This is going to draw a lot of fire ....

Mystical belief in the power of Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS.

There is nothing wrong with any of the above except they're being touted by...guess who?...people who offer web design services specializing in...guess what?...Web Standards, Usability, and tableless CSS. These are simply tools. Remember, nobody gets excited about the tools used to build a house ("Please tell me what brand of hammers you used!"). People get excited about how the house looks and performs.


http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-web-design-mistakes-in-2004.html

Quote:

ROFLMAO

1) I agree these things have been more changed into some kind of nonsense marketing arguments, but it doesn't mean they're not useful.
2) They allow to make pages that get displayed faster (that's the "perform" part), and allow us to changed/enhance these pages appearances more easily (that's the "look").
3) Usability has nothing to do here. It's not a technology or whatever, but a philosophy. It's about respecting people with disabilities, and ensuring they can access your content, as everybody. I guess some people may find it better to kill all those "inferior" humans to create a perfect world where we wouldn't have to care about them, but I don't think it's the good way.
4) CSS is more the "material" we use to build pages than only a technology.
2 of the 3 little pigs didn't care about the material they used to build their house. The story shows they were wrong.
5) Don't believe every single stupid article you read on the web. The fact one guy was able to install a blog application or to pay a hosting company for such a service, doesn't mean he's smart or what he says is right.
Actually today, it would be more meaningful to start a website about "stupidly lame articles that suck" instead of "web pages that suck".
(BTW: just looking at the way this guy page is layed out should have been able for you to realize that what's in his article couldn't be serious)

skalpa.>

Whoever wrote that article is clueless!

Facts:
* Websites look the same to search engines as they do to screen readers. By moving positioning to CSS and minimizing your (X)HTML, you not only make it easier for people with disabilities to view your site, but you make it easier for search engines to properly place your site. This is a benefit that many overlook and inevitably pay for in SE ranking and SERPs.

* Millions of users have switched to browsers that respect standards, like Firefox. Sites that do not respect standards usually look like crap in these browsers. The site that was linked is a good example.

* Just because you designed a layout doesn't mean you'll always be the person working with that layout. When designing for someone else, you may only be one peice of the puzzle. Others have to work with your code too. Well formed code that is standards compliant allows others to quickly and efficiently modify your work when needed.

There have been numerous "credible" articles writen that discuss the pros and cons of standards compliance in web design. Standards compliance is not only a matter of "best practices" and consideration to those with disabilities, but there is also a tremendous benefit to your wallet as well.

If you would like to learn more about the subject, I invite you to visit my site where you will find several good articles on the subject.

Link: http://mywebresource.com/

Disclaimer:

1. Nowhere on my site will you find advertisements for my services. It is a free site I've published for the benefit of the Internet community.

2. No, not every page of my site is standards compliant. Why? Because it's a XOOPS site and there are some modules I have yet to be able to bring into compliance, but it is something I am working on as time permits.

Note: A default install of XOOPS easy to bring into standards compliance. It's the modules that make publishing a compliant site tough.

Just my 2 cents as a designer.

James

============================================================

EDIT: How does all of this relate to the original topic?

When creating the layout and design for the "new and improved" XOOPS.org, we need to pay special attention to standards compliance, usability, and search engine optimization. Not so much for the sake of XOOPS.org itself, but for the end users and designers who use XOOPS.

Many potential users of XOOPS want an accessible website, but may not have the skill to make XOOPS accessible. Do we turn our noses up at these users and say "Tough, learn how to code"?

Just about everyone wants a SE friendly site. Much of this is controlled by modules and the core. Do we tell these user s "Tough, learn how to code and become an SE expert"?

Furthermore, many developers use XOOPS as a framework to "wrap" their applications. This streamlines administration for them and allows them to reduce the amount of redundant coding necessary to produce applications for their clients. Do we tell these users "Tough, you'll just have to get use to working with sloppy code"?

The answer to those three questions should be a resounding NO! If we want to build a reputation of being an enterprise class content management framework, we cannot afford to shoot ourselves in the feet by ignoring standards compliance and usability!

Ok, I'll stop now. This subject just hits a sensitive nerve with me.

Best Regards,

James

I knew this would draw fire

Quote:





I always jump in and toss another view in when these things pop up (like the joomla discussion -graphical, etc).

Is CSS a great tool, yip. Does it mean you're going to get a higher search engine placement being all compliant? Nope. It's a myth.

Quote:

Thanks and ya know what? I don't. Nor do I believe in the magical and mystical claims that firefox it overtaking IE. Has it gained some shares, yah. Has it gain enough to make Bill and the boys worried. No. I would love nothing more to see FF pull it off but until or if that day happens I show in IE first, make it look ok in FF second.

Again, this is just me being "the other view". If I wasn't a fan of XOOPS and very interested in how and what direction it was taking then all these models would be on Joomla instead of using Xoops.

I think this forum topic should stick to what it's about [design] Which site's designs do you like best?.

I opened another topic to talk about this.

As for Gober, I`d like to ask you a question but would rather treat that topic here XHTML & CSS [designing without tables]

Just keep it nice and simple with easy navigation.

less graphics fast and simple. we are all here for information not an education in how cool some graphics look.

The 3 colum works for most people ( i prefer 2) and main navigation on lefthand side is logical.

gecko

I just love it when an amateur who hasn't bothered to learn the best way of doing something will then criticise those who have put the time and expertise into getting something right.

Hi Goober,

Is the site that appears on your homepage (gooberhead.net) xoops? if not, what is it?

nice site BTW
thanks

Quote:

Thanks Patagon!

Um, nope - not XOOPS anymore. I moved over to Joomla. I'm still a big fan of Xoops, however for my purposes - I found that Joomla was a better fit.