.

[authorblues]

At 7/27/07 10:30 AM, thecoshman wrote: It is technically against the law (at least in UK) to make a site that is not accesable for people with vision problems. If you make a site that not every one can acces, say your choice of colour makes it hard to read for colour blind people,.

ill make a site thats purely red and green... thatll teach those colorblind people to get some REAL eyes.

[birdbrain24]

The site needs a lot of work and it don't look that good sorry but its true!

[spacepanda]

At 7/27/07 01:29 PM, birdbrain24 wrote: The site needs a lot of work and it don't look that good sorry but its true!

You are referring to my "Samurai Jack" layout? I understand that, I still have a lot of work to do yet on it. I just took a break to see what people think about it. Why on earth is my computer inputing my keystrokes into this so slowly? It is rather annoying. -.-

But yes, seeing as how this is going to be a "blog template" if you will, I will be using divs and css.

here is a link to an article I found raather interesting and perhaps spawned my wanting to build a whole website using MT:
http://a.wholelottanothing.org/features/
2003/07/beyond_the_blog

[Migashi]

At 7/27/07 04:54 AM, smulse wrote:
Please don't ever recomend a table based layout in this day and age, especially not on these forums!

Dumbass, I'm just saying, thats what I Started with.

[authorblues]

At 7/27/07 07:19 PM, Migashi wrote: Dumbass, I'm just saying, thats what I Started with.

yeah, you dont START teaching people to fish using shotguns. you teach them the RIGHT way to do things from the beginning, and you dont have these problems like legacy tables. calling him a dumbass is a bit hypocritical, dont you think?

[That-Is-Bull]

While we're at it, could somebody explain to me why iframes are satan?

[That-Is-Bull]

While we're at it, could somebody explain to me why iframes are satan?

[smulse]

At 7/27/07 07:19 PM, Migashi wrote: Dumbass, I'm just saying, thats what I Started with.

Now we're mature aren't we. You never said "whats what I Started with", or anything along those lines in your post, but you did say he could/should use a table based layout which I corrected you on - as for the reasons stated, he shouldn't. There really is no need to call me or anyone else in the programming forum (maybe in general though) a dumbass, it's uncalled for and I was hardly rude with my initial response to you.

At 7/28/07 04:10 AM, That-Is-Bull wrote: While we're at it, could somebody explain to me why iframes are satan?

They're an accessibly nightmare! Some screen readers struggle to read the content in them, and they can cause the page to have multiple <html> <head> and <body> tags depending on how the iFrame is interprited which again can cause rendering problems.

[different]

Not to mention that you can embed iframes without the user knowing about it - then you could load a potentially malicious site in the background.

[DarkScythes]

iframes can also become a search engines worst enemy when your site gets a bit bigger.

[DannyIsOnFire]

At 7/28/07 02:27 PM, different wrote: Not to mention that you can embed iframes without the user knowing about it - then you could load a potentially malicious site in the background.

Or to cheat the NG Fan-Net ;)

[smulse]

At 7/29/07 03:03 PM, DannyIsOnFire wrote:

At 7/28/07 02:27 PM, different wrote: Not to mention that you can embed iframes without the user knowing about it - then you could load a potentially malicious site in the background.

Or to cheat the NG Fan-Net ;)

But who would do a thing like that?