Just a few words about what has been bugging me. This is not a flame to anyone either by the way.
I have noticed that everyone and their brother thinks that they can sign up for a reseller package, do a design and be a host.
There are others here that have spent countless hours in either being a designer or being a host. Very few have been able to do both.
I love it when we, the community are asked to review a site design or concept that was generated by someone with the lack of knowledge of the basic design packages.
Not only that but the lack of the basic understanding of design FOR business.
I have noticed that in some of the designs that there seems to be a lack understanding on how a user uses the sites you are desiging.
Most newbies design a site to what they like forgetting your potential client. A site has to be designed from THE OUTSIDE IN, not the other way around.
Al I ask is that if building a site for the first time, take the time to look at what your compeition has done, they did it for a reason. Then sit back and think and think HARD as to what you want to convey and how you are going to do that so the end user gets it.
This is not ment as a slam on anybody just a few pointers as to what people need to think about when building a business and doing a design in SUPPORTING that business. A design in itself will not make a business.
These are but a few of the locations to learn to design. Also learn about business. If you dont then the best design in the world isnt going to help you or your business.
The rest is up to you, but learn what others are doing first, experiment then come to us here with a design that you feel BEST showcases what you have done.
Also, beinga designer is a state of mind. If you dont think like a designer then maybe you think better as a developer or business owner or something else.
So, anybody reading this dont take me as sitting on my high horse and preaching to everybody for I am not. I amjust trying to help others along the road, sometimes it a hard one but that comes with the territory.
Good Luck and if you have any questions please feel free to ask away.
Mind you this is my own opinion, shared by many others:
Not the intended use according to w3 spec. Especially when 'updating' to xhtml, and depreciated tags. Code with tables is often very messy and awful to look at. With the CSS2.0 and soon 3.0 specs being more widely supported and used, and developed for; tables are becoming defunct, as much as it is hard/clumsy/annoying to do things via CSS (div, spans) eventually much cleaner/faster pages will result.
The current HTML specs are designed to seperate content from presentation. The HTML files are supposed to define what type of data they contain (Headings, Paragraphs, Tabular Data), and the actual layout is left to stylesheets. Tables define tabular data.
However, The HTML 4.01 standard (and as such XHTML 1.0 which is based on it) still considers tables as standard. But things are moving quickly away from this.
The reason the W3C is pushing the separation between content and structure is because of the different devices that are being used for the web (cell phones, PDAs, etc.)
that was the best short answer description I've heard yet for that argument. Thanks to you Alturus.
It is healthy for me to change with the times as a web programmer anyways, so I think I will invest more time to css positioning of elements in the very near future.
They can be a pain, but I find them more fun to code in.
Start off slow, change your footer to CSS then gradually move through the rest of your code. Or start from scratch, either way you'll notice code being cleaner, and pages being easier to layout (especially especially when using multiple paged websites) no more going through 600 lines of <td> <tr> and <table> tags to find your error when you have neat, proper, and logical <div></div> and <span></span> tags, which are usually defined in a single .css file, update one file, update every page. Simple
Thanks Alturus- and beautiful site BTW- the CSS looks like such a pain in the arse to code tho since there is no real wysiwyg for it (I am a dreamweaver junky)
I guarantee that I will be using pure xhtml and CSS for my next web project just to learn it- to think I always just though css was to make your tables and elements look pretty- Boy am I glad I am not one of those dinosaurs who refuses to learn the current technology-
I agree, I decided to stop using tables all-together and use pure CSS and it was the biggest most frustrating pain in the ass.
Things that seem so obvious with tables are often complex with CSS. However, in the end, I find that using CSS gives me much more control, faster pages, less code, not to mention keeping up and preparing for the (future) times.
Mostly about lousy standards complacency, and why WYSIWIG editors exist. (it's all about hand-coding, if you want to do it right and efficiently, seriously.)
Since I've come here (been reading for a few months now) I'm very very very suprised at the amount of 'web designers' around that aren't aware of proper CSS/programming practices, general broser compatibility, and programming logic. We have some truely great people with some awsome graphical and layout inspiration (much better than mine) but don't know anything about the latest standards. Which is why so much hesitation is met when w3c suggests CSS/XHTML. Seriously, it doesn't take that long to learn.
Also barely anyone declares a doctype in thier code. If you don't, your browser enters 'quasi-compatibility mode' and won't render pages the way you want. They may on your box, where you're coding, but declaring a doctype increases exponentially the cross-browser/cross-platform compatibily.
Maybe i'll start my own rant-thread : )
Samuel, apoloigies for calling you a troll, but wording your question differently may have helped you not come across as one.
this is a wonderfule thread and I am going to request to the moderators that it is split into 2 threads.
I am learning a lot thanks to you Alturus and also all others who like me still rely heavily on tables.