Hi

Hello everyone. I'm Mike, and I've joined these forums because I think the web critique section looks great I shall probably have need of it soon.

I've been dabbling in web design for about 8 years or so. My early attempts were pretty hideous: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/michael.hopley/ . At the time I thought that site's design was clever and striking

In the last couple of years I've made one site professionally (meaning I got paid for it) and another semi-professionally (horse-trading arrangement). During this time I started looking a bit deeper into the craft, and discovered ideas about standards and CSS.

Since then I've been trying to learn how to make my sites more visually appealing. I often create something in Lightwave 3d, and then play with it in Photoshop.

I am a writer by occupation (well, trying to be), and I work part-time as a badminton coach. I am developing a website in which I hope to combine these skills: it's an instructional guide to badminton. I'll save the details for a future critique request. I'm also writing my novel in HTML+CSS, because I hate word processors. I intend to publish it in the usual paperback form, however.

I feel that web design often reveals some of the character of the designer, in the sense that it lends itself to ideological divides; different designers, even professionals, can have radically different views about the right way to make a site. So maybe I should list some of my views.


The rest is just rambling opinions -- feel free to ignore or lampoon

I see valid (X)HTML, valid CSS, and no javascript errors as minimum criteria for a high-quality design. I don't mean that a site is rubbish if it fails, but just that it ought to do better. By definition, a site gets better if the errors are fixed.

There are occasionally good reasons for failing to validate, but more often it's just the author making excuses.

I avoid using tables for layout, but I think that it can be justified. CSS is not good at creating many kinds of layouts, and some are practically impossible. I think we ought to recognise that CSS is not yet the wonderful layout engine that we sometimes imagine.

Perhaps that's not quite fair. Many CSS problems are the fault of Internet Explorer. I used to design for IE only (forgive me father, for I have sinned); now I hate it with a passion. I think IE7 is a huge improvement, but unfortunately I still have to accommodate IE6. By the way, I'm a Firefox user.

I think that XHTML is a complete waste of effort for almost any site (exceptions for those who use MathML or something exotic), and I don't understand why people insist on using it. So far as I can tell, its only real use is to impress clients who have heard the buzzword. I write HTML 4.01 Strict.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd prefer to use XHTML (for the strict error checking), but at the moment both IE and Mozilla handle it worse than HTML (IE can't understand it, and Mozilla can't display it incrementally).

Some argue that coding XHTML is practice for the future; I think this argument is weak. I practise XHTML-style coding in HTML.

I like elastic layouts, where the whole site resizes with the text.

I don't use Flash; I think it can be used well, but rarely is.

I don't like to bloat my code, but I think you can get too obsessive about this. I'll happily add markup for purely presentational effects that are difficult or impossible to achieve otherwise (such as extra <div>s for rounded corners). But I keep the extra markup semantically neutral.

Having said that, I really dislike extra markup in the content: that makes it harder to write (because I can't hide the bloat with SSI).

I think that CSS hacking is always a stupid idea. The hacks themselves are ingenious, yet I find it bizarre that this method of web design is promoted by some of the web's foremost proponents of standards.

My current coding process goes like this:

• Design as if browsers were perfectly standards-compliant, using Firefox to view progress.
• If something goes unexpectedly wrong, check Opera. If Opera gets it right, consider that Firefox might be wrong (in which case I don't care unless it's a huge problem).
• If Opera has the same error, then my code is almost certainly wrong.
• Eventually load up IE7. Fix errors by sending it extra CSS/javascript using conditional comments.
• Do the same thing with IE6/win, but first schedule about three hours for suicidal thoughts. Google "I hate IE" several times.
• Do the same thing with IE5/win, but only really quick fixes.

IE6 and IE7 are the only browsers I am prepared to give this special treatment (because of their market share). If another browser (say, Opera) gets something wrong, I don't care. Therefore I never need touch a CSS hack. I'm quite happy to serve IE a subtly inferior design if it won't behave, but it must look good enough.

I think that accessibility is crucially important. I think it's foolish to assume that disabled people are a tiny minority -- in the UK, 15% of the population declare themselves disabled. It is beneath contempt to argue that disabled people can be ignored because they "have no spending power".

Also, I think that accessible design tends to help all users. For example, I have perfect vision but I almost always resize web text for reading (I make it as big as the design allows).

But I don't like accessibility statements. Most seem to be crafted purely to boast, not to help: "This site is made with valid XHTML 1.1. I've used semantic markup to improve accessibility, and I use CSS rather than tables for layout. All the pages are structured properly using headings." Why would the user understand this, let alone care? How does it help him?

I like the idea of accesskeys, but I think it's a mistake to implement any by default (because they are likely to interfere with users' existing browser shortcuts). If you're going to use accesskeys, I think they should be editable and disabled by default. This means they won't work without javascript. Oh well. First do no harm.

As for SEO: I don't bother with meta keywords, because I don't believe that many popular search engines are influenced by them. I think that the best SEO method is to write concise, clear copy that users want to read. After that, basic document structure (headings, titles, and the like).

I'm something of a grammar and typography zealot (especially grammar). I love the English language, and it pains me to witness it being abused. Writing has made me pedantic; please find it in your heart to forgive me.

If you read this far, I admire your tenacity.

Hahaha...I totally agree. Most people use flash incorrectly but I am glad to see you say that flash can be used well.

Wow, as for the rest! Man alive I can tell you are a writer. I almost deleted the post cause I thought it was some spammer, then I read it and was like MAN!

Have fun you will fit in just great here, feel free to start asking those questions!

There's that word, pedantic, again for you Sara.

You've definitely got a unique writing style, and if this isn't the novel you mentioned, let me know when the real one comes out

I agree with some of what you've said, but from what I understand about your concepts of SEO, you can just toss them out the window! Other things include access keys (they can be used incorrectly, but I don't do that), your disregard of XHTML, and your browser testing methods. Bare minimum, you should check in IE 5.5, IE 6, IE 7, Firefox (latest release), Opera and Safari. If your site breaks in the latter, easy to fix browsers, nearly 3,500 out of every 100,000 visitors will see a broken website.

Oh, did I mention it? Nope, guess not: Welcome to the forumz!

Perhaps you should consider posting some of this post else where for the rest of the community to discuses. As not all members come on into the Welcome forum. Maybe somewhere like the Cafe? Tell the moderators, Jacob said it was okay to post it there!

Ha! No, this is just me wanting to write down some disorganised thoughts about web design. I thought this might make a more engaging introduction than, "Hi, I'm Mike. Um...can I go now?"

I don't consider myself knowledgeable about SEO, but I believe other people here are. I look forward to learning from them

I would love to be proved wrong about this. I like idea of XHTML, but not the reality (as I perceive it). I'd only need one really good reason to use it.

That's 3.5%; is that your estimated total for Opera and Safari?

I do test for all of those except Safari, but I don't expect them to be perfect and I don't worry about minor details if they are difficult or require hacking. I'll try to avoid it actually breaking (ie becoming unusable) in Opera or IE 5.5.

One benefit of following standards-compliant design is that websites tend to work correctly in more browsers anyway.

How should I check Safari on a PC?

Thanks!

Maybe I should. I figured I could probably put whatever I liked in my own welcome post. I'm not yet familiar with the accepted uses of different forums here.

HAHA!!! Welcome to the forumz Mike! (alright ... got that out of the way )

I totally agree with what you said about the XHTML buzz word! It seems like I've been swaying back and forth with this issue myself. HTML Strict is a good way to go. XHTML is meant to server pages as XML but since next-to-no browsers supports them, why bother.

Writing clean, clutter free, valid HTML Strict is such a charm

I'm a regular reader of Roger Johansson's blog and he's written quite a few on this very subject.

Anyways... you'll fit right in here. Have fun!

Hi Karinne, thanks for your welcome

Although I don't follow blogs, I've come across Roger's several times when searching for information. It was one of his posts that first convinced me to stop dabbling in XHTML; I found a load more technical reasons later.

Hello, Mike....I am still finalizing my style, so....

Welcome to the mad wacky world of webforumz.

I have just woke up! and am now going back to bed.

Byeeeeee

Oh dear, I'll have a shifty at HTML strict. The strictness of XHTML is appealing to me because I have some strange disorder where my code must be perfect. My house, my car, my closet, my desk... it looks like a tornado suck around for a few hours. My computer? Spotless and OTT organization!

Ha! That sounds like me you're describing.

I'm not saying that HTML is better than XHTML. They do much the same thing, but XHTML is harder for most people and has some potential pitfalls. That doesn't make it a bad choice -- you just have to be aware of the issues.

I've nothing against writing in XHTML. What I dislike, however, is the nonsense that "proper", "modern", "standards-compliant" web designers ought to use XHTML, and that HTML is outdated. They're both much the same.

I recommend you use whichever you find easier. If you're used to XHTML, then XHTML might be easier.

Yeah, I am the same way...lol.

I never said hi. Hi.

Welcome to the forums, I wish more people wrote as much about themselves. Looks like you know what you are talking about anyway, even if I don't agree with everything you've said.

Hope you have fun here.

Pete.

Welcome to WebForumz

Even I probably won't agree with everything I said, after I've been here awhile

Thanks

Hi Mick you know how to write.

Keep up the good work.

I would like it if you review my site in a few months time.


But for now im just working on my profile


<notagz1>
Lifes a element and then you close one