website builders' newsgroup
 

Does anyone know of a sensible website builders' newsgroup that my 84
year old uncle could join? He's very interested in website building but
continues to have a few basic problems that I feel sure a knowledgeable
group could help with from time to time.

Bill

website builders' newsgroup
 

Bill Wright wrote:
Does anyone know of a sensible website builders' newsgroup that my 84
year old uncle could join? He's very interested in website building but
continues to have a few basic problems that I feel sure a knowledgeable
group could help with from time to time.

Bill

Uk.net.web.authoring?

Tim

website builders' newsgroup
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Does anyone know of a sensible website builders' newsgroup that my 84
year old uncle could join? He's very interested in website building but
continues to have a few basic problems that I feel sure a knowledgeable
group could help with from time to time.

Can't suggest a group, but can issue a word of caution.

A decade or two ago I did use a group that dealt with such topics. Alas, it
was so long ago I've now forgotten the name of the group!

One problem was that some people approach this by using 'web wonder' type
software that generates the HTML, etc, as if it is WYSIWYG without them
needing to know anything about it, or realising that others may *not* see
what the author sees, etc. Others (like myself) prefer to examine and edit
the html as it gives more control and awareness of potential problems. I
want to see and understand the 'code' sic I put up. And to understand how
it can look different when viewed by some.

One consequence is the usual one on usenet. Different people end up arguing
and trolling others who adopt a different approach, and have a differenr
audience in mind. So getting help though the noise can be tiresome.

It may have improved, but bear this in mind.

Basic questions a

Does he just want to put material on the web he wants people to see? Or
does he want to understand the HTML, etc, and aspects like how some viewers
may not see it exactly as he does on his own machine? Is the material
fairly basic as a mix of text and static images? Or something more complex
and interactive? Needs to decide this before asking about 'how to'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

website builders' newsgroup
 

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:55:19 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Does anyone know of a sensible website builders' newsgroup that my 84
year old uncle could join? He's very interested in website building but
continues to have a few basic problems that I feel sure a knowledgeable
group could help with from time to time.

Bill

http://www.w3schools.com/ Free html tutoring online.

I used www.maricopa.edu in 1994/5 to teach myself HTML, however they do
not seem to have a free tutorial anymore. I still have their complete
downloaded tutorial but it is for HTML 3.2, I'm not sure of the copyright
rules if I made available.

Madge
--
My Kindle/Mobile links page | All Kindles | http://goo.gl/ySe0d
Use these for low bandwidth | All Mobiles | http://KindLink.tk/
A really crap coded website | All Devices |
https://sites.google.com/site/themadge/

website builders' newsgroup
 

I think the main issue Jim raises is no longer that important. In
terms of the kind of everyday HTML normal websites use, web browsers
have become massively more standards-compliant than they were back in
the day.

In fact, these days the only times you will see significant problems
with consistent rendering is with "corner case" code which uses some of
the less-well-defined bits of the standard (the bits still being
developed and finalised).

Personally, I would strongly advise against trying to learn HTML and
CSS. As Jim suggests, it was helpful - perhaps necessary - in the bad
old days, but honestly it just isn't these days. Virtually every web
site of any consequence uses machine-generated code - hand-crafted ones
are usually done by die-hards who know HTML very well, take a certain
macho pride in doing something difficult, and don't want to know about
the advantages of modern web site design tools.

There are plenty of analogies. For instance, nobody hand-crafts
Postscript (another page description language) because the tools for
generating it automatically are so much better, and the viewers are all
very standards-compliant - they don't need workarounds. Nobody
handcrafts OpenDoc documents, either, or any of the other XML-based
file formats, even though you could make any of them using just Notepad
and WinZip.

The fact is this: with the singular exception of plain text ASCII
files, every source of data (whether it be a web page, a Word document
or an MP3 file) uses some kind of encoding for the data. And nobody
needs to know or care anything about this encoding *except* the deep
geeks who actually *write* the software for generating the code (Word,
Acrobat, etc) or consuming it (web browser authors, etc).

As I say, the case for knowing HTML was a transient one, when the
standard was not properly observed. Now it is to such a large extent
that you can ignore the (very) rare exceptions.

So, unless he's some kind of masochist, or someone who just wants to
learn something difficult to keep his brain alive, he will be massively
more productive, and have much more fun, using one of the many popular
visual design tools.

I'm pretty sure Jim will now come back with some contrived examples to
illustrate rendering errors on different browsers, but that is what
they will be: contrived. And they'll be transient - standards
compliance is already excellent but is improving all the time. The
time for your uncle to learn HTML is when he comes across a
cross-browser rendering problem that cannot be resolved in his wysiwyg
designer (which he won't).


--
SteveT

website builders' newsgroup
 

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:

I think the main issue Jim raises is no longer that important. In terms
of the kind of everyday HTML normal websites use, web browsers have
become massively more standards-compliant than they were back in the day.

I wish it were that simple. :-)

The reality is that I end up using more than one browser precisely to check
for problems and to control some 'features'.

And that 'standards' is actually a plural in this case. A flock of evolving
'standards' which sometimes conflict or are broken.

Personally, I would strongly advise against trying to learn HTML and
CSS.

I'd strongly advise that the choice would depend on what the author wishes
to do, and what he wishes to present, and to what target audience. Unlike
Steve I'm reluctant to take the author's aim and preferences for granted.

BTW adding in methods like CSS and 'javascript' (more than one version in
use, defined by different folk) just makes the party more fun. :-)


As Jim suggests, it was helpful - perhaps necessary - in the bad
old days, but honestly it just isn't these days. Virtually every web
site of any consequence uses machine-generated code - hand-crafted ones
are usually done by die-hards who know HTML very well, take a certain
macho pride in doing something difficult, and don't want to know about
the advantages of modern web site design tools.

Or who choose to use simple and basic code that allows more flexibility in
the rendering so that some people don't end up with a result they find a
PITA.


There are plenty of analogies.

Yes, there often are... and often missing the point that not everyone may
have the same circumstances and requirements. :-)


The fact is this: with the singular exception of plain text ASCII files,
every source of data (whether it be a web page, a Word document or an
MP3 file) uses some kind of encoding for the data.

Erm... ASCII *is* an encoding. So I have no idea why you say the above, or
what point it is meant to make.


And nobody needs to know or care anything about this encoding *except*
the deep geeks who actually *write* the software for generating the code
(Word, Acrobat, etc) or consuming it (web browser authors, etc).

....Or those who find that the result comes out as a pest for some
would-be-users.


I'm pretty sure Jim will now come back with some contrived examples to
illustrate rendering errors on different browsers,

Nope. You guess wrong. I imagine many people will have seen examples of
unsatisfactory websites generated by the innocent use of WYISWYG sic
'website creation software'. Often they work on one setup, but not
on another. No magic bullet.

So, yes, that route can work OK for some. But it depends on the details
of who wants to do what for whom and how...

And in reality you can happily use 'desktop publishing' software to
create webpages. Indeed, that's what I do as the normal start point
to generate the content, etc. But it may be useful to then know how
to tweak/simplify the results. Depends on the circumstances and
requirements.

Slainte,

Jim

BTW I think the above underlines the point I made. Have fun if you use a
newgroup on this... ;-

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

website builders' newsgroup
 

Martin wrote:

There are still plenty of websites that only work with a particular
browser. Running an HTML compliance test often explains why.
I can only credit my Dutch phone card online if I use Firefox. Some
features of Dutch bank websites don't work with Google Chrome.

Of course, but the problem is as often with the websites as the browser.

If you use any of the modern website design tools, you will produce
standards-compliant code which any modern browser will show correctly.

Incidentally, I do agree with you to this extent - if you are going to
see problems it's almost always on sites which implement extensive user
interaction AND extensive security at the same time. Bank web sites
are probably the most notorious for this. But honestly, such deeply
complex code is simply never going to be produced by Bill's uncle or
any other "normal" web site author.

--
SteveT

website builders' newsgroup
 

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:54:55 -0500, Steve Thackery
wrote:

There are still plenty of websites that only work with a particular
browser. Running an HTML compliance test often explains why.
I can only credit my Dutch phone card online if I use Firefox. Some
features of Dutch bank websites don't work with Google Chrome.

Of course, but the problem is as often with the websites as the browser.

Thus negating your argument somewhat.

If you use any of the modern website design tools,

Why don't you give some examples instead of waffling around the point?

you will produce standards-compliant code which any modern browser
will show correctly.

Really? The majority of web sites seem to have dozens if not hundreds of
errors when subjected to an HTML validator. Surely they can't all be
hand crafted. One assumes therefore thay they must be the product of
some automated tool(s), most of which seem not to be standards compliant.

website builders' newsgroup
 

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Martin wrote:

There are still plenty of websites that only work with a particular
browser. Running an HTML compliance test often explains why. I can
only credit my Dutch phone card online if I use Firefox. Some features
of Dutch bank websites don't work with Google Chrome.

Of course, but the problem is as often with the websites as the browser.

Indeed. And one reason for that is sites where the author used a 'website
creation tool' without having any idea how the result was being coded. cf
below.

If you use any of the modern website design tools, you will produce
standards-compliant code which any modern browser will show correctly.

sigh Decades of observing real-world site and the code makes plain that
this assertion simply doesn't stand up as a blanket claim for all cases.
Did you not even notice that it may clash with what you asserted
immediately before (i.e. above)? :-)

Part of the problem is multiple methods may be invoked in all kinds of
different versions. All of which tend to be moving 'standards' which
sometimes having more than one source deciding what is 'standard'.


Incidentally, I do agree with you to this extent - if you are going to
see problems it's almost always on sites which implement extensive user
interaction AND extensive security at the same time. Bank web sites are
probably the most notorious for this. But honestly, such deeply complex
code is simply never going to be produced by Bill's uncle or any other
"normal" web site author.

Nice theory. But again runs into the snag of being a sweeping absolute
assertion of faith. If someone uses nice 'web publishing' software they may
have no idea how complex the result, nor what methods it uses. See for
example pages where 'javascript' is used for plain links and anchors or
other things which can be done more plainly and with less chance of causing
some visitors problems. Ditto for CSS, etc.

Then look at some sites generated by magic software and wonder at the
excessive complexity of the code for what end up looking like pretty basic
pages. Added because the software always adds that and - lacking
intelligence or judgement - does things that make the code longer and more
complex than necessary.

So sometimes the results are fine and appropriate, sometimes a shambles
that manages to fly by virtue of what someone I know who developed browsers
called "gratuitous cruelty to web browsers". ;-

Either way, your comments illustrate neatly the main point I warned about.
:-)

Some people make sweeping absolute assertions about one choice or another
as if it were a binary absolute decision. Either to learn HTML etc and hand
code everything, or to use 'web software' and take no interest in the code
or methods. They then proceed to argue over which position of absolute
faith is 'right'.

My approach is different in that I simply point out that what suits best
will depend on the author, the work they want to create, and their target
audience. It may be some mix. Depends on the case.

Blanket assertions about the theoretical perfection of one or the other
'true way' seems like angels dancing on the head of a pin to me. :-)

Please note all this, Bill. Your friend should be able to get help and info
from a usenet group, etc. But beware of those pushing their absolute
convictions that what suits them must suit everyone else.

Beyond that, my advice for someone getting into producing pages is to ask
various friends, etc, to check them if at all possible using a *variety* of
computers, operating systems, browsers, etc, to test for any 'ooops!'
Otherwise you risk it looking fine to the author but being unusable by your
target audience. (And yes, this will probably happen anyway for some
readers. Rule 1 is "You can't win all the time". ;- )

Aside: A few years ago people kept telling me it was daft to allow text to
reflow rather than force page or column widths with something like CSS.
Ditto for other details of control and method to 'control' presentation and
rendering. The 'reason' being that 'everyone now used a wide screen with a
lot of pixels'. Of course this ignored many in places like remote areas of
third world countries who still used ancient hardware over slow links, for
example. These were ignored on the H2G2 "Golden Age" principle[1].

Then along came mobiles, tablets, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

[1] "It was a Golden Age. Everyone was rich and no-one was poor... well,
no-one worth mentioning, anyway!" :-)

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

website builders' newsgroup
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

I wish it were that simple. :-)

The reality is that I end up using more than one browser precisely to
check for problems and to control some 'features'.

It is that simple, and that's what I do, too. I test my websites using
several browsers, and although I can spot some minor differences in
rendering, none of them have been "wrong" or problematical for years.

And that 'standards' is actually a plural in this case. A flock of
evolving 'standards' which sometimes conflict or are broken.

Naah - buy a reputable site creation tool and you just don't need to
worry about it. Honestly! Jim likes to point out all the things that
might go wrong. In reality, with normal websites for normal local
organisations and businesses, they just don't.

Erm... ASCII is an encoding. So I have no idea why you say the above,
or what point it is meant to make.

Yes, I know it is, technically. My point is that we don't need to
learn XML and its schema to edit Word documents, PDF files or any other
such files using Notepad, even though we could. Why? Because we don't
need to. The native tools are better.

I contend that the average hobbyist website developer - which I'm
assuming Bill's uncle is - doesn't need to learn HTML, either. The
native tools are better.

And in reality you can happily use 'desktop publishing' software to
create webpages.

Actually I would never recommend that. I'd recommend using one that
was built from scratch as a website editor, rather than a DTP program
with HTML export tacked on.

--
SteveT