I think there are steps to learning web design.
- You learn a lot, but understand very little
- You learn a lot, and things start to click
- You learn a lot, and you understand a little bit more
Yeah that’s right there’s no 4th “YOU MASTER HTML” because frankly, I don’t think it’s possible. Even if you learn HTML fluently, you’ll still be pulling out your hair trying to make your code render properly in older browsers. Hell even if your site is aligned wrong or your text has extra breaks, that is enough to bother me. Should it? Probably not – but regardless it does.
You learn that your HTML elements should be positioned with CSS and divisions, you learn that floating a div is as simple as understanding your floats and clears. You also learn that Tables are used for tabular data and that tables are evil monsters that noone should ever use for layout.
This post has nothing to do with arguing about tables or divs. I’m way past that point. I used to get on my soapbox and laugh at those stupid enough to use tables for layout. Silly me.
I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the best way to accomplish my layouts are with a mixture of both tables and divs. Why? Well I’m sick of having to float a div to place another div next to it, then watching it horribly degrade in older browsers.
Who cares about older browsers? I do. So do my clients. If they get a complaint that a user can’t properly see the site in an older version of IE guess who he’s going to call and question?
According to my Analytics, 18% of my users have been “depreciated”. Why should i serve HTML that I know won’t render properly, and why should I create hack upon hack upon hack to make my site work for them? Should I “hack” my site to make it fit the W3C standards?
That’s counter-intuitive. I’ve arrived at the point where I don’t see websites from a div/table perspective, but rather seeing them from a logistical sense. If I can code a site to render the same way in every browser with more than 1% share, I’m going to do that. Standards or none.
/End rant
P.S. Some Interesting Sites I’ve come across
And from out in left field: Baby Nursing Blog
(I’m having a kid soon so I’ve been researching breastfeeding)
I’m so glad to see someone finally post about hybrid sites. I’ve felt like a loser for a long time bc I don’t code full CSS sites. Now, I don’t feel so horrible.
I don’t use nearly enough CSS for my to honestly call my sites Hybrid, but I use some and each time I try to incorporate more than the last time. And that’s how you learn.
Like I always say, everything in moderation
Good to see you back blogging.
Usually a standard should uniform all way to do in one. Why doesn’t it happen with browsers???
Designers, costumers and visitators will be happy if they make a standard to follow for building a browser…
Mah…….I don’t understand…
I remeber back when I was getting the hang of HTML. FLoating, liquid, statisd…all of them were mysterious to me.
And then I went on to the table layout nightmare because I didn’t undertsnad DIV tags and my AP DIVs looked terrible in different sized browser windows.
*Sigh* Those were the days.
Nothing wrong with hybrid layout. Try making a form using only CSS for example. People are WAY too fundamentalist about CSS sometimes in terms of layout. What’s the point? Just be sensible. Use CSS for general layout, and if things get TOO intricate that you need to use hacks so it can be seen OK in various browsers, perhaps a small table for sir?
I’d heard about bustaname. but i’m quite interest in this expired domains as well…. hope i hit a jackpot sometime… soon.
Web developers tend to be fundamentalists. THEIR server-side language is the best one to use, HTML tables are verobten becuase THEY only use CSS layouts. And so on. It’s very confusing to the newbie learning HTML/web app coding.
@Melek and @Home and Garden Listings: There are way too many zealots out there who need to chill out over standards and using one method. It’s important to remember that web design is just as much a creative process as it is a technical process. I have seen beautifully-designed sites that use 100% valid HTML and CSS layout that get practically NO TRAFFIC. What a waste.
@Kevin: I agree with you 100%. There is no way to “know if all” about HTML. I have been creating Web sites for 12 years now and still feel like I can’t wrap my head around all of it.
I fully agree with you Kevin. Sometimes I feel like designers are forced to use CSS layouts in order to look professional. That’s completely and utterly silly in my opinion. As long as your XHTML (or HTML) is well formed, and that it doesn’t generate parsing errors, and that you don’t overuse tables (as in a table within a table within a table within a table…), I really don’t see why you should force yourself into having a pure CSS layout just because someone else said it was supposedly the new standard.
First of all, like someone else mentioned, try writing a form using only CSS. It’s feasible, but you’ll have to use some hacks here and there to make it work in all browsers. So why bother?
What makes a site good and professional is not how flashy it is, or good it is following a standard. Truth is, as much as people want to say it’s true, there are no real standards out there, only recommendations, and even there, there’s debates about those recommendations most of the time.
There are best practices for sure, and general rules (such as use of fonts, colors, negative space, images etc…), but not of these are absolute. So I say just use your logic and common sense. Be sensible. If you choose a specific DOCTYPE dtd, then stick to it and make sure your site is compliant. Make sure your site loads fast and keep it simple. Follow the basic rules of design, and your site will be great regardless if you used a CSS layout or hybrid layout.
Thanks Yanick, A little late to the party
In the year or so since I posted this, I can’t say my mind has changed in the slightest.